How Landing on the Moon Helped us Capture a Terrorist

“These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause. No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.  That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom.”

These were strong words spoken by a US President who was about to launch the nation in a race against a sworn enemy.  Were these words spoken by President Bush in response to the attacks on 9/11 by Islamic fundamentalists?  No, these were words spoken by a President who used them to lay out a challenge to the nation which took almost 10 years to accomplish. Here’s a quote from the same speech that you are more likely to be familiar with:

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

President John Kennedy spoke those words on May 25, 1961 before a joint session of Congress.  These words are a great example of a “mission statement” – a goal that contains hundreds (thousands in this case) of both stated and implied tasks to complete in order to accomplish the mission.  In the case of the Space Program, many technologies did not even exist and had to be invented in order for us to achieve the goal of a landing on the moon and returning safely to earth - liquid rocket booster systems, lunar modules, navigation systems, satellites.

With all the turmoil that is normally associated with the 1960s, it was a time of great imagination and accomplishment with respect to advances in technology.  As with anything difficult, there was also great sacrifice and tragedy as we set out to achieve the goal.  On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, and the vision set out by President Kennedy and continued by President Johnson became a reality.  The moon landings would pay dividends forward for many years, as the technologies developed to put man on the moon would result in tremendous improvements in our everyday lives, from personal calculators to microwave ovens and even flame retardant clothing. 

In December of 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush was meeting in the Oval Office with Thailand's prime minister and was asked a question about Osama Bin Laden’s capture.  While he would not predict the timing of the Al Queda leader’s capture, he said he didn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice - "I don't care, dead or alive — either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me."   

While this statement does not have the same eloquence and tone as President Kennedy’s words, it was the prelude to what would become the Bush mission statement that would define his Presidency. 

Shortly thereafter at the commencement address to the cadets at West Point in June of 2002, President Bush outlined the mission statement to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and terrorists like him:

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.  In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.

The work ahead is difficult. The choices we will face are complex. We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries, using every tool of finance, intelligence and law enforcement. Along with our friends and allies, we must oppose proliferation and confront regimes that sponsor terror, as each case requires.

All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants.  We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world.

President Bush’s statement defined our priorities and gave the nation a clear vision, just as President Kennedy’s statement had in 1961.  President Bush changed national policy from waiting for the terrorists to strike the US to one of going after them, “draining the swamp,” to rid the world of our enemies.  Similar to President Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon, there were thousands of tasks to accomplish for this mission to be considered accomplished – and perhaps the most important of all the items on that list was the capturing or killing of Osama Bin Laden. 

Why did it take almost the same amount of time to accomplish these missions?  In both cases, a large and complex infrastructure with many moving parts needed to be either built or rebuilt.  It would take major contributions from multiple agencies of the government, as well as a contribution from the corporate world to build NASA and rebuild the CIA.  We needed the same level of imagination to invent new technologies during the 1960’s as it did to both rebuild our human intelligence collection capability, as well as design new weapon systems to fight the war on terror.  Recently we have seen the results of our Predator drones, which are able to look and fight over the horizon without risking the life of a pilot, and our stealth helicopters flew into Pakistan undetected, performed the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, and returned safely to their airbase in Afghanistan.  

Just like the mission to the moon, the killing of Osama Bin Laden will pay dividends for years to come. With a rebuilt intelligence collection and processing community, the US now has the pieces in place for greater warning of similar threats to come.  It’s taken 10 years to break down the silos that once existed between the military and civilian intelligence communities.  

The capability of the US Special Forces operators who accomplished the mission has improved tremendously, so much as to act as a deterrent and a message to other nations who harbor terrorists – Should you decide to protect those who are our enemy, then you must understand we will do whatever we have to in order to kill or capture them, including a raid across your border.  The message is clear to our enemies – you can’t hide, we will find you. 

The finding of Osama Bin Laden and the mission to raid his compound started with a vision established by a US President to go after terrorists where they live.  A different President finished it.  We weren’t given a time frame in which this was to be accomplished by, and I don’t think any of us thought it would take 10 years.  Like the mission to explore the moon’s surface, the mission to find and kill Osama Bin Laden had an abundant of stated and implied tasks, and combined with imagination, courage and sacrifice, will become the defining moment in the war on terror along with keeping us safer for years to come. 

Bill LuMaye Show: Bill LuMaye Fri. 04/8/11

Bill LuMaye Show: Bill LuMaye Fri. 04/8/11: "Bill talks to Mike Lyons, the CBS News Military Consultant MP3 File"

War in the Name of Humanity

We jumped into the Libyan Civil war with both feet and a made to order, air dropped No Fly Zone on the side that has no military power or even political legitimacy whatsoever.  The standard Libyan Rebel fighting force looks like this - has two pickup trucks, one machine gun, a few AK47s, an RPG grenade launcher with a couple of grenades, another rifle and a surface-to-air missile, a few men, boys, and a Rebel Flag.   When you put that up against even the most disorganized military with only a modicum of skill and equipment like the Libyan Army has (Cold War era Soviet made Tanks and armored personal carriers), the result is still called "no match".   Take a look at the front page of today's New York Times and you will see a picture of a boy training for the Rebel forces.  The article goes on to say the young man has already been at war for 37 days and has fired his weapon numerous rimes.  Flash-forward a week from now, the boy is riding in a pick up truck that is incorrectly identified as enemy by the crack NATO targeting specialists circling overhead in an AWACS.   The initial mission is for the close air support; they won’t get there for another 4 hours because the British and French don't really have the weapons to fly close air support properly.  The mission gets handed off to the US Navy, who proceeds to launch a Tomahawk cruise missile in the general direction of the truck, under the justification of it being a military target.    The Cruise missile is an "area fire weapon" - you don't have to hit the pick up truck directly in order to "neutralize" the target.  The end result of the Tomahawk attack is one less Rebel Force - a few more AK47s, another SAM and Rebel forces all are removed from the battlefield.  Also removed from the battlefield (and from the living) is the 13 year old boy who was with the Rebel force.  He never had a chance.

We got into this war (frankly, it's appalling to be calling this “a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to support and protect Libyan citizens and of short duration with limited kinetic action”) under the pretense that we saved the lives of "thousands" of civilians who would have been slaughtered by the Libyan Army.  Instead, we are going to kill people one or two at a time.  Meanwhile, we try to arbitrarily separate combatants from non combatants on the battle field, and when we make a mistake, it's chalked up to the fog of war.  It still is very difficult for any soldier or combatant to flip the switch from war fighter to peacekeeper. It’s part of the requirement today, all in the name of humanity. 

Bill LuMaye Show: Mike Lyons Gives Latest On Libya

Bill LuMaye Show: Mike Lyons Gives Latest On Libya: "Mike Lyons (Ret. Major US Army), CBS News Military Consultant, talks on the latest in Libya, give us his response to the President's speech,..."

Stalemate in Libya

With two weeks in the books, we are at a stalemate in Libya. First, let's agree on this - there is a Civil War taking place there.  The Rebel "army" in unorganized, has no command and control, does not fight as coherent units, is out manned 10-1, and does not have the weapons to defeat the Libyan Army who they are up against.  I have read all the feel good reasons we got involved in Libya, and even despite the multiple and layered criticisms - we haven't done this before, why Libya and not Darfur, the President acting unilaterally -  the conclusion we saved at least one life (someone) then no one; It's better to save someone then no one.  I disagree.  We can't personalize it to that level - it's not the way to run neither a country nor its foreign policy.

Where I struggle with this intervention is how we got involved so late in the game, how our policy towards Libya changed virtually overnight, the clear divisions within the administration about what to do, a President who acted unilaterally without Congressional support, and what our military was used for, which was to completely destroy the Libyan air force and other military targets.  Rest assured, we killed people on the ground, but we seem to think it's ok to kill them because they are soldiers and not civilians. You don't launch 150 cruise missiles and not hit a person.  We launched a Humanitarian mission to save Libyan civilians, but it started out with us killing people.

We brought a type of warfare to the battlefield of which the enemy had no defense against. I grew up in the US Army during the Cold War, commanded a unit in Germany before and after the Berlin Wall fell.  I always thought we would be involved with the Super Wars, not the regional skirmishes, and especially where our national interests were not at stake.  I never thought I would see our military used as the proxy to fight the war of another country - neither the French or the British were capable of targeting and launching the Blitzkrieg type of attack required to implement the no fly zone.  The US was the complete and absolute "hammer" of this operation.  Sec Gates knew all to well it would take a massive air attack to set the environment for the no fly zone (150+ Tomahawk missiles is a massive attack in my book). In previous no fly zones, we already controlled the ground. We tipped the balance in favor of the Rebels, and after two weeks, all it brought was a stalemate.
 
It's pure conjecture to say we saved the lives of thousands of civilians.  We have intervened in another country's civil war and we can't even project what Libya looks like 6 months from now.  We did a classic "ready-fire-aim" operation here, and I am afraid we weakened American interests by having our military used to advance the interests of other countries which is a dangerous precedent to have set.