So on intense and sensitive matters of national security it is OK to potentially undermine an ally ahead of time and publicly. That's an interesting justification. As you note that's not how you would handle things so why so resistant to the idea that Obama's statement was election rhetoric and probably not the best thing to say? So all's well that ends well? I don't think he intended to embarrass Pakistan which is why I said he made that statement for election purposes. I have no doubt that ever major candidate would go after OBL if given the opportunity the difference was that McCain didn't feel the need to talk about it ahead of time. Obama felt that one of his weaknesses was regarding national security so he made a statement to reassure people on national security. If you recall though at the time there was some unease out of Pakistan about it. Technically yes. Sending an armed force into another person's country is an act of war. Again consider if Cuba or the PRC did the same thing to the US. The Pakistani government happens to be an ally so they are tacitly allowing this but there are many Pakistanis unhappy about this and Pakistanis have previously complained about drone strikes, which are also an act of war. I am not really clear on what you are saying there. Publicly stating ahead of time gives the Pakistan public foreknowledge that something is happening so when it happens it is harder for the government to have plausible deniability as the President of the US has already said what is going to happen. So you would be fine with having Pakistan as an outright enemy than a shaky ally? I've lost you. The comment that we would go into Pakistan to get high level AQ and Taliban figures was the comment that wasn't nuanced. The comment that we would do all we can to protect national security while respecting our allies is nuanced. To sum up I think you are letting Obama infatuation guide your responses. I like Obama but it was an unwise thing to say just for the election and also there is no way that McCain wouldn't have acted if given the same intel about OBL. It strikes me as naive or rubbing it into Republicans to think he wouldn't.
Did OBL directly ally himself with the US? From what I remember of his history he worked primarily as a financier to the Mujahadeen and wasn't working with the US. Anyway following the history that you provided any good feelings he had for the US was very quickly forgotten by the time Iraq invaded Kuwait. I am not an Arabic speaker but every translation I have heard of "Al Qaeda" is "the base" and every description I have heard of the organization means that it implies as a foundation to build on. If there is a different translation I would be curious to hear it but this would be the first time I have. Its not just his fear of western culture invading KSA but the overall actions of Al Qaeda and OBL's rhetoric. From what I have heard is that OBL did start out over his concern of infidel Western armies in the land of Mecca but given how Al Qaeda developed I have a very hard time accepting that remained their primary motive. Consider if just getting the US out of KSA and overthrowing the Monarchy was his main concern why spread Al Qaeda to the Caucasus or to SE Asia?
So the drone attacks are an "act of war" even though they're allowed in exchange for foreign aid? Even though many of them were launched from Shamsi airbase inside Pakistan itself? Against rebels that the Pakistani military themselves are fighting in many cases? Are you basing this on international law or internet made-up law?
Oh those whiny Pakistanis complaining about a foreign power firing missiles on their territory. Pakistan is our ally and also isn't in a position to do much about it but bombing people on foreign soil without the government's approval is usually considered an act of war.
You mean the missiles they allow to be launched from their territory? Japanese citizens protest US naval bases in Okinawa too. Is that an act of war everytime a ship lands there? The drone strikes do have the government's approval. That's why they happened. That's why there was a drone base in pakistan (until 2 weeks ago).
"We haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run." GW Bush, March 2002 One president wasn't concerned about him One president methodically planned and executed the assassination of the world's #1 terrorist. America knows who gets the credit
On the role of interrogation: BRIAN WILLIAMS: Can you confirm that it was as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden? LEON PANETTA: Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here… It's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got… I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question. BRIAN WILLIAMS: So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques -- which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years -- that includes water boarding? LEON PANETTA: That's correct. Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/03/panetta-public-likely-to-see-obl-picture/#ixzz1LKa4bKHx
Oh he worked with the US as much as a mujahid could. Even providing money to the US cause would be unthinkable for the kind of mind you're describing. I've met these people. They don't eat McDonald's - like, EVER. lol Al Qaeda could mean the base, the database, the rules, the rule, the order, the settlement. That's just off the top of my head. Arabic is a strange language, there are far more variations of the same word root than you would expect (in this case I believe it's qa-3a-da). As for the Caucasus and SE Asia, it makes total sense to me. Carrying out an attack at the heart of the US became impossible after 9/11, so he turned his attention to US allies. Basically, at some point he decided that the Saudi royal family is not worth pursuing since they are puppets in the game. So he decided to go after the puppetmaster. When he could not longer attack the puppetmaster's torso, he started to attack the limbs. I don't know. I feel there's not enough info to make me think it was more than a marketing plan. What you're describing does somewhat exist in his ideology IMO, but that's more Seyyid Qutb's stuff. IMO Qutb wanted Islam to rule the world, while Osama wanted to free Saudi and had to take on America to do it. Then again, I've often said power drives people crazy, so it could very well be a case of that.
I don't think they are undermined any more by saying ahead of time than actually doing it. If saying it would undermine them then that would be different. Obama did say it and carried it out. I don't think they were undermined any more by him having said it ahead of time. I would handle saying what was said about Pakistan the same way. What I wouldn't handle differently is the fact that because the Chinese are such important trading partners they get more leeway than a nation like Pakistan. But the reality is they do. I don't know why he did it, but I didn't see that as any sort of diplomatic failure. I think attacking Pakistan and striking known terrorists inside Pakistan are two different things. If a criminal and terrorist who'd blown up 3000 Chinese and vowed to continue doing the same was hiding in Upstate NY in a multi-million dollar house, and the Chinese took him out, I would be mad at the US govt. that it had to come to that. But I wouldn't feel that the US itself had been attacked. I'm saying that being at odds with the US over the policy ahead of time allows the Pakistani govt. to say they aren't cool with it once it happens. However if they've never said anything about it, then it seems easier for critics of the Pakistani govt. to claim they are US puppets once the attacks within their borders happen. I don't think they are far from that now. Their dictators steal our aid money, and have OBL living within walking distance from the Pakistani West Point and near dozens of retired military officials. If we tell it like it is, and they feel they are our enemy then so be it. I'm fine with that. I'm saying that McCain would be more likely to say if our enemies are hiding out in Pakistan that he would attack the country rather than make surgical strikes at only the terrorist targets. I don't know how someone like me can be so disappointed with Obama on so many different things and still be accused of having an Obama infatuation. Of course it may be that on this board the criticisms leveled against him are aren't the same ones that I have and I end up defending him a lot because the attacks people choose to make are the absurd ones.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was-- as a result of water boarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden? LEON PANETTA: It-- you know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here. We had a multiple source-- a multiple series of-- sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees but we also had information from other sources as well. From Sigent intelligence, from imagery, from other sources that we had-- assets on the ground. And it was a combination of all of that that ultimately we were able to put together that led us to that compound. So-- it's-- it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got. BRIAN WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that water boarding was, in part, among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission? LEON PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether-- whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question. BRIAN WILLIAMS: So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques, which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years. That-- LEON PANETTA: Right. BRIAN WILLIAMS: --in-- includes water boarding? LEON PANETTA: That's correct. Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/03/panetta-public-likely-to-see-obl-picture/#ixzz1LKiPEVRv
Don’t Worry: Osama Was Shot in the Face in Accordance with Islamic Tradition http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dont-worry-osama-was-shot-in-accordance-with-islamic-tradition/2/
I partly agree with her. The death of OBL is a victory in its own way, but I too was slightly uneasy at the sight of kids celebrating this like it was their college team winning the national title. It was...awkward. And have we had a victory? No. Our victory equals American citizens being groped and molested at airports. "I don't want to change the way we live, I want to change the way they live." That is (paraphrased) how one American Senator described victory in the war on terror. Nearly ten years later as we celebrate the death of OBL, I'm afraid we still have no real victory. Only the illusions of one.
Lots of interesting debate, I thought I'd chime in with my perspective. On celebrating OBL's death: I am all for it. Some people feel weird about celebrating anyone's death and I respect that. They are the true pro-lifers. But I am not pro-life, and I would have joined the cheering. He has taunted and wounded this nation, and hung over us as a dark shadow. To have that cast off is a great moment for our nation, and why shouldn't people express pride and happiness for that. They aren't celebrating death, it's a celebration of the U.S.A. and our enduring pursuit of justice and not giving up. It's one of our most cherished values, and one of the things I most personally identify with. Also, it's a reason for Muslims to celebrate. The man who had hijacked Islam is dead. As John Stewart said, the face of Islam has changed from OBL to that of brave and peaceful protesters. Who thought such a thing was possible in such a short dramatic timeframe. And finally, OBL was a vile human being and I'm so glad he is dead. Absolutely happy. It made my day. That man wanted us dead, he wanted me dead. He wanted everyone I loved dead. Why shouldn't I celebrate his life. His death is life for others. On who deserves credit. Obama gets a LOT of the credit deservedly. Not just for his continued pursuit, but the management of the operation from start to finish. It was brilliantly done and shows a great deal of poise, leadership, thoughtfulness, and most of all, guts. This was probably the greatest display of managing a difficult situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. That said, Bush deserves credit as well. As much as you may hate to admit it, waterboarding and other torture techniques led to the break that got us info on OBL's courier. Without that intel, we'd have never had gotten him. Torture does lead to intel, and regardless of one's ethical evaluation of that, it did prove fruitful and it was something that was done by Bush. That was a key contribution. On our Alliance with Pakistan: It would be foolish to abandon that country as an ally. The question is whether or not our presence in that country is constructive or not now. We all know what happened when we left Afganistan to be at the mercy of the Taliban. Extremism is a problem. A big one, and Pakistan is a focal point. A break in the alliance would potentially create a Muslim enemy with nuclear weapons. Is anyone that crazy or stupid? That said, we can not allow the fact that OBL was essentially being harboured by Pakinstan's intelligence go without retribution. We should cut military aid in half and let them smart about that until they take steps to repair the relationship and show they can deliver results.
nope "To the best of our knowledge, based on a look, none of it came as a result of harsh interrogation practices," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a wide-ranging press conference.
