I addressed that in my first post on the subject.
"Not really, it's not like any other president wouldn't have given the same order.
I say that realizing the same is true for President Obama."
Is that so?
Presidents don't gather intelligence, they don't plan raids, don't transport personnel in and out of danger zones, don't participate in the raid, don't face gun fire.
What they do is to receive intelligence, read their briefs, understand the options, pros and cons, eliminate obstacles beforehand, make the decision in the light of all of the foregoing, bear the responsibility, and, in the aftermath, let the citizenry in on their decision, contribute to healing.
To reduce that to a mere "give the order" is to shortchange the goings-on.
From reading briefs on to alienating their most valuable intelligence asset to his spiteful, bile-spewing episode thereafter, Trump failed on multiple accounts. All the while, President Obama oversaw a carefully built intelligence operation, and, in the aftermath gave a solemn address that would contribute to healing wounds.
The latter is what "success" might look like, if one wants to use that word in conjunction with a killing. "Terrorist dead", isn't, not if others replace him and continue as if nothing had happened. It isn't in case the easiest prediction to make is that the masturbatory victory lap laced with insults and contempt, including the worst insult known to Muslims - "a dog" - will energize the terrorist's camp.
Whatever, it is still not really known whether the OBL raid was a success by any reasonable measure, and crediting President Obama for it is highly ambiguous at best. Reducing it all to a kill, and who deserves credit, is lame-brained and falling far short.