|
Edited on Sat May-14-11 08:45 AM by howard112211
in terms of foreign policy.
Sure enough, the Obama administration made the Republicans look like complete buffoons and wiped out one of their big self-proclaimed credential: The "toughness" on terror. Moreover, presenting the whole thing as a done deal, almost completely out of no where, caused them to fall over themselves trying to devise some sort of talking point, which they ultimately failed at. A Bin Laden in captivity would have offered much more space for criticism of some sort. I think the whole act will do a lot to get Obama reelected.
In terms of foreign policy I think it was not so brilliant. I think there are many people out there, in particular in the middle east, who don't think the case against Bin Laden was strong enough. I think a swift trial where all the evidence against him was recounted transparently, followed by an execution, would have eliminated 90% of the shitstorm that likely will break loose, in particular with Pakistan and also in the larger context of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Moreover I don't buy the whole "wave of hostage taking and retaliations" line. It's not like they are not trying to do that anyway. If Al Qaeda or their supporters would be able to hijack a plane, they would do so, with or with Bin Laden in captivity. I think the perception that America can violate the national sovereignty of another country to kill someone is much more damaging and might sway a lot of moderates. Moreover, China and Russia, and also Pakistan will likely use this as a precedent to deal with their enemies.
And also, it cements the whole "war against terror" paradigm, which treats terrorism as warfare rather than law enforcement, which is related to my previous point: I think whenever the standards of what constitutes warfare are lowered, this is bad news, in likely will affect how other foreign powers deal with their enemies, and lead to further undermining the concept of international law.
|