Finding Osama Bin Laden..

[F.D. Khan]

For those who continue to pose the 'Where is Osama Bin Laden Question? I will give you some insight into the region. It is great that we are dismantling Al-Queda and cutting off their funding, cells and network, but Bin Laden may never be found.

Having travelled extensively through the area, I see the problems the administration is finding out. Northern Pakistan and Afghanistan is home to some of the most treacherous terrain on the planet. It is a mountainous region that is filled with underground caves for thousands of miles.

There are no conventional roads, communication systems or connections to the outside world. There are areas in which the population knows nothing of the outside world save for their existence and the sheep they tend to. In these thousands of square miles, how do you find one man?? A strong majority of the population is illiterate, educationally and in a worldly sense, and cannot even conceptualize a 25 million dollar reward.
The mountainous people know nothing of September 11th and of the WTC and the west.

Saddam Hussein will be found, Osama is another story. Saddam Hussein has lived like a King for over 40 years and is not a particularly religious man (unless it suits his public of course) focusing more on secularism rather than Islamism in his government. He is used to the good life: good food, women, wine, exotic places and cars and he cannot make the transition to living in a cave for the rest of his life, I don't think his ego would allow it. The terrain in Iraq is a desert as well. There are not many places to hide and the Western/US presense in the region is strong. His associates are driven by duty and financially, thereby giving them ample reason to get paid or get saved and jump off a sinking ship.

Osama Bin Laden on the other hand is a different sort of character. This is a man born into an almost royal family with millions in his name that gave it all away to fight alongside the Afghani's against the Soviets. He gave away all material goods and dedicated his life to his insane view of the world. He had everything and gave it up. He could live in a cave till he died and would not need material possessions to accomodate his life. He is in a terrain that is impossible to navigate in a land that has never truly been mapped. The only thing that could get him caught is his ego and will to do more terrorist deeds. I believe that he is not humble, but arrogant in his rightousness and his thinking of himself. And with his finances, i'm sure he has many sycophants that urge him on.

So give the Administration a break. Breaking Al-Queda was the goal, though Bin Laden was the prize. I think their network has been debilitated, but you can't stop some guy from putting some TNT in his car and lighting it. It may not even be related to Al-Queda, but makes people sleep better knowing their is one enemy out there we are fighting instead of a growing movement.

[reallyBaked]

ya think Osama would rather die than be captured by the Americans? Ya think he has a lil poison pill at the ready just in case?

Same for Saddam, I would think these 2 guys would rather die than be captured...and have probably already arranged for that to happen, one way or the other..

[RocketMan Tex]

Perhaps we would have captured Osama Bin Laden already had over half the military not been reassigned to the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

[coma]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Perhaps we would have captured Osama Bin Laden already had over half the military not been reassigned to the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

RMT,

So in your estimation, had we sent all those troops over to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, bin Laden would be in custody or dead by now?

edit: Clicked the wrong button.

What did you gather this theory from?

[MacBeth]

F.D...Great post. But don't you think it at least somewhat likely that as what you said about finding Bin Laden became apparent to the administration which had publicly declared him their number 1 priority, and had said that they would get him no matter what, that helped instigate the shift in public priorization to Iraq and Hussein? That's why Bin Laden keeps being brought up...we say War on Terrorism is issue no. 1...we boldly predict that we will get Bin Laden, etc...and then it becomes pretty clear that getting him isn't going to be as simple as thought...and what happens? The administration that said post 9-11 that Osama was Public Enemy no. 1 suddenly stirs up the ashes of a dormant fire and all we hear about since is Hussein. The Bin Laden reminders are merely people wondering what happened to our top pritority, rather than something which has nothing to do with 9-11.

[coma]

Originally posted by MacBeth
F.D...Great post. But don't you think it at least somewhat likely that as what you said about finding Bin Laden became apparent to the administration which had publicly declared him their number 1 priority, and had said that they would get him no matter what, that helped instigate the shift in public priorization to Iraq and Hussein? That's why Bin Laden keeps being brought up...we say War on Terrorism is issue no. 1...we boldly predict that we will get Bin Laden, etc...and then it becomes pretty clear that getting him isn't going to be as simple as thought...and what happens? The administration that said post 9-11 that Osama was Public Enemy no. 1 suddenly stirs up the ashes of a dormant fire and all we hear about since is Hussein. The Bin Laden reminders are merely people wondering what happened to our top pritority, rather than something which has nothing to do with 9-11.

So I guess you know everything that our Administration is doing on a daily basis. I assume that's how you know that bin Laden is no longer on the to-do list? Also, I assume that once you set a goal, you don't do anything else until said goal is accomplished? Just because we set sights on another goal doesn't mean we've abandoned all other goals.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by coma
So I guess you know everything that our Administration is doing on a daily basis. I assume that's how you know that bin Laden is no longer on the to-do list? Also, I assume that once you set a goal, you don't do anything else until said goal is accomplished? Just because we set sights on another goal doesn't mean we've abandoned all other goals.


1) yes, clearly I am saying that I know everything the administration is doing.


2) Abandon? No...lower in priorities? Yes...we pulled resources, manpower, funding, intel, etc. off of the war on terrorism and relocated them to Iraq, which was not connected. Also, Iraq didn't happen to us,we happened to it. It was our choice to start it, so we can't claim that the timing just occured on it's own. As such, if the war on terror was number 1, why start something else that our own intel said wasn't necessary when we haven't accomplished number one, and then blame lack of success on limited resources?

[F.D. Khan]

Originally posted by MacBeth
F.D...Great post. But don't you think it at least somewhat likely that as what you said about finding Bin Laden became apparent to the administration which had publicly declared him their number 1 priority, and had said that they would get him no matter what, that helped instigate the shift in public priorization to Iraq and Hussein? That's why Bin Laden keeps being brought up...we say War on Terrorism is issue no. 1...we boldly predict that we will get Bin Laden, etc...and then it becomes pretty clear that getting him isn't going to be as simple as thought...and what happens? The administration that said post 9-11 that Osama was Public Enemy no. 1 suddenly stirs up the ashes of a dormant fire and all we hear about since is Hussein. The Bin Laden reminders are merely people wondering what happened to our top pritority, rather than something which has nothing to do with 9-11.


Well Mac,

I think its more telling about our society today. We don't have patience and we want breakins news daily. The bold prediction was foolhardy and I said so at the time. The world is a big place and its gets bigger when you enter the time warp to a millenium ago called Afghanistan.

For questions regarding the deployment of the army in Iraq, though I don't agree with all of the admin's decisions on Iraq, the search for Osama Bin Laden is not an army and deployment operation but a special forces/infiltration and information battle.

Tactical teams would do a better job rather than an entire army trying to find him. I'm sure Treeman would agree with me there.

Those comments about our society and the lack of patience is why I didn't think it was prudent to Invade Iraq. I felt that as a country and a government we lacked the focus and the dedication to truly creating a 'Japan/Germany Scenario' out of Iraq. I could see a few bodies coming home and administration not wanting the bad press. I still state that if the admin does what they stated their goal is: to create a free democracy in Iraq and have that spread through the muslim world, then it will be a huge net positive. I just wonder whether we can stomach it over time.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by coma
RMT,

So in your estimation, had we sent all those troops over to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, bin Laden would be in custody or dead by now?

edit: Clicked the wrong button.

What did you gather this theory from?

Notice the word "perhaps". It cuts both ways.

Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11. In my opinion, he is the person we should be most focused on finding.

[coma]

Originally posted by MacBeth
1) yes, clearly I am saying that I know everything the administration is doing.


Thanks for the clarification, but it was fairly obvious to me.



2) Abandon? No...lower in priorities? Yes...we pulled resources, manpower, funding, intel, etc. off of the war on terrorism and relocated them to Iraq, which was not connected.

The Administration immediately following 9/11 announcing that bin Laden being the top priority was admittedly emotionally driven. The end goal was to disrupt the al-Queda network, which has been a success. So after the realization that not having Osama bin Laden in custody isn't going to stop the world from going around, we pursue other goals. So if you can break away from your self-hypnosis after repeating your mantra, "Where's Osama!?", you can see that the disruption of the the al-Queda network has been a success. Like F.D said, getting bin Laden was just the prize.

[coma]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Notice the word "perhaps". It cuts both ways.

Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11. In my opinion, he is the person we should be most focused on finding.

RMT,

That wasn't my point, nor was that my question. I want to know how you concocted your theory.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by coma
The Administration immediately following 9/11 announcing that bin Laden being the top priority was admittedly emotionally driven. The end goal was to disrupt the al-Queda network, which has been a success. So after the realization that not having Osama bin Laden in custody isn't going to stop the world from going around, we pursue other goals. So if you can break away from your self-hypnosis after repeating your mantra, "Where's Osama!?", you can see that the disruption of the the al-Queda network has been a success. Like F.D said, getting bin Laden was just the prize.

Attacking Iraq also has taken resources away from disrupting the Al-Qaeda network in general. If you switch from OBL to AL-Qaeda in general Iraq still isn't the place to pool your resources. In fact it may be the only country in the region not to spend much effort.

[ROCKSS]

F.D. - Excellent post, very informative.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by coma
RMT,

That wasn't my point, nor was that my question. I want to know how you concocted your theory.

What theory? I did not "theorize" in my original post.

[coma]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex

What theory? I did not "theorize" in my original post.



Perhaps we would have captured Osama Bin Laden already had over half the military not been reassigned to the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

THAT theory.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by coma
Perhaps we would have captured Osama Bin Laden already had over half the military not been reassigned to the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

THAT theory.

THAT is NOT a theory. It is a statement.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary. That is another statement.

[coma]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
THAT is NOT a theory. It is a statement.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary. That is another statement.

RMT,

I sense a little hostility in your post. Frankly, I don't know why you feel the need to get so defensive from my question.

Fine, you want to use the word 'statement' rather than 'theory?'


state·ment
Pronunciation: 'stAt-m&nt
1: a single declaration or remark
2: a report of facts or opinions


You stated that if we had sent all our troops to Afghanistan, bin Laden would've been found. Right? So since I threw away my old dictionary, and referenced a new one, as so kindly suggested by you, we can assume that you formed that statement from facts that you have gathered, processed, and organized into said statement. My question is, how did you form that hypothesis, theory, statement, opinion, etc? Whatever wording you want to use RMT.

Oh, and just to let you know that theory and statement mean pretty much the same thing in the context of my post, I figured I'd do YOU a favor, and post it's meaning.



the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


Any other friendly suggestions for me in my quest for enlightenment RMT?

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by coma
RMT,

I sense a little hostility in your post. Frankly, I don't know why you feel the need to get so defensive from my question.

Fine, you want to use the word 'statement' rather than 'theory?'


state·ment
Pronunciation: 'stAt-m&nt
1: a single declaration or remark
2: a report of facts or opinions


You stated that if we had sent all our troops to Afghanistan, bin Laden would've been found. Right? So since I threw away my old dictionary, and referenced a new one, as so kindly suggested by you, we can assume that you formed that statement from facts that you have gathered, processed, and organized into said statement. My question is, how did you form that hypothesis, theory, statement, opinion, etc? Whatever wording you want to use RMT.

Oh, and just to let you know that theory and statement mean pretty much the same thing in the context of my post, I figured I'd do YOU a favor, and post it's meaning.



the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


Any other friendly suggestions for me in my quest for enlightenment RMT?

My G-d, we are bored today aren't we!

Your quote:

"You stated that if we had sent all our troops to Afghanistan, bin Laden would've been found. Right?"

WRONG

My Statement was, and is, as follows:

"Perhaps we would have captured Osama Bin Laden already had over half the military not been reassigned to the Iraqi invasion and occupation."

Leave out the word perhaps and yes it is definitely a theory.

Any questions?

As to your question of how I came to this statement, I am merely stating that if we had put the full might of the military behind the search for Bin Laden, rather than diverting soldiers and arms to Iraq, then perhaps we would have found him by now.

In my opinion, Bin Laden should be priority #1 in the War on Terrorism. Bin Laden was behind 9/11. He is terrorist #1 in my view, not Saddam Hussein.

Again, any questions?

Oh, and I do have a friendly request to help you in your quest for enlightenment:

Eat more fish!
:D

[coma]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex

Again, any questions?


How about my original question? How'd you form your opinion that 'if we had put the full might of the military behind the search for Bin Laden, rather than diverting soldiers and arms to Iraq, then perhaps we would have found him by now?'

Is there some military strategy that we should've employed that we didn't?


Eat more fish!
:D

Yuck!

[Major]

How about my original question? How'd you form your opinion that 'if we had put the full might of the military behind the search for Bin Laden, rather than diverting soldiers and arms to Iraq, then perhaps we would have found him by now?'

Is there some military strategy that we should've employed that we didn't?

Well, if you think OBL is holed up in some certain region in the world, doesn't it follow that having twice as many people looking for him would make us likely to find him?

[coma]

Originally posted by Major
Well, if you think OBL is holed up in some certain region in the world, doesn't it follow that having twice as many people looking for him would make us likely to find him?

I don't know Major, does it? I guess by your strategy, with the amount of people we had there already it would've just taken twice as long to find him.

What's the best strategy for finding OBL? Are you assuming it's as easy as knocking on every door, uncovering every hole and then one day, voila! there's OBL?

[Major]

I don't know Major, does it? I guess by your strategy, with the amount of people we had there already it would've just taken twice as long to find him.


It's not a time thing. Twice as many people doesn't equal half the time. It equals a wider net with fewer holes for him to escape. If you have a fugitive in a city and know he's in a given building, are you more likely to capture him with 5 cops trying to surround the building or 10? or 20?

More people = the ability to cover more ground simultaneously, which means its less likely that he can hide and then escape if you think you have him surrounded.

[coma]

Originally posted by Major
It's not a time thing.


Apparently, this is not understood by a lot of people, which is why we keep hearing 'Where's Osama?'


Twice as many people doesn't equal half the time. It equals a wider net with fewer holes for him to escape. If you have a fugitive in a city and know he's in a given building, are you more likely to capture him with 5 cops trying to surround the building or 10? or 20?


I agree. But this is Afghanistan, a region with tons of caves that we know very little about. You can pull out blueprints for a building, you can't for Afghanistan.


More people = the ability to cover more ground simultaneously, which means its less likely that he can hide and then escape if you think you have him surrounded.

So what's the equation to figure out how many people we will need? Square footage of Afghanistan divided by the square footage a soldier can declare OBL free and simultaneously synchronize with every other soldier? How about the variables such as the caves? Even if we are able to determine this number, do we have that many soldiers and resources to spend?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by coma
So what's the equation to figure out how many people we will need? Square footage of Afghanistan divided by the square footage a soldier can declare OBL free and simultaneously synchronize with every other soldier? How about the variables such as the caves? Even if we are able to determine this number, do we have that many soldiers and resources to spend?

Apparently you agree that the resources needed to find OBL are limited and probably insufficient. with that understanding does it make sense to remove a lot of what you do have in the effort to find OBL, and put those resources in a country where we know he isn't, and a country with which he doesn't have any kind of relationship at all? Or would it make more sense to keep the resources in place and add to them what is possible?

[Major]

I agree. But this is Afghanistan, a region with tons of caves that we know very little about. You can pull out blueprints for a building, you can't for Afghanistan.

Absolutely - that's why more people working simultaneously has benefits. You can't go sequentially through the caves or he can move back and forth and you'll never find him. More people you have looking at different places at the same time means more chance of finding him.

So what's the equation to figure out how many people we will need? Square footage of Afghanistan divided by the square footage a soldier can declare OBL free and simultaneously synchronize with every other soldier? How about the variables such as the caves? Even if we are able to determine this number, do we have that many soldiers and resources to spend?

There is no equation. More people hunting = better chance of capture. That simple.

[coma]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Apparently you agree that the resources needed to find OBL are limited and probably insufficient. with that understanding does it make sense to remove a lot of what you do have in the effort to find OBL, and put those resources in a country where we know he isn't, and a country with which he doesn't have any kind of relationship at all? Or would it make more sense to keep the resources in place and add to them what is possible?

Well, I stated previously that OBL wasn't the main goal, disrupting the al-Queda network was. Would you agree the al-Queda network has been severely disrupted? Capturing OBL would have been the prize, it doesn't take away from the fact that we accomplished what we wanted.

[Major]

Well, I stated previously that OBL wasn't the main goal, disrupting the al-Queda network was. Would you agree the al-Queda network has been severely disrupted? Capturing OBL would have been the prize, it doesn't take away from the fact that we accomplished what we wanted.

OBL is the inspirational leader and figurehead of the network. Capturing him has a huge psychological impact on the rest of the network. As long as America cannot capture one person, that emboldens the rest of the network to believe in their fight.

Capturing him for vengeance purposes is certainly not a priority, but capturing him to slow the network is absolutely still important.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by coma
Well, I stated previously that OBL wasn't the main goal, disrupting the al-Queda network was. Would you agree the al-Queda network has been severely disrupted? Capturing OBL would have been the prize, it doesn't take away from the fact that we accomplished what we wanted.

Disrupting Al-Qaeda has seen progress. However removing troops from Afghanistan where AL-Qaeda is still known to be active, and putting them in Iraq where AL-Qaeda is known to not be active still doesn't address the main goal as stated by you.

I don't think we've 'accomplished' our goal with Al-Qaeda, or else the goal was set very low. They are still a threat and still active, and seem to have been more active in recent months than in some time. While we have disrupted a number of their plans and put some of their leadership in custody, they are still a threat, far more than Iraq.

[coma]

Originally posted by Major

More people hunting = better chance of capture. That simple.

I absolutely agree with that 'statement.'

But, we realize that the capture of OBL doesn't stop us from continuing to disrupt the al-Queda network. Yes, his capture would greatly deplete al-Queda. It'll be as symbolic as it would be strategic. However, we have no sure fire plan to capture this guy. We have to put a limit on the resources we use to look for him. So what's the best strategy for hunting this guy with our limited resources? Obviously walking around knocking on doors and uncovering holes isn't the answer. I feel the answer has to be with intelligence, or someone giving him up. which takes time.

[coma]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Disrupting Al-Qaeda has seen progress. However removing troops from Afghanistan where AL-Qaeda is still known to be active, and putting them in Iraq where AL-Qaeda is known to not be active still doesn't address the main goal as stated by you.

Another one of my points were that we can accomplish more than one goal at a time.


I don't think we've 'accomplished' our goal with Al-Qaeda, or else the goal was set very low. They are still a threat and still active, and seem to have been more active in recent months than in some time. While we have disrupted a number of their plans and put some of their leadership in custody, they are still a threat, far more than Iraq.

Give it some time FB. The War on Terror involves more than the US, the communications between various countries and agencies have greatly increased. No one thought that al-Queda would be wiped out and never to appear again in the span of two years. Two years. We've done a lot in respect to fighting terrorism in the past two years. With all the politics and organization that is involved, it's amazing.

[Mango]

Originally posted by Major


Well, if you think OBL is holed up in some certain region in the world, doesn't it follow that having twice as many people looking for him would make us likely to find him?

The premise in that scenario is that bin Laden is holed up in Afghanistan and never ventures beyond that country's borders and if he attempted to leave, the Pakistan authorities/military would aid the US in capturing him.

Many reports have al-Qa'ida - Taliban types going back and forth across the Pakistan- Afghansitan border. Often, they will engage US forces in Afghanistan and then flee to safety in Pakistan.

A nice read on this topic (Pre 9/11)
<a HREF="http://www.theatlantic.comissues/2001/07/gerecht.htm">The Counterterrorist Myth</a>

<hr color=green>

Here is a nice read on the FATA part of the NWFP that bin Laden might be using as a safe haven and it is in agreement with FD Khan's description of the area.

<a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1711316.stm">Analysis: Pakistan's tribal frontiers</a>

<i>
The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) have again become the focus of attention.

There have been reports that Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda followers could seek refuge there now that Afghanistan's Taleban regime that harboured them has been ousted.

Islamabad must respect tribal autonomy

Such speculation intensified in the wake of unconfirmed reports that Bin Laden had been sighted in the Tora Bora area in the Spinghar (White Mountain) range.

This range serves as a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The FATA, or tribal areas as they are commonly known, are located on the Pakistan side of the 2,400 kilometres long and porous border.

The border is named the Durand Line after the British official who oversaw the demarcation of the 19th century boundary.

Autonomous agencies

The tribal areas had a population of 5.7m according to the 1998 national census.

There are seven tribal areas : Khyber, Kurram, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, North Waziristan and South Waziristan, all inhabited by Pashtun tribes.

The tribal areas, or agencies as they are called, were created by the British to serve as a buffer between undivided India and Afghanistan.

The British devised a special system of political administration to govern the freedom-loving Pashtun tribes who resisted colonial rule with a determination unparalleled in the subcontinent.



Much of the border is awash with weapons


The tribal people were granted maximum autonomy and allowed to run their affairs in accordance with their Islamic faith, customs and traditions.

Tribal elders, known as Maliks, were given special favours by the British in return for services such as maintaining peace, keeping important roads like the Khyber Pass open, and apprehending anti-state and anti-social elements.

The system of administration has not changed much even 51 years after Pakistan's independence despite demands by the educated and enlightened sections of the tribal population.

The tribals were granted universal adult franchise in 1997 but political parties are still outlawed there.

Earlier, only a few thousand tribal elders were allowed the right to vote and contest elections to the parliament.

Ancient traditions

The limited franchise led to widespread sale and purchase of votes.
<b>
The Pakistani courts and police have no jurisdiction in tribal areas.
</b>
A unique set of laws called the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) enforced in the tribal areas since 1947 empowers the government to arrest anyone without specifying the crime.

Political activists term the FCR a black law because the accused cannot get bail in such cases.

Successive governments in Pakistan have been promising reforms in the tribal areas but to no effect.

Low literacy ratios, scarce development funds, fallout of the instability in neighbouring Afghanistan and rigid traditions have held the tribal areas back in terms of socio-economic development compared to the rest of Pakistan.
</i>

<hr color=green>

After recent elections, the government in the NWFP has taken a decidely more conservative tilt.

<a HREF="Http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/06/02/pakistan.islamic/">Pakistan region adopts Islamic law</a>

<i>The parliament in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province has unanimously passed a bill aimed at enforcing strict Islamic laws in the province.

The vote makes Shariah Islamic law the supreme law in the province's courts and in Islamic education, the economy and judiciary.

The bill, passed unanimously by voice vote in the NWFP assembly, must still be signed by Governor Sayed Iftikhar Hussain Shah to become law, but that is considered a formality, The Associated Press reports.

Pakistan is a deeply conservative Muslim nation but it has nonetheless resisted adopting a legal system based on a strict interpretation of Shariah, or Islamic law.

The six-party Islamic coalition of the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, or United Action Forum, gained a majority in the NWF Assembly in October elections, on the power of a strong anti-American platform.

Bringing Shariah to the deeply conservative province was the cornerstone of the coalition's election platform.

"We will now mould all laws under the purview of the provincial government in accordance with the Islamic teachings," NWFP Chief Minister Akram Khan Durani told CNN Monday.

On Sunday, 24 NWFP mayors resigned in protest over what some described as the "Talibanization" of government by the ruling Islamic parties.


Durani, center, won power on the promise of enacting Shariah law.
The Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan, required women to completely cover themselves and excluded girls from schools.

On Monday, the president of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf, presided at a meeting attended by Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali, all four governors in the country and other high-level officials in which they reviewed the situation in the frontier province.

Afterwards, Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid told CNN that Jamali will announce a number of administrative decisions regarding NWFP on Tuesday.

But, reacting to this statement, Durani said Jamali had no right to make any administrative decisions.

"For my province. I have all the administrative powers," Durani said.

Last week, the NWFP parliament passed a law making it illegal to wear shirts or trousers in schools and colleges.

Crucial ally
It also began a campaign to remove any billboards bearing pictures of females.

Earlier this month, authorities banned male coaches from training female athletes in the province and barred men from watching women's sports events.

In addition, they have called for compulsory reading of the Quran, Islam's holy book, in schools, and passed a resolution that only women doctors should carry out medical tests on female patients.

Pakistan is a crucial U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism. The Musharraf government has arrested hundreds of al Qaeda suspects and turned them over to the United States.

But the rise of the Islamic hardliners is sure to worry Washington.

Intelligence officials believe Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders are likely hiding in the mountainous region between the NWFP and neighboring Afghanistan.
</i>

[GreenVegan76]

Bush has invented a better boogieman; he doesn't need bin Laden right now. Maybe next November.

Just the same, though, because Saddam Hussein is a greater threat than Osama bin Laden.

Right?

[TheFreak]

Bush-haters don't care that Al-Quaeda has been weakened. That doesn't help them win the next election. Saying "Bin Laden is still out there" does.

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by TheFreak
Bush-haters don't care that Al-Quaeda has been weakened. That doesn't help them win the next election. Saying "Bin Laden is still out there" does.

Please explain to me how Saddam Hussein is more of a threat to America than Osama bin Laden. If you can pull off that leap of faith, you've been watching too much Fox News.

[Major]

The premise in that scenario is that bin Laden is holed up in Afghanistan and never ventures beyond that country's borders and if he attempted to leave, the Pakistan authorities/military would aid the US in capturing him.


Actually, the premise is that we've had multiple reports where, for a short period of time, we believed OBL to be within a certain area, only to watch him mysteriously vanish. Assuming the intelligence was correct, then having more troops to sweep that area would result in a higher chance of capturing OBL.

Many reports have al-Qa'ida - Taliban types going back and forth across the Pakistan- Afghansitan border. Often, they will engage US forces in Afghanistan and then flee to safety in Pakistan.


More troops to control the border area would restrict his abilities to hop back and forth.

[Mango]

Actually, the premise is that we've had multiple reports where, for a short period of time, we believed OBL to be within a certain area, only to watch him mysteriously vanish. Assuming the intelligence was correct, then having more troops to sweep that area would result in a higher chance of capturing OBL.


That is still based on a scenario that he stays <b>only</b> in Afghanistan.




More troops to control the border area would restrict his abilities to hop back and forth.


The border between Pakistan - Afghanistan is 2,400 kilometres long.....the border between Mexico - US is roughly 3,100 kilometres. How large a military deployment would the US need to completely seal 2,400 kilometres (roughly 75%) of its border with Mexico? In your scenario, bin Laden, al-Qa'ida & the Taliban would be caught completely unaware of a <b>massive</b> buildup of US military forces along the Pakistan - Afghanistan border and would be trapped inside Afghanistan. Probably a <b>minimum</b> of three US divisions and that many people are hard to miss as they ship into Afghanistan for deployment along the border.

If they (bin Laden, al-Qa'ida & the Taliban) cross into Pakistan as the US forces massed to seal the border, then what?