What is your first thought when you hear the word intelligence? Webster defines intelligence as:
- The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations (to reason)
- The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria
In the case of, “Who shot Osama bin Laden?” the intelligence factor was a carefully crafted CIA plan to seek out and destroy the self-proclaimed architect of the 9/11 devastation. But, how much reason (i.e., intelligence) was involved in attaining an objective set forth ten years ago by President George W. Bush remains unclear.
The announcement from the Oval Office that bin Laden no longer drew breath was upstaged by the news media; they were the first to announce the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Many Americans greeted this news as we would a World Series or Superbowl victory, with people gathering in the streets to whoop it up, giving the loser a raucous send-off. I guess we can’t call him a winner once he was dispatched with a bullet in his brain.
Since the alleged shooting, the media has yet to loosen its fascination with the brute that engineered the collapse of the Twin Towers and the death of nearly 3,000 innocent souls in those structures. TV broadcasters continue to have a field day airing the Who, What, Why, and Wherefore of the deceased. Pundits spanning former military personnel to forensic doctors have expounded upon every aspect of bin Laden’s life. And still the question arises as to, “Is he really dead?” The question is understandable, given the lack of photographic evidence, not to mention the lack of a body.
At first, our Secretary of Defense, Gates, stated that photos of the dead bin Laden would not be aired because of security reasons. Retaliation by radical Muslims was feared, but since when do radical Muslims need an actual reason to rape, pillage, and destroy? And, as Rahm Emanuel stated, “Never let a crisis got to waste.” So, at the behest of a news-hungry media, films of the circumstances surrounding bin Laden’s assassination are being doled out in episodes, like segments of a soap opera.
One commentator at Fox news asked Judge Jeanine Pirro who is eligible for the $25 million reward placed upon bin Laden’s head. The official replied that, as this was a CIA venture, governmental employees were not eligible. But, informed sources say that Kahlid Sheikh Mohammad, now a resident at Gitmo, has applied for the reward because he was the informant that led to bin Laden’s demise.
It is also rumored that he intends to use the money by offering it to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to have him released by an executive order. In California’s current economic state, that’s 25 million good reasons to give him his freedom. Remember that name, Rahm Emanuel, so that it’s familiar to you when you hear that he’s unleashed an American-financed massacre upon, you guessed it, Americans!
Another question, from Judge Pirro, was directed to Fox contributor forensic Dr. Badin (pronounced (Bahdin). The question was, “How did they bury the body at sea?” Badin’s answer was, “They dropped him in the ocean, probably with heavy weights, but at some future date it may wash ashore.” Heck, I’m no forensic doctor but I could have answered that question. The question I really wanted answered was, “If we had to treat the bastard to a cruise, why didn’t we take him alive and then drop him into shark infested waters?”
The questions emerging in the wake of bin Laden’s shooting are becoming increasingly ridiculous, as are many of the answers. Picture a White House News conference where the reporters volley abstract questions like, “When did bin Laden first know of the attack?” or “How long did it take to gather the DNA evidence?” or, “Can you tell anyone tell whether he had his last bowel movement before or after the shooting?” The questions are about as thought-provoking as those posed to a sports figure in a locker room after a game … any sports figure, any locker room, any game.
And still I remain with my question unanswered: “How much intelligence went into the planning of taking bin Laden down?”
Maybe we should return to Webster’s second definition of intelligence, harkening back to an objective criteria. The objective in this case was, after all, clear: get bin laden dead or alive, but preferably dead. With that in mind, the next thing to consider was the question of who would take responsibility for putting a bullet through the bastard’s skull. By assuming responsibility, the United States must heighten our vigilance against future terrorist attacks. But if we blamed it on others, El Queda would vent its fury on the other party.
We could have blamed the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians, or even the Pakistanis by sending the reward money to a selected third party. We could have sent dead fish wrapped in a newspaper of the selected country, along with the reward, thus announcing that Osama sleeps with the fishes. It would look like an inside job, because the other countries all knew where bin Laden was except us. Thus, we could knock out another enemy without even lifting a finger. Now that’s intelligence! By using this strategy, we could have avoided condemnation and criticism from the UN, Middle Eastern countries, and Jihadist Muslims. As the Pennsylvania Dutch would say “Vee get too shmart too late.” Since we claimed responsibility for putting out the hit on Osama, the cost of security has risen (remember Rahm Emanuel).
It seems that America wants to be transparent with every country in the world except America. I think we need an intelligence agency that is more cost efficient and innovative when dispatching Public Enemy Number One, Number Two, Number Three, and so on.