Because of “international law” or something. Which is why I could never support Ron Paul for President.
(Briefing Room) — Likely GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said this week he would not have authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, raising concerns about international law.
Paul, a congressman from Texas with a libertarian bent, said that he would have rather worked with the Pakistani government to track down the al Qaeda leader responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
When asked by Iowa radio station WHO if he would have ordered the mission, in which U.S. forces raided bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, Paul said “Not the way it took place, no.”
Paul has said he is happy that bin Laden is dead, but has expressed skepticism about whether it has made the U.S. safer and has used it to push for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
The likely candidate indicated that to capture bin Laden, he would have worked with Pakistan on a mission like the one that nabbed with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was captured by Pakistani intelligence forces and transferred into U.S. custody.
“What’s wrong with that? Why can’t they work with the government?” Paul asked.
We couldn’t work with Pakistan because, by all appearances, it looks like elements in the Pakistani government were cooperating with bin Laden to keep him hidden.
For all Paul’s prowess on domestic policy – and I have a great deal of admiration for him in that area – he’s a bit of a babe in the woods on foreign policy. It would be nice if we could end hostilities simply by withdrawing our troops from the world. It would be nice if capturing or killing someone like Osama bin Laden were as simple as working with the Pakistani government.
Sadly, the world just doesn’t work that way.