If we know where Bin Laden is why don't we pick him up?

The U.S. has an official policy that makes it illegal for the U.S. to assassinate people.

I don’t think the U.S. is very good at covert operations (at least big ones). It seems to me that there is a conflict in the minds of American politicians that will not allow the U.S. to be successful. Whether the chance of getting caught makes the U.S. timid, or it simply violates Americans’ sense of fair play is the reason, I don’t know. Maybe it’s the free press? Maybe it’s just bad luck?

Carter launched a covert operation to free the hostages held by Iran. Disaster. Poor planning, or “just one of those things”? When Hungary tried to throw off the yoke of Communism (at the urging of the U.S. especially) and asked for Western help, the U.S. didn’t help. The U.S. told the Kurds that we would help them overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Kurds rose up, but the U.S. didn’t help. Iran-Contra was supposed to free the hostages and help the anti-communists in South America. All over the news. Kennedy promised to help overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Naval and air support he promised did not come. Pilots were in their planes, the planes were on the cats, but the order came to stand down.

To be sure, there are most likely successful covert operations that came off splendidly; but we haven’t heard of them because they were covert. It seems though that the U.S. has been singularly unsuccessful when there is a high-profile job to be done that must be done with little fanfare. The former Soviet Union could do something and say, “So what? What are you going to do about it?” They knew we would not go to war over their little indiscretion.

Some Americans say, “Let’s kick their ass and take their gas!” and “Why don’t we do something?” And when we do do something and it becomes public knowledge, those same people are upset that other countries vilify us for it. I think Americans are very vain. As loud and obnoxious as we can be, I think most of us want to be liked. (In Europe, I was told that most Americans ask, “Do you like us?” or "What do you think of the U.S.?) The U.S. reminds me of a blue-collar worker who is invited to a formal dinner party. Very insecure, and unsure how to act. Sure, blue-collar-boy can lick any man in the house; but he’s trying to make a good impression.

So we have a law that forbids assassination. We lack the means to take out Bin-Laden covertly. We don’t have the temerity to do something that we will be severely criticized for.

Of course if Bin-Laden suddenly got dead, I don’t think the U.S. would shed any tears for him. The U.S. can only hope that someone else would do the dirty work for them.

Why can’t we send in Sly stallone? Surely he could off Bin Laden for us-and not get a scratch!

I do think Bin Laden is responsible for at least some of the terrorist acts in recent years, though I partially agree with the scapegoat theory. During the Cold War, the US media protrayal of world politics was mostly black and white–the commies and their stooges were the enemy, trying to take away our freedom, and any action short of nuclear annihilation was justifiable. (And in some peoples’ minds, nuclear use was justifiable.) Now, without a serious nuclear enemy and the threat of terrorism more acute, the public needs a name to become “the enemy”.

Bin Laden, Milosevic, and Hussein have stepped up to the plate. I have little doubt that all three are at least indirectly responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, and the world would likely be a better place without them. IMHO, I think the “media” Bin Laden may simply be a name that people have heard enough to remember, so we can just blame anything remotely involving violence and Islamic extremists on him. But I do not think he is a boy scout, either.

I seriously doubt that the CIA would let a silly little thing like the law prevent them from assassinating people, but given recent history, I expect no one wants to be on the short end of screwing up something so high profile either. They’d either want to pin it on someone else or make it look natural. To do either, it seems likely that you’d need to get close to the target, which requires an insider. With religious extremists, that seems like it would be VERY difficult.

As was stated, it’s hard to look good in world opinion when you conduct the same kind of terrorist acts you condemn. I don’t recall exact details, but I do seem to remember Bin Laden was an ally of sorts back in the 80’s, so no doubt he feels we screwed him over in some way. We probably did. I do not believe that should not prevent us from defending ourselves against terrorist acts that he is responsible for. If the best defense is a good offense and if it would ultimately save innocent lives if one guilty man was captured or killed, then as much as I hate the thought, I would have to support action toward that end.

At that point, the question becomes: What types of action are appropriate? I do not think indiscriminate cruise missile bombardment was the proper action, nor would I support war with Afghanistan as a reasonable course. Logically, a tactical covert operation is about the only thing that makes sense unless you are willing to talk and try to make deals. And when both sides have no trust and hate each other too much to listen or compromise, talking doesn’t go very far.

I expect I might draw some flack for even suggesting negotiation with terrorists, but I mention it as a partial answer that wanders back to the OP. Why don’t we just go grab him? Politics. As much as the U.S. likes to think it can do anything it wants, there are parts of the world that we don’t control, and in practicality can’t control. To get what we want from other countries, we have to play the diplomacy game. Sure, we can use strong arm tactics and get our way, but often at the cost of losing trust and potentially making more enemies. Keep doing that, and you shoot yourself in the foot.

In some cases, we have made deals with terrorists. Self-defense experts usually recommend that you give a mugger your money rather than risk losing your life. Terrorism is not unlike being mugged, though on a larger scale. The difference is that the people making the decision to risk life aren’t usually the people is harm’s way.

sigh I’ve rambled enough, I suppose. I wonder if this thread is on it’s way to GD…

Aww, come on now. How many successful covert operations do you know about? You only hear about the ones that screw up. Otherwise they wouldn’t really be covert.

The successful CIA assassination of Salvador Allende springs to mind.

Fascinating thread. The intelligence and political astuteness of Dopers never ceases to amaze me.

One small semi-hijack comment on a previous remark:

I’m friends with a number of Latin-American-born people, many of whom are either naturalized U.S. citizens or who claim some form of dual citizenship via mixed parentage. And yes, some of them have Panamanian background.

I remember the invasion of Panama quite well. As soon as I heard it was going on, I dashed over to the house of one of my Panamanian friends. She and several others were sitting in front of the TV, watching as events developed, crying their eyes out.

I asked: “What’s wrong? Don’t you all hate Noriega? Won’t you be happy when he’s gone?”

They looked at me like I was an idiot: “It’s too complicated to explain.”

After a few weeks of prodding and questioning, I started to get something of a handle on it. Yes, they were pleased to see Noriega go. However, they realized several additional things:

Noriega’s power structure would largely be left in place, and Panamanians found to have supported the U.S. invasion would be punished by the hundreds and thousands of thugs and corrupt powermongers the U.S. didn’t arrest. Further, many, many innocent Panamanians lost their lives in the assault, and large sections of Panama City burned.

And finally, there’s the existential pain of knowing that their country, after decades of pursuing self-determination, was still a client satellite of a major superpower that could be trampled at will for what was really nothing more than a large-scale public-relations maneuver. Remember, Noriega was propped up for many years by U.S. politicians as a bulwark against the “domino effect.” As long as he wasn’t a Commie, our government didn’t mind that he was, to quote Eddie Izzard, “a mass-murdering fuckhead.” And once he had become a liability, the U.S. waltzed in with impunity and removed their creation.

So consider that the U.S. had a large role in making things as bad as they were, and in removing him, they didn’t make things a whole lot better. That’s why my friends were crying.

This doesn’t have a lot to do with the Osama Bin Laden dilemma, but it does give you a sense that even the most superficially straightforward situation is usually far more complex than it initially seems.

Heh. I thought of that after I posted this morning.

Completely irrelevant. The US military is apolitical. It takes its orders from the civilian heirarchy: President, Secretary of Defense, and Service Secretary (Army - Secretary of the Army; Navy and Marine Corps - Secretary of the Navy; Air Force - Secretary of the Air Force; Coast Guard - Secretary of Transportation).

Just how is this “support of the people” determined? Public referendum?

jb_farley: good point. This whole situation seems very fishy.

Gadarene: while the CIA certainly bears responsibility for the assasination, I haven’t seen any evidence that that was their intent.

Monty: what is your point (and I really don’t know, I’m not being “jerkish”)? Did you miss the sarcasm in my post?

I’m confused by your post. It wasn’t their intent to assassinate him? They were just going for a flesh wound? :slight_smile:

[Insert your disclaimer to Monty here. I hope I’m not being a jerk; I just don’t understand the distinction you’re making.]

Johnny L.A. posted

I found it interesting that one of the players on the mission was an infamous Marine Colonel that was intimately involved with Iran-Contra in the Reagan Adminintration. :eek: In fact he was one of the two uniformed personnel who was convicted of multiple felonies regarding the “operation”. Poor planning or sabotage?

What a fantasy! Americans could not possibly take out Bin Laden. They are notoriously inept and hopeless in such matters. The only op they can execute with any efficiency is the massive invasion scenario involving overwhelming dollar supremacy.

Mossad, on the other hand…

Yeah, Mossad who bungled an assassination in Jordan so that its agents were captured and had to be traded for the release of Shaykh Ahmad Yasin.

Jomo Mojo, I can’t tell if Yeah, Mossad who bungled an assassination in Jordan so that its agents were captured and had to be traded for the release of Shaykh Ahmad Yasin makes a better band name or Dennis Miller punchline.

Either way, nice one.
jb

I would expect that after Bush takes office, Bin Laden will be keeping a VERY low profile.

dp: I’d think so. Sounds kinda like Iran’s reaction to Carter vs. their reaction to Regan, if your hypothesis pans out.

Cervaise: Good point, there. Being a bully and wading into a fight is a bad way to win a war. The only way we could ‘win’ in Afghanistan using the methods we’re successful with would be to completely turn the nation into either a military garrison or a glowing parking lot. Both options are distasteful in the current political climate. We have to fight for the popular support of the native Afghans, and the only way we could do that would be to drag their economy up to Western levels. I don’t mean economic-cultural imperialism, either. I mean actual improvement of the Afghani economy. The world is not simple. Solutions will get harder, and the government will not be able to solve them. So the impetus falls on the American people to guide themselves to economic and cultural improvement, and that necessarily means improving the rest of the world. After all, you cannot own a mansion if it is surrounded by pigsties.

Bush: Mr. Ben Lager, I’m coming to getcha!
Bin Ladin: Oh, yeah? You and what army?
Bush: Uh, I meant that I want you to come to a party with some of my frat brothers…
Bin Ladin: What do you take me for, an Aggie?
Bush: Oh, come on…
Bin Ladin: Go away, yankee pig-dog!
Bush: Can I at least invade?
Bin Ladin: No!
Bush: Come on, my dad got to invade… Ask Saddam Hussein. It’s really not so bad.
Bin Ladin: Well, ok, maybe. What time can you be here?
Bush: Is 8pm next Tuesday ok?
Bin Ladin: No, I’ve got a nail appointment. How about Wednesday?
Bush: Ok, we’ll be there. Not gonna ask for a recount, are you?
Bin Ladin: Ha ha ha… Oh, Dubya, it’s gonna be a fun four years…
Bush: So can I get your address?
Bin Ladin: Uh, I’m kind of staying at my mom’s right now… You know how it is.
Bush: Yeah, bummer, eh? Hey, one more thing…
Bin Ladin: Yes?
Bush: Is your refrigerator running? (click)

Overall not a bad take on things, Cervaise.

I’ve been working in Panama off and on for 23 years, and have resided here for more than 10 years in all. I was visiting Panama regularly for the 2 years preceding the invasion, and left the country 36 hours before the invasion took place (coincidentally). I have many many Panamanian friends.

It was a very complex situation. IIRC that just after the invasion polls showed that around 90% of the population was in favor of it - even though many aspects of it probably sickened them. And recently polls showed that at least 70% of the population was in favor of the U.S. keeping its military bases here after the year 2000 - hardly likely if there was still a lot of seething resentment. (The bases are all gone now, BTW. This may have been a factor in the electoral defeat of the previous government.)

I heard one opposition leader, Roberto Eisenmann, say that the whole thing was like having a cancerous leg cut off - everyone knew it had to be done, but it was excruciating all the same.

The main crime that the U.S. committed was condoning and supporting Noriega for many years. Even though he and his power structure needed to be evicted, and much of the population supported it, the U.S. still bears a lot of the blame for helping put him there in the first place and keep him there. (And the U.S.'s actual motivation for taking him out, BTW, had little to do with drugs or democracy - it was because he refused to support the contras in the struggle against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua).

Well, that’s what your friends may have thought at the time, but that’s not what occurred. In fact, that is one reason the U.S. decided on a full-scale invasion, rather than just supporting the October 1989 coup attempt by some of Noriega’s officers (whom he subsequently executed out of hand). The legally elected opposition regime was installed. However there was remarkably little “paying back of scores” on either side subsequently (though some did occur).

True. The exact numbers have never been determined. I have a book called Genocidio en Panama, which obviously takes an extreme anti-U.S. stance. It lists about 300 civilian fatalities. How many of those might have been armed Noriega goons out of uniform, and how many were killed in the crossfire, or in fires is difficult to determine. (Some fires may have been set by U.S. rockets; but one of my friends who lives in the neighborhood in question said that they were mostly set by Noriega goons trying to spread confusion.) But in any case, quite a few innocent bystanders were definitely killed. One poor section of Panama City burned almost completely.

Well, in the long run they did. Panama is a normal country now. Under Noriega it was extremely ugly. And nobody, regardless of their politics, wants Noriega himself to come back.

[apologies for the additional hijack]

This is not to say that the U.S. didn’t have a lot to do with his overthrow, but Allende committed suicide. (But maybe Pinochet would have had him executed if he had been captured.)

Maybe we could lure him out by inviting him to be on Letterman.

Osama, Oprah… Oprah, Osama.
I think you both already know Uma…