Killing Osama is the LAST thing we want to do.

In My Humble Opinion
1

Everybody is nuts to get Osama. Why? Strategically, it’s a horrible idea, especially if our long-term objective is to stamp out the terrorist movement. IMHO, the sure-fire way we can screw this war up is to kill Osama ASAP. Here’s why:

  1. The fraidy-cat “coalition” members will go, “Osama’s dead? Great, we won! Mission accomplished. Let’s go home.”

  2. Short-sighted, impatient, on-the-fence and peacenik-inclined American people will go “Osama’s dead? Great, we won! Mission accomplished. Let’s come home.”

  3. Everybody says that the terrorist movement will not die when Osama gives up the ghost. Kill him and the problem still exists.

So what we want to do is kill his followers first, then get him last. As long as we’re chasing him around the ratholes of Afghanistan, killing his buddies and supporters in the process, we’ll keep our allies and the American public engaged – while we erode his power base.
(My apologies if someone has already made this point in another thread. There’ve been so many – and they’re all so long – I haven’t read them all.)

2

Killing Osama alone might not stamp out Mid-East terrorism.

But it would make an assload of people feel a -whoooole- lot better.

3

Um, no. As far as Afghanistan goes the mission is not completed there until all the top members of Al Qaeda are removed, the Taliban overthrown, and a new government implemented. They’ve been saying that since the beginning. We learned the hard way from previous experiences in Afghanistan what happens when you pull out too quickly; if we were to simply kill him and leave the situation would not be resolved. As far as I’m aware all members of the coalition are aware of this and are in for the long haul. I’m not sure which “fraidy-cat” members of the coalition that you are referring to, so you might want to give examples. Good link.

See the response to your first point. It should work just as well on anybody at home who thinks the action in Afghanistan will immediately end with Osama’s death. Except, of course, for the people who are saying we shouldn’t be there to begin with, but that’s another debate.
**

You are absolutely right, which is why they want to capture Bin Laden, bring him onto the Great Satan’s[sup]TM[/sup] soil and put him on trial. The theory behind this is that doing so would have a somewhat demoralizing factor upon his followers, and there is also a fear that he may become a martyr. IIRC there have already been a few attempts to compare him to Saladin (a great Muslim warrior from Iraq who fought during the Crusades). Failing that you kill him, whoever takes his place, whoever takes their place etc. Why this action would still be acceptable even if you make him a martyr is that by eliminating the leadership of the terrorists the individual cells would be cut off from coordinated leadership, and hopefully left without competent support. Also there is a hope that a moron may wind up in command of Al Qaeda and that would be a help to their opponents.
**

So my question to you is how do you kill his followers when you don’t know who they are? The USSR referred to their war in Afghanistan as “The Soviet Viet Nam.” Attacking military targets is one thing, rooting out all of Bin Laden’s supporters is another, especially the ones not wearing uniforms, and especially the ones not in Afghanistan. If we waited until we killed all of his supporters, or at the least a majority, it would take, well, let’s just say if we’re gonna wait until all of his supporters are killed then we should just rent Osama a room at the Hilton in DC. Also the military aspect of the “War on Terrorism” is only the most visible aspect of what’s going on. Aside from freezing financial assets there is also going to have to be a PR phase, i.e. “The US and the West: a bunch of swell guys!” This is likely to include a Marshall Plan sort of rebuilding of Afghanistan. Also the US is taking some steps in the PR direction already with the pressure being put on Israel. Granted, a large part of this is due to Muslim allies of the US getting itchy with what’s happening in Palestine, but the Israel/Palestine situation is something that is going to take a lot of diplomacy to solve and the US is now much more fully aware of the importance of this after 9/11. Ultimately the way to finally win the “War on Terrorism” is to change current perceptions so that the West is not hated so much. Unfortunately, this is going to require a little bit of “tearing down” before we can “build up,” hence the current actions in Afghanistan.

4

This is the heart of the matter, IMHO.

Imagine, for instance, if James Earl Ray had shot Ralph Abernathy, rather than Martin Luther King Jr., back in 1968. Abernathy was replaceable; King was not. To this day, a void exists where he once stood.

When Joe Johnston got wounded when the Army of the Potomac was approaching Richmond in 1862, and Lee took command of the Army of Northern Virginia in his stead, how many years did that add to the Civil War? (That’s a rhetorical question; ya wanna actually debate it, start yer own thread. :)) And Johnston was a very good general, but the point is, there were more generals of Johnston’s caliber available; there was only one Robert E. Lee.

So, in the field of Middle East terrorism, is bin Laden a Lee or a Johnston, a King or an Abernathy?

Terrorism has been going on for a long time in this region. Who heads the Hamas, and what’s he done? Sure, you can get a guy to strap bombs to his body, walk into an Israel bus station, and pull the detonator. That, IMO, is the replacement level for Osama bin Laden: a guy who can get other guys to do that sort of thing, and provide them the means to do it.

But that’s nothing like what bin Laden has been able to pull off. This guy’s their Lee. He can not only lead, but he can plan, and he can think 'way outside the box, as we found out several weeks ago.

I mean, in every previous attempt at mass terror, the terrorists had to bring the bombs in with them - risking getting caught with a shitload of contraband - and bring them to the spot where they would be used.

Since Oklahoma City, we’ve made the delivery of truck bombs a bit more challenging. So he figured out a way to blow up the WTC towers and a chunk of the Pentagon, without bringing along so much as a cherry bomb in the way of contraband. In our war aims, we should be impressed by the elegance of his solution to the problem he took on.

Killing this guy is extremely important. It doesn’t matter if they make him a martyr; by all odds, they will be much less effective without him.

Yes, after that we should stay around and do what we can to destroy his organization, and to do some nation-building in Afghanistan this time - a cause supported probably by more people on the left than on the right, although the National Journal’s Michael Kelly made a forceful case for it in the Washington Post this week.

But whether or not we accomplish anything else, we should kill or capture bin Laden. If we do that, our intervention in Afghanistan will still be at least a partial success, even if we accomplish nothing else.

5

I agree with you, RTFirefly. I said in another post that the U.S. forces should deliberately stay one half step behind Osama bin Laden and his entourage, biting at their heels, not letting them settle down and plan their next move. I feel that a bit of psychological butt-kicking is in order here; let’s dish it out and see if he likes it. Also, I strongly agree that we need to stick around and support Afghanistan get back on her feet again. We can’t afford to “cut and run” anymore. Lastly, I feel we need to develop new homegrown energy sources so that we can tell those oil producing states to drink their oil. Maybe if enough of those countries are faced with loss of revenue, they might turn their attention from making trouble to dealing with their citizen’s needs. JMHO

6

RTFirefly–You’ve made some good points, but in my opinion, I don’t know if your initial assumption is correct. From what I understand, bin Laden’s main function was providing monetary support and training facilities for terrorist cells (sorry, I don’t have a cite handy, but I can dig one up). Individual terrorist groups would come to him with their plan, and bin Laden would give them money, weapons, help train them, and perhaps even put them in touch with other cells that could be of help.

I don’t think that our current evidence (what we know of it) shows that Osama bin Laden actually planned the attacks himself. All the news reports I’ve read have fingered Mohammed Atta as being the chief architect of the September 11th plot. So while capturing/killing bin Laden would be great at sending a message to other people who fund terrorism, I don’t know if it would have the effect of decapitating their main strategist. Unfortunately there are many other terrorist cells outside of Afghanistan capable of masterminding devestating attacks. Hopefully without bin Laden’s funding & training, they will be slowed down somewhat…

7
      • Actually the money is the problem, and the people supplying it will have to be stopped at any cost. Since Osama already has lots of his own money and isn’t likely to do that, he’s gotta go.
        -A much bigger, more delicate problem is the amounts flowing out of Saudi Arabia. It is my (third-hand) understanding that there are enormous differences in opinion of Bin Laden between the economic classes of citizens there. - MC