Bin Laden's Death: Revenge or Pragmatism?

One of the most lively debates in Europe, following the death of Osama bin Laden, is if “justice has been done,” as Obama said in his message to the nation, or rather if revenge was taken. This question has hardly been raised here in the U.S., because a great contradiction between the two options goes unnoticed.

Indeed, the desire for revenge is typical of humans, and Europeans are no exception. The difference from the U.S. is that in Europe, a consensus exists among elites in considering the death penalty a barbaric act, and in the hearts of the Old Continent, a long prison sentence or life imprisonment is preferred.

But make no mistake, the feeling of revenge exists there too. What is someone saying who resorts to the familiar phrase “to rot in jail” when referring to a criminal or terrorist? It’s unlikely that he is appealing precisely to the role in theory (and rarely in practice) of prison as a place of rehabilitation. The difference is the existence of a legal process in which the accused can defend himself, which is a fundamental principle of a democratic state with the rule of law.

Be that as it may, for me the most interesting question is if the assassination of bin Laden responded to a vengeful impulse or to the expression on Obama’s part of a pragmatic nature, a quality in which this president has given ample demonstrations in these two and a half years.

At first, I believed the official version that the leader of al-Qaida died in a shootout, using his wife as a human shield. Meanwhile, that appears to have been propaganda. Bin Laden declared that he would not be taken alive, similar to the perpetrators of the 11-M attacks [on March 11, 2004] in Madrid. Therefore his death seemed the logical result of the assault on the compound.

But after the amazing change in the White House’s version of the events, which now says that bin Laden was unarmed, I am deeply suspicious. According to the new account, the special forces commandos fired two times at the terrorist, to the head and the chest, because he was “resisting” arrest.

A really suspicious account. I am convinced that this kind of “superman” — as we’ve been told the Navy SEALs are — is capable of subduing an unarmed person without having to put a bullet between his eyes.

Therefore I am more inclined to believe that the soldiers received orders to kill bin Laden. And, given the cool, calculating character of Obama, it would not surprise me that his motivation was practical rather than emotional, the stuff from which revenge is made.

We must not overlook the fact that the arrest of a living bin Laden, and the subsequent legal process, would have become a real headache for the Obama administration. The international press would have scrutinized every movement of the government surrounding the most famous terrorist of the 21st century: his prison regime, the type of justice, access to the media, etc. Most likely the left would have criticized Obama for violating the human rights of bin Laden, and the right would have criticized him for treating bin Laden too “gently.”

And perhaps worst of all, bin Laden’s trial could have become a complete circus that he could have used to his advantage for propaganda purposes. That was precisely what happened with another bloodthirsty leader, as Saddam Hussein sat before an Iraqi tribunal.

If to all this we add the certainty that it was literally impossible for bin Laden to escape the death penalty in a U.S. courtroom, Obama could have let it be understood by his subordinates that if bin Laden does not leave Abbottabad alive, he will have done the president and the nation a favor.