I wonder what would have happened if we would have concentrated our military might in getting Osama?
I think British support for the so-called “war on terror” in Iraq will be shaken to the core.
Your compassion and sympathy for the dead and injured is appreciated.
The British response will be the same as ours. An increase in nationalism, an increase in recruitment for the armed services. They will want to get revenge on the cowards that perpetrated such a despicable act just as we did after 9/11.
Unfortunately you will also see an increase in violence toward muslims in Britain.
It’s difficult to not immediately think of the political ramifications given the current climate of world politics. While we are all sympathetic to those who have lost their lives, it does not follow that there should be no critical thinking about the events.
I really wish the original estimates of only 9 or so dead were true and I hope that it is not really 40 or more. I remember on 9/11 when people were citing expectations of 30,000+ dead. How relieved we are now that it was only ~2,900.
I’ve been wondering about this for awhile.
Suppose we do capture OBL. What will that accomplish?
I’m not saying that removing OBL from the board, so to speak, is not a worthy goal, but in the grand scheme of things, will it really supress world wide terrorism? It seems more likely that should he fall into our hands he might become an even more powerful idealogical influence as a martyr than he ever was/is hiding in some cave in Pakistan.
He seems to be more of a figurehead leader now. Is he really coordinating all these attacks presently? I doubt it. Suppose we do capture him. I would imagine that the likelyhood of someone stepping in and taking over where he left off is very high. These AlQ units seem pretty decentralized anyway.
I don’t have any answers. Just suggesting that to solve this problem, we might need to look at this from angles we’ve never considered before.
The British response will be the same as ours. An increase in nationalism, an increase in recruitment for the armed services.
You do realize that our military recruitment is down? They’ve lowered standards, increased incentives, and even lowered the target, but yet our young nationalistic are not willing to fight in Iraq. Why do you think that is?
Isn’t this supposed to be the time when you finally present your alternative to the Bush plan to defeat terrorism which has afflicted so many nations?
Isn’t this supposed to be the time when you finally present your alternative to the Bush plan to defeat terrorism which has afflicted so many nations?
The troops and resources now in Iraq could have been concentrated on Afghanistan to find bin Laden. You know, the main guy behind 9/11.
Pretty easy, isn’t it?
And then we could go after actual terrorists instead of doing whatever the hell it is we’re doing in Iraq, which has done nothing but cause more American deaths at terrorist hands.
Isn’t this supposed to be the time when you finally present your alternative to the Bush plan to defeat terrorism which has afflicted so many nations?
Yes, my brilliant plan is as follows: Get support from the Islamic world to invade Afghanistan, capture Osama, and enlist the help of nations around the globe to go after al-Qaida members and supporters.
Wait, we had world support and where in the process of doing that. But then we f*ed it all up by invading Iraq. Now we have nothing.
I think right-wingers thought we would be showered with flowers as our troops rolled down the streets of Baghdad.
The troops and resources now in Iraq could have been concentrated on Afghanistan to find bin Laden. You know, the main guy behind 9/11.
Pretty easy, isn’t it?
Once again your knowledge of the military and what is being done to capture OBL is ignorant. This is at least the 4th time (don’t know why I bother) explaining that the resources committed to capturing OBL are the same whether we were involved in Iraq or not. The type of assets needed (and are being used) are Special Mission Units and CIA operatives working covertly. Moving 150000 soldiers and a divisons worth of armor vehicles would be a waste. Besides as was already mentioned capturing OBL would be nice but would not in and of itself stop terrorist activities or even diminish Al Qaeda operations. President Bush has said, and is right on the $$, this GWOT is not a short term process. It is not an asymetrical war being fought on a linear battlefield. Lessons learned are happening along the way not from history so we do have a long road ahead. This is all the more reason we must stay the course.
Your plan is to dedicate a force of 150,000 plus soldiers to going after a single man to drive him from his cave. Is that seriously your plan?
Do you actually think that the world would somehow be different today had we actually gotten that single man out from his hole?
You might take note that bin Laden might not even be in Afghanistan, but could easily be hiding in some other sovereign nation like Pakistan. Would your plan be to sweep into that country then in the hopes of finding him?
Great plans. You should run for office.
I was under the impression that resources searching for OBL (special forces, etc.) were pulled from Afghanistan and redeployed to Iraq to assist in the search for WMD (and possibly Saddam, too.). Could be just more left-wing blather, but that’s what I heard.
Maybe you could explain what “staying the course means”, because I am totally confused - Enforce UN sanctions Imminent threat from WMD Capture Saddam Liberate Iraq Bring Democracy Fight the insurgents Fight terrorists in Iraq instead of US soil
Maybe you could explain the definition of Win in Iraq. In GWB own words, as he challanged Clinton on the Balkans - a “win” strategy is an “exit” strategy. So where is Bush’s exit strategy - once the Iraqi’s are able to defend themselves? What, is that a joke or something?
The terrorists have the advantage and they always will. But they can never “win” as that is not their goal. The terrosts’ goal is just to anounce their existence and to make us fearful. The terrorsts don’t even have a realistic goal in mind, they just want to cause chaos … The best the West can do is be vigilent and not over-react. At this point, it almost doesn’t matter what our foreign policy is or what’s going on, there are millions out there who will have gripes against the countries of the West and their kids will have gripes and so it goes. People all over the world have centuries of resentment built up against the West. It doesn’t matter if it is legitimate or misplaced, that resentment will fuel terrorism for ever. We are one big fat huge target and can only protect ourselves so much. The world economy is thoroughly globalized so we can’t go back to being isolated. Protecting any big nation against a few people who want to do damage is impossible. I would argue action Afghanistan & Iraq has made things no better but maybe no worse for us way over here … sorry for being so negative. The aim for us should simply be to prevent a “big one” but that might not even be possible … Luckily this attack was not so big.
You might take note that bin Laden might not even be in Afghanistan, but could easily be hiding in some other sovereign nation like Pakistan. Would your plan be to sweep into that country then in the hopes of finding him?
ok, now this argument bothers me. we are concerned about sovereignty of nations yet we go into iraq? to a large extent, isn’t sweeping into a country to get one man exactly what we did in iraq?
i just find it odd that on the one hand there is administration rhetoric saying, essentially, that american safety takes primacy over all other considerations, yet we suddenly won’t go after obl in pakistan(a move that would make the u.s. safer) because of sovereignty concerns? i mean, c’mon.
armytriguy:
Moving 150000 soldiers and a divisons worth of armor vehicles would be a waste.
So what you’re saying to me is that if we put 100,000 more troops on the ground in the search for ObL it would not increase our chances of finding him?
As far as “waste”, it would certainly be infinitely less of a waste than what they are doing now. So “waste” shouldn’t really be a concern at this point.
Besides as was already mentioned capturing OBL would be nice but would not in and of itself stop terrorist activities or even diminish Al Qaeda operations.
How about capturing him because he is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans? Is that not important anymore?
Two days after 9/11:
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” - G.W. Bush
Why is ObL no longer the most important thing? Why did that change?
ajfranke:
Your plan is to dedicate a force of 150,000 plus soldiers to going after a single man to drive him from his cave. Is that seriously your plan?
As many as it took. Be that only 10 more or 300,000 more.
Do you actually think that the world would somehow be different today had we actually gotten that single man out from his hole?
He killed 3,000 American civilians and has the potential to kill more, that’s all that really concerns me about him.
You might take note that bin Laden might not even be in Afghanistan, but could easily be hiding in some other sovereign nation like Pakistan. Would your plan be to sweep into that country then in the hopes of finding him?
The irony is so thick here I can hardly see.
I would put as much pressure on Pakistan as necessary to get bin Laden if he was there.
I was under the impression that resources searching for OBL (special forces, etc.) were pulled from Afghanistan and redeployed to Iraq to assist in the search for WMD (and possibly Saddam, too.). Could be just more left-wing blather, but that’s what I heard.
Ken its not left wing blather I know it has been reported there are only a few forces in Afghanistan and that is correct, as conventional forces go. I am sure you saw the Chinook that was shot down a few days ago was carrying Navy Seals. There are not embedded reportersnormally allowed with these units (for OPSEC) so we don’t really know what they are doing or where they are. You will just have to trust me that we have the appropriate number of Special Mission Units working inside Afghanistan. I do not want to bring up the whole “Clintons fault” again but the truth is our intel capabilities were severly hamstrung under his watch and will take years to recover.
You will just have to trust me that we have the appropriate number of Special Mission Units working inside Afghanistan.
You have the clearance to know that kind of information?
kidding, sort of 
I asked for a plan to defeat terrorism. Is you plan to capture bin Laden? Fine, but you need to defend your assumption that getting UBL will end terrorism.
I don’t think you will try to defend that, so I am guessing that your answer is you don’t have a plan. Correct me, if I am wrong.
I don’t understand how this terrorist attack could happen because we went to Iraq to fight them there and not in our streets and subways. I guess the international terrorists didn’t get the memo to come to Iraq to fight.
As these things happen, and unfortunately they are bound to continue, maybe some of the right wingers will realize our efforts may have been better spent in areas other than Iraq and that George Bush is not the anti-terror genius you think he is. Terrorists are for real and Bush is worried more about revenge and cleaning up his messes.
ajfranke:
I asked for a plan to defeat terrorism. Is you plan to capture bin Laden? Fine, but you need to defend your assumption that getting UBL will end terrorism.
The only way to defeat terrorism is to destroy the entire earth or just stop using the word terrorism. It’s a word, it’s a concept, you can’t beat a word in a war.
Now, you can defeat terrorists because those are actual people, even if that label is shifting and inconsistently applied. So I would go after actual terrorists and those who directly sponsor those terrorists, starting with those most dangerous to my country.
It wouldn’t defeat terrorism, because terrorism cannot be defeated.
armytriguy:
So which is it: Do we want to catch him or not?
First you argue that there are plenty of guys there to get him and then you also argue that it doesn’t matter if we get him.
If it doesn’t matter is it not a waste to dedicate some of our most highly trained soldiers to finding him? Why not use them to help us out in the quagmire?
It doesn’t matter but it is also very important. Doublethink is very helpful when defending illogical government policy.