How Much of the War Was Necessary to Catch Osama?

Posted by Anthony Gregory on May 1, 2011

Americans are cheering the president for the death of bin Laden. Many will undoubtedly say this reveals the necessity and greatness of the war on terrorism. They will say it was all worth it. But what exactly resulted in the death of Osama, and how much of the web of policies known together as the post-9/11 war on terrorism were actually necessary for finding and killing him?

The president says it was a surgical effort. After painstakingly gathering intelligence, U.S. forces went into Pakistan, largely avoided civilian casualties, and after a fire fight killed the al Qaeda leader.

But this is close to the type of policy many Americans called for after 9/11. The thing is, they weren’t for the most part considered hawks. Rather, they were on the side of the spectrum urging restraint.

In the autumn of 2001, the loudest voices for war were calling for military engagement and bombing of a list of Muslim countries. Many called for even more draconian and belligerent policies than were adopted by the Bush administration. As for Bush, he sought congressional approval for a rather large intervention in Afghanistan and then later for an even larger one in Iraq.

Almost none of this had to do with finding and catching or killing bin Laden. To the contrary, the methods Obama says worked were the very ones advocated by “realists” and others who resisted the hyper-interventionist and neocon policies enacted by Bush and continued by Obama.

It was the relatively anti-interventionist segment of the population – and a marginal one at that – saying the U.S. should constitutionally authorize the location and killing of bin Laden, whether done by U.S. forces or privateers. Although the methods that, almost a decade after the 9/11 attacks, did purportedly bring Osama to justice were probably more invasive and definitely less constitutional than what many of us called for after 9/11, they do sound like they are relatively minimalist for the U.S. They appear to be the exception, rather than the rule, in post-9/11 policy.

The U.S. has embarked on two major wars, several bombing expeditions, drone attacks, significant nation-building enterprises of democratization at gunpoint, and measures of belligerence that have push the envelope in terms of the preventative war doctrine, the power of the presidency acting in all the world as its jurisdiction, and international law. Meanwhile, civil liberties and due process rights have gone through the shredder. The executive branch detains people for years that it knows are innocent, and many indefinitely that it knows cannot be properly charged and convicted because their rights were abused. We are spied on and groped at airports. Financially, the cost of post-9/11 policy has been in the trillions of dollars. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners have died. And almost none of this had anything to do with killing bin Laden.

And obviously almost none of it has anything to do with killing Osama now that he’s dead. So will all the troops come home? Will our rights return? Will the TSA at least take it down a notch?

I doubt it. Because even the government outright suggests that little of the national security state’s growth and the raging wars have had anything to do with catching Osama. Think Libya. Think Iraq. In March of 2002 — that is, half a year after 9/11 — President Bush said in a press conference:

“As I say, we hadn’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don’t know where he is.

“I’ll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.”

Even nine years ago, President Bush admitted that the war on terrorism had very little to do with catching Osama anyway. Then came Iraq. Then came Obama and his escalation of the war of Afghanistan, the widening of the war in Pakistan, the bombings in Somalia and Yemen, the war in Libya. Now we find out Osama was caught by a small group of U.S. forces that figured out where he was, went in and got him. Why was this not the main strategy since 9/11? Why all these wars, occupations, and huge expansions of government power across the board?

It is a good time to ask: How much of the war on terror has been unnecessary to get bin Laden and why wasn’t that clear the whole time? It is also a good time to ask: How much of the war on terror will continue now that the main villain has gone down?

Categories War on Terror | Tags: , , , , ,

  • brenda

    I do not think bin laden was all that important, it was never proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he was the mastermind behind 9/11. He may have taken credit for it but that still does not prove he did it. He was running and hiding, most of his top people dead so just how important was he anymore? It is shocking to me when we the people of the United States throw parties and make all these comments when a man is killed who are we to be judge and jury? I do not know what to say or think, obama is running for votes and at this point in time will use any means necessary to garner those votes.

  • Anonymous

    War on terror ? how can you have a war on a tactic? the ones who started a war with the USA and the West are the hardline orthodox muslim jihadists. Islam is a foreign fascist political ideology. Sharia law is straight out sedition. Please educate yourselves. Learn what is jihad, what is dhimmitude, what is taqiyya & kitman. Learn about Dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, (House of Islam and the House of War).
    The problem with the Libertarian, “live and let live” approach to the Islamist threat is that, you (the libertarian), will only “live” until the “jihadist” cuts your head off.
    Remember as long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.
    But just go visit France and the Muslim ghettos (if you dare). Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
    The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

    So the more you learn, Anthony, the more you will see that bin Laden was just a figurehead and that Islam and Muslims have continued their Jihad against other religions and the infidels for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.

  • Mrlfoote

    A great pert of the credit must go to President Bush. In spite of gret pressure to quit and pull out of the war on terrorism, he did not give in. Now, of course, Obama takes all the credit and used tactics that he opposed for the last 2 years. It is hard to take credit for doing what you opposed all along. Like it or not, Bush was the driving force and stayed the course. I really believe it was the Seals of the Navy who did the job, not the politicos sitting around the table. God Bless our brave service men & women for their steadfastness in this war. Ron Foote

  • Cristiane85

    smart words… very good

  • Alexxb

    who wrote this article? i see very little logic ; the war on islamic terror has been going on
    and it is going on; osama is killed that is good; and the war on terror is continueing;
    and there will be casualties on both sides;
    alex;

  • Rogerleolafontaine

    ‘How much of the war on terror has been unnecessary to get bin Ladin…’ None of it really. As Gareth Porter has shown in a recent article the Taliban were ready to hand him over in Oct. 2001 if only the US were to formally present even the slightest shred of evidence of his culpability. But Bush refused preferring instead to launch a spectacular assault on Afghanistan and to follow it up with Iraq, hoping to take it all the way to Tehran. The American blitzgrieg known as ‘Shock and Awe’.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QGR5HVMLBPAML4T3YBXZTX4EZY Jeff L

    Big Bad Binladen died 9 years ago. You’ve been suckered.

  • http://biscuits007.wordpress.com/ SpitbucketBaptismo

    Usama bin Ladin was “caught?” Hmmm, I think that the CEO Axis of Evil was summarily executed with extreme prejudice. Well, that’s the Obama story anyway. Not so much in the way of actual evidence. Hmmm, why might that be? The Usama bin Ladin gots cacked hilarity seems just a bit contrived.
    Of a certainty, the “global war of terror” will continue unabated. Probably that Anwar al-Awlaki guy is the ‘next’ big boogeymans. And if the al-Awlaki guy isn’t the next big boogeyman well, the lunatics at the controls of Amerika’s war machinery will conjure up somebody. Cause you know, can’ts be a having peace anywhere on Planet Earth. Oh no, there’s jihadi boogeymens hiding behind just about every dang corner or in some dank alleyway or you know, Pakistan.

  • Westernvoice

    Lets not forget that the US would never have placed a foot within Afghanistan had the Taliban adhered to international law and extradited USB to the US after the Trade Center atrocity.

    Had they done so they could have gone on implementing Sharia within Afghanistan murdering as many people as they chose and destroying everything “un-Islamic without outside opposition other than verbal condemnation..

    Had they done so, Bush would have lost any abiltiy at claim that a war in Iraq was justified.

blog comments powered by Disqus