Biden makes sudden U-turn on use of military

Biden's Military U-turn: A New Approach to Violence and Force

By Peter Bergen

Biden's recent behavior seems to indicate a shift in his stance on the application of force and violence. Over the past decade, Biden has pursued a more cautious approach when it comes to deploying troops or using force.

In August 2021, Biden withdrew all US troops from Afghanistan, triggering the withdrawal of thousands of NATO allies and contractors, and accelerating the Taliban's takeover of the country. In December 2011, as Vice President, Biden oversaw the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. Following the emergence of ISIS in 2014, which overran large parts of Iraq, then-President Barack Obama ordered thousands of US troops to return to the country.

Biden also vetoed the May 2011 raid that resulted in Osama bin Laden's death, citing the risk of capturing or killing US troops in Pakistan.

A year later, however, it appears that Biden has adopted a different position on the application of violence.

It is worth reconsidering Obama's decision to launch the Bin Laden operation, comparing it to Biden's decision to authorize a raid to kill the leader of ISIS. The two operations share similarities. Both involved dangerous ground operations carried out by US Special Forces to minimize civilian casualties that could have resulted from bombing bin Laden's compound in Pakistan or bombing the building where the ISIS leader was hiding in Syria.

Ultimately, the Bin Laden operation was successful due to the SEAL Team 6's repeated practice and careful planning by Obama's national security team. Although a helicopter crashed during the operation, it did not bring an end to the mission. The same applied when the ISIS leader was killed in Syria on a Wednesday.

Although a helicopter encountering mechanical problems and having to be destroyed during the operation in Syria affected the removal of the ISIS leader, the operation was successful in terms of eliminating the ISIS leader. People and their families committed suicide.

Civilian casualties occurred during both operations against bin Laden and the ISIS leader. The wife of one of bin Laden's bodyguards was killed, and an unspecified number of civilians continue to die in raids against the ISIS leader.

Are decapitation strikes effective?

A larger question is whether the raids this week will have lasting impacts. Decapitation strikes, which result in the killing of terrorists or leaders of insurgent groups, have some effect, but typically less than many believe.

After the death of a leader, jihadist groups often quickly nominate a new leader and continue their operations. Observe the Taliban today: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, their leader, was killed in a US air strike in Pakistan in 2016. Obama, who ordered the operation, called it a "significant milestone." Now, the Taliban control the entirety of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda's core in Pakistan and Afghanistan failed to fully recover after bin Laden's death, despite becoming stronger due to drone strikes and the arrests of key leaders. The current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has failed to revive Al-Qaeda's core.

Such strikes can have long-lasting impacts if the US military is able to conduct SSE (Sensitive Site Exploitation).

During the Bin Laden raid, SEALs confiscated computers, USB sticks, and documents, approximating around 470,000 files.

This provided a better understanding of how bin Laden attempted to control Al-Qaeda and its affiliates worldwide, leading to further attacks against Al-Qaeda leaders and causing further damage to the organization.

Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby stated that US troops stayed on the ground for two hours during the Wednesday operation in Syria.

Kirby said that it was a common practice for US troops to collect everything they could find during raids, and that the US military would not search homes where ISIS leaders were hiding, as it went against common sense. All computers, USB sticks, phones, and documents that could be useful in the future fight against ISIS were collected.

Insights

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the killing of Osama bin Laden were controversial decisions, sparking debate on the use of military force and the pursuit of national security goals.
The operations against bin Laden and ISIS leader resulted in civilian casualties, raising questions about the ethics and effectiveness of such operations.
Decapitation strikes have been a controversial tactic in the war on terror, with critics arguing that they are often less effective than claimed and can even lead to a resurgence of the targeted groups or their ideologies.

Subscribe to our new CNN Opinion newsletter
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, jihadist groups like the Islamic State and Al-Qaida, as well as their affiliates in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, continue to pose a significant threat.

Of course, the killing of an individual does not eradicate the militant jihadist ideology, which has become popular in failed or failing states in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Biden is well aware of the limitations of targeted killing operations, yet he decided to authorize one in this instance. This shift towards a harder foreign policy stance could ultimately pay off, particularly in a time when Biden's approval ratings are declining.