Geronimo Operation: Reasons Pro and Contra

Table of Contents

Introduction
Domestic Legislation
International Law
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Pakistans CIA and American agents worked to catch one of the most dangerous terrorists. As a result, no one received the promised 25 million for information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden success was achieved by a small group of analysts from Langley, who, through detailed analysis, tracked down a courier who regularly transmitted information from bin Laden. At that time, the American intelligence services had little doubt: the house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, surrounded by high concrete walls and barbed wire, was specially built to hide an important person. However, doubts about the identification of this person remained until now: there was not a single harrowing evidence that bin Laden was hiding there. The government, headed by President Barack Obama, decided to take the risk.

Geronimo or Neptunes Spear is an operation authorized by Barack Obama and carried out on May 2, 2011, by a particular unit of DEVGRU to assassinate al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. After that, Barack Obama delivered a speech that caused an international outcry. Most approved of the results of Operation Neptune Spear, but some condemned it. On May 6, al-Qaeda confirmed bin Ladens death.

There are three reasons why this move by Barack Obama is more positive. First, al-Qaeda, led by bin Laden, has carried out more than twenty major terrorist attacks to date, resulting in the death of thousands of civilians and military personnel (Byman & Mir, 2022). Secondly, from an emotional point of view, this organization remained unpunished after the terrorist attack with the collapse of the twin towers in 2001, and the population has demanded a severe response from the government ever since. Finally, there was evidence that bin Laden was planning a powerful new attack ten years after 9/11 and needed to be prevented (Pfarrer, 2011). To assess the operations performance and the execution of the plan by the then-incumbent president, it is necessary to turn to the US and international law.

Domestic Legislation

This operation could be considered a crime without the relevant resolutions and other aspects of international and domestic law. However, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US Congress passed a solution, Authorization of the use of military force against terrorists, authorizing the US President to use necessary and appropriate forces against those states, organizations or persons that took part in the attacks (Searcey, 2011). It was this resolution that the Obama administration referred to in justifying the use of force.

The choice of the method of conducting a special operation in the first place mustnt affect the civilian population, and this aspect was critical in the construction of the plan. A massive air strike on the outskirts of the Pakistani city was ruled out immediately after the last option this method practically excluded the possibility of conducting an operation without civilian casualties. The use of a drone capable of hitting pinpoint targets seemed more acceptable, but American intelligence agencies needed to get vital intelligence from the bin Laden house and make sure that the al-Qaeda leader was killed, if not captured. The operation organizers had no choice but to opt for the riskiest option a ground operation by a special forces detachment. According to the Secretary of State, such decisive action could, at worst, end in a direct military clash between the American Navy SEALs and the Pakistani army. However, the decision was made Vice Admiral McRaven, in an atmosphere of extreme secrecy, began to train a special forces team.

On the other hand, there was the complicated fact that in 1998 bin Laden was indicted in the US District Court of Manhattan. According to the law, a person under charge must be detained and brought to court. However, after the operation, many governments and the media questioned whether the order was to kill or take alive (Pfarrer, 2011). Legally, no one has filed claims against Obama within the country. Moreover, the news was received positively among the population, except for some areas and communities. The lack of evidence for the assassination of bin Laden and the dissatisfaction of Islamic leaders with the form of burial, rather than any legal issues of the special operation, caused fierce disputes. Although each participant was not supposed to expand on the details of the work of the special forces group, various aspects of the operation began to leak into the press. However, this reflects individual responsibility, which also had no consequences for the participants.

International Law

The sharpest reaction was made by Pakistan, where the operation took place. Pakistans partnership against terrorism was called into question when bin Laden was found in their city (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). The first reaction was to accuse the US of unauthorized actions and violating the countrys sovereignty. The leaks also suggest that the Pakistani authorities warned bin Laden every time US intelligence got too close to him, which only confirmed suspicions of government involvement in a terrorist organization (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). However, the answer was not long in coming. International law on armed conflict and the UN Charter allows a foreign government to conduct a military operation on another countrys territory if that country is unable and unwilling to deal with the problem (Searcey, 2011). However, opinions around the world are polarized.

According to the official version, bin Laden was unarmed but was killed because he resisted. Such a presentation of events did not suit human rights activists. Claudio Cordone, senior director of Amnesty International, said it was unclear how bin Laden could resist without weapons. In his opinion, the military should have taken the terrorist alive and brought him to justice (Bowcott, 2011). Years later, Bissonnet and ONeill told the media that bin Laden did not attempt to defend himself. However, even in this case, their decision to eliminate the terrorist could be fully justified.

As a consequence, most agreed that the killing during the operation was an act of self-defense. The United States called for disclosing more facts about the case and the investigation to assess the operations legality under international humanitarian law. However, there was a perception that the operation was an extrajudicial execution without due process of law (Bowcott, 2011). The issue of the dilemma about the secrecy of the task and informing organizations interested in the fight against terrorism is raised. Obama is being challenged with an uncoordinated, secret, and short-term solution, a kind of intervention in Pakistan. However, this operation was dictated by the need for international security.

Conclusion

Barack Obamas responsibility for setting the Operation Neptune Spear plan in motion was justified domestically and met with disagreement only within the framework of international law and media resonance, more related to the consequences of the deed than the motives. The allegations were primarily verbal and directed at a request to shed more light on the investigation and the path that led to that decision. On the other hand, the secrecy of the operation preparation allowed the United States to carry it out successfully and without losses. Most of the claims rested on the recognition of an act of self-defense. Although many organizations, most often aimed at protecting human rights, did not approve of the unauthorized operation compared to an execution, Barack Obama and the US government have not received a proper legally documented charge to this day.