I read on the Asian CNN website this morning that US Secretary Rumsfield thinks that the US will “get bin Laden”:
But the banner headline on this morning’s pro-Western South China Morning Post was that Rumsfield thinks it unlikely that the US will get bin Laden.
Funny how the same press conference has spawned two different views.
Tony Blair is quoted as saying he doubts bin Laden will reach trial, but that’s not quite the same as saying he might not be killed.
Rumsfield was quoted a few weeks back as having been frustrated with his generals’ inability to come up with an innovative plan in realtion to the conflict, which I assume also means to capture or kill bin Laden.
If the US fails to “get bin Laden”, which is at least a moderately likely possibility, does this mean that the objective of the attack on Afghanistan was not reached?
Having thorough antipathy with the Taliban themselves, I don’t think the attack has been worthless in the sense that it has given the Taleban a good kick in the arse. if the Taleban themselves are not unseated in government though, I suspect they will use their tenacity and ability to resist the assault to their advantage in terms of propaganda and call it a win - “The Taleban can resist the hi-tech bullying of the US - join us.”
And effectively it would be a win - if the other objective is to usurp the Taleban regime as a consequence for harbouring terrorists, then they will win if not thrown out.
The taliban will not be allowed to stay in. It was a mistake that they were allowed to take over (they lied, and were left unchecked). Some feel the taliban mess is the fault of those who fought each other in afghanistan.
The US supplied training and ammo to beat the commies. Then the taliban were free to run amock in the mess that was left behind. The US cannot allow this to go on.
As for laden, if the ‘war’ stops before he is found, then it would be pointless. He must be found, killed, whatever. If he doesn’t, I think I will go in and get him myself that @#%@ of a #%@@^!!! His money and influence would then allow the continuance the rampant terrorism.
They said it would take time. I don’t care if it takes a hundred years, his influence must be irradicated. The ones calling this a holy war must be made to look like the heartless fools they are.
I believe the war has already achieved much of its objectives.
Bin Laden had a terrorist factory in Afghanistan. It’s gone. Cratered. Sure, there are a lot of pissed off militants plotting hostile acts right now, just as there were before the war. But there is no great training facility turning out indoctrinated, skilled holy warriors by the thousand. ObL may be able to do some coordinating of counterattacks now, but for the most part, his communications are cut off, and he has to spend his time hiding & just staying alive. Which is vastly preferable (to me) to the way he was devoting his time & energy before the war.
Ditto for the Taliban, terrorists to their own people. Their full time job right now is staying alive & manning the front lines. They don’t have time to whip men for wearing beards too short, or women for daring to join humanity. Their discipline is reporting to be breaking down, music is heard, and the Ministry of Virtue and Vice is powerless to stop it. The Taliban will fall, their supplies are cut off. With patience, the US will outlast them.
Yes, ObL needs to be finished off or he’ll regrow those facilities somewhere, but I have a belief that for the time being he is neutralized.
Uh … if it does take a hundred years, Osama Bin Laden will have died of old age by then.
What I want to know is, why are we still dropping bombs on Afghanistan? On the second day of the aerial assault, our good ol’ U.S. military was saying they were running out of targets to attack. So why are we still bombing the place more than a week later? For the hell of it? To use up our old bombs before their expiration dates?
Slight hijack. How will we know if he’s dead? I’m sure producing a dead body won’t be hard. But how would we ever know if he’s actually the one that’s dead?
I’m not necessarily suggesting a conspiracy on the part of the US, but what if bin Laden has look alike (which I’m sure is a job that would be hard to fill right now), how would the world know if he’s the right one?
What if the US military assumes he’s in a cave, and the military can’t get him out of the cave, so they blow it up?
Does the US have DNA samples from the bin Laden family?
Regarding the OP, I think the outcome has a lot to do with the objectives. There has also been some discussion regarding a potential pipeline.
If there is any truth to that other objective, then the fall of the Taliban (something which is not going to be hard for the US military to do) is almost guaranteed.
However, the fall of the Taliban in itself poses a new dilemma. Who’s going to take over the leadership?
Now that requires a little help from some regional neighbors which looks like some US officials are tending to.
Capturing Bin Laden himself? I have no idea if the US military leaders really even care. If enough of his camps/troops/weapons are destroyed, and his cash is siezed, and the rest of his international cells are dismantled, he’s not going to be much more of a danger than any other disgruntled extremist.
Kicking the Taliban out of power? I’ll bet that part is almost guaranteed.
[hijack]The South China Morning Post is pretty well known for lurid headlines and sometimes sensationalist take on the news. I skim it every morning, and then double check the outlandish ones on the Bloomberg internet edition. Heck I do that with the Yahoo and MSN headlines as well. Bloomberg appears to me to have a pretty high stadard of confirmation on their internet site (the broker version gets all the unsubstantiated wire reports as well). [/hijack]
“Bloomberg”?
My kingdom for a reliable news source!
OK, so is the consensus here that bombs are still falling because the Taleban haven’t given up government, which is the objective?
But if the US isn’t helping the Northern Alliance in order to keep Pakistan happy, of course the Taleban will maintain their government.
It doesn’t matter what OUR consensus for the continued bombing is. The government is not telling us exactly what they’re targeting for bombing sorties, so how can we come to a consensus?
We DO know that we are bombing Taliban ground troops, armor, and artillery. We also know that we bomb radar and AA sites when we find them. However, we don’t know when a bomb is targeted at a secret bunker, or a terrorist hideout.
Then again, any strike against the Taliban brings it that much closer to being overthrown. That is in direct pursuit of one of the goals, to remove governments that sponsor terrorism.
If the objective of the Afghanistan attacks are to shore up American morale in the wake of 9/11 and continued anthrax scares, it’s doing a pretty good job.
If the objective of the Afghanistan attacks are to capture/kill Osama bin Laden, dismantle the al Qadea terrorist network, and send the Taliban reeling so another government can take over … well, have we really done much of anything so far? Aside from the reported death of one of ObL’s lieutenants a few weeks ago, I haven’t really heard of any newsworthy accomplishments.
Granted, this is not a war that’s going to be over in three weeks, but I’m just seeing lots of bombs dropping without any definite results.
The way this war is being reported, I find frustrating. Initially it seemed obvious to all that a massive ground campaign would be required to root out OBL and his ilk, topple the Taliban, and set up a permanent presence to monitor potential future terrorist activity. When I heard people complain about how just dropping bombs on an already war-torn land full of people with little to lose seemed futile, I said that we were probably just softening a landing area for ground troops by knocking out high profile defenses. The rhetoric we’ve been hearing from Washington makes it now sound like the constant bombardment is the ‘war’. I’m hoping that it’s really just the tip of the iceberg, and that the media is not getting the full story for security and strategical reasons. This is supposed to be a war on terrorism, not on Afghanistan.
if we assume the objective of the “war” is to end terrorism, then i would say this is a war that cannot be won. the root of the problem (in my opinion) is a vast difference in culture/politics/economics/religion (take your pick) and i just don’t see the good old USA as having the stomach to take the struggle to its logical conclusion. Certainly this is not a black and white issue and the complexitys are well beyond my understanding, but the way i see it is that there are 2 groups of people, and one of those groups sees it as thier “duty” to destroy the other. luckily, the other group has all the smart bombs.
audient has some excellent comments on progress towards other objectives, and i agree that for now, bin laden is pretty much neutralized as an immediat threat. what bothers me is 5, 10, 20 years from now, it will be the same situation, but with different players and faces.
i do not believe the “real enemy” can ever be defeated.
In my opinion, the best outcome would be never to kill Osama bin Laden. I think that the U.S. should deliberately stay one half step behind him, nipping at his heels, never letting him or his entourage stop long enough to get their bearings. They should be tripping and stumbling over themselves and be too busy to plot any more atrocities. If Osama bin Laden is caught, tried, convicted and incarcerated, he becomes a political prisoner and other fanatics will be committing more atrocities in order to free him. If he is killed any time soon, our presence in that part of the world may become extremely unwelcome. But I agree that the Taliban needs to be wiped out. I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a moderate Taliban. JMHO.
As long as he is alive, he will continue to inspire thousands because he is living proof that you can defeat the Americans.
Our presence in the world is already extremely unwelcome, but I suspect the number of fanatics who are willing to join a losing cause is less than the number of anti-American belivers who want to see the US humbled but aren’t willing to die for it.
Whatever anyone says the REAL point of this effort in Afghanistan is to get OBL. If the Taliban had handed him over we wouldn’t be there.
Therefore we may or may not be getting our objective done.
If we don’t get to Kabul and a couple of other cities (or the Northern Alliance doesn’t) we will have a tough position ahead. The war will stall and we are already losing the publicity champaign.
I just hope we learned from Vietnam in that you can’t fight a war on the other guys terms. In other words, we won’t bomb on Fridays, we won’t bomb certain cities. (remember we wouldn’t bomb Hanoi nor go into Loas or Cambodia - for much of the war at least). With the borders being so UNGUARDED I can easily see Afghanis easily hitting us then stepping to Pakistan to get off free.
Bush has given us many excuses to fail, but none why he will sucsede. By saying it will take years and hemming and hawing on this coilition he never has failed to say something without saying something else to cover his butt if he fails. This is NOT a way to run a war.
As for the Muslims they will hate us whether we bomb them a little or a lot so we need to do what is best militarily.