Is Osama dead?

[hardheadjarhead]

Is Bin Laden dead?

Why no videos of late? The guy seemed to love doing those.

Is it in the best interests of the government to keep him alive so as to justify the war? Were he found to be dead, wouldn't that take a lot of steam out of the War On Terror?

What do you guys think? Is he alive, or rotting goo on the inside of some cave?

SCS

 

[pknox]

Personally, I do hope he is dead, and I truly hope it was slow and painful. However, what's really sad is that it doesn't matter either way. If he's not dead, we still have to deal with him and his lackeys. If he is, he will be viewed by his people as a martyr, and that will just incite them to continue on, and possibly inspire them to be even worse.

The question then becomes, which would you rather deal with, the former or the latter? With him being alive, as bad as he is, we at least know who we're dealing with. With him dead, realize that there are hundreds if not thousands who are more than willing to take his place, and, as unconceivable as this may sound, they may be even worse than him. Do you want the devil you know, or the devil you don't? Keep this in mind, because I believe it applies to Saddam as well.

 

[ABN]

Funny isn't it how we always hear audio but never video? Personally (and I have to add, this is my own opinion outside of uniform and not representing the U.S. Army) I think he's worm food. This is a guy who views himself as a modern day Saladin who wants to unite the various elements of Islam under his green banner and conquer the world He wouldn't go for audio only. The funny thing is he never bargained for the strength of capitalism, the internet, and the fact that people have changed a lot since the age of enlightenment. Even post 9-11 he went out of his way to do video. Then after the Tora Bora campaign, nothing but bland audio. Pack enough explosives into a cave and you have to ask, "was it live, or was it semtex?"
It wouldn't be entirely beyond the pale to believe that the government doesn't want to admit the death of its War on Terror poster boy, especially considering the 30 minute (including commercials) attention span of many Americans. The opposite side of the coin (i.e. he is alive) would throw an omelette into the face of Rumsfeld et.al should he prove to be alive. Besides, martyrdom is only a headshot away.
I guess the bottom line is how effective is he at this point? The majority of Al-Qaeda operations have been limited to the regional level. If we can maintain the pressure upon the S-3 element (Operations and Training) of the organization, so that the majority of actions are disjointed stings rather than the concerted attacks of the past, we are making progress.

Just my half pence,

andy

 

[pknox]

ABN -

Good points. I guess Saddam uses the same "PR firm" as well -- we haven't seen much of him in quite a while either, with the occassional audio spot popping up now and again, most of them vague regarding dates (i.e. they could have been recorded much earlier than they are released).

I personally think the point you make about Osama's potential martyrdom is the real crucial issue here, and the one that really scares me the most, given the fanaticism these guys have displayed in the past. It's real important to realize that this is definitely not a simple issue by a longshot (pun intended, I guess )

 

[ABN]

Personally I think that Bin Laden is a far more dangerous personality than Sadaam. Hussein's influence is powerful but only within a limited geographic area. in the short term this is important considering the degree of commitment by the U.S. and our allies in manpower and materiel. I think that the attacks we are seeing recently though are more of a last desperate gasp rather than a new offensive. (and if I am forced to eat these words, I do hope that it is not at the expense of further lives lost allied or Iraqi). The majority of Iraqi people see this as an opportunity for growth and real change. (This includes several Iraqi expatriates with whom I have talked in the US and the info I am receiveing from friends on the ground in Baghdad). Hussein will eventually join the trash heap of dictators in history. Whether it be through death or apathy doesn't really matter. The Arab world views him as an upstart secularist who got what he had coming (similiar to Yasser Arafat who likes his scotch and is becoming far more trouble than he is worth, kind of like a cranky, Arabic speaking Fidel Castro).

Bin Laden is a true believer who understands the value of Wahabbism and its exportation as a "pure" interpretation of Islam. The defeat of this form of extremism (which is far more widespread) will require a lot of work and time, Not just on the level of military operations and reactive/proactive elimination of more violent elements. There will also be work required in the areas of education of Islamic and non Islamic people (especially in wahabbist madrasas) for tolerance, and a more tolerant group of voices within the Islamic hierarchy.

andy

 

[stickarts]

I go back and fourth on this one!
It seems like we would have seen more of him by now, yet on the other hand, he may be hiding 1000 ft underground since he knows how bad we are out to get him!

 

[someguy]

The war on terror has alreay lost its steam. Now its more about Iraq and that sort of stuff.
He's probably alive though. But we probably wont know ever.

 

[ABN]

Originally posted by someguy
The war on terror has alreay lost its steam. Now its more about Iraq and that sort of stuff.

Don't be so sure. Remember when this started that we were told that this would be a war waged on many levels. Just because you don't hear much doesn't mean there isn't much going on.
It's funny, this might well be the harbinger of things to come, a war where success is measured by silence. A war where quiet work in the shadows is proactive rather than reactive. Our society is too used to the expectation that we have a right to know everything. (we don't, especially when making that information public endangers the lives of those who have the mission to protect us). Do you honestly think that there haven't been attempts on the part of terrorist organizations to make further attacks since 9/11 within the U.S.? The shoe bomber was just one of the more visible ones simply due to the actions taken by a sharp flight attendant and a defiant crew and passengers. Not to mention the dumbest criminal on earth since the bank robber who wrote the hold up note on the back of one of his own deposit slips. There have probably been many attempts that didn't see the light of day. Hopefully the perpetrators of those attempts won't see the light of day again either.
The focus is on Iraq simply because the media wants it that way. "If it bleeds, it leads" has been the media mantra since the Spanish-American War. Also because SOCOM doesn't do press conferences unless the JFK SWC Library opens a new wing.
Don't think the war on terror has lost its steam. There's an old Depeche Mode song, "enjoy the silence".

regards,

andy

 

[pknox]

ABN:

Excellent point. The only issue I see with that method of conducting warfare, however, is the public will most likely not buy it. See, if we continue to fight a "low scale conflict", it is quite possible that the fighting will not have a definitive end like a Treaty of Versailles or an Appomattox. People love to know when "the war is over", and a war like this might be a perpetual one, where a lack of activity does not necessarily mean an end, but instead just a lull in the fighting. If a politician backs such a plan, his or her chances of getting re-elected are kind of slim - and unfortunately, that is the primary motive behind the actions of most politicians today. Therefore, it might become tough to get support in Washington for a military that conducts its operations this way. Realize that doesn't mean I don't agree with you -- I definitely think the nature of the battlefield is changing -- I'm just noting that it's going to be a hard road to follow.

 

[ABN]

pknox,
I agree that it will be a tough road. The last time the American people had to live with the reality of a constant state of low intensity conflict was probably during the period 1787 -1814. A young country with a new constitution, internal dissent, and bigger countries and groups waiting to pounce (Great Britain, other European powers, and let's not forget the Barbary pirates), led to this mindset.

The closest comparison I can make is to the mindset of the average Israeli citizen and they've lived under the shadow of "wars and the rumors of war" since its reestablishment. It will require an effort on the part of our citizenry to adjust to this. If it can't and they start to demand an "end of the war" type final battle, that's when we really will start to have some problems.

andy

 

[Kroy]

I say he's toast.

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by ABN
The closest comparison I can make is to the mindset of the average Israeli citizen and they've lived under the shadow of "wars and the rumors of war" since its reestablishment. It will require an effort on the part of our citizenry to adjust to this. If it can't and they start to demand an "end of the war" type final battle, that's when we really will start to have some problems.

Excellent point once again, Andy, and kudos on your knowledge of history. What you said above actually reminds me of The West Wing, of all things. I remember the episode shortly after 9/11, when there were a bunch of interns at the White House, and there was the threat of a terrorist attack. One of the interns asks Rob Lowe's character, "What kind of place is it that has to live with the constant fear of attack?" She was talking about America, and what it might become, but Lowe's answer was a telling one: "Jerusalem."

While I ideally would not want to live the life their living, I agree they have handled it quite well, and we could learn a thing or two from their example. Times change, and perhaps we should as well. The next few years will be an interesting point in our history, and I think it will be worth watching how this hashes out.

 

[someguy]

This is getting abit of topic but just to clarify myself I will say this. I was trying to say that the war on terrorism has lost Alot of its steam. Not all of it. We still think abit about it but the war on Iraq has replaced it mainly in the news. Not fully though. When was the last time you heard about Afganistan? We mainly hear about the home front now. I think we are still over ther. Could be mistaken though.

 

[ABN]

We're definitely still over there. The majority of troops in the Afghanistan AO are light infantry and Special Forces units with a heavy concentration of psyops and civial affairs troops as well.

The focus there has shifted to nation building and restoring infrastructure. The Afghani people are finally getting a chance to be a nation in their own right rather than a colonial holding, Soviet satellite, or minority run theocracy. The combat operations are limited to the eastern border (and I'd bet money that most of it is actually taking place on the pakistani side of the border). Again the focus has shifted because there isn't enough to keep the media occupied. If you are interested in learning about our GWOT operations outside of Iraq, check out www.strategypage.com.

regards,

andy

 

[ABN]

Check out Task Force 121 for an update of what's on the board and in the field. remember though, you're probably only getting half of the story (which is as it shold be)...

andy

 

[someguy]

I really really hope we arent getting all of the story.