Leadership in Security Management - Essay Example

Leadership is a compelling force that motivates and stimulates followers to effectively participate or contribute to specific goals. This is most true for security management leadership where its systems operations are expected to assume intricacies and efficiency to get targets. This essay will explicate strategic leadership and illustrate how this was effectively or ineffectively illustrated by leaders of the United States of America (USA) in its global drive to interdict suspects and put an end to terrorism considering the vantages of ethical, political, economic, and social perspectives.

More than a month ago, US President Barrack Obama announced to the world that Osama bin Laden, leader of the al Qaeda network, was killed in a blitzerg cost-efficient attack done by US soldiers within the military compound of Pakistan. Obama reckoned the horror of the 9/11 attack that left thousands of families grieving and traumatized from violent assault which also communicated horrors to many nations. As a consequence, the US launched its anti-terrorism policy and strategized the campaign by strengthening the alliance with the rest of the world. Such brought wars in Afghanistan and its operation were regionalized in many allied countries around the globe. Suspects were mapped out, offensive actions were launched and the US assumed the role of global leadership against the war in terrorism.

In a manhunt against bin Laden, the Bush administration sent troops for an Afghan war that caused massive death, displacement of peoples, psychological trauma amongst women and children, and encouraged social upheavals in many nations advocating peace and are opposed to war policies. The US however was successful in disintegrating the al-Qaeda group possessed with the anti-US sentiment. It failed to capture bin Laden although forces were able to interdict and arrested some of its suspected members whilst confronting some regional attacks in key strategic areas where US presence is felt. It was only this May 2011, when troops were sent to Pakistan at the behest of the Obama administration to do a lightning attack targeting bin Laden. Right on the mark, without civilian casualties and of less operational cost, Obama announced that bin Laden’s death was a historic and significant achievement for al-Qaeda’s defeat.

The Obama administration proved its sincerity in this anti-terror drive-by professionally handling global security management at the heart. It illustrated ethical leadership by being clear and steadfast in its goal and in explicating that the attack against bin Laden is a decision not to run in conflict with believers of Islam but as means of valuing the importance of life, justice for 9/11 victims, and for world peace. This was empirically shown by how the US singled out the target which was then hiding within a military camp of a Muslim-dominated nation of Pakistan. The US certainly has managed it with diplomatic channels that dealt with internal intricacies to handle outcomes to certainly thread in a value-based leadership’s efficacy—both in operation and in international political relations. Obama was able to model to the world that international security is essential by perceiving it as a benefit with the hope to restore people’s confidence to enjoy a life free from violence. He was able to demonstrate ethical leadership with efficacy and virtue. As a manager of his forces, he was able to show affective commitment, shaped perceptions at an ethical climate, provide operation or job satisfaction, achievement of goals, and inculcate a sense of justice.

On its economic aspect, it's wise to account that the war against terror under the Bush administration has divested billions of dollars to shoulder operational and administrative costs, communication, upgrading facilities, networking, capability-building, conflict-management, post-war reconstruction, and the likes. It was too costly. Obama was able to reduce the cost of operation and risk management by managing time spent for a firefight, forecasting shocks while targeting objects of operation, considering all potential change initiatives, appraising strategy effectively, and reduced the overall costs.

Although the assault against Osama was met with political counterarguments about military intervention in another state, of critic about the need to consider international human rights laws in this operation, and of discourse about regulating counterterrorism operations (Milanovic, 2011), still the people’s social acceptance of the forces’ success in interdicting bin Laden indicated high rates of reception. It can’t be denied that thousands of peoples were happy with the outcome albeit legal luminaries' discussion about a certain level of lawlessness relating to intentional deprivation of life in this operation. Others were however prompt in explicating that under international Humanitarian Law, taking of life depends on the status of the target. Obama was clear in his pronouncement that the attack of bin Laden caused massive death and destruction of properties in the US, this deliberate use of a lethal weapon is lawful as security managers technically considered him extremely dangerous. Political theorists perceived that if non-lethal means were employed to arrest and detain bin Laden for trial, the danger would be tripled since his cohorts would find measures for his escape. The operation and subsequent death of bin Laden, unfortunately, gave political and social satisfaction on account of such exceptional circumstances and blessed it as fully in accord with the rules of war. People were convinced that terrorism is a crime and that its author should be considered a high-level criminal by law enforcers.