How the Bin Laden raid can guide US intervention in Syria

When it comes to military operations that are 'limited' in scope and duration, the key to functional impact is found in the strategy of application.

So, let's consider some examples.

In 1998, President Clinton ordered a 'limited' strike against Al Qa'ida (AQ) bases in Afghanistan. Unfortunately however, this operation was negated by weak intelligence and the President's desire to tick a political box (looking tough domestically) in preference to all other concerns. In result, the resolve to achieve a meaningful strategic impact was distinctly absent. In its failure, this action propelled extremist conceptions of an American 'paper tiger'.

Yet, the failure of one particular action should not be allowed to define all 'limited' military actions. 

As he plans a response in Syria, President Obama should look to another operation against AQ. More specifically, the 2011 raid that killed Bin Laden. 

This action didn't simply weaken AQ's operational power, it denied that group their perversely charismatic talisman. The 'limited action' produced a profound strategic effect.

Paying heed to Operation Neptune Spear, President Obama could draw three lessons worthy of application in the present crisis.

1) Secrecy - As he seeks to persuade Congress on the merits of intervention, Obama must cautiously follow General Mattis's core maxim - ''don't tell the world you're weak and make darn certain you don't tell your adversary what you're not going to do...'' 

Prior to May 2011, Bin Laden found false safety in his belief that the United States would never be able to find him. The US played to this sensory deficit - right up until the raid, the US offered no hint that it had an idea of the terrorist leader's location. In the same vein, balancing with the need to persuade Congress, Obama must also ensure that General Dempsey's targeting portfolio is kept secret. In order to achieve impact, Assad must be denied the ability to protect his vulnerable assets. This leads to the issue of 'impact'...

2) Impact -  Where the Abbottabad raid's 'limited' but decisive force pummeled Al Qa'ida's center of gravity, the failed 1998 action allowed Bin Laden to continue his plotting (as did other missed opportunities that were lost to hesitancy). The lesson is clear- if it proceeds, US intervention in Syria must bear an absolute focus towards weakening Assad's WMD program - targeting the officers (WMD leadership), assets (WMD launch platforms) and infrastructure (C4ISR) that enable the employment of that program. The sustaining focus must situate in achieving military impact and not in achieving a political satisfaction of the 'red line'.

3) Expectations - Again, just as the Bin Laden raid was never expected to end Al Qa'ida terrorism, nor should US intervention in Syria be expected to end Assad's bloodletting. The President and Congress must accept that a limited strike will not cripple Assad's ability to massacre. Further, assuming they adhere to points (1) and (2), they must not blame each other if the operation fails to significantly weaken Assad's regime (the evident rancor in Congress suggests that this may well occur). This is a hard but basic point - the President must focus on doing the possible, but recognizing the limits of his power. Nonetheless, unconventional complements to military force remain at his disposal.

KSM Arraignment

The arraignment of KSM and his accused 9/11 co-conspirators will occur later today (the link has good bios on the guys). 

My thoughts... I stand by an earlier post in which I welcomed that these individuals would be charged and tried under the military commissions process. The head prosecutor is also the best of the best of what America has to offer (the accolades in the linked article are matched by statements that I have heard from others who know Martins). 

Back to the trial authority question... From my perspective, the 9/11 attacks were an act of war against the US. The strikes were carried out by a group of individuals serving the political agenda of a formal organisation focused on destroying the United States. I disagree with the notion that it is only states that can carry out acts of war. This is the 21st century.. for a few examples of non-state actors able to wage effective war, just look at current instability in Afghanistan, Mexico and Yemen. For another example, Hizballah's military power in Lebanon means that this group has effective power over the stability of that country's political process (a power they are not afraid to use). My point is that non-state actors have extroadinary power potential. To treat them as simple criminals ignores the fundamental political nature of their agenda and their associated acts. A criminal law focus also allows these organisations to use the criminal justice system as a propaganda weapon and thus as a vehicle for the continued pursuit of their agenda. There is a final relevant point... the jurors who would consider a civilian court trial simply do not have a sufficient understanding of the military-political component of organisations like Al Qa'ida.

Obama Campaign Ad - Bin Laden and Romney

The new Obama campaign ad claiming that Romney wouldn't have taken out Bin Laden is a complete joke. It would be pretty funny if it weren't so disappointing. It represents a damning indictment of a President willing to put politics before the national unity that could have been found (and held) from such a great moment for America.

Three other observations stand out to me.

1) Clinton's involvement in the ad is pretty stupid/stunning. This is the President who allowed Bin Laden to escape justice on a number of different occasions. 

2) After Operation Neptune Spear, Obama claimed that the Bin Laden death was an opportunity to unify America. Like so many of his statements I took him at face value. Now we see Obama placing politics first. It is truly, truly sad. And truly hypocritical from the man who said he would change Washington for the better.

3) McCain or Romney would have taken out Bin Laden. Obviously.

4) Clinton's snide remark that 'one thing George Bush said that was right' is another example of the Obama Administration's disgusting attitude towards the former President. GW Bush has been an exemplary gentleman in all his interactions/conduct towards Obama. Shame the 'hope and change' candidate doesn't reciprocate.

Obama disappoints me a lot these days.

My attempted comment below the campaign video (Obama Campaign may screen it out) - This is so disappointing Mr. President. After the killing of the Al Qa'ida leader, you claimed hope that Bin Laden's death was an opportunity for unity in America.. and now you throw that sentiment 180' on its head. So much for the candidate who would change Washington for the better.

Blog - First Day

This is my blog. Each day I will put down my thoughts concerning political issues (and sports) that are in (and sometimes are not in) the news. I am a Republican but I have an open mind.

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) The ongoing Pakistan-US situation vis-a-vis Bin Laden is ridiculous. The No. 1 Pakistani Intelligence Service - ISI, is riddled with Taliban sympathizers and more than likely helped protect Bin Laden from our intelligence efforts. For the ISI, India is the key. They see the Taliban and other regional idiots like Lashkar e Taiba  as  a counter-weight against Indian power and influence. The US is just a source of money.

2) This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13341058 is fantastic news. Freedom of speech is already diminished in the EU (something I wrote about for The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/04/freedom-of-speech-us-constitution-and-civil-liberties), but had Mosley won today then things would have rapidly become a lot worse. Requiring journalists to inform the subject of their story before publishing would have allowed public figures to seek pre-emptive injuctions to prevent the story ever reaching us. Freedom of speech requires robust defences for speech so that journalists can bring light to power. Today's ECHR ruling keeps freedom of speech alive (albeit weakened) in Europe. Regardless, the ongoing twitter- super injunction saga shows the true absurdity of current defamation laws in the UK - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8504051/Super-injunctions-David-Cameron-blames-Parliament.html


3) Boehner's focus on entitlement reform is admirable. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54628.html While Republicans should be open to more substantial cuts to defense spending (there is no question that this can be done without harming our core capabilities), the fact that Democrats don't seem interested in reforming Medicare (the core driver for future debt growth) is a serious problem for their intellectual credibility. If we want to avoid a collapse in the bond markets and an ensuing economic disaster, the debt limit must be raised and substantial long term spending cuts/reforms enacted. I will publish more on my deficit/debt control ideas tomorrow.


4) Nice work from Crawford http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=310509102


5) On the Ancelotti debate at Chelsea FC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13343882.stm  - I think he should be allowed to stay. Ancelotti has an impressive managerial record and has presided over a remarkable turnaround in Chelsea's recent fortunes (Man Utd game aside). Abramovich keeps ripping the gears and then gets confused when the team doesn't work properly? Chelsea need consistency and another key play maker who can support their offensive efforts.