Catching Bin Ladin


PDA






mike101
August 23, 2006, 02:24 PM
Bin Ladin's obsessions are on the news again today. Julia Roberts, MacGuiver, super-models, American TV, etc.

So, how do we catch him? Whatever they're doing isn't working so far.

Quick, before the Thought Police close this thread down, too.

If you enjoyed reading about "Catching Bin Ladin" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
August 23, 2006, 02:47 PM
I'm not sure that we want to catch him that badly. Could be that we need an Usama Bin Goldstein. Fear is big bidness and nothing exceeds like excess.
JMO...

Biker

ceetee
August 23, 2006, 02:49 PM
"I don't know where he is. Nor do I... I mean... I just don't spend a whole lot of time on it..."


-- President George W. Bush.


Comfy now?

AJAX22
August 23, 2006, 02:51 PM
My own opinion, (based on absolutly no facts whatsoever) is that he's already dead and burried in some cave somewhere. His disappearance serves both sides.

cuchulainn
August 23, 2006, 03:08 PM
Quick, before the Thought Police close this thread down, too.This board is Oleg's private property -- obeying his rules has nothing to do with "thought police."

Desk Jockey
August 23, 2006, 03:08 PM
How do we catch him? We're not even trying! We haven't been trying for the past 4 years.

As far as the Bush administration is concerned, OBL is far more valuable as a boogeyman on the loose than he would be if captured or confirmed dead.

The president said these things on 11/6/01:
It may take a long time, but no matter how long it takes, those who killed thousands of Americans and citizens from over 80 other nations will be brought to justice, and the misuse of Afghanistan as a training ground for terror will end.
We will not rest until terrorist groups of global reach have been found, have been stopped, and have been defeated.

Four months later, he changed his tune 180 degrees when responding to a reporter's question:
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

Apparently this was before the President settled on the brilliant and complex strategy of "stay the course". The government doesn't want to catch bin Laden, or we'd have had him years ago.

Geno
August 23, 2006, 03:11 PM
They caught the "Sodomizer". They caught "Milos-the-@itch", and they tamed the Libyan "Kadoofy Dork". They expect me to believe they don't know where “His” bones are buried? I may look dumb; I may sound dumb; but I'm not stupid. And I'm not convinced. If our special ops. are the world's best (I believe they are) turn them loose and have them bring back a freeze-dried head, and change his name to "Osma Bin-dead 5 Years). What were those immortal words, "We have a saying in Texas: wanted dead or alive". So, if the scum is truly alive, bring some pressure to those hiding him. War can only be fought, and won, in one way...no limits!

Just my humble opinion, and now it is revealed why I would be the world's VERY WORST president.

:rolleyes:

Doc2005

coltrane679
August 23, 2006, 03:12 PM
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/LIFESTYLE01/607270372/1031

buzz_knox
August 23, 2006, 03:18 PM
Bin Laden has been the poster boy for the War on Terror (an easy title to use whether you believe it or not). As such, he's the focus of the media and the ultimate measure of success. We get him, we're winning; we don't have him, we're losing. This is, of course, nonsense and a lot of the effort to get the focus off him is due to that. It's as if we were fighting the Germans, and everyone was saying killing Hitler would solve everything. Just as killing Hitler would not have stopped the Wehrmacht (and would have actually made the German military more efficient), capturing/killing Bin Laden would not stop the terror network he set up and funded.

I have no doubt a lot of effort goes into nailing him. But I also think the effort is probably proportional to the actual threat he poses now.

cuchulainn
August 23, 2006, 03:24 PM
The conspiracy theory of Bush wanting Bin Ladin free fails for the same reason other government conspiracy theories fail. There are literally tens-of-thousands of people working on the issue. You've got to assume a top-down "conspiracy" in which none of the tens-of-thousands of people involved let on or catch on.

Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
August 23, 2006, 03:29 PM
We can't operate, like we need to, in Pakistan without pissing them off.
They have been helpful. If OBL is alive, he knows this, which is why that is likely where he is.

buzz_knox
August 23, 2006, 03:35 PM
The conspiracy theory of Bush wanting Bin Ladin free fails for the same reason other government conspiracy theories fail. There are literally tens-of-thousands of people working on the issue. You've got to assume a top-down "conspiracy" in which none of the tens-of-thousands of people involved let on or catch on.

In the modern climate, when even classified operations are routinely leaked out by people with political axes, there is no way that such a conspiracy could be kept quiet. Too many people in the CIA and State would be all too willing to call the New York Times and spill the beans as a "confidential source."

Desk Jockey
August 23, 2006, 03:36 PM
The conspiracy theory of Bush wanting Bin Ladin free

I don't think there's any 'conspiracy theory' here. Bush himself said that OBL is not a priority. They shut down the CIA unit tasked with finding him. They may not "want Bin Ladin free", but they certainly don't prioritize capturing him. There's no secret conspiracy, there's just no real focus on that issue.
Edit to add source: Bush says OBL 'marginalized' (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 04:05 PM
I think it would be a huge mistake to focus on a guy we have not been able to catch. He will screw up someday and we will get him. But making him the focus just highlights that we haven't caught him - yet.

Roadwild17
August 23, 2006, 04:10 PM
The taskfource the found Sadium Housaine ( I know I know sp :rolleyes: ) Was suposed to be set free look for OBL, did that ever happen???

Doubt it ever will.

mike101
August 23, 2006, 04:25 PM
I know it would anger the Pakistanis if we just rolled in there and started blasting away at the mountains. So, can't our special ops people sneak in there some how. I'm sure we have agents inside Pakistan. How about bribing the natives for a little intel.

I think there would be less practical value in getting him, than there would be in propoganda value. Bush tries to make it sound unimportant, but when we do get someone, all of a sudden it's a victory in the War on Terror.

Maybe we could borrow the Mossad, for a while.

cbsbyte
August 23, 2006, 04:32 PM
I heard Osama and Bush are great fishing buddies. Why would Bush want him dead, when needed he serves the purpose of being a constant reminder of the War on Terror. Everytime Republicans polls are low, all of a sudden Bin Laden makes a tape. Sounds fishy to me. Personally I believe he died sometime ago, but his voice has been recored and they can make new tapes up using his voice.

coltrane679
August 23, 2006, 04:37 PM
The guy is a mass murderer of Americans, ergo he needs to be killed, ASAP. How can this NOT be a priority?!?! If a "President Gore" had made OBL "not a priority" he'd be impeached, tarred and feathered already.

Jesus, the apologetics never stop....

tellner
August 23, 2006, 05:02 PM
The President pulled the Special Operations unit that was looking for him and stopped all efforts some time ago. He's more useful to the Administration running around keeping the sheep bleating in terror than dead or in prison.

Correia
August 23, 2006, 05:15 PM
I like how the mods here are the Thought Police because they closed down an asinine thread about how Osama has a crush on Whitney Houston. (even the thread title was stupid)

Yep, those damn moderators. Jerks.

Sheesh.

mike101
August 23, 2006, 06:01 PM
I don't know about that. Everyone but one guy seemed to be enjoying it. Asinine? Stupid? Why, because YOU didn't like it?

Yeah, what Thought Police?

Cosmoline
August 23, 2006, 06:07 PM
He's almost certainly in Pakistan or close enough to get there if he needs to dodge us. The administration in its wisdom decided long ago that he was no longer a major threat and did not want to alienate the Pakistani government and risk causing an islamic uprising there by going in with the force needed to slaughter the AQ remnants. Of course now we're seeing them and the Talibs come back across in greater force now that they've had a few years to recover.

I consider the failure to catch OBL Bush's single greatest failure. If he ends his administration without catching the man, he will be deemed a total waste of salt as a President and a human being. I don't even care if we're tapping all his phones and learning tons of stuff from him. I want him and all his followers *DEAD* with extreme prejudice. We all do. But Bush is the decider, and he's decided to spare our greatest enemy since Hitler, let the Mexican scum take our jobs and give our ports to Arab princes who's sons killed so many on 9/11. I'm currently praying for a massive Democratic victory in the upcoming election to shock the GOP into cleaning house.

Correia
August 23, 2006, 06:18 PM
Yes Mike. It was asinine. That is my opinion. It was titled "Osama and Whitney sitting in a tree." I'm pretty hard pressed to think about how that title could be considered anything other than stupid. Once again, only my opinion.

And no, I'm not the one that locked your thread. I pretty much stay out of L&P, as that is the area for mods with a cooler head and better temperment than me.

Art Eatman
August 23, 2006, 06:37 PM
mikeburk, your opinion is your own right, but please realize that I get as many as a dozen or more emails a day from guys griping about off-topic threads. IOW, you're not the arbiter and judge on what threads remain open.

For all: If you haven't done it, read the rules of this website. Note that such remarks as calling me "thought police" are a personal insult to a registered member, aside from anything else...Check the forum header as to what's on topic and what's not.

And realize that I'm pretty lenient, most of the time.

Art

grampster
August 23, 2006, 07:43 PM
What Art said.

mike101
August 23, 2006, 07:57 PM
When something this humiliating is all over the news, for two days in row, about our worst enemy, I would think you two could take a little joy in it. Evidently not.

I see no personal insult, since I didn't know who closed the thread.

As far as I can see, this comes under L&P.

Correia
August 23, 2006, 08:20 PM
I do take joy in it. When some 18 Bravo puts a bullet in his brain, I say we throw a party.

I don't take joy in being called the Thought Police however. And I don't think any of the mods like being told how to do our job by somebody who started a thread with a title that my six year old thought was immature.

trapperjohn
August 23, 2006, 09:45 PM
mikeburk this isnt a town square, nor a public street corner, now your front yard. It is private property owned by Oleg Volk who has written the ground rules of how to play on his property and who has tasked the moderators to make sure all his guest follow those ground rules. If you do not like the way Olegs representatives inforce his rules you have 3 choices
1) play by his rules and enjoy what he has created for you.
2) whine about how things are run and look like a jerk.
3) take your toys and find another playground.

personally I'd suggest choice number 1

mike101
August 23, 2006, 10:22 PM
Then your daughter has inherited your lack of a sense of humor. Feel free to remove my name from your member list.

trapperjohn
August 23, 2006, 10:51 PM
Then your daughter has inherited your lack of a sense of humor.
:scrutiny:

my daughter is not even 2 yet, but she does have a great sense of humor :D

Bruce H
August 23, 2006, 11:11 PM
Well you could rent your own server and start your own site with your own rules. No that would be entirely too hard and you couldn't complain about the rules because it would make you look silly.

jazurell
August 23, 2006, 11:34 PM
+1 Art
+1 Correia

Correia
August 23, 2006, 11:34 PM
Or even easier, if you find yourself really offended, just quit posting.

CornCod
August 23, 2006, 11:35 PM
I don't think Bush has any strong desire to to catch or kill bin Laden. The Goldstein comparison by an earlier poster is apt. I don't think that killing or capturing bin Laden would be some kind of great victory in the war against terrorism. Some other smart person would take his place. He is an intelligent man, but not indespenable to his movement. His particular type of Islamist organization is more a terrorist training collective than a kind of top-down military command structure.

Terrorism in some form or another will always be with us, at least until a new military paradigm comes down the pike. There can be progress in the so-called "War Against Terrorism." but it can never be ended, its just too darned effective as a political/military tool. People are treating the terrorism problem like its some kind of conventional war and they are looking forward to a surrender ceremony on the deck of the USS Missouri. They are waiting in vain.

We have entered the age of what some military (including many of the more brainy USMC officers) and civilian theorists are calling 4th Generation Warfare. This is the age of the "non-state actor," fighters whose alliegence is more to a political/social cause than a country or state. Invading countries and trying to set up friendly regimes in them is not always going to be the most effective tool in fighting a terrorist opponent. Conventional notions of "victory" are becoming obsolete. To gain the "upper hand" with a terrorist opponent is going to take a subtle combination of police, public relations, diplomatic, intelligence and yes, military force (judiciously applied.)

The big solution isn't a high-noon scenario where the leader of the black-hats is gunned down in the town square, its how can we significantly reduce terrorist acts. Under certain situations killing the leader may be the best move. Under other conditions, it may have little overall effect.

Number 6
August 24, 2006, 05:53 AM
+1 Art
+1 Correia

+2 to that. Thank you Art and Correia for doing a thankless job, and doing it well. You guys rock.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 08:24 AM
mikeburk101,

I've started threads that got shut down. I didn't like it. I didn't really agree that they were out of bounds.

But I didn't complain. You know why?


This is Oleg's private property -- he sets the rules, period.
This is Oleg's private property -- he sets the rules, period.
This is Oleg's private property -- he sets the rules, period.
This is Oleg's private property -- he sets the rules, period.
This is Oleg's private property -- he sets the rules, period.


p.s. This is Oleg's private property -- he sets the rules, period.

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 08:40 AM
I don't think that killing or capturing bin Laden would be some kind of great victory in the war against terrorism. Some other smart person would take his place. He is an intelligent man, but not indespenable to his movement. His particular type of Islamist organization is more a terrorist training collective than a kind of top-down military command structure.

All that is true, and that's precisely why we need him caught (not killed) and put on trial. First, he is an important player personally. These structures run on personality. It's not like a military organization where all of the officers have had the same training, and the same game plan. He has shown the ability to recruit, arm, and raise money. We don't know if there are any of his organization with those same capabilities, so we don't know if there really is anyone that can "step in" and take over.

Second, if he's simply killed in action, he becomes a martyr, and a cause worth dying for. We would see terrorist actions quadruple, because the rest of the tangos would be trying to die so they could be martyrs, too.

Third, this is not a military action. There is no country called "Terroristland" that we can just declare war on, and kick the crap out of. By necessity, we need to show the world that the rule of law trumps all. Especially at this stage, when Bushco has pretty much ruined our national reputation. And we need to care what our reputation is. We need to show the world that not only do we kick ass, but we're totally fair about whose ass gets kicked.

At one point, we were heroes. We were the good guys, the guys in white hats. That's all gone now. If we want to get it back, we'll have to earn it back. Once we do, though, our soldiers will be able to go anywhere, and kick the asses of anybody we deem it necessary. And the world will be thanking us for it, instead of reviling us.

GoRon
August 24, 2006, 08:53 AM
Especially at this stage, when Bushco has pretty much ruined our national reputation. And we need to care what our reputation is. We need to show the world that not only do we kick ass, but we're totally fair about whose ass gets kicked.

At one point, we were heroes. We were the good guys, the guys in white hats. That's all gone now. If we want to get it back, we'll have to earn it back. Once we do, though, our soldiers will be able to go anywhere, and kick the asses of anybody we deem it necessary. And the world will be thanking us for it, instead of reviling us.

And what Nation in the world has it right? Who is acting in such a way that we should emulate them? If we aren't the good guys who are the good guys?

If Bin Laden is alive he is in a part of Pakistan we can't go, or he could even be in Iran (doubtful).

This administration made decisions based on what they had in intelligence reports and what was best for the US, not based on whether it passed a global test and didn't ruffle Frances feathers.

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 09:08 AM
And what Nation in the world has it right?

It USED to be The United States.



If Bin Laden is alive he is in a part of Pakistan we can't go, or he could even be in Iran (doubtful).

But if Bushco had played this right, there would be no part of the world where we couldn't send forces. There would be no government that could stand up to us. After 9-11, we had the sympathy of the entire world with us. Again, if our leaders had played it right, there would be nowhere we couldn't go. Get it? That opportunity has been riotously squandered for the sake of monetary gain. A bad trade, if you ask me.


This administration made decisions based on what they had in intelligence reports and what was best for the US, not based on whether it passed a global test and didn't ruffle Frances feathers.

This administration cherry-picked the intelligence so it would support the plan they had from the start. I'm not talking about passin gsome kind of taste test, or getting into pissing matches. I'm talking about owning the world. The entire world. Owned by you and me (and a couple hundred million other Americans).

We could've had it all, except that our leaders are too small-minded for it.

JohnBT
August 24, 2006, 09:11 AM
Which cave should we search first? Do you have any idea how huge an area it is and how the culture requires overnight guests, even enemies, to be sheltered, fed and protected?

Here's a pic of a small section, the Hindu Kush. A lot of these are 18,000 feet tall.

http://www.peakware.com/encyclopedia/ranges/maps/images/hindukush.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.peakware.com/encyclopedia/ranges/maps/images/hindukush.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.peakware.com/areas.html%3Fa%3D346&h=359&w=500&sz=71&hl=en&start=18&tbnid=Ygwj35rEGr3CqM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhindu%2Bkush%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

"The Hindu Kush is a mountain system of Central Asia, extending 400 miles southwest from the Pamir Knot. These mountains roughly form the boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In the east, the mountains are round and wide, and rise only to 18,000 feet, low by central Asian standards. Further west, the range rises to a cluster of high snowy peaks, twenty of which are 7,000 meter summits. Most of the high summits rise from subsidiary ridges south of the main crest. As the mountains stretch further west and south, they gradually get smaller and spread out as dusty barren hills into central Afghanistan.

Compared with most other areas in Central Asia, many of the high glaciated peaks are conveniently accessible, and the weather, though hot in the summer and snowy in the winter, is generally predictable and stable. There is also comparatively little bureaucracy for climbing here."

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 09:12 AM
ceetee: At one point, we were heroes. We were the good guys, the guys in white hats. That's all gone now. It's been gone since circa 1945 to large portions of the world. Even most of Europe merely tolerated us during the Cold War while quietly cursing us as pushy and crass – indeed, much of the European resistance to our actions is directly attributable to their trying to assert their post-Cold War independence.

GoRon's right. While world opinion does matter, it can't dictate our actions.

WWII spoiled us -- it really did. How often is a war so crystal clear in everyone's eyes ... so black and white to everyone? We know we're right in this war, but we want it to be like WWII when everyone else cheered us except the murderous bad guys.

We ain't going to be cheered. We need to stop acting like unconfident adolescents in angst over peer pressure and just do what we need to do.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 09:16 AM
ceetee: But if Bushco had played this right, there would be no part of the world where we couldn't send forces. After 9-11, we had the sympathy of the entire world with us. Again, if our leaders had played it right, there would be nowhere we couldn't go.Hmm. While I support the war in Iraq -- that kind of thinking about going into Iraq is exactly what turned a lot of the world against us. "There go those Americans again -- just like in the Cold War -- thinking they run everything and can do whatever they want ... thinking they can send their troops anywhere they want."

We misunderstood sympathy to be unconditional support for our foreign policy and military goals. It wasn't.

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 10:08 AM
How often is a war so crystal clear in everyone's eyes ... so black and white to everyone? We know we're right in this war, but we want it to be like WWII when everyone else cheered us except the murderous bad guys.

That was exactly the world opinion on 9-12-01. Everyone in the world knew that we were going to go after the murderers and everyone in the world said they had it coming.


Hmm. While I support the war in Iraq -- that kind of thinking about going into Iraq is exactly what turned a lot of the world against us. "There go those Americans again -- just like in the Cold War -- thinking they run everything and can do whatever they want ... thinking they can send their troops anywhere they want."

You're not going to trot out that old, disproved theory that attacking Iraq has some relationship to September 11th, are you? You just proved my point. Sending troops to overthrow a government that had no connection to 9-11, is the single act that destroyed any good will we had. As long as we kept the fight in the realm of "they attacked us first, so we're going to punish them", we could've ruled the world. Once we became the aggressors in a war which we started, for the benefit of our own corporate entities, we lost that possibility.


Which cave should we search first? Do you have any idea how huge an area it is and how the culture requires overnight guests, even enemies, to be sheltered, fed and protected?

We knew where he was. Our intel guys were taken off the case, and sent... yes, to Iraq. Every single action by our current administration has been taken with no consideration of making our nation stronger, or more secure. Buschco went from "I want his head on a pike" to "I don't know where he is. Nor do I... I mean...I just don't spend a whold lot of time on it..."

cbsbyte
August 24, 2006, 10:24 AM
Corncod nailed it on the head. The war on Terrorism is not symmetrical warfare. It is a combination of tactics that will help reduce the chances of another attack at home. One can not fight a political/cultural movement with bombs or missles. It take years of slowly grinding them down until they are no longer a threat to us. Taking over countries, and killing civilians only helps the Terrorist in recruiting more people to their cause that otherwise would not join. Bush does not understand this and believes we should fight terrorist like we would convetional armed force. That mindset is an determint to our ability to fight them. In the end their is no winning against terrorist but only dimminshing their ablity to attack the west.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 10:27 AM
ceetee: You just proved my point. Sending troops to overthrow a government that had no connection to 9-11, is the single act that destroyed any good will we had.No, Iraq disproves your point. Even with the post 9/11 sympathy, we couldn't send our troops anywhere we wanted.

Fact is, the 9/11 sympathy didn't buy us the type of military carte blanche you claim. As long as we kept the fight in the realm of "they attacked us first, so we're going to punish them", we could've ruled the world. Once we became the aggressors in a war which we started, for the benefit of our own corporate entities, we lost that possibility. Right, the world would support us sending our troops anywhere they approved of -- and only where they approved of. Once we wandered from that -- 9/11 sympathy or not -- the world stopped supporting us.

You're trying to have it both ways. You say we could have sent our troops anywhere we wanted -- then you say we lost that by sending our troops somewhere we wanted. Which is it?

You talk about "owning the world" ... about "having it all." Bush thought just like you. He though we owned the world ... thought we could have it all. Thus, he went into Iraq, and a large portion of the world turned against us ... so much for 9/11 buying our troops a ticket anywhere we wanted ... so much for owning the world ... so much for having it all.ceetee: You're not going to trot out that old, disproved theory that attacking Iraq has some relationship to September 11th, are you?Nope. Where the *bleep* did you get the idea that I was saying that? It's usually a good idea to wait until someone actually proposes an argument before attacking it -- otherwise you get accused of erecting straw men. ;)

Ezekiel
August 24, 2006, 11:00 AM
We ain't going to be cheered. We need to stop acting like unconfident adolescents in angst over peer pressure and just do what we need to do.

Hasn't that been the post-WWII dogma that got us in this mess? :banghead:

We cannot continue to knee-jerk, by invading countries, over a series of terriers biting our ankles (Iranian hostages, 1st NYC Trade center bombing, Somolia, USS Stark, 9/11, et al) if our world-wide actions make it evident we consider ourselves the "Big Dog."

Metaphorical adults take responsibility for their actions. We've been pushy and arrogant throughout the world for 60+ years and somebody bloodied our nose. Answer? Get him (OBL), don't terrorize the neighborhood as embarrased retort.

Man, we are all screwed up strategically and our tactical/operational success is worse. Shameful, really. :barf:

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 11:14 AM
Nope. Where the *bleep* did you get the idea that I was saying that?

This is a discussion of terrorism, and terrorists, and you brought in Iraq, by saying:

Hmm. While I support the war in Iraq -- that kind of thinking about going into Iraq is exactly what turned a lot of the world against us.

This led me to believe that you think the two are related. My apologies.

You're trying to have it both ways. You say we could have sent our troops anywhere we wanted -- then you say we lost that by sending our troops somewhere we wanted. Which is it?

No, I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm taking a long view. IF this situation was played right (and that's a big "if), we would have NOT just blindly sent troops wherever we wanted to. We would have started in Afganistan,. as we did. We would have continued in Afganistan, until every single Al Qaeda tango was dead or in custody.

We would have then developed the forces to combat individual terorr cells, and posted them world-wide. We would have responded to incidents like the Cole bombing (just an example) swiftly, and decisively. Take the Cole, for example. We would have given the Yemeni government a deadline to either give up the terrorists, or suffer the consequences. If they didn't, then Yemen would have become another Afganistan.

And we would have had the right.

Instead of this cockamamie "either we fight them there, or we fight them here" policy which has boosted terrorist membership by a few thousand percent, we would have actually fought the existant terrorists themselves, on the ground, in whatever country hosted them. Given a few years of taking the fight wherever it needed to be taken, we would have had the unquestioned ability to go anywhere, with whatever forces we deemed necessary. We would been the main force for good in the world. We would have, in fact, if not in name, owned everything.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 11:15 AM
Ezekiel: Hasn't that been the post-WWII dogma that got us in this mess?It's the dogma of every nation -- now and throughout history. We're the only one who cares what the world thinks of us.

France doesn't care. Russia doesn't care. The U.K. doesn't care. Japan doesn't care ... OK, New Zealand cares, that's one.Ezekiel: Metaphorical adults take responsibility for their actions. We've been pushy and arrogant throughout the world for 60+ years and somebody bloodied our nose. Answer? Get him (OBL), don't terrorize the neighborhood as embarrased retort.Indeed. If the war's wrong, we shouldn't be in it. If it's right, we should.

World opinion shouldn't effect the decision one way or the other.

JohnBT
August 24, 2006, 11:15 AM
Sorry you feel that way.

BTW, what's the meaning of "Metaphorical adults"?

John

Ezekiel
August 24, 2006, 11:24 AM
BTW, what's the meaning of "Metaphorical adults"?

In the model I was using? "Nations that do not act like adolescents."

A previous poster indiated that we were acting like an unconfident adolescent. I desired to make it obvious that a metaphorical journey to "adulthood" could only come at a price.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 11:24 AM
cee tee: IF this situation was played right (and that's a big "if), we would have NOT just blindly sent troops wherever we wanted to. We would have started in Afganistan,. as we did. We would have continued in Afganistan, until every single Al Qaeda tango was dead or in custody.Thank you for backing off the hyperbole.

The world did not support us going anywhere (as you claimed).
We did not "own the world" (as you claimed).
We did not "have it all" (as you claimed).

We had limited support (but lot's of sympathy). We consfused the sympathy for support and went beyond the support. Much of the world turned against us.

Look, I understand that you're saying we should have limited ourselves to going into the right places for the right reasons. I simply disagreed with your saying we could have sent our troops anywhere and still had world support.

We had support for Afganistan. That's it. Period.

The rest of it -- including the rough plan you outlined -- well, who knows? Frankly, I doubt that the "world" would have supported us going into Yemen.

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 11:29 AM
Look, I understand that you're saying we should have limited ourselves to going into the right places for the right reasons. I simply disagreed with your saying we could have sent our troops anywhere and still had world support.

You're leaving out the important parts...

1. IF we had played the game right...
2. If we had a few years of "going into the right places for the right reasons"...

I used Yemen as an example of what could have been our standard M.O. It could have worked. If we had played the game correctly. Not anymore.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 11:37 AM
cee tee: IF we had played the game right...
The "game" ain't about getting support based on doing the right thing (unfortunately). It's about what's in the best interest of each nation. If it's not in their interest, then they won't support us.

Nations will look the other way when a nation makes a direct, responsive strike against an enemy -- like we did with Al Qaeda in Afganistan. (It's in their interest to have similar freedom when the time comes).

Honestly, I doubt we could have done anything beyond Afganistan based on 9/11 and still had the world's support.

We had support for Afganistan. That's it. Period.

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 12:09 PM
Honestly, I doubt we could have done anything beyond Afganistan based on 9/11 and still had the world's support.

We had support for Afganistan. That's it. Period.

If the world had never seen another terror attack after Afganistan, then we would have won, hands down. Since 9-11, there have been how many attacks? Each one should have been followed up by finding the perpetrators, and killing or imprisoning them.

The terrorists would've soon learned that if you cause death, you will receive a visit from Uncle Sam's finest.

I'm minded of that part in "Tombstone" where Kurt Russel says, "You tell 'em I'm coming. And Hell's coming with me!"

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 12:29 PM
ceetee: The terrorists would've soon learned that if you cause death, you will receive a visit from Uncle Sam's finest. But the strikes were not against the USA. The world likely would not have supported our striking back for attacks on other nations.

Although you disagree with W's tactics/strategy, you share his mistake -- that 9/11 gave us world support for a global war on terror.

The sad truth is that we never had supprt for a global war on terror. The world doesn't have the stomach for that, no matter how much it's needed. It's too complex ... too messy ... too long ... too uncertain.

We had support for Afganistan. Further support would have required a strike against us. We would would have needed to wait for each strike before reacting in a limited fashion -- you don't win wars limiting yourself to reactive strikes.

Once we decided on a "War on Terror," any chance of victory required us to go beyone the limited, reactive strikes ... to go beyond world support.

Fact is, winning the WoT requires us to buck world support, like it or not.

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 12:41 PM
But the strikes were not against the USA. The world likely would not have supported our striking back for attacks on other nations.


That the attacks were not directly against the US doesn't matter. They were against our allies. That just needs diplomacy.

I don't agree with W's ideas on anything. And I most wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of a "War on Terror". Fact is, there is no "war" on terror, and there never can be. What there can be, though, are penalties imposed against terrorists. It has nothing to do with nation-building, or government-toppling, unless that government directly commits terrorist actions.

Make terrorism so expensive for the terrorists that it becomes economically and politically unviable, and you'll soon see terrorist acts stop.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 01:24 PM
ceetee: That the attacks were not directly against the US doesn't matter. They were against our allies. That just needs diplomacy. I disagree. With the exception of England (one attack; one foiled plot), our allies aren't much interested in striking back against terrorism -- witness Spain cutting out once they were attacked.

So we've got two (maybe three) incidents that you could have could have used under your plan -- 9/11, the London bombings and perhaps the foiled "liquid explosive" plot a few weeks ago.

OK, I’ll give you the Cole too – four max.

That's not much on which to build. ceetee: I don't agree with W's ideas on anything.Nonetheless, you make the same mistake as he did. You both thought we had worldwide support wide scale action against terrorism after 9/11 (whether you agree to the moniker "WoT").

You both would have started in Afghanistan. He moved to Iraq (perhaps dishonestly). You would have gone elsewhere, such as Yemen.


The world supported step 1 (Afghanistan)
It didn't support Bush's step 2 (Iraq).
I doubt it would have supported your step 2 (Yemen or whatever).

ceetee
August 24, 2006, 01:36 PM
The world supported step 1 (Afghanistan)
It didn't support Bush's step 2 (Iraq).
I doubt it would have supported your step 2 (Yemen or whatever).


Assume a world where the US never attacked Iraq.

Why is it that "the world" supported a forceful response to terrorism after we were attacked on 9-11, but this same world would NOT support an equal response to additional terrorist attacks?

Indy
August 24, 2006, 01:56 PM
Let's step back a little and propose what would be the benefit of catching and/or killing Bin Ladin. Could it be possible we know his location and have him under our electronic network? As he communicates with his cell network, the guys that are blended in the world's societies, we can intercept his directions. It would be for the greater good to keep him alive. If we kill him another will step in to his place, and the terrorists will continue their destruction. Then we would need to identify the next terrorist leader. Somehow, we and our allies have been able to prevent further attacks.
Please keep in mind, if you still believe we must keep a person on the phone for three minutes in order to find their location as we did in the 1950s, you must spend some time reading about electronic survellience. I am not suggesting this is fact, but it does make sense. We could always kill him.
Indy

Ezekiel
August 24, 2006, 02:11 PM
Somehow, we and our allies have been able to prevent further attacks.

That would be because we radically and dramatically overestimated OBL's -- and his minions -- (from the start) ability to hit us again given ANY form of ad hoc scrutiny. Basically, the "threat" is widely over-reported for political gain.

It would be for the greater good to keep him alive.

However, I had never considered this insightful theory. I must admit it is a damned good one, although I haven't the resources to determine what intel we would be getting from such.

Art Eatman
August 24, 2006, 02:13 PM
This thread is now only tangentially about bin Laden, and to start with was only tangentially anything for THR.

If you want to keep going, collect your thoughts and start a new thread at APS. That way you can review each other's points before getting into a mere backing-and-forthing.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Catching Bin Ladin" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!