In the arena of global conflict, there is good news and bad news. The good news is reflected in the sensational success of the Seals in Pakistan. The bad news is that there will be a lot more actions like this, and they will not always be so successful.
Warfare is changing. The nature of conflict is reverting to pre-nation-state status. That is, the "warriors" more resemble criminals; the enemy doesn't wear uniforms. There are no final peace treaty ceremonies and victory celebrations. We made a huge mistake declaring "war on terrorism" because little of our Cold War forces can be used. We are not fighting regular military forces, and there will be no final "victory," at least until the bin Ladens of the world disappear. But don't hold your breath for that.
The one product of advanced warfare that was important in Abbottabad was technology: stealth helicopters, satellite surveillance, night-vision goggles, etc. But it all got down to kicking down doors and shooting people. More police work than regular warfare.
All this means is that we have to restructure our forces into smaller, faster, quicker units, such as the Special Forces, equip them with advanced, practical technologies, and find the bad guys. The bad guys are not warriors. They are criminals. They have to be dealt with as such. They should not be glorified as warriors. That's what they want the world to think of them. They are not. They are cowards who kill innocent people. They have to be hunted like criminals and eliminated. They should have no sanctuary in any nation that calls itself our friend and that received money from American taxpayers.
If we have learned anything in the two long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it is that our overwhelming Cold War military superiority does not guarantee "victory" or success in any traditional sense. Our leaders claim we intend to establish stable democratic governments friendly to the U.S. in tribal, sectarian nations that have had internal conflicts for centuries. Good luck with that. Afghanistan will finally be "free" when Afghan men care enough about their wives and daughters to protect them from barbarian mullahs. But not before then.
Please visit Senator Hart's blog at Matters of Principle.
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
This require we try them in an international court in absentia, but with any representation they choose to provide. Once convicted, a contract for them can be issued.
Make that two things it doesn't change...
What if a Chechen leader is in hiding somewhere near Washington, say Virginia, and the Russians launch a Spetsnaz operation to kill him, how would we feel about it?
Even worse is if India now thinks that it has the moral right for its SF to go into Pakistan and take out the leaders responsible for the Mumbai attacks. The Pakistani response might be disastrous.
;p
Either we believe in the rule of law or we don't. If we say we believe in the rule of law, then we have to follow the law. That means arresting criminals whenever it is possible to do so without unduly jeopardizing the safety of those enforcing the law. However, the fact that arrest rather than summary execution should be the goal doesn't mean that we necessarily should criticize the actions of the Seals resulting in the death of OBL. Even though OBL was unarmed, shooting him may have been justified based on the circumstances.
I do agree that paramilitary operations such as what we just saw make more sense than the conventional military strategy of trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. We also need to figure out who exactly we're fighting. Has anyone noticed that even top Pentagon and political speeches seem to alternate between referring to the enemy as the Taliban or al Queda depending on the context?
In Mosul, Iraq in 2008 we were fighting al Qaeda and various criminal elements that were sympathetic to them. When I was in Southern Iraq last year we were fighting Shiia extremists who were largely Iranian surrogates. They didn't get along with al Qaeda, but they were very well trained and equipped by Iran.
I would say that the troops and the tactical leadership and Intel folks know their enemy. It's the politicians who mix the organizations. Sometimes it is intentional but often it is just ignorance and not caring. They think (correctly) that most of the public doesn't care what the name is, much less nuances of the groups ideology.
If we were going to pick a group of oppressed people worthy of our protection and support, I can think of several better ones. (Karen people of Burma, the Iranian pro-democracy demonstrators, anti-government movement in Syria, etc.)
Not sure what the end game or exit strategy is in Libya. On the one hand we don't have too many forces committed to that conflict, but on the other hand the result of failure could be ugly. (Remember the Lockerbie bombing as payback for our bombing of his compound and killing of his family members???) I do believe we just killed another family member. We better finish it and actually win this time.
The US has equal part culpability.
However, there is social component to our present armed forces that is not debated. It is the fact that our "fully volunteer/mercenary" armed forces are a deposit for all of those young people that are part of the ever growing force of higher uneducated youth. The armed forces (I am not referring to the special ops) have become the sponge that cleans up our excess unemployed and uneducated.
Not all of these young people will be able to become specialized Seal Six. This is the conundrum, what to do with the growing ranks of those for who the armed forces is the only way to have a job and an education. My loved one is in a branch of the armed forces and he tells me that they have so many people signing up that they are letting the ones already within cut their commitments short to allow for others to come in.
I have no faith left at all in the collective potential of this nation, or of the species as a whole.
Luke? Obi-won?