Redstate

He's been given star status by the MSM and the Democrats, yet his importance has diminished signficantly. I hope President Bush and others begin to downplay anything emanating from this person - the war on terror has now expanded well beyond him and his mountain hideout, effectively making him yesterday's news. It's important for us not to feel compelled to waste any of our resources looking for him; if someone gives us reliable information on his location and we can drop a Daisy Bomb on him, great. Other then that, let him sleep in his dirt cave for the rest of is life.

And I agree with your contention in another diary that the left uses Osama bin Laden as a dead horse with which to flog Republicans and especially President Bush.

We all saw how elated they were when Saddam Hussein was captured, tried, and executed. I recall that until he was caught, the left was similarly flogging President Bush about not yet capturing him.

He is nothing more than a symbol. His capture, while it would be nice, would do little to end the terrorism his group inflicts on the world.

You are certainly correct to say that eliminating Bin Laden will not destroy global jihadism or Al Qaeda for that matter.

But that doesn't mean that capturing him has no value. Being able to capture him and put him on trial would have, IMO, a significant impact on world opinion and American support for the war on terror. It would put a rekindled face on the war.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

for the deaths of 3,000 Americans. He needs to be brought to justice. Tell the families of those dead citizens that bin Laden doesn't matter.

One of the arguments I always hear from those opposed to the death penalty is that having to spend the rest of your life in a cell is worse punishment. Osama is stuck in a cave somewhere in Wheretheheckistan, impotent and reduced to sending out meaningless videos that only result in a revalidation of his impotence. I think it’s more painful to have him watch his organization be decimated before his eyes. I see to reason to end his misery at this point by raising him to martyr status.

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." - Ronald Reagan

There is also the possibility that the capture and execution of Osama would lead a vacuum for someone to attempt to place themselves as the figurehead for terror. Undoubtedly, there are several "up and comers" in Al Quaeda and other terrorist groups that would jump at the chance to prove themselves worthy of his mantle. This could lead to an increase in terror attacks, violence, and perhaps an invigoration of the terror movement.

I still would like him dead but only if a Republican is in charge, for the exact reasons that you listed.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

He seems to think it's important enough to follow him to the gates of hell.

Im no historian but im sure someone here is. Wasnt there some japanese general that America killed and after his death the japanese didnt win another naval engagement? And didnt the germans have some tank commander who was uber good and America got him and the german tank core sucked after that? So much for figureheads.

Im not even an American. If you guys got osama, it would be a huge matter on the international stage. Dont think your countries inability to bring him to justice isnt snickered at.

But just getting Hitler was important, so is getting ObL.

I have the same question as some others. What of justice? I know I perssonally still await and anticipate his hopefully gruesome and painful execution.

absentee

Whenever he is captured, I hope he is alive and fit. Then, he should be made to travel from airport to airport and made to stand at the end of the security line - you know, the end where you get spewed out with your shoes untied, and half your baggage unpacked. Every American with a plance ticket should get a chance to punch him in the nose.

But just once (per trip).

You wouldn't want to wear him out too quickly.

Now hear me out. Jeff is correct in a lot of what he says. But people are emotional, they arent rational. The desire to kill osama isnt rooted in cost benefit analysis or anything remotely scientific or objective. The one poster had the emotion right. He killed 3000 people. Its seen that way. Its not seen as his highly decentralized network came up with this plan and he gave it the head nod.
Jeffs points dont matter because he is looking at it as a person who is detached, which would be great if this was a class in university. I would bet you that Joe American would greatly appreciate Osamas death or capture. Sometimes you gotta give the dog some meat, you know?

Now hear me out. Jeff is correct in a lot of what he says. But people are emotional, they arent rational. The desire to kill osama isnt rooted in cost benefit analysis or anything remotely scientific or objective. The one poster had the emotion right. He killed 3000 people. Its seen that way. Its not seen as his highly decentralized network came up with this plan and he gave it the head nod.
Jeffs points dont matter because he is looking at it as a person who is detached, which would be great if this was a class in university. I would bet you that Joe American would greatly appreciate Osamas death or capture. Sometimes you gotta give the dog some meat, you know?

Anyone with any knowledge, at all, of oenoculture would know that the coloring of the grapes in question indicated that they were not only not ripe, but were never going to be ripe. The rains this year, in this segment of the country, specifically in this very vineyard, did not meet the necessary conditions, (let alone the sufficent ones!) to create grapes that would be worth eating.

While I can appreciate that people without the whole story may have thought they witnessed me trying to eat these grapes in recent memory, it should be pointed out that these people do not have the whole story and it would be dishonest of them to not, at least, admit they they do not know that their level of knowledge of oenoculture exceeds mine.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

n/t

Osama was big on the terrorist scene for nearly the entire decade of the 90's, when he really had nothing to fear from us. He took part in many 'conferences' with other terrorist organizations, including one in Khartoum, which was called by Hassan al Turabi, who was the speaker to the Sudanese Parliament, in which many groups, from OBL and al Qaeda, to Abu Nidal, to Hezbollah participated.(Turabi's purpose was to promote greater unity between terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda, which is Sunni, and Hezbollah, which is Shiite. It worked to some degree, as though both continue to view each other as heretical, they did agree to cooperate on some levels against their common enemies.)

Now I hear many picking apart this comment instantly. To those who say Osama will never break in questioning, I respond with what about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?(of course, this assumes the authority to use waterboarding)

Maybe he won't break. I of course would personally like to see him brought to justice, but Jeff is right that it would be a waste to focus large amounts of resources on finding him, when they could be put to better use elsewhere.

I guess my point is that while I don't believe his capture would not matter at all, it is not worth focusing on to a great degree.

The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.

If a person commits a murder and never commits another crime again, is it worth going after him?

Osama needs to be punished for what he did.

First, more than a few people here have noted that capturing him does matter for reasons of justice, not security. I know that's not your thrust here, but it's not an insignificant interest and it is one shared by a very large number of peoplem affected by 9/11.

Second, bringing him eventually to justice, or justice to him, will send a useful message, just as was the case when the Israelis finally got Eichmann.

Third, limiting the issue to security, I agree with the bulk of your analysis as to his operational insignificance but the fact is that an awful lot of this war is about morale and symbolism, and getting bin Laden would help the morale of the US public while removing a symbol of defiance to our will, and I think that would outweigh the "it's over, let's go home" sentiment. I don't consider that an inconsequential interest at all. Object lessons in it being a bad idea to be our enemy are never wasted.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Tony Blankley recently explained his rationale for continuing the War in Iraq as such:

As I argued in August 2002, in a column in which I predicted that this war would unleash vast hostility against us, I endorsed Henry Kissinger's argument for the war that we we had to demonstrate that a terrorist challenge to us produces catastrophic consequences for not only its perpetrators but also its tacit supporters. 'We had to break the will and pride of all those in the Islamic world who would dare terrorize us and the international system.'

Bin Laden said it best. His people will follow the strong horse. If, after years of stumbling and bumbling, the enduring strength and eventual wisdom of the American people can enter into the belly of the Islamist world, overturn tyrants, empower the Muslim people with peaceable and prosperous ways and intimidate two Islamist nuclear aspirants to renounce their pretensions, we will show ourselves to be the strong horse. Thereby we will hasten the day when the terrorist pretensions will fall on deaf Muslim ears and the threat of Islamist terrorism will begin to recede.

If we backout of our post-9/11 stance of Osama bin Laden as public enemy #1 - wanted dead, not alive - then it will be a victory for Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, especially in Pakistan where OBL has most likely been safely "hiding" for six years. No, the only approach is to emulate the Israels in their decades long hunt for ex-Nazis; no matter where he hides, no matter how many years have past, we will find him. And we will kill him.

I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.comm

One counterexample that comes to mind is the capture in Peru of Abimael Guzman, leading of the despicable Shining Path. His capture and trial broke their organization and was clearly the beginning of its collapse. Seeing their leader not as a heroic, romantic figure, but rather as a dishevelled wretch in a courtroom cage was immensely dispiriting for his movement. His successor Ramirez could never recapture any momentum or battlefield success. Nabbing Guzman basically meant game over.

Never underestimate the potential significance of one person.

I disagree. Bin Laden has a mythic status in the Middle East based on the fact that he hasn't been caught. It's sort of like Bonny & Clyde. The fact that they keep getting away makes them bigger then life.

I agree it's not a panacea by any means, but I do think it would be a substantial, if not major victory for us.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Jeff Emanuel: Once Again you're Right On Target!Thanks for just the facts Sir.

Please reprint this from the N.Y. Times Jan.3,2008. It was written by Adam Nagourney:
Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.
The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.
The campaigns are moving to recalibrate what they are saying amid signs of this changing backdrop; gone are the days when debates and television advertisements were filled with references to Iraq.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York recently produced a television advertisement that attacked the Bush administration for failing to deal with “America’s housing crisis.” Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican, has begun talking about expanding health care coverage, an issue of particular concern in New Hampshire.
“People say that health care is a Democratic issue,” he said. “Baloney.”
John Edwards of North Carolina has a ready answer when asked about immigration at rallies here — a subject that rarely if ever came up at Democratic gatherings a year ago. He drew cheers at a New Year’s Day rally in Ames when he said that while he would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he would insist that none could become naturalized “until they learned to speak English.”
Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year. Mrs. Clinton, who once faced intense opposition from her party’s left over her vote to authorize the war, now is rarely pressed on it, though Democrats say it continues be a drag on her in this state. Senator John McCain, a strong proponent of increased troop levels, is off of the defensive and now positions himself as having been prescient about what would work to quell the violence.
“You see much more concern about the economy,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “You see much more concern about health care. When we started it was principally concern about the war, and now it’s a mix of war, the economy and health care.”
Alex Castellanos, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, said much the same thing was happening on the Republican side and suggested that it may have contributed to the success of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas.
“As concern in the economy grows, you’ve seen in both parties this populist strain of appealing to voters,” Mr. Castellanos said.
The shift in emphasis is also a reflection of the fact that New Hampshire is, politically, a very different place from Iowa, especially for Republicans. A central part of the Republican appeal here has been to social conservatives on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage; they have far less sway in New Hampshire.
In that state, where the primary is held Jan. 8, Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and Mrs. Clinton have begun broadcasting advertisements that talk about cutting taxes and reducing government spending. Both those issues have historically proved to have great resonance with New Hampshire voters, and particularly with independents who are allowed to vote in either primary.
This is not to suggest that Iraq is no longer a pressing issue for many voters. Senator Barack Obama points to his unwavering opposition to the war in a television advertisement being broadcast in the final hours here, and Mr. McCain is pointing to his early advocacy of increasing troop levels in Iraq as evidence that he had more national security credentials than Mr. Romney.
What has changed, though, is that the war in Iraq is far from the only issue driving this election, the result of the decline in carnage there and daily reports that the nation’s economy might be in trouble.
“I still think the war is a real important issue,” said David Axelrod, a senior strategist for Mr. Obama. “But the sense of economic insecurity has grown and pushed those other issues up on the list of concerns.”
That has become increasingly evident in what the candidates are hearing from voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were pressed on Social Security, gaps in Medicare coverage, the economic threat to middle class from the alternative minimum tax and rising energy costs. All the candidates are hearing, at virtually every stop, questions about immigration and trade deals.
And it was increasingly evident in what the candidates were choosing to say at a time when they were enjoying as big as a stage as they will during this caucus season. In his speeches, Mr. Obama is spending less time speaking about the war than he once did, instead talking about a “retirement system that is in tatters,” and the loss of jobs to Mexico. Mr. McCain talked about Iraq and Pakistan, but moved to on to talk about education, health care and global warming.
“There are a number of challenges facing us domestically,” Mr. McCain said Wednesday in Londonderry, N.H.
Mrs. Clinton is devoting a long portion of her closing speech to health care. Mr. Huckabee’s closing stump speech is devoted to economic anxiety, as he criticizes Wall Street and hedge funds managers and says that the wealthy cannot understand the concerns of everyday people.
And Mr. Edwards on Wednesday seized on the news that oil prices had reached $100 a barrel to reprise the populist message that long ago eclipsed the war as the central thrust of the campaign. “Today’s report that the price of oil has reached $100 a barrel is just another example of how corporate greed is squeezing the middle class,” he said.
Marc Santora contributed reporting from Londonderry, N.H.

Osama bin Laden plotted and achieved the slaughter of three thousand Americans in our own cities a few years back. In an earlier era, we'd have been after him to the ends of the earth, and rightly so. Now, we let him sit in Pakistan and explain how irrelevant he is. But look, that's not what we owe him. What did folks say on September 12th, 2001?

Osama bin Laden should be rendered ineffective?
Osama bin Laden should be operationally neutralized?
Osama bin Laden should be relegated to figurehead status?
Osama bin Laden should have his network disrupted?

No, no, no, and no. Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice. He should be captured alive if possible, dead if not. If the former, he should be given a fair trial and then hauled before an NYPD firing squad on the deck of the USS Eisenhower. His weighted corpse should be catapulted into the sea. Federal employees should get the day off. Et cetera.

Bin Laden committed the most monstrous crime against our nation since Pearl Harbor. It does us no credit to pretend we're done with the followup where he's concerned.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dan McLaughlin's post. Obama has changed his view on the war so many times it is pathetic. Doesn't anyone remember when he said it's unimportant for America to Stop a genocide in Iraq ? He only said this several months ago. Then he denied the success of the surge and then he says TONIGHT :"we will finish the job against Al Qaida by bringing the troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan? And don't forget he said a few weeks ago his parents met on the Selma March at the Selma March in Alabama in 1965. Sen. Obama was born in 1961. Can we defeat a Senator named Obama? YES WE CAN ! YES WE CAN !

I would take issue with some of the substance of your piece, but it isn't relevant to my larger gripe, so I'll let that stand.

America was attacked, and most Americans took that as an attack against the nation by a loosely knit and poorly defined army. That's fair enough, and surely the way I'd have reacted were there an attack on Los Angeles, Boston, St. Louis, or Dallas. There's nothing wrong with that assessment writ large.

On the personal level, though, having had a relative murdered in the attacks and knowing plenty of other people in the same boat, it matters a great deal. No, it's not as important as making sure that it doesn't happen again, but it is important in its own right. I'm not even saying that it's a means, big or small, of winning the war on terror, only that his capture or killing must be near the top of the priority list if for no other reason than to partially correct the injustice that over 3000 Americans who were killed by his hitmen are no longer with us while six years later he continues to draw breath.

www.republicansenate.org

Here is one of the most important points you make;

As any person with experience in this area will tell you, removing a figurehead -- or even an actual leader -- does little or nothing to stop (or even to slow down) a terrorist, insurgent, or militant cell or organization.

Since there appears to be gratuitous contra intellectual thinking on this point, let’s try examining the converse. We are killing a substantial number of insurgents and Jihadists who have been led by OBL and AAZ. It is inconceivable to believe this does not have a material impact on the psyche of both their effort and entire movement. Combined with the growing rejection of their philosophy by Muslim peoples in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it provides a substantial basis which erodes the myth and righteousness of their so called populist movement with the votary.

The value of Iraq is that it not only further destroys the basic tenets of this doctrine, but exposes the people to the intentions and goodwill of Americans. Since the establishment of a democracy in Iraq, it has been increasingly clearer to the populace our intentions are to eventually leave their country, restore some semblance of normalcy and overall leave it a better place than before we came. Ask most soldiers who have done a tour, and while you can always find stories about the criminal element, they will also have a tales about the difference they made. This shattering of the myths peddled by OBL and his liege about our intentions, purpose and society does more to protect us and secure a better future than anyone can possibly imagine. To wit, a myth not encountered remains a myth.

There will always be extremists, acolytes and doyens who live in this world for the sole purpose of pursuing their own self interest and destructive, maniacal intentions. So in curiosity, I am often vexed by what fate is worse for such a person? To slowly see their ignominy recede or to die and become some profound fallacious myth for perpetuity?

There are probably a finite number of people who would like to se OBL flamed more than myself. Frankly, I would not shed a tear if he ate the big LGB or met the working end of a Barret. Nonetheless, what I relish most is the time he is spending hiding in shadows with his suicide belt, fearing every noise, paranoid of every contact, making increasingly meaningless videos and watching the slow, writhing material rejection of his so called “Jihad”.

Democrats understand none of this in their rush to identify the longevity of OBL as some type of political failure. Indeed that type of thinking and assignation of a disproportionate importance is a very dangerous abyss. What then (if we get OBL)? Do we sign the armistice and declare war over? If so, what is the excuse when another wave comes due to a failure to pursue the sagacious path? Surely we remember it was a lack of vigilance, vigor and courage which brought us to this point before? Let’s hope so, for our sake.

Apologies for the long reply, Jeff.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report