There’s been a fair amount of commentary about whether any bounce in the polls received by President Obama due to bin Laden’s demise will be sustained. Depending on the poll, the president’s post-bin Laden bounce ranged from zero to eleven points.
Steve Hayes, whose judgment I respect, maintains that the bin Laden operation will make it more difficult for GOP challengers to portray the president as weak and befuddled on the Global War on Terror or foreign policy generally.
Perhaps. The president and his administration have been properly congratulated for the operation. It’s his (their) due; it’s what happens when there’s military success on a president’s watch.
But media reports have presented the American electorate with little evidence that the president’s actions in this affair were unique, extraordinary, or special to him, his policies, or his abilities. This isn’t to say that giving the raid the go-ahead wasn’t a high-tension, anxiety- ridden decision. No doubt it was. But there’s little to suggest that the decision was one that required exceptional judgment or discretion on the president’s part. Indeed, given the information arrayed before him (or at least the information publicly available), it would’ve been extraordinary for any president not to have authorized the assault on bin Laden’s compound — witness the justifiable criticism heaped upon the Clinton administration for its ineffectiveness pertaining to bin Laden when it had its opportunities. And that was before 9/11.
But again, Obama shouldn’t be begrudged the credit for checking the box: The Most Wanted Man in the World, sought relentlessly for nearly ten years, is within termination range of the most lethal special operators in the world, which operators are at your command. Engage? Check.
A bounce thus derived seems necessarily short-lived — especially when the front pages return to record high gas prices, high unemployment, a titanic deficit, and incontinent federal spending.
The more sustained bounce goes to the anonymous warriors and intelligence officers who not only made the raid on bin Laden’s compound possible, but executed it. Is there any doubt that today there are far more brave, tough young men who aspire to earn the trident of the Navy SEALs than there were just a few days ago?
It's not about a 'bounce' in his short-term approval ratings. It's about him being able to sit in a debate next Fall and say,
"When I gave the order to the seal team to enter Pakistan and kill Osama Bin Laden...."
It's going to be tough to either paint him as soft of foreign policy or indecisive when he has a strong comeback like that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Sir,
What if the story going around that Panetta and Hillary Clinton essentially had to force Obama's had is true? That this man reluctantly gave the okay, after the "go" was given by Panetta. And that Valerie Jarrett was calling most of Obama's decisions-or lack thereof. He, in effect, voted "present" on this and then took the credit...if that is true, this bounce will settle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIMHO no one who votes based on foreign policy, defense or national security issues will change their vote because Obama was president when OBL was killed.
It will be "the economy stupid". Although I can predict political ads where Obama is portrayed as the second coming of Leonides.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyou wrote "This isn’t to say that giving the raid the go-ahead wasn’t a high-tension, anxiety- ridden decision. No doubt it was."
I disagree. The only tension would be a concern for US soldiers going in harm's way. By what slippery stance were the Pakistanis going to object if things had gone awry, or Bin Laden had not been there? "Uh, we've been accepting billion$ in US aid and paying lip service that we're helping the US ... but we're outraged that you would go try to get him without telling us ... and believe us now when we say that we are shocked, shocked! to find out only just now that he was living 100 yards from a prestigious military academy, surrounded by a bunch of retired/connected military officers ... "
The Pakistanis in charge of this charade are a bunch of duplicitous weasels, who this intel and outcome blatantly expose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder what effect the changing stories about the raid will have: Osama was/wasn't armed; there was/wasn't resistance; he was/wasn't shielded by a woman.
Also Biden's indiscretion confirming the unit.
Also the public discussion of the intelligence materials that were gathered.
This White House still seems like a lot of them need to grow up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think DC al Fine hits the nail squarely on the head. The post-operation bungling of the PR message by this White House has been embarassing.
To be fair though, I think Obama deserves as much credit for this as any president deserves for a military victory. And while it may have been beneficial to capture and interrogate bin Laden, the difference in intelligence we gathered in an extraction mission compared to what an airstrike would have produced, is enormous. He deserves some credit for that as well.
But, one has to ask themselves if the looney fringe left in America, and even across the world, would be showing as much restraint for a Republican president and especially GWB has they have for Obama. Would there be more calls for Bush's trial as a "war criminal" for violating the internationally recognized sovereignty of Pakistan without UN authorization? I think there probably would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst ad Obama yelling to his national security team, "TONIGHT OSAMA DINES IN HELL!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree with BobbyMike. Did Desert Storm guarantee Bush I a second term? It's the economy, stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@LKS - "The only tension would be a concern for US soldiers going in harm's way."
Given the events surrounding operation Gothic Serpent (Mogadishu), I have to disagree. This could have gone sideways, in a hurry. No, Abbattodod is not Mogadishu, but Pakistan is not without military defense capabilities either. Imagine the ensuing disaster had the Pakistanis engaged the American special operators in some kind of firefight.
If the Pakistanis would have sustained casualties - and I'm sure they would have - it would have been a nightmare of near biblical proportions for the Pakistani government. If their people get upset about burning a Koran or two, what happens if they have to bury dozens of dead soldiers, or more?
The mission was clearly not without possible massive repercussions for the Pakistani government and their own internal struggle for control of their country - and their nuclear arsenal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGOP will always have a comeback: Libya.
With Gadafy running around, OBL will look like a one-off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that part of the boost he will get from the general populace will be offset by a drop in enthusiasm in the far left base.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen the initial news of the extermination of OBL was received and Republican leaders responded with "well done" I was okay with that, as I'm all for giving credit where credit is due. However, as the story line continues to change, Republicans seem reluctant to question why OBL was killed when capture seemed a better option and one that was available to the Navy SEALS. If the most valuable weapon in the war on terror is intelligence, it seems the President's first choice should have been to capture and interrogate OBL. Instead, it seems his first choice was to kill him.
There's no doubt in my mind that Democrats would be peeling themselves off the ceiling and a Congressional investigation would already be under way if this mission had happened on George Bush's watch. The liberal advocates of compassion, respect and Constitutional rights for terrorists would have been outraged by an unexplained bullet in the head of an unarmed man. President Obama ordered the court-martial of a soldier who bloodied a terrorist's lip while trying to subdue him and has forbidden the use of loud music and sleep depravation as interrogation techniques. But he's got no problem with a bullet to the head, no questions asked. I'm not buying it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScottWilson,
I think you've missed my point.
1) Agreed that there was tension as to the risk to American soldiers.
2) The potential tension amongst the Pakistani govt that you speak to - not a legit stresser for us. Why the heck would we care if Pakistani govt got their knickers in a twist? They've been lying to us (while taking billion$) and shielding Bin Laden for years in this house/compound (to not believe that is to confess a severe lack of seriousness) - regardless of the outcome of this mission, WE should be outraged at the current Pakistani power structure, and should be demanding that 'in the know' heads roll over there (a figurative term here in the West - not so figurative in that neck of the woods, eh?).
It's not like we executed the mission next to Windsor Castle, without telling our stalwart British allies (I know the analogy is a weak one, because of the ludicrous premise that the British would have been shielding/covering-for Bin Laden 100 yards from Windsor Castle). My point is that it's obvious the Pakistanis have been talking out of both sides of their mouths, taking our money, lying to us at the same time, and protecting the biggest slayer of Americans since the Japanese at Pearl Harbor ... they have forfeited any position they might have had regarding our concern about how they 'feel' about our mission.
In my opinion, anyway.
Best Regards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you willfully forget that Obama decided whether (a) to wait, (b) to go with a massive bombing operation, or (c) to go with a targeted but risker ground-combat SEALs operation?
To pretend that Obama just "checked the box" on this, as if there were no other viable choice, is the height of ignorance -- be it feigned or genuine.
Many, including Republicans, have noted that Obama made a "gutsy" call on this. (For example, on this very page, Rep. King's highly-positive reaction to Obama's approach on this is summarized.)
In addition, there is at least one person who clearly would NOT have done what Obama did here, even if it were simply a matter of box-checking: Republican presidential candidate and war hero John McCain, who refused to authorize the kind of unilateral action into Pakistan that Obama did. (Hmmm. Haven't gone back but I wonder how many Corner posters supported McCain's position on that? How many today are admitting that they were absolutely wrong, and Obama was absolutely right on that critical decision?)
You can pretend all you want that none of Obama's great decisionmaking in this didn't happen. But I think only the people absolutely determined to avoid any positive news about Obama will believe what you're trying to peddle here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna: Your comment clearly illustrates that no matter how Obama handled this he would have failed in the view of you and other like-minded commenters. If bin Laden had been killed under Bush's watch I venture to guess that you would never have criticized him or his administration for not capturing and interrogating bin Laden. Also, to those who take pains to point out that Obama himself was never in any personal danger in this type of operation, how is that different for any President? Was Mr. Bush ever in personal danger during any part of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq (other than perhaps the fighter-jet publicity stunt that culminated in the "Mission Accomplished" speech)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm enjoying the outrage. Obama keeps delivering. I'm not sure he can fix the damage Bush did to the economy but it's possible. Get ready for four more years of Obama, then eight years of Hillary. I'm gonna enjoy that too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jenna - "President's first choice should have been to capture and interrogate OBL. Instead, it seems his first choice was to kill him."
Yes, Osama would have been a wealth of information had he been interrogated. But, announcing to the world that we just captured OBL would have also been an open invitation to every crazed Muslim on the globe to start kidnapping Americans in an attempt to trade for bin Laden.
As a practical security matter, it would have caused more problems than it solved, and I think its a defensible position (to kill him) in those terms.
As a purely political matter, Obama would have faced tough choices about where to lock him up, with OBL probably ending up in Gitmo. That a conversation I'm sure Obama wanted to avoid having.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But again, Obama shouldn’t be begrudged the credit for checking the box: The Most Wanted Man in the World, sought relentlessly for nearly ten years, is within termination range of the most lethal special operators in the world, which operators are at your command. Engage? Check."
Spot on, Peter.
Indeed: if the electorate does imagine that this event means that President Obama has become super-qualified at his job, they're going to expect him to lower unemployment, reduce the price of oil, and eliminate the budget deficit. If and when he fails to do these things, they're going to realize that accomplishing one good thing doesn't necessarily mean that the President has become universally competent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yes, Osama would have been a wealth of information had he been interrogated. But, announcing to the world that we just captured OBL would have also been an open invitation to every crazed Muslim on the globe to start kidnapping Americans in an attempt to trade for bin Laden."
Scott, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference with respect to the risk to Americans. Al-Qaeda and its friends now are itching to kill Americans to avenge their Dear Leader -- but a week ago, they were itching to kill Americans to impress their Dear Leader, and a year from now, they'll be itching to kill Americans to get on the good side of their next Dear Leader.
The one thing that Americans can stop doing to pacify Al_Qaeda is BREATHING. Short of that, they're going to keep trying to kill us, and we will need to keep killing them whenever and wherever we find them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Scott Wilson: You picked up on the point I was making, i.e., that Obama preferred OBL dead rather than alive because he didn't want to face the same kind of criticism he directed at George Bush and his administration regarding the capture, imprisonment, interrogation and trial of terrorists. Making claims they can't prove is what politicians do, but the good ones who want to get re-elected don't get caught doing it.
I disagree that, in the long term, we are better off abandoning the intelligence OBL could have provided for fear that more Americans would be kidnapped. Terrorists already kidnap innocent American civilians and cut off their heads with butcher knives in front of video cameras. There is no reasoning with maniacs and trying to predict what they might do and then find ways to prevent them from doing it is a losing game. When terrorists force us to change what we do for fear of what they might do in response, they win and there is no more war on terror. There is just reaction to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse