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?
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.
Apparently, this is not understood by a lot of people, which is why we keep hearing 'Where's Osama?' 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. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another one of my points were that we can accomplish more than one goal at a time. 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.
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>
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?
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.
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.
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?
