Osama Bin Laden

It was all very macho gungho stuff. Helicopters flying in, middle of night, marines abseiling, night sights, stun grenades and the taking down of public enemy number one. Taking down and claiming justice for all those that died as direct consequence of allegedly one of the most evil man on the planet. Except it is leaving a nasty taste in my mouth. With a force ratio of six to one in their favour, surprise on their side and definitely superior fire power what gun play was essential to kill one unarmed man, shoot two woman and a boy?

America just seems to be missing the point time and time again. You are judged by your actions. If you claim moral superiority you have to demonstrate it in each and very action. This was not a surgical efficient operation, it was not a display of minimum force to achieve an end, there was no show of compassion in victory, just cold blooded taking of lives.

Here was a man at the very centre, the hub of vibrant activity actively plotting to wreak havoc and destruction around the world. Kill or carnage would ensue. Not the picture I am getting. Just an isolated man, lost, burnt out, but too important to be abandoned. Yet no longer able to inspire and spark fire into the bellies of new fanatics, no longer a leader and no longer wanted by those that used to strain to hear every word. Just a collection of has been souvenirs and thoughts. Brought to justice most certainly to answer all the charges against him, but not just killed in cold blood because you can. Where can you draw a line between those terrorist whose actions you despise and your own actions if your methods are indistinguishable?

We expect our leaders to take the moral high ground and to be exemplars in all things. To authorise an armed raid inside a friendly allies territory without their consent or knowledge, what signal is this supposed to send to the world? To allow yourself to be seen to sit around with cohorts watching the ballgame play out and be a willing participant to the cold blooded killing of an unarmed man is not a good image. We don't do gladiator contests for good reasons. If we have to kill, we kill humanely, with dignity, with respect and not as a spectacle for selected viewers. A leader has to authorise, not participate, to be fully aware of the consequences but not a signed up witness.

So a series of miscalculations will almost certainly fuel a new wave of fanaticism that will lead to who knows what. In creating a martyr the US of A has missed an opportunity to use the one person that could be fronted in the inevitable talks the precede any settlement. He may have been a worn out old man but he still was a recognisable symbol that both sides could use to vocalise their differences. Because in the end it always comes down to talking. Bullets are never the end.