Anyone who questions whether the US should have killed Osama bin Laden needs to have their head examined, President Barack Obama has said.
( from the link above)
"As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking Bin Laden out," Obama said.
( from the link above)
That's what our President said. His position is clear: US(!) killed a man. Get over it. He does not lose the sleep over this. Examine your head if you doubt the decision.
I am trying to examine my head. So far I had no reason to complain about the level of reasoning my head demonstrated but if the President says so.. I am trying. The best way to examine your head is to put yourself into the man's shoes. Here you are, a Commander-in-Chief and there's a sworn enemy of your country, seemingly accessible. You can order to take him out and it will be done. It will bring a closure to a lot of issues. It will be a huge political gain. You also will be able to monitor the killing on TV, so that there will be no doubt at all. All the people around you tell you that it is a good chance. The gun is loaded and ready; just pull the trigger, Mr. President. What would I have done? What would any of us had done? Can any of us honestly answer that he/she would have done something different? Such questions were always asked of those who judge after the fact and they seem the killer questions because they are Markovian. They presume that nothing was before that, that this particular event is independent from the past, that there are no connections, that it is only here and now. That assumption is truly wrong in politics where everything is connected and interconnected and where power is not only a manifestation of strength but also of wisdom. Now we see the light in the end of the tunnel; was it a wise decision or not? It depends on the criteria of wisdom in the head of the President or in the head of whoever presumes to be in his shoes. My head that is. So, in my head I am put in front of the dilemma of taking a human life. I can do that. Maybe even more than one life. Obviously, my first question would be if I could avoid that by taking a person into custody. All things considered, I am not a unilateral decider to kill and we have courts for that. If the sworn enemy is vulnerable so much that there is a chance to execute him ( not even by a sniper fire but by a shot to the head), can we take him alive? That would be even better politically, right? So many people are accused of collaborating with him, so many questions could be answered, so many issues resolved. Now they forever will remain unsolved. The operation information revealed to all the world that Navy Seals met no resistance whatsoever; why wasn't he taken alive? Where is wisdom here? And why doesn't our President explain to us whether that option was considered and under what conditions?
Now, there is another question too. Obviously, our President knew in advance that there were other people in the house. Did he order to kill them too? Did he order to kill the 19years' -old boy? See, that's an issue with those licenses to kill- you must be either very specific or very broad. Say, why not use a taser? They work wonders. Or why not hit a boy on the head, knock him down. That surely could be done if the President had adamantly stated in his order that only one person should be targeted for killing and that only if he resists. How was an order stated? Can we see a written text? If our President like a medieval king watched the execution of his enemy on the TV together with his staff it is only prudent for the public to see the text of that fateful order. That's what my head would ask first. I would like to follow the decision process step-by --step. I would like to see the wisdom, not vengeance or political posturing. In fact that's where I question the wisdom of our Chief Executive. Some people might say I don't know everything. But I am in his shoes, right? Tell me, I am ready to listen.
Mr. President, so far I had examined my head and saw nothing wrong with it except for an unfortunate decision to vote for you in Y2008. Not that I had much of a choice. I saw all that in you; you were a capable and ambitious man with a very diverse background, a real American, with a touch of high intelligence but also with one unfortunate feature- you did not seem to be a very educated man and your premises sounded rather shallow whether in your books or in your speeches. Still, you seemed much better than the alternatives although I had some suspicion even then. You were too eager to please.
You did not seem comfortable acting under the malicious scrutiny. Examine your head, Mr. President; maybe that's the real issue?