By GRAEME WILSON Deputy Political Editor in Trinidad Published: 29 Nov 2009 GORDON Brown blasted Pakistan yesterday for not nabbing Osama Bin Laden. The PM voiced anger that al-Qaeda's leader is still free EIGHT years after the 9/11 attacks. And he warned the failure to capture the terror mastermind was putting British lives at risk. Mr Brown delivered his message in a phone call this weekend to Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari. The PM said Pakistan must throw its full weight behind the war on Islamic fanatics. Mr Brown's broadside came hours after he had set out a timetable for British troops to pull out of one or two districts in Helmand Province by the end of next year. He claimed another five provinces could be handed back to Afghan security forces in 2010. But he voiced deep frustration at Pakistan's failure to capture Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman Zawahiri. Speaking at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad he said: "We want, after eight years, to see more progress in taking out these top two people in al-Qaeda who have done so much damage and are clearly behind many of the operations in Great Britain." Mr Brown will repeat his message when he meets Pakistan premier Yousaf Raza Gilani at Number 10 on Thursday. There have long been concerns about shadowy links between Pakistan's secret service and al-Qaeda. Mr Brown said Pakistan had finally "started to take on the Taliban and al-Qaeda" in the lawless border areas beside Afghanistan. But he said: "We have got to ask ourselves why eight years after September 11 nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama Bin Laden." He added: "Pakistan has to show itself that it can take on al-Qaeda." OSAMA Bin Laden's freedom inspires terrorists in 60 countries including radicals like the London suicide bombers, warns a US report. Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2750748/Brown-Catch-Bin-Laden.html#ixzz0YN1QqYAA
On 60 Minutes, they interviewed the guy who led the team (Delta Force? can't remember) that had bin Laden in their sights. The commander of the team was disguised to protect his identity. They had bin Laden trapped in a mountain pass, they requested an air strike that would have killed bin Laden one way or the other (caves or no caves), and their request was denied. DENIED. They didn't really elaborate there. Probably it was part of the ground rules: You can ask this much but not that much. Or, why ask a question you know won't be answered, like, "Why on Earth would they possibly NOT want to kill bin Laden?" You can talk about "shift the blame to Bush" all you want, but they had OBL in their cross hairs and let him take a walk. To sell the war on terror, you need its Bogeyman.
Like you stated yourself, elaboration. I'm sure there's a lot more than that one guy made it out to be? Sell? Bush didn't need to sell Afghanistan at all for obvious reasons and Iraq was viewed at the time as a major security threat, so I don't get what needed to be sold unless you're one of those "IRAQ FOR OIL LOL" people.
Do you have any idea the difference between 100 SF guys trained to blend in and work with locals compared to thousands of Force Recon or Rangers who are trained to kill things? I am sure they were thinking of the future and how it might be better to keep relations as healthy as possible. If you told me 100 SF guys were leading in thousands of locals to come hunt me down I would not really feel safe.
This is all pointless banter. The fact of the matter is that OBL killed a ****load of americans, and Bush refused to make nabbing or killing him a priority. It's just plain impossible to ignore this blatant and callous reversal. And yes, I'm just as ticked that Obama has not made this a priority either. It's unfathomable unless one understands, as ROXTXIA put it, that you can't have a war without an "boogeyman": OBL provides the face for our idiotic and wasteful "war on terror".
Frankly, I would call it a coin toss on whether we would have invaded Iraq if Bin Laden, and definitely wouldn't rule out an invasion. Bush, for better or for worse, more or less had an agenda against Iraq and there would have been concerns about WMDs regardless of Bin Laden and potential Hussein ties to other terrorist groups. I definitely wouldn't say that Bush decided not to kill Bin Laden in the name of going after Iraq. Or Bush decided that with Al Qaeda being massively bloodied and the Taliban removed from official power that Bin Laden just wasn't a massive threat (to which admittedly, Bin Laden himself isn't that powerful today). Definitely a mistake, however.
A fair point (but still a mistake, as you noted). I just can't help but think it's bloody conveniant that having him still "at large" gives us a handy sense of carte blanche to keep our influence very heavy-handed in a few select regions of the world.
I don't understand how you guys can think the government is so evil as it wants to keep a person alive to justify wars yet let the same government have more control over your lives.
I don't know what you mean by more control of over lives. If you are referring to health care that isn't the case. It offers more choice in our lives. I will say govt. isn't a consistent. It changes. Also like a person there is both good and bad in it.
Well, it's rather easy provided you are able to think outside of bland generalizations that are, more often than not, intellectually vapid positions manufactured by large scale entities to maintain the status quo. EDIT: Casey, while your attitude is a worthwhile debate in itself, you have succeeded in shifting the converstaion. Why are those quotes above so blatantly opposed to each other? Why did the US position on OBL change? I'd like to hear your alternative theory.
He got away. What do you want them to do? Obama has sent tens of thousands of troops and not once did he use Bin Laden's capture as a reason or even a goal in the speech. I think most agree he is the anti-Bush and even as Pres Elect he deflected importance and priority of getting him
Getting away is hardly grounds for "not caring" where he is or not being "concerned" about him. Even the police are more stubborn than that.
do you? and when those locals are so easily bought off by your enemy do you think its a good idea to depend so heavily on them? do you think it was a good idea to put the pakistanis in charge of capturing bin laden? do you think it was a good idea to have our military sitting in kandahar while bin laden got away? do you think the civilian leadership and pentagon did a good job in ignoring the people on the ground who repeatedly asked for more help in capturing bin laden? so their primary motive after 9/11 was not to capture the guy believed to be responsible for it, but to keep relations b/t the united states gov. and a bunch of afghani warlords 'healthy'? why do you think sending troops to tora bora would have been a threat to u.s./afghan relations, but sending them to kandahar wasnt? unless you knew that you could buy off the locals and they would help ensure your escape.
furthermore, you seem to be contradicting your earlier post that in hindsight it would have been better to send in more troops... now you are saying that sending in a limited force and depending on locals was the right thing?
You didn't read the report. Don't pretend like you did. Special Forces are trained to work independently with the locals. They are older and do not look or act like military. they speak the language. They were in charge. You were OK with sending in thousands of 18-22 year olds to fight with no medical support or ability to get them out quickly if they got in trouble? If things went bad, they would have been screwed. You can make this out as a cut and dry move but it isn't. You didn't even bother to read the report (created by democrats) just a persons biased view of it. Then you try to act like you know more about it? the idea was to make it a war that did not include an invasion force. Keep good relations and show we are the good guys. Be smart about it and not act like we are now in charge.
Well if you go for it on 4th and 1 and it doesn't work, would you say that was a good call or you should have kicked the field goal? I am saying there was no criminal or obviously terrible move made here like you guys are making it out to be. And that you have no idea what the other choice actually involved.
I think he meant as it applies to the war on terror. I am pretty sure the reward is still out on Osama, it is just obvious at this point getting him is a long shot. I agree dumb thing to say though. No one accused Bush of being a wordsmith. Obama said it much better where I quoted him above.
