On bin Laden

First let me apologize for not having covered the Canadian Federal Election as much as I indicated I might. The reason for this was very simple, in that I was working on a campaign at the time and did not want my personal views to in any way become biased towards one party/candidate. So, now more Mark’s Spark...

Osama bin Laden was killed in the early hours of a Pakistani morning on May 2, with US Navy SEALS assaulting the compound in which he had lived for a number of years. There has in recent days been much controversy over the nature of the mission, given that there are now reports suggesting he – as well as several others within the walled mansion – was unarmed when shot.

Say what you will about bin Laden or his tactics that included the targeting of civilians, and the nature of his resentment for the West, his assassination should have instead been his capture. While Western nations as well as some Islamic ones cheered the death of the scourge who had caused havoc, destruction and an immense loss of life, there is a profound loss of principle in the bloodlust for bin Laden.

With reports stating that Osama was unarmed – and as accounts have it the last one alive in the compound – as commandos confronted him on the third floor, surely there were options to be had. But this military operation was as much an emotional release for the United States as it was an expression of justice.

That bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS within the confines of a small room gives us much indication of the sentiment the Obama Administration – and indeed the United States itself – wanted to extend. The two options on the table for Obama were that of an air-strike from a Predator drone, or a direct assault on the compound. While both options give you the same result (unless the latter part of “kill or capture” ever really applied), one was incredibly more personal, not to mention popular in the American public and psyche. Surely most Americans have pictured in their own minds what it would have felt like to be there, watching this man who had sown terror and fear, come to a lifeless mass right before their eyes.

The US needed this release, and Obama needed to demonstrate that he had the ruthless edge necessary to provide it in the face of staunch criticism over his handling of Afghanistan and the war on terror. In both cases, the public and the president are breathing easier having vindicated themselves of burdens they have carried for too long. But what of principles?

The United States should have done their utmost to capture rather than kill in my opinion, simply because doing so would send a clear message: that stopping isn’t an option, and neither is compromising on principles. True it can be said that at some point every society finds itself negotiating with its moral constitution, but that should not be at the instigation of thugs, rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists; it is those who would provoke an erosion of the moral compass that should be shown the true valour of it. Maintaining such a national and societal position is difficult for any country, but for a nation of people so willing to engage in violence towards themselves and others, one could hardly expect any other outcome for Mr bin Laden.