I think he’s hiding out in Saddam’s beard.
You said it yourself, Sam. As long as there are people out there who hate the U.S., we have a problem. The solutio is not to kill all those people, but to look at why they hate the U.S. and maybe, god forbid, stop doing what it is that they object to so much.
Just a thought.
Cheers.
Um, Sammy, the discussion was about why he isn’t effectively going after Osama. They are different people, you know, despite what Bush has tried to insinuate constantly over the last 2 years. One attacked us, the other didn’t. The one who attacked us is the one who needs to be gotten. Clear?
That is, unless you’re asserting that the radicalized Arabs hate the West because of the nature of Saddam’s rule in Iraq. Gonna explain that for us?
Elvis:
I just have to wonder…what makes you so certain that we’re not effectively going after Osama to the best of our abilities? Isn’t it possible that we are, but that the guy’s just better hidden and his location better protected? We may have driven the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, but they may well still have a hardcore support base that’s willing to protect Osama. It’s not easy to penetrate that sort of thing without, say, massacring people indiscriminately.
Could be - but then we’d certainly be hearing about all the military and intelligence and diplomatic efforts going on to do just that, even with some operational details necessarily secret. But there’s nothing. No evidence of any serious, ongoing, goal-oriented campaign of any sort in that area; not even a serious amount of those despised nation-building activities in Afghanistan to prevent it from being a terrorist haven in the future.
No effort of the required nature and size can be that much of a secret and still be real. I’ll go with Occam on the matter, thank you - while waiting for Sam to explain his continuing conflation of Osama and Saddam.
If ObL is captured, Bush will have no problems winning the Whitehouse in '04. So, even the cynically minded must realize this is a very high priority for the Bush administration. The news stories are all about Iraq right now. Blame the media for lack of info on what’s going on in Afghanistan.
It would be reassuring if Bush would even mention Osama and Afghanistan, even once in a while. Whenever asked, he has diverted the question to Saddam’s alleged sponsorship of terrorism. There is, in short, no factual basis to believe that this really is a high priority, as you so devotedly state. And do you remember that the current WH budget didn’t even include any Afghanistan funding? They “forgot”. Nearly all of the war appropriation he asked for was for Iraq. “Very high priority” my pasty white butt. You’re not fooling anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.
The capture of Osama doesn’t have to be a high priority for Bush. The misdirection approach has worked fine so far, to the point where a rededication to the truth might even be embarrassing. But it would still be a net positive politically, of course. Meanwhile, what desultory military effort we have going on in Afghanistan seems to be devoted to watching the Taliban regroup.
Elvis:
Not if there’s no new news in that regard. We’ve certainly heard that he’s holed up somewhere in Waziristan, and that the area is next to impossible to search, and that the Pakistanis are cooperating with the US in the effort.
I mean, what do you expect, Chevy Chase announcing, on a daily basis “This just in…Osama Bin Laden is still at large?” Or, less tongue in cheek, a daily list of what mountains the US forces has climbed or what villages haven’t yielded any info?
Say what? Here’s a whole lot of news related to Afghan nation-building.
Chaim Mattis Keller
No, I’d expect some effort to go into that region with enough force to find and capture him. Hasn’t happened. Hasn’t started to happen. Why not? Is it a secret? Don’t be silly, Chaim.
No need to be condescending about Afghan nation-building links, either. Sure, there’s been some, but go back and note that I said “a serious amount”. Note also that the $87 billion we’re paying for ME warfare, on top of the earlier $79 billion, includes only $1.5 billion for the country that really did harbor Osama and Al-Qaeda, and how far can that go to help the situation, really?
Another comment for John: The capture of Osama would help Bush politically, yes, but no more so (and maybe not even as much as) the capture of Saddam - that glow is fading pretty quickly already, wouldn’t you say? I’d expect that, if the Iraqi insurgency is still killing our people almost every day, without even a light at the end of the tunnel to claim, that will tip the balance against Bush for those assessing his foreign policy. It so far does not appear that the capture of Saddam or Osama will affect that.
That is a good idea. It makes you wonder why southern Blacks didn’t just look into the reasons the KKK didn’t like them and stop doing those things the Klan objected to (e.g., voting, using the same facilities, going to the same schools, that sort of thing).
I don’t give a damned about the opinion of Arab Muslim radicals* for the same reason I don’t give a damned about the opinion of white supremacists (among whom I grew up). They are ignorant, ill-informed, poorly educated, and refuse to accept the fallacy of their belief system despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They chose to accept information based not upon plausibility or reliability, but based upon whether it says what they want to hear (e.g., Al-Jazeera, racist, terrorist liars like Arafat).
Their lives are crap because they’re too stubborn to overcome their outmoded lifestyles and it’s simply easier to blame their troubles on an “other” rather than the true culprit: themselves and the corrupt, fat-ass politician/royal family in the plantation/mansion/royal palace. You’re never going to reason with ignorance of that magnitude; the only answer is to bitch-slap them and make them change their ways.
This whole concept that we should tip-toe around in our foreign policy to placate the radical minority is just asinine. I really doubt African nations tailor their foreign policy so as not to offend consummate jackasses like Strom Thurmond. (Don’t ya just love the fact he was banging his 16-year-old African-American maid back when he was spouting segregation? Ah, spermin’ Thurmond, we’ll miss you.)
Don’t get me wrong. There are many perfectly valid reasons rational Arabs Muslims may disagree with US foreign policy. But if they are mad at the US because the Jews blew up the World Trade Center or the Bali nightclub, well, I just don’t think that warrants a change in policy.
And to beat the dead horse a bit more: where are all the followers of that great martyr Timothy McVeigh? Guess we shouldn’t have chased him either.
*Who represent popular sentiment there as closely as the Klan does here.
Since most of the folks who were hunting for Osama were diverted to Iraq back around the start of the year, I think it’s a given that the United States is not going after Osama “to the best of our abilities” – because if we were, those guys would still be in Afghanistan.
rjung:
What, like they managed to find him when they were there?
Sometimes numbers is not the answer. Sometimes subtlety is.
Chaim Mattis Keller
The reason OBL has not been found is the protection he receives from the Pakistani intelligence services, military and tribal leaders. Hopefully the near-assisination of Musharraf will provide him the leeway and the will to crack down. It is a shame this whole sorry mess necessitates us cozying up to such a dangerous government that clearly supports terrorism and opposes democracy.
Regardless, I agree that we’d have a better shot at finding him if we weren’t distracted in Iraq. $4 billion a month goes a long way in third-world countries.
BTW, if the US already got him (which they haven’t), we’ll find out sometime around Nov. 1, 2004.
The reason OBL has not been found is the protection he receives from the Pakistani intelligence services, military and tribal leaders. Hopefully the near-assisination of Musharraf will provide him the leeway and the will to crack down. It is a shame this whole sorry mess necessitates us cozying up to such a dangerous government that clearly supports terrorism and opposes democracy.
Regardless, I agree that we’d have a better shot at finding him if we weren’t distracted in Iraq. $4 billion a month goes a long way in third-world countries.
BTW, if the US already got him (which they haven’t), we’ll find out sometime around Nov. 1, 2004.
Chaim, got any factual basis to believe they’re trying subtlety either? Unless total disregard constitutes “subtlety”, that is.
Capturing Osama bin Laden would make even me cheer. That man is going to cost us.
Elvis:
Not specifically, no. But there’s no reason to think that intelligence gathering and covert ops have completely stopped just because some of the resources were diverted to Iraq.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ElvisL1ves said:
White House Hails Opening of Kabul-Bandahar Highway
That’s 3.2 billion in reconstruction funds so far.
As for any serious, goal-oriented campaigns…I take it you haven’t heard of Operation Avalanche?
There are almost 12,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan right now, plus an undisclosed number of special forces hunting for Bin Laden.
‘The only answer is to bitch-slap them and make them change their ways’.
unfortunate turn of phrase, possibly, but this might just be the attitude people object to. And not just rabid, drooling fundamentalists. Actual people who see America (and the rest of the ‘western’ world) as exploiting their nations and riding rough-shod over their deeply-held beliefs, not to mention their way of life.
Also, I’m not sure I completely see how people objecting to America’s (quite unilateal) foreign policy and my suggesting that perhaps less people would want to blow things up in the states if a smidge more consideration were shown to them is in any way similar to your black people refusing to vote analogy. Surely, you’ve inverted it. Perhaps it’s more like the U.S. government saying, why are these people upset? Is it because we’re not being fair? Perhaps we should do something about that…
I don’t know, maybe there’s some milage in a comparison with the objections to British imperialism and the objections to American economic hegemony.
Cheers.