Given that Osama BinLaden is Public Enemy Number 1 in the U.S., why doesn’t the U.S. have a larger force dedicated to his capture?
[Okay, this may wind up in GD - but if possible, I’d like to hear factual reasons for this.]
Right, he’s probably holed up in the hills in Pakistan, just outside of Afghanistan. Right, the Pakistani government is an ally, and is probably doing just as much to find him as anyone could. No, it can’t be very easy - or safe - to search every canyon of those hills, every bear den. And right, the political situation in Pakistan is possibly such that a larger U.S. presence just wouldn’t have any, um, good effect.
There’s also the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, general coziness between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family, as well as George’s eagerness to devote as many troops to Iraq as possible.
Despite what the right-wing pundits will tell you, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good summary of information on this subject, especially if you supplement it with the list of cites on Michael Moore’s web site.
Regardless of what you think of Moore, catching Bin Laden is still a tricky proposition. I don’t usually read USA Today, but I saw a copy this afternoon and they did point out some relevant things:
North Waziristan, the area on the Afghan/Pakistani border where he’s reputedly hiding is the size of Tennessee, so there’s lots of room and 70,000 troops (their figure) isn’t that much. If he’s there, he is also with people who are sympathetic to his cause, which makes it tougher, and it’s not an easy place for the Pakistani government to go into. You often hear it described as ‘semi-autonomous’ or ‘lawless’ and such. The people there don’t want the Pakistani government coming in and while the government is fighting Al Qaeda, they’re also trying to tread lightly and piss off lots of people. You would also figure Bin Laden, or his hosts, know the terrain better than the soldiers looking for them.
He may not be there at all. The piece noted that major Al Qaeda figures like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were caught in Pakistani cities and he might actually be safer there.
Hack Opal.
I think we should be trying harder to find the guy and his associates. The fact that so many resources have been diverted to Iraq is NOT helping. Devoting a massive force to search every inch of a place where he probably-but-not-definitely-is does seem like kind of a waste.
There’s a very good article on this subject in the October 2004 (i.e. upcoming) issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Basically, the author (Peter Bergen) contends that U.S. reliance on “the services of local Afghan proxies of uncertain loyalty and competence” probably allowed him to slip away from Tora Bora in December 2001; and more importantly,
Also, he makes a very good point later in the article: finding one person if that person doesn’t want to be found, and it’s even harder if said person is not in the territory of the country that’s looking for him. Eric Rudolph sucessfully hid for seven years after the Atlanta Olympics bombing; Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, alleged to have been involved in the genocide of Bosnian Muslims, still remain at large, as does the Somalian warlord Muhammad Aideed.
There are are few more inaccessible, hard to attack, easy to defend, and easy to lose yourself in, places in the world than the area in which Bin Laden is reputed to be operating. Promises of huge sums of money mean relatively little in relation to the bonds of fealty they feel toward him via shared beliefs.
The US population has a vastly distorted sense of how large the area that needs to be searched is relative to the troops available.
I think that’s the question. Since the area is so huge, why didn’t the Bush Administration use a force at least the equivalent of the one they used to invade Iraq?
Upon closer examination, I think the point that my article was trying to make was that 20,000 U.S. soldiers weren’t able to capture him in Mogadishu in 1993, not that he’s still alive. Mea culpa.
For all people that believe anything about “Fahrenheit 9/11” or anything that “m moore” has anything to do with… I have some seashore property for sale in Kansas that you would just love.
Brutus–Thanks for illustrating the Right’s most consistent propaganda strategy: if you repeat something enough, people will start to believe it. I KNOW you know that all of these points have been resoundingly debunked, and your continued trotting out of this piece of crap just makes it crystal clear for all of us that you have no substantive arguments available to you.
My god, you mean Gore DID win the 2000 election? 9/11 DIDN’T happen? We HAVE captured bin Laden? We DIDN’T go to war in Iraq? pResident Bush DIDN’T just sit there with a doofy look on his face while the country was under attack? The Bush family ISN’T close to the Saudis? Lila Lipscomb DIDN’T lose her son? Iraqi prisoners WEREN’T abused? The “Patriot” Act WASN’T passed? Paul Wolfowitz DOESN’T lick his comb before combing his hair? Ashcroft CAN’T sing? Which of these or any other things shouldn’t we believe?
I knew the Republican Noise Machine was good at hoodwinking the country, but I had no idea that one of our own was so good at making up file footage. It must have all been computer generated.
I see your Dave Kopel bullshit and raise you twopimpsmacks.
…but then, anyone who’s actually read Kopel’s list of “deceits” knows it’s nothing but a flimsy pile of straw-men and inferences, so it’s no surprise you’d hold it up as an example, Brutus.
