Mr Chomsky wanted Mr bin Laden taken alive. My suspicion is that Mr bin Laden didn't want to be taken alive. Perhaps most pertinent to the issue was the environmental conditions at the time. It was night. Things are harder at night. On the other hand, a daylight raid would have denied our forces several advantages and would have likely resulted in collateral damage and the deaths of uninvolved civilians in the area.
Like Admiral Yamamoto, he was a commander in an ongoing conflict. he was doing his duty as he saw fit and s were the SEALs, God bless them.
Back to Mr Chomsky, he says:
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region."Uncontroversially"? Maybe in Cambridge, Mass, but not in Lowell, Mass. I enjoy talking with those of differing views, but the distance here seems a little wide for a serious exploration of the views of each other.
Then there is the question of Holder v. Holder, as Andrew C McCarthy, of the National Review Online. Te question raised is how conflicted our Attorney General would have been if Mr bin Laden were taken alive.
You pays your money and you takes your chances.
UPDATE: I said "Norm" and it is Noam Chomsky. My apologizes. As for TF-160...back in the day it was.
Regards — Cliff