Osler's Razor

Neither was morally defensible. They should have taken bin Laden alive. Why not?
 

8:14 - Taking bin Laden alive was a feasible option IF bin Laden surrendered. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because he was unarmed doesn't mean the SEAL team wasn't justified in using deadly force.

Under the law of armed conflict, deadly force is justified if the target is engaging in a hostile act or is demonstrating hostile intent. If bin Laden was making a furtive gesture (like going for a weapon or possible weapon), that's grounds to engage and kill him. Deadly force is also justified in self-defense.

It's a similar situation to what a police officer might face. The officer doesn't HAVE to wait for the bad guy to shoot or even to pull a weapon to engage him.

As far as Qaddafi goes, he is the head of state of an enemy nation - unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, with whom we are allies now, we are in a state of international armed conflict with Libya. Think of it like Iraq before we captured Saddam and the current Government of Iraq stood up. Saddam, by virtue of being head of an enemy state, was a legitimate military target. Likewise, Qaddafi is a legitimate target. The high value of such a target can increase the amount of collateral damage that is acceptable in the event of a strike against him.
 

Now, with regards to whether it's morally defensible or not, that probably depends upon how one views armed conflict. Is it immoral across the board, or is it justifiable under appropriate circumstances?

Do I think we did the right thing by killing bin Laden? Yes, because the evidence indicates he was engaging in a hostile act or displayed hostile intent. Had we shot him after he put his hands up and said "I give up," that wouldn't be a justifiable military action - it would have been murder.

With Qaddafi, I don't have enough information yet. Did we target the children just for the sake of angering Qaddafi? Nope - we didn't get to be the good guys by operating that way. We wouldn't have engaged that target if we didn't have a good basis to believe Qaddafi was there. Intelligence is, unfortunately and regrettably, not an exact science, and terrible, tragic results can occur when that intelligence is incorrect or outdated, even by a few minutes.

Bottom line is this - I don't think the United States has become immoral because of the tragic results from the strike against Qaddafi. I think that war / armed conflict / whatever you wish to call it is a terrible, terrible thing, but I also think it can be justifiable under appropriate circumstances.
 

There is going to be collateral damage when you go after bad guys. With bin Laden, we got the bad guy with little collateral damage. With Qaddaffi, we did not get the bad guy, and there was collateral damage. We were right both times.
 

When is war, or "international armed conflict," ever moral? I mean (not to get bogged down in this again) but the Allies prevented the Holocaust from continuing (acceptable to everyone?) and stopped the spread of facism, and that seems like a moral act. Yet, to do so they fire bombed Dresden and Hamburg killing over 70,000 civilians (estimated). Was that moral? Certainly seems like it would be hard to defend that from a position of morality.

Killing bin Laden probably isn't morally defensible, though it is a much closer call than what is described above. But it was the right call if you view international relations through the prism of realism. He was the leader of the larget terrorist organization on the planet, he had organized and plotted the deaths of thousands of US citizens and hundreds of people around the world, and the logistics of capturing him, detaining him, bringing him to trial, and then incarcerating him or killing him are difficult to fathom. It was the right call, whether it was moral or not.

Killing the family Qaddafi on the other hand...I mean it would be difficult to justify the need to kill Qaddafi himself. He is not good dude. He is a dictator who oppresses his own people and is hostile towards the west. But, he is hardly a threat to us. He has not engaged in war with us, or attacked us. This is not Osama bin Laden. So, killing his family not only seems immoral, but also seems unnecessary, and that is more troubling.
 

Is it not true that bin Laden was unarmed,and that there was only one person armed on the first floor of the compound? We have learned to throw around the term,"collateral damage," when innocents are killed. This disturbs me. Human beings were killed. I feel something. Collateral damage sounds like some crockery was broken. Such terms attempt to prevent us from taking in the magnitude of a human life taken,a child who will not grow up,whose potential will never be fulfilled,someone whose smile will never be seen again. This is tragedy. We must feel it to remain human. Finding it difficult to argue from the head here.
 

We aren't at war with either Qaddaffi or bin Laden. Do we have the moral authority to just go around killing people we don't like?
 

If you all rewind back nine years ago when Bin Laden proudly assumed responsibility for the terror attacks, the republican administration did not mince any words and declared to the world they were going to hunt him down and kill him. When Obama took over he promised he will continue the effort to hunt him down and kill him. There was never any equivocation for what was to happen and I really have trouble getting the point of all those who now come and talk about due process and human rights and all the righteous talk stemming from that. These human and civil rights people had nine and half years to plead their points and ask that if Bin Laden were to be found he would have to have his day in court ( I had this argument with a bunch of Europeans I work with, who are now all outraged at the outcome of finding Bin Laden and I could not believe it, but I nearly went RRL on them). What I find morally reprehensible is the work of the government contractors who built that helicopter that conked in this super elite mission and parts of which have now become souvenirs for the Pakistani locals (saw it on tv). These war machines cost us a lot of money and if you cannot built them properly stop robbing us and get out of the business of war, put the money to better use(i.e. panda habitats). As for Qaddafi , you would have to rewind twenty three years ago to Panam 103 and his rhetoric and actions at that time. Terrorism is evil and the brand of terrorism that asks women and children to become human weapons or shoves them in the line of fire is something that cannot enter a normal discourse on the subject of morality.
 

Gary:

Actually, Congress did formally declare war against al-Qaeda, and bin Laden was the leader of al-Qaeda, so I'm pretty sure we were at war with him.

And yes we can kill whoever we want. We're America. And if you don't like it then you can move back to Russia.
 

RRL--

But only internationally, right? We can't just kill people here without a trial or something, right?

So how does that make sense? We can kill who we want with no process elsewhere without a war (this was an attack on Pakistan), but not here?
 

Gary, this was not an attack on Pakistan. Pakistan is our ally, they spent about ten billion (with a "b") US dollars, courtesy of the American taxpayers, over the last decade.
 

Gary - first, it wasn't an attack on Pakistan. It was an attack "in" Pakistan, but the attack was "on" al-Qaeda. That may be semantics, but law is semantics, and we have formally declared war on al-Qaeda, so attacking them anywhere seems to be at least legally justifiable.

Inside the geographic United States people have certain rights, granted to them under the constitution and the laws of this country, that prevent the government from killing them without due process of the law, and in some cases prevents the government from killing them period. However, a soldier fighting for al-Qaeda in Iraq is not an American citizen and is not within the geographic territory of the United States. So, they don't have those rights. To determine whether or not we can kill them we must look elsewhere for that authority. We have signed any number of treaties that construct a kind of "law of war" that could probably answer this question. I don't know the answer (I mean, obviously we can't just kill anyone we want for no good reason, but I'm talking more specifically about bin Laden, Qaddafi, etc.), but encourage an enterprising law student with nothing to do today to figure it out.

But, what should our guiding principle be? If killing someone is in the best interests of the United States from an international policy and relations standpoint then we are justified in doing so, because the real world is a scary place full of bad people and sometimes we can't wait for a memo from the Department of Justice before taking steps necessary to protect ourselves.
 

Hmmm... I kind of see both sides here.

RRL, here is a hypo. Let's say that there is someone, a leader of Saudi Arabia, say, who can jack up oil prices on a whim, and does so. A lot. This is killing our economy. It is totally against our interests.

Are we justified in killing him under the RRL doctrine?
 

Gary - first, due process refers to civil law under the Constitution. That is separate from the law of armed conflict, which you'll find in the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the International Gas Protocol, and others.

Second, I assert that war, reprehensible though it is, is "constitutional." It does not require due process in the American criminal law sense of the word before a target may be engaged.

The Constitution permits the United States Government to maintain a military force and to provide for the national defense. Therefore, having a military is constitutional. Since the Constitution does not apply outside the United States, though, and since the wars in which we have been involved have been, by and large, international in scope, we need another method by which to govern warfare. That's where the treaties come in that comprise the law of armed conflict.

Renee - I don't throw the term "collateral damage" around lightly (contrary to popular belief, it does not just refer to civilians being injured or killed. It refers to damage to civilian structures as well. Just a point). Any time somebody dies in a war, it's a big deal. If it's someone who otherwise wouldn't be in the fight, it's an even bigger deal. Decisions such as the ones to strike at Qaddafi are never made lightly or flippantly.
 

Mark - isn't that sort of what happened during Desert Shield and Desert Storm? I know we were there to protect our ally, Kuwait, but since a large part of America's oil supply came from that part of the world, I'm gonna guess that protection of America's oil supply (which has national security interests, absolutely) was a major factor into the decision to deploy troops over there. Is that what the folks back home want to hear? Nope. Would our troops like being told that they're being deployed in harm's way to protect our energy sources instead of to free the oppressed people of Kuwait? Probably not. But it is a legitimate legal use of military force. Whether it's moral or not (or whether it's a wise use of military force), I don't know.
 

Apologies for the constant impassioned comments...I can't access this site from my work computer, and not surprisingly, military issues are discussed with some frequency at work :-P It's nice to talk to other people about these things.
 

Osler:

The honest answer is maybe. I mean, if he is raising oil prices to a level that would destroy our economy then that gives the US an obvious interest in removing him from power. And a legitimate one.

But in a realist framework you have to measure that interest against all the potential negatives of such an action. Cost. Loss of life. Etc. So, it is a difficult hypothetical to answer because there are too many unknowns.

However, just so I'm not dodging the question, if a political figure was threatening our supply of natural resources to the point that we either have to remove that leader or our economy will crumble, and our nation along with it, then we would absolutely be justified in taking whatever steps were necessary to remove that person from power, including killing them.
 

RRL, so what you're saying is that we should colonize the countries that have what we need to function (i.e. oil) just because we can?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Anon 1:03-

I think a more accurate depiction of RRL's point is that when our national security is in jeopardy, proactive countermeasures (military or otherwise) are justified. We need not colonize a country to respond to a threat.

Remember, too, that RRL was responding to a hypothetical--the parameters of which he did not establish.

RRL, if my characterization of what you are saying is wrong, I apologize for the presumption.

Still, I don't think that the botched attack on Quadaffi was morally justified (I will insert here that a distinction exists between something which is "legal" and something that is "moral"). Furthermore, If we are going to target Quadaffi (strategically), we ought to exercise the same variety of surgical tactics which proved so successful against ObL.
 

I didn’t suggest colonialism in the British Raj sense... but if the natural resource of a foreign country doesn’t cut our price point and it threatens our economy, since we have the means we should just go and kill or oust those who set up the inconvenient price, right? Set it back to our needs. Isn’t that some sort of modern colonialism? I guess in the age of euphemisms and PC, colonialism is a dirty word.
 

I think the linchpin here is your use of the word "inconvenient". We deal with inconvenience all the time (a la OPEC, etc.). Even RRL, an ardent, card-carrying jingoist, will accept inconvenience without demanding blood (or whatever the post-post-modern adaptation of colonialism turns out to be), as will I. But when inconvenience becomes and existential threat, our response should be decisive.

Your argument seems to accept (correct me if I'm wrong) the premise that our domestic interests should not necessarily determine our foreign policy (at leastwithing certain bounds). I believe that our domestic interests must determine our foreign policy, an that diplomacy is not ALWAYS sufficient to protect our interests--and by extension (whether we like it or not) some degree of global security.

But people like Quadaffi pose a different question: one that forces us down a religio-philosophical path. Clearly Quadaffi is not a direct threat to us, though he is a direct threat to his people. Still, under these circumstances I prefer a non-intervention policy--or at least not one that involves tomahawk missiles and dead children.
 

CTL - you got it right.

Anon - I never said we should do it. I'm simply saying that I don't think we would be unjustified in doing so. I think national interest is a legitimate justification for taking that kind of action. Questions of "should" involve issues of morality, ethics, and politics. But, if someone is threatening our national interests, whether it be security or economics or whatever, then that provides a legitimate justification for removing that person from the equation.

Should we do it just because we can? No, I'm not suggesting the US behave like a petulant child. But I am suggesting that the US can act in a manner that is consistent with its interests, and is justified in doing so. That way of thinking takes morality out of the question. So, when you look at a situation like Rwanda or the Sudan conflict you would simply say that those countries hold no strategic significance for the US, no reason to get involved. A country like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, high strategic significance, lots of reasons to get involved. Questions of good v. evil, right v. wrong are left at the door because international relations isn't a morality play.
 

CTL-- I totally agree with you on the non-intervention policy, but I extend the non-intervention policy to the war for oil issue.
Europe has been paying and average of 1.3 euros per liter of gas, considering the dollar to euro parity only held for a couple of years after the euro became the european currency, that would be about $8 (now more) per gallon and it has been the norm for more than 15 years. Last I checked, Europe didn't go to war for oil...well, maybe because they cannot afford it.
 

Anon:

The price of crude oil (not gasoline) is determined by an international index, and costs about the same in the UK as it does in the US. The high cost of "petrol" in Europe (closer to $7.00 per gallon, see math below) is a result of domestic policies like allowing for very few refineries and taxing like crazy.

I guess that does not invalidate your point, but we are seeing in Libya that even the Brits and the French are not immune to war for resources.

Here it is: If we are talking about war or political assassinations over a $15 increase per barrel, then I completely agree with you. But if we are talking about intentional withholding by an OPEC country to crash the American economy--our leaders a obligated to take action.

Math:
USD per EUR (today)-->1.4614
Lit per Gallon--> 3.7854
1.3*1.4614=$1.89 per liter
1.89*3.7854=$7.19 per gallon
 

Before bin Laden was killed his wife stepped in front of him and the SEALS shot her...in the leg. Now if they were able to shoot her in the leg why did they need to shoot him twice,though he was unarmed, in the head? Because they had already determined that they were going to kill him ahead of time.This is murder and it is just the behavior of which we accuse him.I do not think this is morally defensible,because it deprives the world,the people whom he wronged grievously of see him tried and found guilty. A quick death, when you are already prepared for and looking forward to martyrdom, is not punishment for a heinous crime. A lifetime alone in a cell is. As inconvenient and troublesome as a trial might be,expediency ought not be a reason for executing him instead. We have already killed Quaddafi's baby by a bombing of his compound under Reagan. Now we do the same thing again knowing full well that innocents will be killed. Once,maybe it's a mistake but twice?To me this is murder yet again,and as such is morally indefensible.
 

I need to write a haiku really badly. This stuff is hurting my head!!
 

The people on those planes in in the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 were also unarmed...
But I am not sure why they killed him. Make him stay in Jail wiht a bunch of really mean guards like forever... That woudl be WAY WORSE I would think!
 

I have trouble seeing how something can be justified without a basis in morality. I get hung up on the "right make might" stuff. That said, I believe killing OBL was morally defensible. I would prefer capturing and detaining the oil tycoon...perhaps at Guantanamo.

Other Kendall (esquire)
 

the seals had orders to kill OBL unless he made an effort to gave himself up immediately. renee, you already very logically pointed out why OBL would want to be killed rather than captured. how many guns/bombs do you think he had in his place that he could have used to injure/kill a soldier or pakistani citizen? or, more to the point, how much potential for such a situation existed here? OBL had to know that they might have killed him, and you know he would have loved to blow up his entire house instead, and it is not unreasonable to think he had the mechanism nearby to do so. i agree with you that in a perfect world we would have brought him back and had a Nuremberg style trial, but i don't doubt he resisted or made a motion to resist for the reasons you stated, and therein i won't blame the soldiers or military contractors (whom happens to include my uncles and cousins, who are very good people) or for that matter the politicians for how OBL met his end. he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had all the opportunity to live a great life, and he decided to convince the destitute to commit suicide to kill what he decided were his enemies. i did not wish for his killing, but neither will i mourn his death.
 

With regard to oil prices - you all should be focusing on the futures traders on Wall Street. OPEC may be controlling supply but the speculators on Wall Street are driving the price at the pump and BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, etc.. are all happily taking our $$$$ and reporting record profits while paying minimal taxes.

I have no problem with bin Laden; the people who were killed in the bin Laden raid knew who and what he was and were in some way complicit in helping him communicate his sick plans to kill thousands of innocent people (Americans and Muslims alike). He got what he wanted - the US to chase him and spend trillions of dollars in the process. We made this monster and ultimately we slayed the monster as well. Campbell and RRL have so eloquantly covered this topic today - thank you.

Qadaffi - is a different story? What has he done to us? Oh wait - he supported the terrorists who blew up the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. Perhaps what is harder to understand is why the world has let him stay in power and oppress fellow Libyans for so many years. Is leaving him in power all these years morally defensible. Oh, and BP (oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) helped negotiate the release of the 'supposed' Libyan cancer ridden terrorist who was jailed in the UK. Compassionate release or some such non-sense.

Sorry for the rant -
 

Renee - you're misusing the word "murder." Murder is a legal term that basically refers to the intentional and illegal taking of a person's life. That's not what happened here. Legally speaking, this was justifiable homicide. I'm sure that won't change your opinion that these military actions are morally indefensible, and I'm not trying to change your mind on that. Just pointing out that "murder" is not the proper term to apply here.
 

We don't fight wars based on morality. Everything is assigned a probability based on some super computer in Langley and the US will take risks if the odds of success are sufficiently high. Innocent people are going to die.
 

Michael - not quite true, but I won't get into all of it here.
 

But what about Quadaffi's family members and the children? We have the same scenario we had years ago. You know someone innocent is going to get killed and you do it anyway? What is the term for that?
 

war?
 

Michael--

Campbell is an actual soldier in Afghanistan-- he's writing from there. I defer to his view on many things related to our current conflicts.
 

Campbell-I meant no disrespect. I have been wrestling with similar issues since 1967. My father was a Navy man on the U.S.S. Minneapolis and we used to argue about the Vietnam War ad infinitem. The one sticking point was always what to do about the Hitlers of this world. And I have always wondered why it is that the United States seems to shore up these meglomaniacal types when it is to their advantage,and then it always bites them in the derriere. We backed Ho Chi Minh in World War II,Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians,Sadam Hussein when he was fighting Iran. Are we culpable in our own tragedies. Is it possible to stop war,killing, in its tracks with economic weapons?
 

Renee - I didn't think your previous comment was disrespectful at all...no worries.

You raise a good point, and it's one that I've asked on many occasions. We have this history of supporting our "friends" with arms, military advice, and money only to have those "friends" become our enemies somewhere down the line. Why did we prop those people up? It was in our national interest to do so at the time. Of course, that's a short-sighted approach to take, because those people sure didn't continue to act in our national interest.

My personal belief is that maybe we need to take a step back and not assume that the enemy of our enemy is automatically our friend - maybe that could help us stay out of some future conflicts? I don't know if the answer is to take an isolationist approach or claim neutrality like Switzerland, if it's to choose our allies more carefully, or if either of those are really options, given our position as the strongest economic and military power in the world.

All I can say is that after ten years of conflict in two theatres of operation (and limited engagements in a third), the American people are tired of war, with good reason. I'd love to see us not have to go to war for a while (like, ever again). Realistically, though, I don't see that happening any time soon, much as I would like it to.

I'll leave with one final point. We have lots of civilian contractors over here - many from Bosnia, many of whom were there and saw the effects of the Balkans wars firsthand. Several of them talk to us each night while we're all having our nightly cigar. By and large, they were very grateful for America's military intervention in the Balkans in the late 1990s. They certainly regarded our military intervention over there as just and moral - we helped to stop the genocide over there. Just a thought...
 

Campbell, thanks for that insider view, balanced and reasonable.