Would Osama Bin Laden Have Killed Ron Paul?

In a recent radio interview presidential hopeful Ron Paul criticized the Navy Seals raid that killed Osama bin Laden. His issue with the operation is the fact that Osama bin Laden was an unarmed man and killed. Ron Paul states that things would have been handled differently if he were President, and that bin Laden would have been arrested and tried, not assassinated. However, it is easy for a 75 year old man at a radio station to be critical of real action.

I am not taking a political stance for any party with this article, I am merely pointing out what seems logical and obvious in this situation of political banter. Ron Paul might be singing a different tune if he was an armed Navy Seal busting into a compound, having already taken fire from other sources, and then coming face to face with America's nightmare Osama bin Laden. Would Ron Paul's trigger finger in the heat of battle take control of his mind with diplomacy? The bounty on Osama was dubbed "Dead Or Alive" and even though intel suggest he was not armed, it has also thus far suggested the man did not try to surrender. In a police action, yes, there potentially should have been some sort of arrest procedure begun. However, Osama bin Laden declared war against the USA. We accepted the challenge and created the War On Terror. Therefore, we were at war with the man and police rules did not apply. Do we make it a practice to shoot unarmed combatants in war? Not exactly, but more factors also applied to this situation.

The military operation was covert. Pakistan was not aware that we were making a move on their soil and if their attention had been drawn to the action in a swift manner there could have been trouble. Therefore, the Navy Seals needed to be in an out as fast as possible. If Osama bin Laden were to have resisted in any way, such as refusing to surrender and trying to turn it into any type of stand off, this could have compromised the safety of the American soldiers. The reason the US kept Pakistan in the dark was due to suspicions that someone in the Pakistani government may have been aiding Osama bin Laden. If the US tipped their hand to Pakistan before the raid the intended target may have fled and all would have been a waste of time. Further more if the Seals were held up and there was an Osama bin Laden ally in route to assist, there could be more dead Americans instead of a dead terrorist.

Let us also take into consideration the practices of Osama bin Laden and his followers in terms of combat. Often, they are not men of karate and guns blazing action, they are suicidal. They strap bombs to themselves. Is Ron Paul saying that if he were confronted with Osama bin Laden during a military raid that he would walk up to the man and pat him down to make sure he did not have an explosive device on his person? Boom.

I think Ron Paul's criticism is misplaced and he should focus more on the reality of what he knows to be facts, not trying to stir up issues with assumption and speculation. If I am going to consider someone for the office of the President of the United States it cannot be someone who plays in the same realm as the media in drawing focus to fiction in order to try and control facts in a way to suit personal gain. You want to get votes, Ron Paul, talk about issues that are not solved, talk about saving our country from the desperate economic struggles that drive us to seek release in celebrating death. Do not cater to the media and their what-if question scenarios trying to boost ratings to sell more laundry detergent during the commercial breaks, take a stance as Ron Paul or what Ron Paul can do for us, not would have done.

Would Osama bin Laden have killed Ron Paul? If the tables were turned, Osama bin Laden may have killed Ron Paul, but on the other hand a rich, elderly white man makes for a nice bargaining chip in a ransom scenario.