Osama Bin Laden - Do you really think you can't catch him?

They aren't looking for him - Period.

 

If they attacked Canada's most famous landmarks, and in the center of one of the biggest Canadian cities, we would be arm and arm with them in their cause without a doubt.

 

But.. who would ever want to attack Canada? They're so friendly.

 

[rquoter]
If the US mounts sustained attacks on the tribal areas, this will be regarded by all Pakistanis as an attack on their country. The upsurge of anti-US feeling will be such that neither the government nor the military could thereafter afford to show any sign of cooperation with the US. That will seriously compound US problems in Afghanistan and the region. Several commentators have mentioned the possibility of Pakistan unravelling. This is unlikely, but when things continue to spiral downwards, people tend to turn to saviours – and this is what religious fundamentalists claim to be, especially where corruption, lawlessness, and insecurity flourish.

[/rquoter]


[rquoter]
Pakistan’s civilian government is in complete disarray. The nominal cabinet has no power; decisions are made by a couple of unelected former fugitives from justice (accused of massive corruption) for whom the US obtained immunity from Musharraf. The political parties and factions are busy undermining each other, the country’s administration is in turmoil, its finances are in a mess, inflation is surging, ordinary people are daily facing shortages of food, water and electricity. The government is trying to negotiate agreements with the tribes, offering them money and autonomy in return for peace – the old policy the British used with considerable success. Unfortunately, when the US used these tribal areas in the 70s as the base from which to launch the jihad to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan (remember the mujahedins, darlings of the West?) they also destroyed the old tribal hierarchies, with radicals and militants taking control. To them, “peace” now means a free hand to support their Pakhtun brethren in Afghanistan in their fight to oust the new invaders. The US will not accept such an agreement. It is not surprising these negotiations are not making much progress.

The Pakistan army, having had its nose bloodied in Musharraf’s earlier attempt to militarily control the tribes, and with its standing in the country badly dented by his political shenanigans, is quite content to use the civilian government’s dithering as an excuse for its inaction; it has no intention of fighting a US proxy war in the tribal territories. It also knows that the US will still continue to pay it large subsidies to ensure the safeguarding of the US supply lines to Afghanistan (and the country’s nuclear weapons).

The US is in a bind. It has to deny the Pakhtun insurgency (the Taliban are only one part of it) the use of the tribal areas as a base. With Pakistan showing no will to control these areas, it is threatening to take unilateral military action there. This will obviously be through air strikes and Special Forces raids, both notorious for their inevitable “collateral damage”. This will add fuel to the fire of militancy, pushing more recruits into the ranks of the jihad, especially the deadly suicide bombers. An insurgency cannot be defeated by a few successful decapitation strikes, or even by turning a rugged mountainous base area into a free-fire zone. The more perceptive US commanders probably know this, but they have to be seen to do something about the continuous guerrilla attacks. How long will the NATO allies stick around fighting an unwinnable war? How long will the US public put up with it?

But that is not the worst of it. Believing Pakistan to be complicit in the US strikes on their people, the tribal militants will turn on it; they have already seen the deadly effect of their suicide bombs in the teeming cities. An already fragile governmental and societal structure will face severe stress; anything could happen. One thing is certain : the religious fundamentalists in the country will take full advantage of this turmoil. For the US, the first impact will be on their supply line through Pakistan. Then, Pakistan itself, as an ally, will be at risk.

[/rquoter]

That pretty much covers it.

 

Put a $1 billion price tag for his head. Someone has to be tempted. What is the current price for his head? $25 million? That's too little.

 

Yeah, for a billion, I'd go looking for him.

 

This is like a spin off from my earlier thread...Isn't it better to know his head is rotting in a cave, and in constant nervous situational awareness?....

For some liberals, getting this guy is the only stated goal...(at least from what I have seen with few exceptions...)

If being there over a year costs billions of dollars, and thousands of lives (cumulatively on both sides),...then there will be those that will question whether being there further warrants the expenditure against an expanded goal other than getting his head...

That was my point...Are you prepared to spend the billions and the combined loss of life likely to total over a thousand for the quest??? Sweet lou stated he is willing to support the war on the Taliban/Al Qaeda as an increased reason for the military action in Afghanistan (besides getting bin laden's head),...but what is the exit strategy? Reconstruction? Training? Logistics? Contracts? Nobody wants to state there is benchmarks to measure progress there besides...: "hey we killed 6 of em today!"...Let's have it...That should be more pronounced from both Obama, and McCain...

 

...

lolz

...

No.

 

"Defend ourselves from terrorism" and "bring these people to justice no matter where they hide" don't necessarily overlap as much as you're suggesting. What practical benefits does capturing/killing Bin Laden provide in protecting us from terrorist attacks? I don't see it as any kind of deterrent to future Al Qaeda planning of attacks. I think it would be primarily a symbolic gesture to stoke our national ego.

 

You, and all the other morons who think what you do, are emphatically wrong. I'm not going to go into tactical detail, but I have a friend stationed in Iraq (Fallujah) with whom I communicate regularly and I can definitely say that they are trying to find him, and the the US Marine Corps (at the very least) believes him to be alive. The Marines aren't the ones looking for him though.

 

What is the point of the Afghan War other than to punish/ capture those responsible for 9/11? To put in Karzai and fight the Pashtun ethnic group and the Taliban? The majority of the folks we are fighting were about as responsible for 9/11 as the average Iraqi. How long can we afford to squander our money? Afghanistan had a civil war before we went , we supported one side and that side is still struggling to hold onto power. Our allies are all but gone from Iraq and tiring of Afghanistan. We are tiring of Iraq and on our way out, but who will have the political courage to leave Afghanistan. It is looking our grandkids (not our leaders', of course,) will be asked to fight there.

One of my brother in laws who is not political asked me sincerely over the weekend, while watching the news: "Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? " The original answer was to get Bin Lade, but now? Good question.

 

Good post glynch,...It is something for us all to ponder....