Hope and Fail

Killing bin Laden no longer important

President-elect Obama tells CBS News’ Katie Couric that the United States could avoid capturing and killing Osama bin Laden and still protect national security. Here’s what he said:

I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.

He may have a point, but that stands in stark contrast to what Obama said about bin Laden before. During the first two presidential debates with John McCain, Obama pounded away at the Bush administration for allowing the war in Iraq to distract the U.S. from going after bin Laden.

Here’s what he said in the first debate:

But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put — provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

… You don’t muddle through the central front on terror and you don’t muddle through going after bin Laden. You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.

And in the second:

We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

What’s more, in November Obama told CBS’ Steve Kroft that getting bin Laden was “critical” to the country’s anti-terrorism efforts:

I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al Qaeda once and for all. And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al Qaeda. He is not just a symbol, he’s also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against US targets.

So what changed?