QandO
Questions and Observations| « the 'morality' of globalization and outsourcing | Main | The European meaning of "Never Again" » |
|
March 22, 2004 Bin Laden news and speculation... International forces recently found a location where fugitive al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is thought to have taken refuge, according to French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.Wouldn't it be ironic if bin Laden was caught by the French? After so much bad blood, it would be a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow. Nevertheless. I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I think they're a lazy man's shortcut, at best, or - more often - a stupid man's crutch. Having said that, I do wonder about the failure to catch Osama bin Laden. Clearly, under the circumstances, it isn't an easy task. But I wonder if we're not intentionally letting him play at the end of his rope? Watching, waiting, and doing other things first. I'll explain. We know the Bush administration was - and, presumably, is - concerned about the possibility of bin Laden becoming a martyr. Immediately after 9/11, during initial planning meetings, this discussion came up.... Rumsfeld raised another problem. Although everyone agreed that destroying al Qaeda was the first priority, singling out bin Laden, particularly by the president, would elevate bin Laden the way Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been elevated during the Gulf War.While killing bin Laden would be satisfying, we're not at war for satisfaction. We're at war to reduce the threat of terrorism. A living bin Laden is a danger to the US; a running bin Laden less so. A dead bin Laden, however, is very dangerous to the US, as he becomes a martyr, a motivator, to the terrorists around the world. His death focuses existing terrorists to strike, to retaliate. Such a retaliation would be very difficult to stop. We could fight against a plotting "global network". It's harder to fight against 10,000 rash and angry individuals. Again, I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do wonder if we might not be allowing bin Laden to twist in the wind, while we deal with first things first. And the most important thing is the Al Qaeda network, which poses a threat when bin Laden is alive...and more of a threat if bin Laden dies a "martyr". Just a thought. (Hat tip to Steverino, who sent the story) |
If you're correct in your wondering (and I think you are), then it's a pretty good strategy for the administration to follow. You know as well as I do that the minute OBL is captured, the left will say that the war on terrorism is over. Bin Laden might be the recruiter and moneybags of the operation, but he's just one man among hundreds. And al Qaeda is just one organization among scores.
Posted by: Steverino at March 22, 2004 09:17 PM
I am not sure I agree. If the martyr agruement was what saved Hussein before, I think it was a bad idea. We still had to finish the job eventually. And if I Iraq was already taken care of then, maybe we could be fixing Iran now, if the current regime did not yet collapse form presssure before. And some still argue that Iraq was a distraction on the War on Terror so support is still shaky regardless of the capture of Bin Laden.
It seemed to me Hussein defying the world and staying in power the first time, made him more confident. Prehaps this also made Bin laden confident as well.
Posted by: Frank Castle at March 22, 2004 11:04 PM
Agreed. Even if Bin Laden is dead, the admin. has an interest in keeping him "alive" for exactly the reason described- if he's dead, too many people (right and left alike) will declare the terror war a "success" and the momentum will be lessened or lost.
Posted by: Trumpy at March 22, 2004 11:35 PM
John,
I've thought the same things too. Right now I'm wondering though if maybe it isn't better to give the terrorists what they want - martrydom. Here is my reasoning:
I think one of key points in terror circles is that they think we are more afraid of death than they are. Refusing to martyr their "heroes" only confirms this belief to them - while they glory in dying to serve their religion, we remain a bunch of cowards who can't even run the risk of temporary anger.
Martyr their leaders and afterwards saying things to the effect of - he's dead, we don't give a fuck, and your next asshole leader will die a painful death too though would change this. Yes, we would inflame that part of the world. On the other hand though, we would not be painted as a bunch of cowards. Further, there can be only so many martyrs. Do you really think that the terrorist world will memorize lists of 250 of them? 500? 1000? As a final benefit, these assholes will be removed from the equation - we won't have to worry about them inciting their population.
Posted by: Elliot Fladen at March 23, 2004 07:14 AM
I think you guys miss the point. We are dealing with extremists who completely "buy into" the idea of becoming martyrs. If the US has just gone out and cut the head off, the body would have continued to grow.
This is a “war of attrition” in which we need to not only “cut off the head”, but eradicate the entire body, including the breeding grounds. The current tactics being employed by Rumsfeld and Bush are EXACTLY what is needed to do this job.
We are not trying to "fix it now", we are trying to reshape the world into something better. I agree with the sentiment Jon put forth, and do not believe this is a "conspiracy theory" but an insight into the "real war".
Posted by: Jim G. at March 23, 2004 08:44 AM
Sorry, Jon, but I couldn't disagree with you more -- this is veering too close to conspiracy-theory-world for me. Even if Bush and his advisers thought it would be better to keep Bin Laden alive (and nothing in Bush's personality or past actions indicate to me that he would be inclined to think this way), no freakin' way they would get the entire intelligence community and the military to go along with it.
The simplest explanation is the best: IF Bin Laden really is still alive, it's because he's hiding in a deep dark hole somewhere at the ends of the earth and being very, very careful to avoid attracting attention to himself, NOT because the US Government has decided to let OBL twist at the end of the rope. If Bush knew with any certainty exactly where OBL was, the US would be bombing the sh*t out of it in minutes -- just like we did at Tora Bora.
Posted by: bob at March 23, 2004 08:46 AM
Suprisingly, Bob, I tend to agree with you. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't put my money on that theory.
I think there may be marginally more plausibility to the idea that the administration is intentionally allocating its resources in such a way that bin Laden is not priority #1, but that's a utilitarian argument...not a "conspiracy theory".
However, please understand...the thought process behind that "theory" is NOT a moonbat assumption of "evil" ulterior motives. On the contrary, it's simply a strategic prioritization....and one which has a great deal of merit to it, in my opinion.
Posted by: Jon Henke at March 23, 2004 09:02 AM
I have my own conspiracy theory.
Bin Laden is dead, and the CIA is pretty sure of it.
However, their directive is national security, not telling us what they believe to be true.
The CIA is perpetuating the myth that Bin Laden is alive, and in doing so, it is sewing confusion among Al Qaeda people - who in the chaos of warfare are unsure what happened to him either.
Al Qaeda cannot name an heir (it would mean admitting his death).
As midlevel people in Al Qaeda try to get in touch with Osama, the CIA has been on the other end of the line ---- listening.
It's a great cover for an intelligence operation.
People on the left are fond of calling the CIA liars when it tells them things the left doesn't want to hear (Saddam's cheating on UN sanctions).
But when the CIA says something they want to hear (Bush has not yet killed OBL), CIA intelligence is the gold standard.
The truth is that the CIA does lie, but they often do it for good reasons.
Posted by: John Rogers at March 23, 2004 11:43 AM