PeteFree.comDid President Obama Really Set Politics Aside in Making the Decision to Go after Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad? — Not Exactly, if I Have His Mind Figured Correctly
© 2012 Peter Free
05 May 2012
Introduction — not an attack on the President, but an indication of his professional character
What follows is not an attack on President Obama. It is simply an exercise in understanding this highly intelligent, secretive, unflappable, and often cleverly manipulative politician.
Although I have frequently criticized the President for avoiding the politically courageous leadership that the nation really needs, I recognize that his value system and priorities are different than mine. And I accept that, in his shoes, I very probably would exhibit the same leadership weaknesses that have marred his presidency.
Furthermore, in the case of getting Osama bin Laden, I enthusiastically approve of the President’s actions as Commander in Chief.
However, I think it is important to continue to be on the lookout for the many instances in which President Obama manipulates other people’s perception of him, so as to advance his personal agenda, rather than the truth.
To that end, this essay questions the veracity of his statement to NBC’s Brian Williams that indicated the President occasionally sets politics aside. I doubt that is true, given the understanding of his mind that I have developed over the last three and a half years.
If I am correct, the President’s self-serving statement is a good example of the subtle ways in which the he manages his public image. His “politics aside” statement was mild deception. Though not morally deficient in its political context, the almost certain lie illustrates that Truth is not high on the President’s list of priorities.
Whether this matters in the President’s coming November election contest against his crassly truth-avoiding Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, is arguably moot.
Yet, in my view, what distinguishes the President from other, less talented politicians is his ability to deceive so skillfully that he appears to be advancing one agenda, when in fact, he is actually advancing its opposite.
I consider the President’s skill at deception to be a character trait that is dangerous for the nation. It is my most worrisome criticism of President Obama’s leadership.
Politics aside?
In an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, which was aimed at revealing some of the decisions and the tension that went into killing Osama bin Laden a year ago, President Obama said:
"I will tell you that there are moments in your presidency where you really do put politics aside.”
"Certainly we thought about the fact that if there was a failure here, it would have disastrous consequences for me politically."
Rock Center with Brian Williams, President Obama: Bin Laden raid is 'most important single day of my presidency', NBC (02 May 2012) (video) (quotation comes from fourth segment, beginning at 01:14 minutes)
Note
If you don’t want to mess with advancing through the NBC video, you can see the President’s quotation on Politico:
Jennifer Epstein, Obama was aware of political risk of bin Laden raid, Politico (02 May 2012) (transcript of the above two quotations)
The President is too politically adept ever to put politics aside — so his statement to Brian Williams was understandably, but characteristically misleading
President Obama’s analytical mind is never turned off.
Given the political caution that President Obama consistently demonstrates, combined with his need for acceptance by the nation’s elite, his evaluation of the risks in the Abbotabad raid had to have gone like this:
(1) If the raid failed, it would have been a political disaster, identical in effect to President Carter’s.
Historically, Democrats are customarily dead meat at the hands of their brainlessly axe-wielding Republican opponents’ hands. If the raid failed, President Obama would look as ineffectual a manager as President Carter had.
(2) BUT — it would have been an even greater political disaster to bypass the chance to get bin Laden.
When word of his failure to act decisively and aggressively leaked out, as it inevitably would, the President would appear to have been a coward, as well as a poor manager.
Where President Carter had at least had the guts to try to get our people back, President Obama would look un-manly in failing to even attempt the Osama challenge.
In weighing these two alternatives, the Commander in Chief would immediately have seen that acting aggressively, even in failure, would be easier to defend against Republican Party attacks, than not acting at all and thereby irretrievably proving that Democrats are spinelessly soft on national defense.
Furthermore, in mulling his options, the President would also have seen a dramatic positive to the first option that is completely lacking in the second. This benefit is playing out today in the 2012 campaign. Americans like success, and we worship revenge.
In sum, the President would have concluded that attempting to get Osama bin Laden, even in the face of the substantial risk of failure, was:
easier to defend in retrospect
and
had pluses that the don’t-try option lacked.
From a cost-benefit perspective, trying to get Osama bin Laden was a win-win.
Therefore, it was certainly not necessary for the President to “set politics aside.” The Commander in Chief’s characteristic political caution could peacefully coexist with his desire to squash what America considered to be the world’s vilest terrorist.
So, why did he lie to NBC about setting politics aside?
What else could he do, given his self-protective nature?
Had the President admitted that he had figured the political cost-benefit sheet, he would merely confirm Republicans’ picture of him as calculating creep. And worse, one who lacks even the slightest sense of military honor.
That said, I like to think that a less manipulative leader would not have volunteered the untrue “politics aside” comment. Brian Williams certainly did not force that response with his question.
Further indications of the President’s sometimes unattractive political astuteness
The President is only forthcoming when it suits his self-advancement.
On the one hand, the Administration has been comparatively open about (probably edited) details of the Abbotabad raid.
On the other, it has been secretive about what I think are its very probably illegal and national-interest harming excesses of Executive authority.
Uncharacteristic openness regarding the Abbotabad raid
In regard to Abbotabad, Peter Bergen’s book about searching for and killing Osama bin Laden has been out for a while, the author apparently having received more-or-less red carpet treatment from people who ordinarily would have clammed up about elements of national security.
Similarly, as this essay indicates, the President allowed NBC to talk to the highest-ranking people in his administration, including himself, about something that (again ordinarily) would constitute classified information. The Executive Branch has even released some of the bin Laden papers that were captured during the Abbotabad exercise.
At every turn, it is clear that the Obama Administration (a) considers the killing of Osama bin Laden to be a political plus and (b) is skillfully puffing the accomplishment up at every opportunity.
Note
This also is not really a criticism. Any other political administration would do the same thing.
The fact that it offends my senses of military honor and effective command is beside the point.
And then the President’s countervailing, camouflaged hypocrisy
In contrast with its openness about Abbotabad, in situations where publicity is not in the President’s political interest, his administration has been intensely secretive about its arguably illegal doings:
killing American citizens and unidentified (often innocent) foreigners with drones,
seeking legalization to continue snooping through Americans’ communications with each other,
under-the-table enhancing of the Executive’s already questionable range of authority,
and
generally making the Democratic Party’s former (and much complained about) nemesis, President George W. Bush, look like a restrained Boy Scout.
This is what I mean about President Obama’s ability to talk a "liberal" agenda, while pursuing its opposite.
The moral? — an arguably rather nasty wolf in sheep’s clothing
A seemingly small lie to Brian Williams revealed a bit about the Commander in Chief.
President Obama’s political skill comes in large part from his ability to manage the public’s perception of him and to simultaneously conceal his intent and behavior.
Like so many gifted people in similar positions of leadership, he seems to use his abilities to displace the integrity that America needs to regain.