Obama’s FedEx moment is turning out to be ordering the SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden.  Obama is out singing his praises, noting how risky it was to send in the SEALs.  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that it was the right call, and I have the highest regard for our special forces operators.

But, as President, was that really a gutsy call?  What really is the risk here?  Obviously, the other option was an aerial attack, either by stealth or predator.

So, let’s list out the pros and cons of each:

Aerial Attack

Pros:

• Quick, not much planning.
• Little or no risk of American servicemen being captured.

Cons:

• Little, if any certainty of Osama’s death.
• Collateral damage.
• The “Asprin Factory” risk of getting it wrong.
• Little to no chance of getting additional intel from the house.
• Pakistan gets its panties in a bunch over the breach of its sovereignty.

SEAL Team 6

Pros:

• Certainty of getting Osama (or knowing that you didn’t).
• High likelihood of gathering additional intel.
• Little or no risk of collateral damage.
• No Aspirin Factory Risk.

Cons:

• Low, but non-zero risk of casualties.
• Pakistan gets its panties in a bunch over the breach of its sovereignty.

So, either way, the Pakistanis would be upset, but sending in the SEALs meant certainty of getting the objective and little collateral damage, if any.  Of course, sending men into battle is not a decision to take lightly, but making the choice between (1) sending in the most ruthlessly efficient, highly trained and competent commandos; (2) lobbing in bombs from 30,000 feet or (3) letting the world’s worst terrorist slip through our grasp again–how is this a tough call?  Why does it take 16 hours to make this call?