Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update

• escalated the Afghanistan War - perhaps to success when on May 1st he announced that the United States had killed September 11th mastermind and terrorist Osama bin Laden

I'd take issue with this statement. The War on Terror, Afghan & Iraq operations, were alweays preventative in nature, not retribution. Killing bin Laden was pure retribution, and risks (a) further reprisal actions from al qaeda, (b) loss of a key ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan. Further, just as the Iraq operation had nothing to do with War on Terror, as GW Bush critics loudly maintained, what pray tell does an unauthorized invasion of an ally, in this case Pakistan, have to do with the Afghan War? Rob Smith 11:35, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

Hm - I wonder if no part of the War if Afghanistan was retributive, but you're right that even if part was that doesn't make it a success. I'll change the wording (as soon as I think of what to write)--IDuan 11:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

The execution of bin Laden marks a policy change in the war on terror: it no longer is to prevent future attacks, but it focal point has been retribution for past actions. And a key ally has been sacrificed for the future. This is a marked change. Rob Smith 12:18, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

I think you might be jumping ahead a little - as of now Pakistan is still an ally, and in fact apologizing for incompetence. Also his execution has been a focal point since President Bush announced that he would be taken "dead or alive", and on bin Laden's computers we found tentative plans for future attacks - so there was some preventative aspect. But we shall see - perhaps the future will prove you correct, but personally I think the bullet to his head could potentially be what is the killing blow to an organization that now finds itself obsolete and without a charismatic leader. But alas, I'm getting off point :) --IDuan 13:07, 7 May 2011 (EDT)