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