[LINK] bin Laden is dead

[Birch, Jim]

Kim Holburn wrote:

> I find it amazing that so many people just accept that a government
can accuse someone of something

Didn't OBL make some claims himself?  He's more or less in agreement
with the US government on his actions; they just disagree about whether
it's right or wrong.

> send a squad illegally to another country and kill them

If you can't trust that other country, your options change.  Pakistan
security service has a documented history of aiding the terrorists,
though admittedly they alternate with knocking some off.   It's likely
that some elements of the military and security services knew what was
going on and condoned and/or aided it.  Clearly there's a mixture of
people, sympathies and strategies that aren't coherent.  A joint
operation or a Pakistani operation would very likely have been
compromised.

Read this article for an opinion of the relationship between the
terrorists and the Pakistani military:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201152104652958379.
html   

> I'll bet it wouldn't be if say China sent a squad to take out someone
living in Australia.

Sure, but things are quite different.  We have a passable level of rule
of law here.  If the Chinese had a reasonable claim, we'd cooperate, so
they'd have no need to send in the choppers.  You might note that while
some people are upset, the Pakistani government aren't outraged, they're
embarrassed.

>I realise it must be so satisfying to many of you that Osama is dead.
I can't say I'm not entirely unhappy about it, but the way this was done
was not legal and sets a very bad precedent.

It's not "satisfying" to me at all but obviously it is to some people,
especially in the US, but I do approve of the action.  As for a
precedent, it's about the best military operation the US has conducted
in 50 years: it was had prudent clear objectives, used good intelligence
and careful planning, and was well executed.  It produced minimal
unnecessary minimal death and damage.  If that sets a precedent, great!
It is so much better than the usual lets bomb the crap out of
someone/anyone approach.

This was a moral and symbolic victory to the US rather than a major
strategic victory.  OBL was pretty well out of the picture; he was
isolated, couldn't even use a phone, and probably too sick to do much
anyway.
 
More broadly, AQ is no closer to its grandiose dream of a pan-Arab
Islamic state.   AQ's highly visible foundation step of disrupting the
West in order to force disengagement is only a component of this plan.
It has had some significant operational successes but overall it has
failed.  In the meantime, Arab political imagination seems to have moved
on to a significant extent, to the more practical, achievable - and
decent -  project replacing individual autocratic states with
representative governments (rather than theocracies.)  AQ has run out of
steam.  Its activities are highly disrupted and dissipated. It won't
disappear overnight but it has failed to produce.
  
> First they came for the terrorists...

Extrajudicial killing is clearly undesirable in general but in some
extreme circumstances it may be the best alternative. I'm ambivalent as
to whether capture and trial would have been preferable because of the
lives that would be put at risk by holding OBL for trial.  Considering
the (self-admitted) crimes of OBL and the poor prospects of any
alternative plan it was a best choice.  Apart from the media frenzy and
gleeful dancing in the streets, there are a few genuine positives to
this.  Domestically, this action should provide Obama with some
much-needed political capital for taking on the nutjob wing of the
Republicans.  Also, there's already a feeling in the US that it needs to
change its Pakistani policies in a way that will improve accountability,
and this should hopefully improve governance in Pakistan in the long
term.

- Jim


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER

The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission. If the transmission contains advice, the advice is based on instructions in relation to, and is provided to the addressee in connection with, the matter mentioned above. Responsibility is not accepted for reliance upon it by any other person or for any other purpose.