More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ashwin Madia

GET UPDATES FROM Ashwin Madia
 

Obama: Fighting a Smarter War on Terror

Posted: 05/06/11 01:04 PM ET

What is becoming clear, following the killing of Osama bin Laden, is that President Obama is fighting the war on terror in a smarter way than we had been. Two huge developments -- from the use of key intelligence that came from means that didn't include torture, to the president's decision to not release photos of a dead bin Laden -- demonstrate a much more deliberate way of fighting this war. In doing so, the president continues to make America safer.

In January, 2009, just after taking office, President Obama banned the use of torture by the CIA. It was a move previously endorsed by Leon Panetta, who would become the head of the CIA, and was also heartily endorsed by General David Petraeus, who would go on to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, and recently was himself named to head the CIA. Of ending torture, Petraeus said that the move "sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

VoteVets.org has been strongly against torture since the last administration started to use it. How the CIA operates directly impacts the reception that America receives around the world, and how willing others are to work with us or against us. For our troops fighting in the warzone, America's reputation means a lot.

Now, in light of the death of bin Laden, we are reminded again that torture not only hurts the U.S., but doesn't necessarily help us find and kill our enemies.

From January 2009 all the way through the finding and killing of Osama bin Laden, the U.S. did not receive any intelligence via torture. We were able to get key information for two and a half years, without torturing. And even while the U.S. was still using torture, non-torture techniques netted us some of the biggest clues we needed. For instance, the names of Osama bin Laden's couriers were obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed under standard interrogation.

The AP reported:

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.


The most recent key decision by the president was to not release the photo of a dead bin Laden. Like the decision to ban torture, the president made the right, deliberate move. While some on Capitol Hill urged him to release the photo to put to bed conspiracy theories, Sarah Palin argued the photo should be released to somehow scare terrorists. Both arguments are short-sighted and wrong.

At a time when we have hundreds of thousands of troops in the field, now is not the time to inflame tensions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, by "spiking the football," as the president said. Doing so only endangers our troops, and never will placate those who are prone to believe conspiracy theories, anyway. We have all the evidence we need that Osama bin Laden is dead. Indeed, today, al Qaeda even confirmed the kill, with no photo released. There is simply no reason to parade around a picture of his head, like some prize, no matter how satisfying it may feel to do so.

Every American felt intense pain on 9/11. A desire for vengeance is understandable, and a picture of Osama bin Laden with a gaping bullet hole in his eye would undoubtedly bring some sense of satisfaction to many Americans. But, when we elect a president, we elect someone that we trust will not succumb to instincts like those. We elect someone who will be smart, who will be deliberate, and will do what is right for America's security, and our troops' well-being.

When it comes to the war on terror, we certainly have that in President Barack Obama. It's why Osama bin Laden is dead, and America is and continues to be made safer.

 
What is becoming clear, following the killing of Osama bin Laden, is that President Obama is fighting the war on terror in a smarter way than we had been. Two huge developments -- from the use of key...
What is becoming clear, following the killing of Osama bin Laden, is that President Obama is fighting the war on terror in a smarter way than we had been. Two huge developments -- from the use of key...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 387
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Campbell
08:25 AM on 05/09/2011
He didn't hesitate; he thought it out carefully and rationally. I realize that is a difficult concept for many people after Bush.
07:20 AM on 05/08/2011
Here's another excellent article that clarifies why it's so wrong to give credit to Bush for this victory:

http://nat­ionaljourn­al.com/col­umns/vanta­ge-point/o­bama-s-war­-against-a­l-qaida-20­110505

Everything that Bush did hampered our ability to root out Al Queda as we should have done immediately following 9/11. He wasted our blood and our money in a pointless war, when all along the Obama approach was the way to go. This mission should have been done just this way as soon as possible after 9/11, preferably at Tora Bora. Unfortunately, by the time Tora Bora happened, Bush was only interested in invading Iraq and no longer cared about addressing the real threat to our nation.
Rollin McKim
Circular File
12:03 AM on 05/08/2011
"What is becoming clear, following the killing of Osama bin Laden, is that President Obama is fighting the war on terror in a smarter way than we had been."

Yeah, this is about as clear as Obama's vaunted transparency......like looking through a brick wall.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:16 PM on 05/07/2011
There is no such thing as a 'Smart War'...Smart War means 'No War'.......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Enock Zamora
KARMA
07:47 PM on 05/07/2011
From a veteran's point of view it was a cowardly act by Bush to even think of water-boarding or of using any form of abuse not stated in the Geneva Convention. Their insane logic made us patriot's when we fight their illegal wars for oil and whinner's when our new returning veteran's are only given five years of health benefits when they return home from after several tours of duty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sam green 31605
fireobama2012 dotcom
08:45 PM on 05/07/2011
From this vets point of view on waterboarding..its was LEGAL. whats insane is that these animals (laden, zarwahiri etc) didnt target mil they targeted civilians and wanted to get more and you care about their rights???. Geneva convetion? they wearing uniforms? they have a country. they are TERRORISTS and they are not abiding by that Geneva convention and we are fools for giving them that protection when they afford us none. They are lucky to get article 3
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wesinohio
Can't never did anything.
05:43 PM on 05/08/2011
You are mistaken about torture, sir. But thank you for your service.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
nastywolf
...to promote the general welfare...
07:25 PM on 05/07/2011
Let's see....

Nixon invaded Laos and ended up losing the War.

Carter attempted to rescue the Tehran hostages and the mission was canceled due to chopper malfunctions.

Reagan ran from Beirut with his tail between his legs after the marine barracks bombing and then made peace with Tehran's terrorists, helping them create Bin Laden. Then he invaded two defenseless, tropical countries to prove what a big cowboy he was.

Papa Bush could have taken out Hussein but made our troops stand down to allow the republican Guard to return to Baghdad, unmolested.

Clinton caught and jailed the first Trade Center bombers but when he attempted to hunt down and kill Bin Laden, Trent Lott & the GOP Congress threatened him with a second impeachment.

Baby Bush invades the wrong country, bankrupts the Nation and publicly decides that Bin Laden's not his concern.

Obama goes after Bin Laden and nails the es-oh-bee.

Not judging. Just saying. The facts speak for themselves and they suggest that the Right shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the controls of the US military complex.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:43 PM on 05/07/2011
Thanks. Great post. Faved.
09:14 PM on 05/07/2011
The effort to get Bin Laden began circa 2005. Who was the President then?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
nastywolf
...to promote the general welfare...
09:44 PM on 05/07/2011
You mean, the FAILED EFFORT?
10:45 PM on 05/07/2011
Too bad 9-11 happened in 2001 then.
ropadopa
Exposing the failed conservative experiment
07:14 PM on 05/07/2011
In divvying up President Obama's successes why stop with the war on terror, why not include the economy too? While we are at it why stop with George Bush? Why not go all the way back say to Lincoln? We know the President admires Lincoln for his leadership style. I am sure if we closely analyze everything that was done in neutralizing Bin Laden we can find microscopic elements of his decision making that can be attributed to so many others.

Each time I am confronted with the cry "what about Bush?" I am left to think, if he had all the tools in place and did everything right like you want us to believe, how did he fail so badly?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
05:32 PM on 05/07/2011
Excellent post. It's difficult - impossible? - to give credit to GWB when he allowed bin Laden to escape on many occasions. Boasting about every victory - real or not - was a method of GWB's that led us only into perpetual war.
09:15 PM on 05/07/2011
Don't let facts confuse you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wesinohio
Can't never did anything.
05:49 PM on 05/08/2011
Please specific. Are you giving Bush credit for some kind of success at doing something besides being a destructive demogogue?
01:45 PM on 05/07/2011
Whatever success we are having is because Obama has continued most of Bush's policies-the war in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and the pusuit of terrorists. And yes- key info that ultimately led to the tracking down of Osama bin Ladin WAS derived from waterboarding. Fact.
Obama gets credit for doing what Bush did in defense of our country and for authorizing the killing of Osama.
03:11 PM on 05/07/2011
We've got NO evidence that intel gleaned from waterboarding led to them getting OBL. None. Simply stating a guess or opinion as fact doesn't make it true.

Besides, even if true, this means the Bush admin had info for 6 years that they were unable to use to put the pieces together. No matter how you cut it, Bush failed. Obama succeeded. You can whinge and spin and play any mind game you want, but facts are facts and will stand on their own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chaz
05:26 PM on 05/07/2011
alex61 the birtha,
Keep watching fox. The land of lies and fantasy.
01:28 PM on 05/07/2011
Bush 7 years $ 800 billion, 200,000 troops. Obama 2 years. Those are facts.
01:47 PM on 05/07/2011
Oh, stop. The Osama operation began under Bush. The initial groundwork, including the gathering of key info through waterboarding of KSM came under Bush. The effort was finally consumated under Obama. You are so blinded by partisanship that you simply cannot give credit where credit is due. Also, there were no further terrorist attacks in this country after 9/11 under Bush, something Obama can't say.
02:47 PM on 05/07/2011
I think we can call it an American success. And one that united the efforts of the Bush and Obama administrations. They guys did good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SDH283
GOP wants you to stay clueless; why co-operate?
03:08 PM on 05/07/2011
OK Alex ... speaking of 'blinded by partisanship' .... IF as you say (denied by those in the know, BTW) the intel gathered under Bush is to be 'credited' to Bush, then WHY DIDN'T BUSH GET BIN LADEN ??? According to you, HE got the intel.

FACT: That compound in Pakistan was built around the same time that Bush DISBANDED the CIA office dedicated to finding Bin Laden ....

Sugarcoat THAT one, please??
02:16 PM on 05/07/2011
Read the Washington Post, 5/7/2011. The unsung heroes are a team that began searching for Osama under Bush and continued under Obama. It was painstaking and took a long time and therefore did not fit in the election cycles. The SEALS carried out the mission, but the people who deserved praise are not Obama or Bush, but those who took years of carefully examining information to locate Osama.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SDH283
GOP wants you to stay clueless; why co-operate?
03:11 PM on 05/07/2011
Still begs the question though:

IF BUSH GOT THE INTEL THEN WHY DIDN'T HE GET OSAMA??

You can spin the facts about when/why/where the Intel came all you want, BUT that is a fact you can't get away from ...... HE QUIT LOOKING and disbanded the CIA office dedicated to finding Bin Laden, in 2006.

Now, THIS is why President Obama should be congratula­ted for taking the HARD decision and NOT bombing the place.

How many times in Iraq did Bush just bomb a place and then not know 'if' the target was there?
How many times did he bomb a place, losing all intelligen­ce material?
How many times did he bomb a place ...killing everyone there, including kids?

President Obama had the guts to do the HARD MISSION -- and he got it RIGHT.
12:54 PM on 05/07/2011
Dead people can't give you information about terrorist activities, but it sure can get you the votes.
01:20 PM on 05/07/2011
Ah, but the d.ead peoples' information........sure seem to provide insight on terrorist activity.

And given all of that, VOTES.......they probably should follow.......And since it surely worked for GWB in terr.orizing the nation then the campaign video may say:

GWB SAID HE KEPT YOU SAFE, BUT HE INJECTED FEAR BY USING l.IES AND DECEPTION.............OBAMA KEEPING YOU SAFE BY KI.LL.ING THE REASONS FOR FEAR AND SHARING THEIR (TERRO.RIST) INFORMATION........VOTE OBAMA 2012!!!!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SDH283
GOP wants you to stay clueless; why co-operate?
03:16 PM on 05/07/2011
Wrong again, sweetcheeks. In this case, the dead Bin Laden is giving up LOTS of info

President Obama should be congratula­ted for taking the HARD decision and NOT bombing the place, which is what Bush did time and time again. Remember how he 'got/lost'wedon'tknow' Saddam Hussein so often in Bagdad? I do.... and Zarquawi ... ??

How many times in Iraq did Bush just bomb a place and then not know 'if' the target was there?
How many times did he bomb a place, losing all intelligen­ce material?
How many times did he bomb a place ...killing everyone there, including kids?

Thanks to President Obama having the guts to do it right, the USA has

100% certainty that Bin Laden is dead
Tons of valuable intelligence that has Al Queda worried
Very few casualties, and NO KIDS KILLED ..

Have the grace to admit that the President got this one 100% right. If he gets votes out of it, they are deserved. Don't INSULT the military just to insult their Commander in Chief .. that is petty
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmosKnows
03:57 PM on 05/07/2011
Why would they announce the intelligence finding to the world? Sounds very anti-intelligence to me.
CognitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum was taken when I signed up.
12:46 PM on 05/07/2011
Another problem with using torture is that it has made it harder to close GITMO. You see, information obtained from torture is inadmissible in court, yet if you know the people that were tortured would be dangerous upon release, you can't convict them in a trial, unless you can get admissible evidence against them. What do we do with such people if we can't try them and members of Congress don't want them imprisoned in their district?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toolman19
01:16 PM on 05/07/2011
What torture,,,,,,,every one of the detainees at Gitmo look a heck of a lot better off now than when they were captured...No sign of any lasting effects I can see from what closeups we are allowed. Maybe we need a new definition of "torture". I should think listening to Pelosi day in and day out would sure qualify.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wesinohio
Can't never did anything.
01:37 PM on 05/07/2011
You should agree that their rights to due process, and other important rights, were violated and their cases would be thrown out of most, if not all civilian courts.
CognitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum was taken when I signed up.
12:55 AM on 05/08/2011
So I guess the GOP tactic is now to deny torture was done, even though Bush admitted it in his autobiography.

For all the time I was in the army prior to the G. W. Bush administration, we were told torture was wrong and ineffective and it was someone we could take pride in not doing.

The Geneva Conventions definition of torture was adequate after 10,000 years of military precedent on what torture is. We don't need a new definition, any more than we need any more GOP doublethink.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Campbell
10:30 AM on 05/07/2011
No one could have done it better than Obama. Now-he needs to say to al-Qaeda that they should now leave behind the deranged ideas of bin Laden and try to make a better & more productive life within the new societies created by the younger generations of the Middle East Spring. If you should chose not to do so then you will be hunted down and killed the same as your leader. You cannot hide for we will find you.There is no place for you in this new world.
10:40 AM on 05/07/2011
No one? Bold claim. So the operation had no flaws? The white house dealt with the facts approprately and did not lie or conceal or alter information? No no your right. No one could have done it better....
10:55 AM on 05/07/2011
Yup, no one.
11:32 AM on 05/07/2011
No one could have done it better huh? So, sleeping on the decision to authorize the mission couldn't have been done better? The decision to execute the mission or not was a "no brainer." Even the feckless Jimmy Carter would've gotten that one right and he probably wouldn't have had to sleep on it--Reagan certainly wouldn't have hesitated.
11:48 AM on 05/07/2011
Here' something that says it all, â€reaction in the Islamic world to bin Laden's death has been relatively muted compared with the rage†spewing from SLOW THINKING President Obama detestation Americans who do so out of pitiable hate and or selfish political reasons.
roads
more wag....less bark
12:12 PM on 05/07/2011
what on earth are you talking about? Obama got bin Laden....nuff said.
09:39 AM on 05/07/2011
If Bush killed OBL in this fashion the Left would be calling it a dumb move, but since Obama did it, it is smart.
10:47 AM on 05/07/2011
Amen!
10:54 AM on 05/07/2011
No. People on the left are not as patisan as people on the right. After 9/11 Bush had an approval rating in the 90's even after that sham of an election that left alot of us on the left bitter. We got behind our president for the sake of our country, even if we couldn't stand him. The right would never do that. They are blinded by their hate of Obama to ever support him no matter what. The guy actually GOT Bin Laden and the right still criticize him. Obama could save a boatload of drowning babies and puppies and the right would still find something to criticize him about. By the way - give up on 2012, dude. Don't waste your time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sjcarl
01:02 PM on 05/07/2011
#17. You go, phillygirl!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toolman19
01:18 PM on 05/07/2011
Give me a break. It is you that is blinded.
jaslyn
why can't we all just get along?
09:39 AM on 05/07/2011
if the relevant, usable information came from standard interrogation techniques, why is it still up for debate whether harsh and cruel torture techniques work?