Operation Geronimo is one of the most significant military events in the United States that caused numerous debates and controversies. President Obama, who was in charge of the country then, gave the go-ahead for an operation on April 29, 2011, which resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, the most wanted guy on the CIA watch list (Marks, 2019). President Obama has deliberated with the National Security Council for months on whether Osama bin Laden was likely to be present in the alleged refuge and whether to approve a mission to find or kill him. Osama bin Laden was finally killed in Operation Geronimo after President Obama granted the orders, ending a decade-long search for the leader of the Al Qaeda organization. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the death of the terrorist was a relief for Americans and the rest of the world (Osborn & Lin, n.d.). However, there are many uncertainties about the constitutionality of President Obama’s approval of Operation Geronimo. This essay argues that Operation Geronimo was legally authorized and that President Obama had the power to order and carry out the operation.
There was substantial debate concerning the raid’s conduct in Pakistan without the consent or even forewarning of that government in the early aftermath. In this case, the United States relied on the legal theory that applies to countries that are “unwilling or incapable” of taking meaningful action against dangerous actors that pose hazards to Americans within their borders (Dunlap, 2019). In a way, Pakistan theoretically had the capacity to assassinate Bin Laden, but the reality is that he lived there unmolested for years (Dunlap, 2019). The resolution grants the US commander-in-chief the right to employ any necessary or appropriate force against any country, organization, or individual in a certain case. Specifically, it is determined that they were involved in the planning, authorization, commission, or support of the September 11th attacks on the United States or who harbored such groups or individuals (Dunlap, 2019). Considering that Osama bin Laden was directly engaged in the planning and execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama was within the bounds of US domestic law approving the operation that ended his life.
It can also be questioned whether the raiders needed to kill Bin Laden, claiming that he became hors de combat after being shot. It is not right to assault anyone vulnerable due to unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds, or disease, considering the International Committee of the Red Cross (Dunlap, 2019). However, being injured alone does not automatically mean that someone is out of the fight; in fact, many instances in military history where seriously injured soldiers remained to fight (Dunlap, 2019). It had been generally assumed that Bin Laden would own a suicide vest or have easy access to additional prepared devices. In other words, the prohibition on targeting individuals hors de combat was not broken in the Bin Laden raid. In this regard, it is crucial to understand that the law does not demand that enemy fighters be given the option to surrender before being made the target of assault (Dunlap, 2019). This indicates that the operation would not have been illegal if its sole purpose had been to kill Bin Laden rather than attempt to capture him.
However, even with the validity of such authorization, concerns arise over how the operation’s execution complied with the rules of armed conflict, including military necessity, proportionality, and distinction and discrimination. Since Bin Laden had assaulted the US and posed a menace to world peace by encouraging terrorism, military necessity was qualified in this situation (Marks, 2019). The force employed after entering Bin Laden’s home was also proportionate to the threat he presented to the special unit since he was claimed to have grabbed his gun in retaliation (Dunlap, 2019). Finally, the discriminating criterion was met since the victims of the subsequent altercation were not the intended targets of the assault but rather collateral damage.
Overall, the authorization must comply with international laws, as previously stated. In this instance, since the US was a victim of Bin Laden’s violent attack on 9/11, shooting him constituted a measure of self-defense. As a result, the US had the right to invade Pakistan and carry out its mission following international law. Allegations have been made that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by conducting a raid on Bin Laden’s refuge without consulting the local government. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, which Osama Bin Laden masterminded, altered how the US protects itself against similar assaults. After the assaults, Congress gave the then-US President permission to go after the terrorists who had carried them out inside and outside the US. Therefore, President Obama had the responsibility and authority to order a military assault after learning from intelligence reports that Bin Laden’s refuge had been located. Later, concerns were expressed over the legitimacy of such authorization in light of local and international legislation. More concerns regarding the mission’s execution and compliance with the laws of armed conflict arose. Thus, by approving Operation Geronimo, President Obama acted following international law.
References
Dunlap, C., J., D. (2019). Yes, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was lawful. Lawfire. Web.
Marks, J. (2019). How SEAL Team Six Took Out Osama bin Laden. History. Web.
Osborn, K. & Lin, H. (n.d.). The Operation That Took Out Osama Bin Laden. Military.com. Web.