Idea To Capture Bin Laden

[KRC]

OK, lest I put words in your mouth, do you believe bin Laden is a priority of this administration's War on Terror, yes or no? 

 

Since I never said nor implied that, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth.  Do you disagree with my suggestion that if bin Laden is killed that another leader will essentially fill the same role, eg, al Zarqawi?  (hint: see your own words below)

 

I'm fairly sure that I'm the one who posted that bin-Laden is no longer a priority.  Given the context of that post, it should be fairly clear that my belief that this is the most likely reason why he's still alive (assuming he is).   

 

NB, I'm not disagreeing with your premise of effective CT strategies.  I'm only stating  bin Laden's simply no longer a priority of this administration.  Sorry if using the presidents own words to make my point tripped you up a bit.  I didn't mean to make it so hard for you to jump to his defense.

299115[/snapback]

 

Why would I care about defending the President?

 

Again, I don't care what he says, just what he does and I see no change in how he is executing the GWOT. He is going after the system, not the individual. That was what he was doing from the beginning, and it has not changed. You want to focus on press conferences, I want to focus on his actions. His actions have been consistent. I may not agree with his actions, but they have been consistent which is counter to your argument of "bin Landen is no longer a priority of this administration."

[KRC]

I do see your point and it is a very solid one but I think any ambition he might have will not be enough. Sooner or later I see Zarqawi getting caught (or more likely killed) as he appears to want to be in the limelight a little too much, whilst it might gain him popular support amongst the terrorist fighters it does not do much for his life expectancy.

 

In any case I see Zawahiri being the king maker, and can see him working to put someone he already works closely with who would have some popular support amongst the foot soldiers of his movement - hence why I would put OBL's sons as the natural successors to the leadership. There are other candidates as well but do not see Zarqari as a natural fit for the way 'AQ' appears to work.

 

One interesting possibility (though not an altogether pleasant one) is for al-Zarqari to become a totally seperate leader of his own group in competition with AQ (he already pretty much is that despite the reported pledge of loyalty to OBL - a good PR move for him). The history of terrorist groups has pretty much always led to them spintering and sometimes becoming deadly rivals where they were once allies.

299187[/snapback]

 

I see al-Zarqawi leading his own competing group only if he is not made leader of AQ. When bin Landen passes, I see him wanting to combine his group with AQ with al-Zarqawi as the leader. He might be able to work out a deal with al-Zawahri to accomplish this if, for some reason, al-Zawahri feels that one of OBL's sons is not capable or not ready to assume command. If combining the groups does not work out, or if al-Zawahri puts one of OBL's sons in charge, then I see al-Zarqawi's group breaking their pledge to AQ and competing against AQ. IMO, al-Zarqawi will play second fiddle to bin Laden, but he will not play second fiddle to one of his sons. All of these items you have mentioned in your posts.

[Britbillsfan]

All of these items you have mentioned in your posts.

299428[/snapback]

Intelligent discourse and more or less agreement on a complicated subject. Are you sure we are on the PPP board????

 

There is an added problem for al-Zarqari and any long term aims he may have in taking over the leadership in that communications and any deal worked out is difficult to do between people who must spend a lot of their time trying to prevent others from finding out where they are currently.....

[KRC]

Intelligent discourse and more or less agreement on a complicated subject. Are you sure we are on the PPP board????

 

 

 

 

There is an added problem for al-Zarqari and any long term aims he may have in taking over the leadership in that communications and any deal worked out is difficult to do between people who must spend a lot of their time trying to prevent others from finding out where they are currently.....

299435[/snapback]

 

How do you see this as a difference between al-Zarqawi taking over and one of bin Laden's sons taking over? Do you think that al-Zawahri will travel with bin Laden's son, but would not travel with al-Zarqawi?

 

Communication is always the biggest problem with any terrorist organization. That is why the structure is compartmentalized. Each "compartment" acts on its own with little contact up the chain of command. That is what makes it difficult to connect the higher-ups with any terrorist action.

[Terry Tate]

You want to focus on press conferences,

More specifically, a short quote extracted from a four-paragraph answer in a press conference three years ago. But it's a really strong argument with a firm foundation at it's base, as extracting short quotes from long answers in three-year-old press conferences is an excellent way of making a hard case out of a meaningless point when all other available information contradicts it.

[Campy]

You want to focus on press conferences, I want to focus on his actions. His actions have been consistent.

299422[/snapback]

Consistently inept perhaps, but that's a topic for a different thread.

 

And as far as focusing on press conferences, your point is taken. I should have known better than to expect this adminstration to communicate their priorities and agenda. My bad.

[KRC]

Consistently inept perhaps, but that's a topic for a different thread.

299475[/snapback]

 

Why is it a topic for a different thread? We are discussing terrorism in this thread. Explain, in detail, the ineptness of the GWOT and how you would change the CT strategy being employed.

[Britbillsfan]

How do you see this as a difference between al-Zarqawi taking over and one of bin Laden's sons taking over? Do you think that al-Zawahri will travel with bin Laden's son, but would not travel with al-Zarqawi?

 

299439[/snapback]

Apologies for not making it clear, I meant that it is likely that in the foreseeable future Zarqari will be in Iraq and Zawahiri in Pakistan (or where-ever-the-hell he is) and that it may take a while for any communications (given the fact that the cleverer terrorists no longer use cell phones) to go between them.

[Campy]

Why is it a topic for a different thread? We are discussing terrorism in this thread. Explain, in detail, the ineptness of the GWOT and how you would change the CT strategy being employed.

299484[/snapback]

I was referring to his overall ineptitude, but since you asked:

 

Port security is non-existent.

 

Border security is equally pitiful.

 

Nuclear power plants are virtually unprotected.

 

We are selling military hardware to nations of questionable stability in W Asia & the Mid-East.

 

Tthe White House has failed to notify the House and Senate intelligence committees of all intelligence-gathering activities as they're required by law.

 

Not allowing the UN (or any other human rights organization) to have an unmolested inspection of Gitmo.

 

American citizens being detained without due process and a speedy trial.

 

We went into Iraq and have spent what, 1/2 a trillion dollars there? We've lost over 1200 US soldiers. And this was done under the guise of the GWOT. Of course, I'm just basing that on what the administration told us, which you have already informed us poor huddled masses that we should not consider when evaluating the president and his administration's performance.

 

Try to keep in mind that the GWOT doesn't occur in a vacuum. I suppose selling pseudo-wars and military hardware does have its short-term benefits, but throughout history, these things always come back to bite America in the arse. Always.

[Britbillsfan]

Why is it a topic for a different thread? We are discussing terrorism in this thread. Explain, in detail, the ineptness of the GWOT and how you would change the CT strategy being employed.

299484[/snapback]

Personally I think inept is too strong a word, but there have been mistakes since in any armed conflict (I do not really see this as a 'war', just a whole series of different insurgencies with some international terrorists thrown in for good measure) there will be mistakes made.

 

Examples I would include would be that many 'partners' in this conflict are using it as a way of legitimising their policies towards ethnic groups (Chechnya being an example, the Chinese treatment of Muslims another). Not that I think there are some real monsters in the Chechen (and other) seperatist movement but that the Russians are responsible for far more civilians/atrocities than the extremist elements will ever be able to manage.

 

The policy in (specifically Southern) Afghanistan of paying & relying upon local mercenary warlords to help catch OBL and the AQ leadership rather than putting more than just a few SFs on the ground to do the job. (I heard one AQ expert say there were more journalists at Tora Bora than US/coalition military personnel - can not confirm this but with the policy at the time it would not be that surprising).

 

Attacking Iraq at the TIME it was attacked (I have no problem with the removal of Saddam's regime or the way the war itself was conducted, just it was all done in too much of a rush) meant that troops that could have finished off the main body of AQ militants after the success of Annaconda were redeployed. This to my mind points to a leadership not getting the job in hand done properly before going onto the next target.

 

But like I said at the start of this post the 'GWOT' is a series of conflicts and in any conflict mistakes will be made.

[KRC]

I was referring to his overall ineptitude, but since you asked:...

299546[/snapback]

 

 

Port security, border security and protection of nuclear and chemical plants are all addressed in the National Strategy for Homeland Security, but here are a few items to placate you:

 

Port security is non-existent.

-He has increased funding for border security by $9 billion

-He created the Container Security Initiative to address shipping containers

-Created the National Targeting Center to identify high-risk passengers and shipping vessels

-Increased funding for the Coast Guard for additional vessels and specialized task forces

-Created the Proliferation Security Initiative (while this usually is handled on items outside of the U.S., it can also be used on vessels headed towards the U.S.)

 

So, port security is NOT non-existent.

 

 

Border security is equally pitiful.

-Increased funding for the Coast Guard for additional vessels and specialized task forces

-Created the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System to verify foreign student activity

-Created a program using biometrics to verify the identity of foreign travelers

 

 

 

Nuclear power plants are virtually unprotected.

-Protection barriers have been relocated to provide better protection

-The number of guards at each plant has increased

-Guard towers have been added

 

 

 

 

 

We are selling military hardware to nations of questionable stability in W Asia & the Mid-East.

 

No different from any other administration. Were all administrations inept, or just Bush II?

 

 

 

The White House has failed to notify the House and Senate intelligence committees of all intelligence-gathering activities as their required to by law.

 

I am guessing that you are referring to the prisoners captured and interrogated by the CIA. The WH has informed congressional committees of the intelligence gathers, but only to the top Rep and Dim from those committees. The reasoning was to prevent leaking of the prisoner locations. So, to say that they failed to notify is wrong. Did he have a nice little press conference to discuss TS information? NO.

 

 

Not allowing the UN (or any other human rights organization) to have an unmolested inspection of Gitmo.

 

The Red Cross was there. I guess they are not good enough for you? They blasted the conditions, so obviously it was not a controlled inspection.

 

 

 

American citizens being detained without due process and a speedy trial.

 

The actions were suspicious. They did nothing illegal by calling them “enemy combatants.” The problem is the justification used to call these people “enemy combatants.”

 

 

 

We went into Iraq and have spent what, 1/2 a trillion dollars there? We've lost over 1200 US soldiers. And this was done under the guise of the GWOT.

 

Of course, we all know that we need to see IMMEDIATE results from any action. Anything that takes longer than the length of a sitcom is lost on the American public. Hot Pockets, anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

Can more be done? Absolutely, but to blame Bush solely for this is disingenuous at best. They are moving at the speed of government. Do you expect that things will be done at the drop of a hat? You need to write the legislation, and then propose it to Congress. It then needs to go through committee, where members of Congress tack on pet projects. Then members of the committee need to fight over the pet projects added to the bill. It then makes it to the floor, where continued debate happens and additional pet projects are added. You then need to debate the additional pet projects until you come up with a compromise. It then goes to the Senate where it needs continued debate and opportunities for pet projects to be added. Of course, all of this is done when Congress decides not to take another vacation. Once it passes Congress then the President signs it. Then, it is up to a bloated bureaucracy to implement the proposals, which takes additional time.

[Adam]

I guess Paul Harvey's a liar then.  Oh well.

298791[/snapback]

 

So now we know the rest of the story!

[Campy]

So, port security is NOT non-existent.

Well, I guess you know more about port security than my next door neighbor. I mean, he's the one who told me that our ports are virtually unprotected, and he's only a security supervisor with the Virginia Port Authority. Maybe it's just the Port of Hampton Roads that isn't being secured. That's entirely possible, I mean, it's only the most target rich port on the east coast.

 

-Protection barriers have been relocated to provide better protection

-The number of guards at each plant has increased

-Guard towers have been added

You say that in the past tense as if it's already happened. It has not, at least not in the case at the Surrey nuclear power facility down here. And I know you're more concerned with action than words...

 

No different from any other administration. Were all administrations inept, or just Bush II?

Just George. I can't recall other administrations funneling arms into regions as unstable as we've made the Mid-East - with the exception of WWI and WWII, but at that time we were fighting agasinst agressive imperialism, not doing it.

 

The WH has informed congressional committees of the intelligence gathers, but only to the top Rep and Dim from those committees. The reasoning was to prevent leaking of the prisoner locations. So, to say that they failed to notify is wrong.

That's rich. The White House is required by law to report to the committees, not certain members of the committee. Are you suggesting that all congressional committees should be disolved, or do you just advocate the executive branch breaking laws on a whim?

 

The actions were suspicious. They did nothing illegal by calling them “enemy combatants.” The problem is the justification used to call these people “enemy combatants.”

Actions that were mysteriously deemed "suspicious" by someone in government is now an excuse to deny due process and the right to a speedy trial? And people wonder where comparisons to 1940s Germany come from...

 

Of course, we all know that we need to see IMMEDIATE results from any action. Anything that takes longer than the length of a sitcom is lost on the American public. Hot Pockets, anyone?

Not always. But the Iraq was sold as part of the GWOT, and the realities are a bit different. I know you have a penchant for little gems like "All I hear is that Bush has diverted all resources from the GWOT to the war in Iraq to avenge Daddy, to increase profits for Haliburton, and to steal all of Iraq's oil." While you obviously disagree, there are many of us who recognize the reality that resources and assets were diverted from the GWOT to Iraq.

 

They are moving at the speed of government.

While you seem comfortable with that, there may be some people who don't find that acceptable. I guess it's a matter of priorities- should we fret over the state of a vegetable in Florida, or work to better protect the citizenry. Hmm... I wonder...

 

Do you expect that things will be done at the drop of a hat?

A "drop of the hat?" It's been 3 1/2 years.

 

You flew off the deep end, admonishing me to "look at the big picture" when I pointed out that bin Laden wasn't a priority and that was IMO why he hasn't been captured or killed. Since this thread was about the capture of Osama bin Laden specifically and not domestic US Counter Terrorism plans as you've made it, I'll repeat my original question: Do you think that Osama bin Laden is a priority of this administration, yes or no?

[KRC]

Just George. I can't recall other administrations funneling arms into regions as unstable as we've made the Mid-East - with the exception of WWI and WWII, but at that time we were fighting agasinst agressive imperialism, not doing it.

 

Well, I guess as long as you eliminate arms sent to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan among others before Bush II ever took office.

 

 

 

You flew off the deep end, admonishing me to "look at the big picture" when I pointed out that bin Laden wasn't a priority and that was IMO why he hasn't been captured or killed.  Since this thread was about the capture of Osama bin Laden specifically and not domestic US Counter Terrorism plans as you've made it, I'll repeat my original question:  Do you think that Osama bin Laden is a priority of this administration, yes or no?

299716[/snapback]

 

Ummm...I am not the one who switched it from international to domestic. You were. You were the one bringin up port security, not me. You are the one who brought up border security, not me. You are the one who brought up nuclear plant security, not me. You are the one who brought up Congressional oversight, not me. I addressed the points that you raised.

 

As far as bin Laden, I have answered this repeatedly in this thread, but I guess I have to answer it yet again. You said that it was no longer the priority of the adminstration to go after bin Laden because a couple of soundbites said that. I have said repeatedly that the priority of the administration is to fight terrorism, not fight just bin Laden. I am not sure if you realize, but there is more to terrorism than just bin Laden. It doesn't make a good soundbite, but that is the way it is. Clear enough or do I need to repeat it yet again? THE ADMINISTRATION IS FOCUSED ON FIGHTING TERRORISM, NOT JUST BIN LADEN. IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE BEGINNING.

 

Chris, you are letting your hatred of Bush cloud your thinking. You are better than this. I know you hate Bush (and there is nothing wrong with that), but you are making absolute statements that have no basis in fact. Can more be done to protect the US, here and abroad? Yes. There is no question. Saying that NOTHING has been done is just flat-out wrong.

 

Also, you cannot make sweeping changes to the entire structure of the government along without spending trillions of dollars instantly. 3 1/2 years is not a lot of time in the world of the government. You think the lefties have their panties in a bunch now over the deficit, imagine the heart attack they would have with the trillions of dollars you want to spend immediately. You also have to realize that even if you were able to spend that money immediately, you do not have the infrastructure in place to spend that money effectively. It takes time to put that infrastructure in place. That is what is being done.

[Campy]

THE ADMINISTRATION IS FOCUSED ON FIGHTING TERRORISM, NOT JUST BIN LADEN. IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE THE BEGINNING.

 

Chris, you are letting your hatred of Bush cloud your thinking. You are better than this. I know you hate Bush (and there is nothing wrong with that), but you are making absolute statements that have no basis in fact. Can more be done to protect the US, here and abroad? Yes. There is no question. Saying that NOTHING has been done is just flat-out wrong.

299785[/snapback]

OK, I'll take back what I said about "nothing" being done and change it to "not nearly enough" is being done. I'll see if I can better state my opinion while avoiding statements that have no basis in fact.

 

If our assetts weren't tied up in Iraq, maybe, juuuuust maybe, MORE could and would be done to reduce the threat of terrorism. It is fact that we have assets tied up in Iraq.

 

You say that OBL was never a priority of this administration? See, that confuses me, because as much as you dislike it when the president is quoted, he is the one who said that we must get him "dead or alive." Shortly after, we invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, who harbored and aided OBL. It is fact that we went in to Afghanistan after we requested and the Taliban regime refused to turn over OBL.

 

Then we invade Iraq because "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam." Again, his words, but they do seem to carry some weight - I mean, he is the president and all. Then a year later he says he "doesn't think much about" OBL. It is fact that the invasion of Iraq was sold to America and the world as part of the GWOT.

 

You are correct in acknowledging my disdain of the sitting president. I believe that if we had remained "steadfast and focused" as the president said he was going to do, that AQ would be destroyed. We had curried the favor of the world to aid us in eliminating AQ, and this president pissed it away. But lest I digress...

 

I'm not sure how one couldn't realize that OBL was once a priority to this administration, but whatever. Keep forgetting that this country has a lengthy track record of invading countries for selfish, financial gain (Philipines, Hawaii, Cuba, etc), and stick to your GWOT mantra. I can't say it becomes you, but you do seem to feel comfortable in it, and that is important.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If our assetts weren't tied up in Iraq, maybe, juuuuust maybe, MORE could and would be done to reduce the threat of terrorism.  It is fact that we have assets tied up in Iraq. 

300050[/snapback]

 

24 of the top 26 AQ leaders = dead or in custody.

 

We have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/2001.

 

I'd say that's a fair measure of success, wouldn't you?

 

IMO. It's far better to beat the pulp out of Islamists OVER THERE than it is to let them fly planes into our cities. As far as Gitmo is concerned....anyone that's there is there for good reason and should be treated in the least hospitable way.

[KRC]

24 of the top 26 AQ leaders = dead or in custody.

 

We have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/2001.

 

I'd say that's a fair measure of success, wouldn't you?

 

IMO.  It's far better to beat the pulp out of Islamists OVER THERE than it is to let them fly planes into our cities. As far as Gitmo is concerned....anyone that's there is there for good reason and should be treated in the least hospitable way.

300069[/snapback]

 

Didn't you know? If we do not capture bin Laden, we are worse off than we were before. Bush really needs to start working on this terrorism thingy.

[Pete]

Seems far too high a figure, to my knowledge, not including the big two, , Saif al-Adel, al-Masri, Thirwat Salah Shirhata and Abu Faraj al Libbi are all still at large and would have been considered in the 'top 26' for many years. What was the source of the info?

299203[/snapback]

 

Click on "the hunt for Al Quaeda"

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/fighting.terror/index.html

 

Saif Al-Adel is in custody(in Iran) according to CNN-

 

I beleive Saif al-adel was aprehended in Iran for whats that worth

[Pete]

http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/

[Britbillsfan]

Click on "the hunt for Al Quaeda"

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/fighting.terror/index.html

 

Saif Al-Adel is in custody(in Iran) according to CNN-

 

I beleive Saif al-adel was aprehended in Iran for whats that worth

300153[/snapback]

Cheers for the link, nice little resource - was going off the FBI as a resource when I thought he was at large - guess they don't trust the Iranians enough to list him as captured.

 

I note the CNN site says that the US government has indicated that almost two thirds of AQs leadership has been caught/killed, which seems more accurate than the 24 of 26 figure at this point.