« | »

Obama Nixed Bombing – Collateral Damage

From Fox News:

Obama Weighed Several Options Before Sending Navy SEALs to Get Bin Laden, Sources Say

May 02, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The decision to send an elite military squad into Usama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan to take out the Al Qaeda leader was made after President Obama sought and reviewed several options, with not all his advisers in agreement on the best course of action, sources familiar with the mission told Fox Business.

A small group on Obama’s national security team worked on a daily basis on possible responses after U.S. intelligence services got a break in tracking bin Laden’s courier and determined in August the terror leader could be living at the compound in Abbottabad.

One option was a bombing mission, something Obama decided against at a National Security Council meeting March 29 because of the possibility of collateral damage, since the compound was in a residential neighborhood, the sources said.

Really? Judging from the photos Mr. Bin Laden’s compound was quite isolated. And, wouldn’t one suspect that whatever neighbors there were might have been complicit in keeping it a secret?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was worried about damaging the police department which is said to be nearby? Or Pakistan’s ‘West Point,’ which is reportedly less than half a mile away?

But we thought we had the technology to send bombs down chimneys. Literally. Why the concern? (Besides, as we recall, Mr Gadhafi’s compound is much closer to other residential buildings than this compound is.)

And all of this aside, wouldn’t we rather risk a little collateral damage than some of our best soldiers?

Obama eventually settled on a Navy SEALs mission, though there was at least one other option, one that the sources wouldn’t discuss but that may have included a Predator drone strike.

An option "sources wouldn’t discuss" because they wouldn’t even have the ‘collateral damage’ excuse for not using a drone attack.

With the SEALs mission, Obama was worried that retired Pakistan military officers who lived in the neighborhood could recognize the sound of helicopters approaching, sources said.

But Pakistan isn’t our ally in the war on terror? If they aren’t, why are we sending them billions of taxpayer dollars?

Some advisers did not favor the SEALs mission, worrying that as intelligence services gathered more information for such a mission they increased the risk of being detected.

In other words, the additional preparation required for a special ops attack just increased the chances that Bin Laden would be tipped off. Maybe that was no accident.

Some advisers reportedly also expressed concerns about the mission itself was risky to execute, noting that bin Laden did not stay in one place very long.

And, according to earlier news reports, no one had actually ever seen Mr. Bin Laden in the compound until the attack itself. So it could have been all for naught.

Despite these risks, at a national security meeting on Friday morning, the president said "it’s a go," authorizing the mission commander to determine the "optimal conditions" for conducting the operation, such as weather.

That was big of him to give the mission commander so much leeway.

When the commander decided to proceed on Saturday, Obama talked to him for 12 minutes that morning before telling him "Godspeed," the sources said, but then cloudy conditions in Pakistan on Saturday forced commanders to move the mission to Sunday.

On Sunday, as they waited for word of how the mission was going, the president was "steady," sources said, describing him as not showing a lot of emotion throughout the process, even when hearing the military code signaling that bin Laden had been killed.

Mr. Obama probably did not dare express his relief that Bin Laden wasn’t taken alive. Even though, the SEALs reportedly took at least one prisoner. So why not take Bin Laden alive? We have been told that he was unarmed.

In fact, we strongly suspect that an alive Osama Bin Laden is the last thing Mr. Obama wanted. After all, where would they put him? The administration still wants to close down Guantanamo. And since they can’t give him a forum in New York City, they would not be interested in trying him.

And not to mention that some insensitive brutes might even be tempted to ask Mr. Bin Laden some questions. And Mr. Obama certainly couldn’t abide that.

By the way, according to other reports, the military code was ‘Geronimo EKIA’ – for ‘enemy killed in action.’ Meanwhile, we are even being told that the CIA’s codename for Bin Laden was "Jackpot."

And yet the White House refuses to release photos of Bin Laden’s body, lest it might reveal too much information. Go figure.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

17 Responses to “Obama Nixed Bombing – Collateral Damage”

  1. artboyusa says:

    “…wouldn’t we rather risk a little collateral damage than some of our best soldiers?” No we wouldn’t, because we’re not cowards and when we fight, we try to fight with honor and we don’t kill women and children if we can avoid it. Unlike some others. Sending the SEALs was the right choice: nobody got hurt who didn’t need to be, we made sure we got the right guy and we took away (I expect) a load of useful intel. Plus, this operation has brought our situation with our Pakistani “ally” to a crisis point, which definitely has needed to happen for a long time. Osama’s fish food; this Pakistan business is the real story now.

    • David says:

      Also, there would have been the problem with the body. If a bunch of his people had gone in and got his body before we could get boots on the ground to secure it (also the danger of working in a bombed building) then it would have been even more of a head ache. I agree the SEAL team was the riskier, costlier choice but the right one.

  2. proreason says:

    Of course obamy wanted him alive. What better propaganda device could there be than having the terror mastermind in a cage up to the 2012 election. We would be reminded every day of the boy king’s great triumph. Whenever Trump or anybody would crank up some new line of attack, the cabal would just flood the airwaves with some new Bin Laden angle.

    With him dead, the story will die away within a month. People are already predicting the little king’s poll bump will be small and temporary.

    • BigOil says:

      You beat me to it Pro.

      I think Obama wanted Osama alive. After all, he has disavowed the war on terrorism and turned it back into a police action – trying individuals in a court of law as criminals. Brennan said they would have taken Osama alive if he was unarmed and did not pose a threat. Reports are Osama was unarmed, so what threat was he posing?

      Just imagine the spectacle of a trial. It would have kept Osama front and center in the news up to the election, the perfect distraction from the economy…portraying Obama as a great leader on foreign policy. Instead, it has become a story that will fade off the front pages in a week or two.

      I believe the military did the country a huge favor by taking out Osama.

    • proreason says:

      I’ll go you one better, Big Oil.

      I think the Seals violated orders. They were supposed to bring him back alive.

      The reason I think so is that it appears he was executed. This hasn’t been mentioned in the Make Believe Media, but the latest report is that he was shot once in the head and once in the chest. The odds of that happening in a firefight are long. They deliberately took him out.

      Imagine the firestorm if Dubya’s guys had shot Sadaam in the head.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yup, you guys are ahead of this as usual.

    • Right of the People says:

      You got it Pro, the classic double-tap, one in the heart then other in the brain. From reading Marchinko’s non-fiction book, Rogue Warrior, that’s what the SEALs are taught.

      I believe you’re absolutely correct that Barry the Impotent wanted Osama alive as a political prop to show how mighty he is. Of course the inevitable terrorist attacks and their demands to free OBL would have been a bonus in his warped mind.

    • Melly says:

      I have a different thought on this. Bush 43 was nothing if not protective of America. 9/11 stirred Bush to the core and made him even more resolute in protecting America from another attack. This SEAL operation was apparently (based on personal accounts and photos) too monitored by Barry et al. I believe Barry gave the order to assassinate Osama. Barry was not thinking of the safety of America; he was thinking 2012. A President whose goal it is to protect America would have captured Osama and locked him up for years in Gitmo and ultimately prosecute him as a war criminal. The end result of an Osama execution is not minimizing radical Islamist retaliation, but rather gain political clout. Judging from the expression on Hillary’s face in the Situation Room, she was not prepared for an execution playing out before her.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “She was not prepared for an execution playing out before her.”

      I’ve had that same thought. Either that, or that’s when one of the gunships stalled and had to make a soft landing.

      But I disagree a little. I think taking Osama alive would’ve been of much greater political advantage than killing him. As Steve suggests, we might’ve been able to bomb him to bits and recovered DNA.

      Should he have been captured, the show trial would’ve been the media gift that would’ve kept on giving all the way to next November. As it is now, he’ll get his bump from this moment of good feelings, but the realities of the rest of his policies aren’t going to have that long-term distraction, just like they won’t have it with the BC anymore, either.

      But BHO isn’t done for one second in trying to tuck a new election day ace up his sleeve. Who knows what he’ll try next.

      Edit – Rush Re: the Situation Room Picture, “Obama looks like the smallest guy in the room.” (Piggybacked to emphasize!)

    • jobeth says:

      TN…As I said in another thread, he looked like he was huddled in the back, almost in a fetal position. Didn’t look too presidential did he? Reminds me of the class wimp huddled away from the dodge ball during a game.lol

    • DW says:

      I would like to think that the SEALS did NOT violate their orders.
      We’ll spend years arguing the legality of what was done -and probably never get the full story.
      But the SEALS are first and foremost professionals. And professionals do not take matters into their own hands. It’s just not…well…professional.
      Sure the bastard needed killing. And maybe BHO might have used a live OBL to further his own agenda, but as much as we love, admire and respect the guy on the ground with the gun -it’s just not his call to make -beyond defending himself and his teammates.

      Personally, I’d have liked to see Osama’s head mounted on a cairn at the WTC site. The cairn would be constructed of bags of fried pork rinds.
      Unfortunately, that would cause problems -not for me -but for the other guys on the ground in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the ME.
      You can’t have everything the way you want it.
      He’s dead.
      Good enough.

  3. Chase says:

    “Jackpot” is the standard term used in reporting the success of a targeted kill/capture; it is not special or unique in reference to Osama. It indicates that the person whom they were going after was positively identified by either self-admission or others on the scene identifying him, biometrics (retinal scan or fingerprints), or by facial recognition. if a report has “Jackpot 0/detainees 3” it means they rolled up three military aged males (MAMs) but did not get the guy they were after.

  4. Not so fast says:

    Mark Levin reported tonight on his radio program that a guy Mark knows from the inside thinks what REALLY happened was that Bin Laden’s body guards killed him on orders that Osama was never to be captured alive. That’s why we are getting hourly changes on the reporting of the cause and circumstances of the death of Osama Bin Laden. They are trying to spin it to the most advantagous to Barack Hussein as they can. Also the reason of why they are holding up releasing the death photos.

    • jobeth says:

      If you are right, that might explain the comments that say there were no guards at UBL’a compound.

      If there were no guards…that would take away the possiblity that they killed him instead of our Seals. (Then Obalmy wouldn’t get any glory)

      I have real questions about UBL not having a well guarded compound…He’s one of the two most wanted men on the planet.
      Why would they get rid of their guards? Doesn’t make sense.

    • proreason says:

      Other reports are saying the Seals were on the ground a long time before they got to his room. If that’s true, his guards would have had plenty of time to do the deed.

  5. Chase says:

    I would throw in that armed or roving guards would have been a tip-off to both ground observation and aerial monitoring….and after 5 years, if in fact he had been there that long, might have been either an expense, a security hazard (the fewer people to control or worry about slipping up in talking), or complacency had settled in.

    As long as there was an airfield nearby, and the strong military presence in town that might could be called out, roving armed guards could have been a sign they didn’t want to display.

    • proreason says:

      When I was about 5 years old, my family was visiting an aunt’s house and the the cousins were playing hide and seek while the adults talked in the living room. After several rounds, one of my aunts picked me up and let me stand on the top of a chest that was about 5 feet high. When “it” started looking, she scoured under every piece of furniture, in every closet, under every skirt, but even after 15 minutes, she never spotted me. Her eyes never came off the ground.

      I was hiding in plain sight.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »