Introduction
It is important to note the American role in global counterterrorism prevention and elimination has been the highest since 2001. Operation Geronimo was the final chapter of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which took a decade to complete. However, questions in regard to President Obama’s authority to order and execute the operation emerge, which need thorough consideration. Factoring in the sheer importance of the operation, the global counterterrorism prevention, justice to American citizens, and symbolic testament of American leadership, operation Geronimo was justified. The latter means that President Obama had full authority to order and execute the operation due to Osama bin Laden being a global threat, a non-state terrorist, and an active military combatant and Pakistan was unable to hunt him on its own.
Main body
Firstly, terrorism is a global problem that does not only affect the United States. The 9-11 attack of 2001 was a turning point in the American approach to combatting terrorism. It showcased how even the largest strongholds of the world are susceptible and vulnerable to organized terrorist attacks. The damage of such threats is counted in billions to the economy and infrastructure on top of the lost lives, social unrest, and the nation’s reputational damage. Osama bin Laden was not only America’s problem because “the terrorist leader was not only a major player within al-Qaeda but also a figurehead that attracted supporters and recruits from around the world” (Marks, 2019, para. 15). In other words, it was in many nations’ interest to eliminate the leader of many terrorist operations. Therefore, one can see that there is a number of risks associated with not conducting the operation, which can have implications larger than 9-11.
Secondly, when it comes to the question of the legality and authority of the United States President in ordering and executing such operations, it is important to understand the situation is highly unique. It is stated that “to be clear, an otherwise lawful wartime mission is not rendered improper simply because the orders call for the killing of an individual combatant who is properly targetable under the law of armed conflict” (Dunlap, 2019, para. 3). In other words, there is no law that prohibits targeting a specific individual in a military conflict. The main reason is the fact that “non-state terrorists who are members of organized armed groups engaged in continuous combat operations (in a conflict of sufficient scope and intensity to trigger LOAC applicability) are lawfully subject to targeting, just as members of traditional militaries are” (Dunlap, 2019, para. 8). Thus, Osama bin Laden was not protected by international laws in regards to human rights or laws of armed conflict. Since the terrorist leader was not associated with a particular state, he did not have the protection of international laws. In addition, he was a terrorist, which put him in the same category as any military person of any nation.
Thirdly, it should be noted that some critics claimed that the operation was a form of assassination, which is prohibited internationally. However, the given statement is incorrect because there is a clear distinction between the assassination and elimination of a terrorist group leader. While “assassination is unlawful killing, and would be prohibited by international law even if there was no executive order proscribing it,” “combatants are legitimate targets at all times, regardless of their duties or activities at the time of the attack” (Dunlap, 2019, para. 13). Therefore, the operation was not a form of assassination, which would render itself unlawful according to international laws. The target distinction is critical in the given case since Osama bin Laden was a combatant who was dangerous, not due to his political view, but rather active military plans and operations.
Fourthly, the legality of the operation can be criticized for its invasiveness into Pakistan’s sovereignty since the order included an engagement in military combat on Pakistan’s soil without permission from the nation. The operation was still legal and authorized properly because “the U.S. relied upon the legal concept applicable to nations who are “unwilling or unable” to take effective action against threatening actors within their borders who present threats to Americans” (Dunlap, 2019, para. 15). In other words, the fact that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan for years without any successful operation from the local military showcases the inability or unwillingness of Pakistan to protect American citizens. In such a case, the United States reserves the right to intervene and conduct operations of its own without the local government’s permission. In this case, if the local government refuses to help and refuses to allow the conduct of operations, it is being labeled as an enemy sheltering and assisting the terrorist group which attacked the United States.
Conclusion
In conclusion, President Obama had the full right and legal authority to order the execution of the operation of Geronimo. Osama bin Laden was a global threat, and his elimination was not solely in the United States’ interests. The target was not protected by international laws, such as human rights, because he was a non-state actor. It was not an assassination mission because Osama bin Laden was an active combatant, which is treated as any traditional military. Pakistan was incapable of capturing or eliminating Osama bin Laden on its own, which granted the United States the right to conduct the operation without permission.
References
Dunlap, C. (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.