I’ve read some articles from Reuters stating that US and British Special Forces have been in Afghanistan since 2 days after the WTC attacks. Their supposed job their is to capture, kill or pin down UbL.
Let’s assume that our troops are successful in nabbing UbL. Could the US justifiably continue in its attacks in the face of that? Over in Indonesia there are huge protests against the United States and we haven’t even done anything yet. How these people can be so mad already is beyond me (do they expect the US to take the deaths of 6,000+ people and billions of dollars of economic damage and just do nothing?).
Still, it seems that if UbL is caught or, worse, turned over by the Taliban that it would effectively defang the US in its retribution. The Arab world is just barely tolerating (a relative term) our going over there after UbL since at least the governments understand our need to chase this guy down. If UbL is caught can’t they pretty much say, “There you go…now go home.” Unfortunately getting UbL and leaving it at that would do almost nothing to stop terrorism and probably just make him a martyr.
FTR I want to see a cap popped in UbL’s ass as much as the next guy but I wonder if in this case leaving him be for now while we hunt down the rest of the terrorist network wouldn’t be a good thing.
For some reason, the media is hanging its hat on Bin Laden, and making the casual observer think that it’s just a one-man American manhunt that’s going on. Nothing could be further from the truth – there are several nations currently involved in looking for many dozens of major players in the terrorist underworld.
BTW, I would be shocked if Bin Laden were captured alive. I expect him to commit suicide before allowing a finger to be laid upon him.
How do you think things would play out if UbL is caught?
Bordelond mentioned that we are in it for more than just catching UbL. However, how much would world opinion still support the US? Howmuch does the US care about world opinion in this case? (I know the US would rather have world opinion with us but would we do our thing anyway even if opinion was against us?)
We haven’t attacked anyone yet. We are justified in attacking anyone who intends harm to the US.
The US is like the big, rich, captain of the football team guy in high school. The poor kids all hate him because he seems to have everything: cars, money, girls. No one cares if some average Joe doesn’t invite you to his party, but if USA Studman doesn’t invite you, well he’s just a big stuck up dick.
I was not aware that the Arab world really has much say in the matter.
Obviously, the US isn’t going to simply stop hunting terrorists after we get Bin Ladin. As for making him a martyr, who cares? A dead martyr is a lot safer than a live leader. There is a misconception that if you kill a leader, a bunch more will pop up in his place. The fact of the matter is that it is a rare person who has the right combination of leadership, charisma, resources, and talent to inspire others to fight for his cause. Kill enough terrorist leadership and people begin to question the cause. It’s the diference between fighting an army led by a Rommel vs one led by a Sadaam.
I kind of agree with the OP. I think it would harm the coalition if suddenly Bin Laden turned up alive in custody. And there would be ten times as many people in the U.S. who would start clamoring for ‘peace’ and saying that we did the job and now life can go on.
I suspect it’s going to be pretty hard to find the guy anyway. He’s a very smart man, and he knew the WTC attack would trigger the largest manhunt in history. He had an escape plan in place before that attack. All we can hope for is that we’re better than he is, or that he made a fatal miscalculation, or that some country now sympathetic to us had a mole in his organization feeding us information he doesn’t think we have.
Maybe we should just let him alone. That way he can continue to build his terrorist network and attack American citizens at home and abroad. And while half the country is in ruins, we can sit around and group hug under “We Shall Overcome” banners like a bunch of battered housewives.
When the Allied nations defeated Hitler, a bunch more Nazi leaders didn’t show up to take his place.
Jesus did not go around offing people.
(to Christians) Jesus was divine – Osama Bin Laden is not. Instances like Jesus and the rise of Christianity are not particularly common.
I agree with msmith – I don’t buy the “kill one terrorist, ten more replace him” theories, either. I’d like cites from more than 2 or 3 experts on Middle Eastern affairs that suggest that the “one begets ten” theory has any merit at all. I only hear that theory on this message board, in fact.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear in the OP. I am not advocating letting UbL go. Not by a long shot. I’ll be happy to see him take a Tomahawk up his backside. I am merely suggesting that catching him later rather than sooner might be better for the US. My contention is that if we catch him now it would be much harder for the US to continue broader ranged attacks against various terrorist sites. If we catch UbL later in the offensive I maintain the US would have an easier time to get coalition members or other Arab states to not complain so much as we flatten terrorist hideouts along the way in out pursuit of UbL.
I don’t think it’s fallacious at all.
We defeated Germany…not Hitler. Imagine the assassination attempt on Hitler had been successful before the war was over. The Allies would still have been fighting the Nazi war machine. Frankly, Hitler was more of a detriment to the Nazis than a help (he should have left prosecution of the war up to his generals and kept his finger out of it). From the perspective of the German’s winning WWII Hitler probably would have been of far more use to them dead as a martyr or figurehead than he was of use to them alive.
Nope…so what? Why does this make my argument fallacious?
Granted instances like Jesus aren’t common…not by a long shot. Still, I don’t think Jesus’ divinity was commonly held belief by a long shot either when he was crucified. It was only after Jesus death that his effect on the world became truly felt. I am not suggesting that UbL is anywhere in a class with Jesus but my point is you never know what might stick and motivate people in the future.
Judge, jury and executioner based on intent, rather than actuality, hence with no burden of proof.
I’d expect most of the anti-US terrorist groups would justify their actions with the same logic.
As was noted by Richard Butler, formerly head of the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams and persona non grata with the Iraqis, the WTC represents a monumental human tragedy which merits a direct, just and proportional response and yet about the same number of Iraqis, mainly women and children, die each month as a direct result of the US/UK enforced trade sanctions.
Yes, that is what we call WAR. Justification is irrelevent. Certain groups have attacked America and probably plan to continue doing so. Once we have nuetrelized them as a threat, then we can bring your lawyers in.
Of course, those of us that believe in Christianity, don’t think it was necessary for ten others to rise up in Jesus’ place. We kinda go on the notion that he rose up him self.
(Reminding me of the most hilarious line from the Simpsons that Jesus must be rolling over in his grave.)
Seriously, the martyr effect over there is strong. I don’t know if it is ten to one, but if you look at how deplorable the conditions are over there, it isn’t hard to see why they’d care less about dying. Just like the people in the Dark Ages killing themselves to get to God. A lot of the poor in that area see us as the people with all the money and using them for our own sinister purposes. They see UbL as this hero who is fighting for them. If we killed him, it may bring in some more ground troops, but I think it would be a net gain. UbL is the mastermind behind the schemes (or at least plays a major part). He also aids in financing, false papers, and coordination. Take him out and you have a bunch of crazy idiot terrorists. We can stop them a lot more easily than crazy but well-organized terrorists.
Blaming the US/UK/United Nations sanctions is crap. How about blaming the SOB in the form of Saddam Hussein? Tons of medicine, food and other aid for your basic Iraqi are sent to Iraq on a regular basis. Saddam Hussein launched an unprovoked attack against its neighbor. Saddam Hussein has made very strong efforts at obtaining nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people in his efforts to remain in power.
To lay the blame for Iraqi woes solely at the United States’ doorstep is laughable.
The administration has already set their boundaries beyond Bin Laden. Their intent is to destroy his entire network, not just him.
They’re saying this attack was in the planning stages for up to five years. It was various cells working on an already established plan. If we had managed to kill Bin Laden a year ago, the WTC attack probably would have happened anyway, except many would say it was in retaliation of Bin Laden’s death rather than a plan already in action.
Not to sound like a warmonger, but Afghanistan is the sort of “perfect Islamic state” as warped as it is, which Bin Laden seeks. This is the perfect opportunity to go in and take out the Taliban. It’ll be easier to flush out the terrorist cells in that country if we have a friendly government going in with us.
I’d much rather see Bin Laden captured than killed. Just so he’d have to live long enough to see his network picked apart piece by piece.
However from their perspective, maybe the assessment is not quite so clear cut? Or even the reverse?
OK, regarding the “War on Terorism” rather than the hunt for ObL and others responsible for the WTC/Pentagon atrocity. Are you going to go in “shoot first, questions later” on all suspected terrorist activity provided it’s a (usually) safe distance away and from a unfathomably different culture, or are you going against any US based groups in the same manner aka Waco?
What about terrorists that aren’t operating anti-US agendas e.g. the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Are they under this same campaign, or someone else’s problem?
Because we annihilated the entire country and anyone that can take his place. Gehring could have possibly taken his place and others, but we completely annihilated the entire party and it wasn’t just a matter of taking out a figurehead. So that’s a pretty bad example.
So Martyrs are only effective if they are pacifists? Do you have a cite for this?
It is arguable whether or not Jesus was considered divine while he was actually alive. The Hebrews of his time called everyone “Son of God.”, but that’s a different argument. Usama IS actually considered a holy man by many, so his death might be just as good as his life. I think his aim is to actually make his name as good dead as alive, but that’s speculation on my part.
As far as only hearing the ten more replace him theories only on the Straight Dope, you need to read more articles. Those theories are mentioned in at least half the articles I have read. There is one that I have mentioned many times in different threads. I cannot find the actual article right at this moment however. I’m very sorry about that. My advice to you would be to avoid CNN.com or almost any other American news source besides salon.com or Newyorktimes.com and other such semi-respectable print media. The Television media based websites are almost useless as far as getting more than just general updates as to what is going on.