Introduction
The threat of al-Qaeda was looming over the United States for decades. After the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, it was apparent that terrorists posed a severe issue that required a drastic solution. There were both legal and moral aspects of Operation Geronimo that proved its legitimacy. The raid and its justification relied on numerous factors, which included the validity of targeted killings, the assessment of the target of an assault, and the potential involvement of the Pakistani government. The damage done by al-Qaeda under bin Laden’s rulership and its continuous threats provided sufficient ground to consider Operation Geronimo as necessary.
Lawfulness
First of all, the formal justification for this raid fitted the overall context of the war on terror. The legal aspect of this targeted killing lay in the definition of a lawful target. A person was a non-state actor of an organization that was actively at war with the country conducting the operation (Govern, 2012). Therefore, Osama bin Laden was an individual who was not protected by any legal limitations. The war against terror that the United States conducted over the past decades remained strictly within the boundaries outlined by the U.S. authorities, and any actions outside these limitations led to punishments (Govern, 2012). The approach to the national security of the United States allowed certain cases of self-defense to transition beyond the country’s borders, as long as the intelligence regarding the identity and the location of a high-value target was confirmed. The decision-making process was restricted to the authorized personnel under the direct jurisdiction of the President (Govern, 2012). It was clear that it was legal for the United States to conduct this raid once it was approved.
The unstable relationship with Pakistan is one of the reasons why the operation was necessary to be conducted in such a manner, as its success was above the appeasement of the locals. The terrorist network in this region was extensive, and it was difficult for officials to counteract it (McDonald, 2017). With no tools available, the only legal choice was to either make a request to the Pakistani government or successfully complete the operation. However, Stevenson (2011) writes that “it was implausible that every […] officer was unaware that bin Laden” was close to Islamabad for such a prolonged period (p. 15). This notion implied that it was essential for the United States to avoid notifying the local authorities regarding its counter-terrorism activities conducted on Pakistani soil. While such an act was unethical, it did not breach any predefined military procedures that were created for this transnational war. The identity of the person residing at the targeted location was identified, and the assault was completed after the direct approval of President Barack Obama.
Morality
The morality of targeted killings is often controversial, yet this case has shown sufficient reasons for it to be considered positive. On the basis of utilitarianism, the assessment of Operation Geronimo highlighted the benefits of bin Laden’s assassination. It was essential to follow due process, yet the legal tools were unavailable in that region, leaving direct assault the only option. Operation Geronimo minimized casualties stemming from the actions of al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and the SEAL team conducting the raid. Prevention of further terrorist attacks was an obligation the United States upheld to the best of its abilities.
The positive impact of Operation Geronimo can be traced in other regions, making it an overall good. The death of bin Laden was a significant hit to al-Qaeda’s influence that lessened its ability to recruit and affect political matters in the Middle Eastern region (Stevenson, 2011). The target of the operation presented a critical point for promoting al-Qaeda and its aggressive rhetoric to Muslims. By dismantling this terrorist organization, the United States prevented further escalation of the ongoing conflict and decreased the overall suffering in the world. Peaceful readjustments across the Middle East promoted democratic values and liberated locals from this negative influence. The Arab Spring that happened at that time enabled many governments in this region to prevent further infiltration of al-Qaeda into positions of power (Stevenson, 2011). Therefore, the death of bin Laden was detrimental to those who sought to radicalize a major portion of the world population and promoted further hostilities against other nations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the damage done by al-Qaeda and the threat that Osama bin Laden posed to the United States enabled the country to conduct Operation Geronimo in order to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks. Osama bin Laden has been identified as a high-priority target, and his presence on the Joint Prioritized Effects List enabled U.S. officials to launch a raid to either capture or kill this individual. His statements were proof that al-Qaeda continued to pose a real danger to the country. The actions of the U.S. Army on foreign soil were done in secrecy to ensure the success of this activity, as there were suspicions that the target could be in contact with the local government. The operation was completed under the rules established for such a situation. It was a moral imperative for the United States to remove this individual from his position of power in order to protect numerous lives across the globe.
References
Govern, K. H. (2012). Operation Neptune Spear: Was killing bin Laden a legitimate military objective? In C. Finkelstein, J. D. Ohlin, & A. Altman (Eds.), Targeted killings: Law and morality in an asymmetrical world (pp. 347-373). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McDonald, J. (2017). Enemies known and unknown: Targeted killings in America’s transnational war. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, J. (2011). Echoes of gunfire: Bin Laden, the US and the Greater Middle East. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 53(3), 11-18.