Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The killing of one of the most notorious leaders of al-Qaeda marked the victory for justice in a decade-long conflict. Osama bin Laden was widely known as a leader of al-Qaeda. This Islamic terrorist group performed numerous terrorist attacks across the globe, such as 9/11 and the London bus bombings (Panzeri, 2014). The actions of the United States military forces in retaliation to the activities of this group have brought many crucial topics about national security to the surface. Despite its success, it raised numerous concerns regarding its legal and ethical sides from various sources regarding the practice of targeted killings (Govern, 2012). This essay analyzes the case of the killing of Osama bin Laden and attempts to provide support for the claim that there are cases in which such operations are acceptable.
The primary reason for the heated debate regarding Operation Neptune Spear was regarding the use of lethal force by the U.S. forces. The mission itself was to capture or kill the target, but it was impossible to avoid the usage of deadly force during such a task (Panzeri, 2014). It is worth noting that the U.S. forces attempted to capture Osama bin Laden multiple times in the previous years and had successfully captured several of al-Qaedas generals alive (Panzeri, 2014). There were risks that had to be taken, as the danger from al-Quaeda remained present. Ultimately, Osama bin Laden, along with four people residing in the hideout, was killed in a confrontation. Govern (2012) states that bin Laden was to be captured if he clearly surrendered (p. 363). However, there was a firefight, during which there was no opportunity presented for the enemy to surrender since it is not permissible to second-guess in such a situation. (Govern, 2012). The operation was performed with minimal losses, and the majority of people who were in the building were unharmed.
The decision taken by the United States reveals that the Pakistan government was not involved on purpose. Govern (2012) writes that Obama decided against informing or working with Pakistan due to the high possibility of information leak (p. 354). Since there were suspicions of such an incident, it was deemed acceptable to prohibit the spread of information (Govern, 2012). Some sources argue that the most ethical action was to work with the Pakistan army to capture bin Laden (Govern, 2012). While there were legal implications for the actions of the U.S. forces, previous attempts to cooperate with local government, have proven to be ineffective (Govern, 2012). Assuming that the intelligence regarding the possibility of the leak was sufficient, this decision can be viewed as the right one. It has been widely known that the United States had a deal with Pakistan that allowed them to conduct similar operations on foreign territory (Govern, 2012). It was also revealed that there were al-Quaeda training camps in Pakistan, and there was the ongoing radicalization of the civilians (Cragin, 2013). The success of this mission was placed above the diplomatic relationships, yet it brought more benefit than harm.
Many people got concerned regarding the safety and precision of these missions. There are multiple proofs that U.S. operations have caused a significant number of civilian casualties (Govern, 2012). However, Operation Neptune Spear was conducted after an extensive analysis of all available opportunities (Govern, 2012). According to Panzeri (2014), a bombing or missile strike was excluded from options since collateral damage was estimated at well over a dozen civilian casualties (p. 31). A special operation raid was authorized, and the preparation for it took over a year after scouting, constant surveillance of the location, training of the most likely scenarios, and the mission itself was thoroughly scrutinized (Panzeri, 2014). Moreover, all steps of the plan included the possibility for the target to surrender (Panzeri, 2014). These actions created a perfect opportunity for the U.S. forces to ensure that Osama bin Laden will be neutralized.
In conclusion, the apprehension of targets similar to bin Laden who posed a major threat to national security from abroad, can be necessary for the prevention of further conflict escalation and the radicalization of youth. Although Osama was eliminated during the mission, the U.S. forces made all preparations for his surrender. The modern strategies and technologies for these types of operations have been upgraded and perfected during the War on Terror, leading to their high efficiency and precision (Panzeri, 2014). Al-Qaedas operations brought grief to many nations across the globe, and it was imperative to remove its leadership in order to weaken the groups potential and quicken its dissolution. Targeted killings are not the primary method of dealing with dangers from abroad, and all other options were exhausted during this conflict. This mission provides an example of a proper approach to such a delicate matter, and the results show how efficient a highly trained special operations force can be. Although the outcome might not be ideal, it remains a crucial point in the fight against terrorism.
References
Cragin, R. K. (2013). Resisting violent extremism: A conceptual model for non-radicalization. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(2), 337-353. Web.
Govern, K. H. (2012). Operation Neptune spear: Was killing bin Laden a legitimate military objective? Targeted Killings, 347-373. Web.
Panzeri, P. (2014). Killing bin Laden: Operation Neptune spear 2011. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.