Osama is Welcome In Pakistan

[Fred Jones]

He's Welcome In Pakistan

By Ahmed Rashid

Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022401639.html

LAHORE When President Bush lands in Islamabad later this week, it may be the closest he ever comes to being in the same neighborhood as Osama bin Laden. His nemesis is probably only a few hours drive away in Pakistan's Pashtun belt, now considered to be al Qaeda Central and one of the world's most dangerous regions.

During the past 12 months or so, CIA and Pentagon officials have quietly modified the line they employed for three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- that bin Laden was hiding out "in the tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border." Now the same officials say with some confidence that he is "not based in Afghanistan." Whatever ambiguity there was in the past is gone: Bin Laden is in Pakistan.

What's left is the question: What are the United States and its ally, Pakistan, doing about it?

Not enough, according to high-ranking Afghan, Pakistani and Western officials I've spoken to here. Indeed, the disastrous policies of the United States and Pakistan, starting with the aftermath of the war in 2001, have only hastened the radicalization of northwest Pakistan and made it more hospitable to bin Laden and his Taliban allies. The region has become a haven for bin Laden and a base for Taliban raids across the border back into Afghanistan which they had fled.

Not that you'd be able to tell any of that from what Bush administration officials have been saying. Almost everything the administration claims about the al Qaeda leader is tinged with bravado and untruthfulness. "We are dealing with a figure who has been able to hide, but he's on the run," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier this month. Here in Pakistan, however, the view is different. Bin Laden is not considered to be on the run, but well protected by friends who are making his life as comfortable as possible.

After all, his number two, the Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, appears to have a busy social calendar in Pakistan's Pashtun belt. U.S. missiles narrowly missed him at a dinner party held in his honor on Jan. 13.

This represents a change in venue for bin Laden and his lieutenants. Before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, bin Laden's zone of influence was among Pashtuns in Afghanistan, which was the center of the Taliban's power and its major recruiting base. The Pashtuns are Afghanistan's largest ethnic group and have ruled the country for the past 300 years. They were artificially divided by the British so that today millions of Pashtuns also live across the border in Pakistan, many of them in seven so-called tribal agencies where control by the government has been minimal.

It was in eastern Afghanistan that bin Laden made his last public appearance in Jalalabad on Nov. 10, 2001, just after the northern cities had begun to fall to the anti-Taliban alliance. He addressed an estimated 1,000 Pashtun notables and militants, urging them to continue resisting the American invaders, according to U.S. journalists working in the region at the time. He dished out wads of U.S. and Pakistani cash and then disappeared into the mountain fastness of Tora Bora, never to be seen again. (The CIA didn't learn of the meeting for several days.)

Few Afghan Pashtuns would have dared to betray him then. But times have changed in Afghanistan. The majority of Afghan Pashtuns now want the benefits of peace -- economic development, roads and schools.

Pakistan's Pashtuns, by contrast, have become more radicalized than they ever were before 9/11. And the bloody Taliban-al Qaeda resurgence now under way has relied on Pakistan's Pashtun belt for most of its recruitment, logistics, weapons and funding.

Bin Laden's new friendship zone stretches nearly 2,000 miles along Pakistan's Pashtun belt -- from Chitral in the Northern Areas near the Chinese border, south through the troubled tribal agencies including Waziristan, down to Zhob on the Balochistan border, then to the provincial capital Quetta and southwest to the Iranian border. The region includes every landscape from desert to snow-capped mountains. Sparsely populated, it provides bin Laden an ideal sanctuary.

Al Qaeda's money, inspiration and organizational abilities have helped turn Pakistan's Pashtun belt into the extremist base it is today, but U.S. and Pakistani policies have helped more. Although the Taliban and al Qaeda extremists were routed from Afghanistan by U.S. forces, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's refusal to put enough U.S. troops on the ground let the extremists escape and regroup in Pakistan's Pashtun belt. The Taliban settled in Balochistan where they had originated before 1994, while al Qaeda members hid in the tribal agencies they knew well. Bin Laden had built tunnels and caves there for the anti-Soviet mujaheddin in the 1980s.

What followed was a disaster: For 27 months after the fall of the Taliban regime, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Washington's closest ally in the region, allowed the extremists free rein in the Pashtun tribal areas to re-establish training camps for militants who had escaped Afghanistan. These included Arabs, Central Asians, Chechens, Kashmiris, Africans, Uighurs and a smattering of East Asians. It was a mini-replay of the gathering in Afghanistan after bin Laden arrived there in 1996.

Musharraf did capture some Arab members of al Qaeda, but he avoided the Taliban because he was convinced that the U.S.-led coalition forces would not stay long in Afghanistan. He wanted to maintain the Taliban as a strategic option in case Afghanistan dissolved into civil war and chaos again. The army also protected extremist Kashmiri groups who had trained in Afghanistan before 9/11 and now had to be repositioned.

Indeed, in March 2002, just three months after the defeat of the Taliban, the United States began to withdraw its Special Forces, surveillance satellites and drones from Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq. Distracted by Baghdad, it did not notice what was happening in the tribal agencies. By the time the Pakistan army entered South Waziristan in March 2004, the extremists were so well entrenched that 250 Pakistani soldiers were killed in the first encounters.

Since then, with no consistent political strategy to woo the Pashtun population away from bin Laden, the army has steadily lost ground. The political agents, who ran the tribal agencies with a mixture of bribery and pressure, have been replaced by arrogant generals ignorant of local conditions. Today the extremists rule over North and South Waziristan and other tribal agencies, while the 70,000 Pakistani troops stationed there are boxed up in outposts, too frightened to patrol the mountains. More than 100 pro-government tribal elders have been assassinated by extremists for divulging information to the U.S. or Pakistani secret services.

Meanwhile down south, the Balochistan provincial government is controlled by a coalition of pro-Taliban fundamentalist parties, which came to power in elections in 2002. Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Islami, the party that controls the key ministries, openly supports the Taliban.

This has created a new stronghold from which the Taliban can launch attacks back in Afghanistan. The 99 U.S. soldiers killed last year in Afghanistan were mostly targeted by the Taliban based in Balochistan. While Washington's principal aim has been to capture bin Laden and decapitate al Qaeda, whose members are believed to be in Waziristan, the United States has failed to pressure Pakistan to deal with the Taliban, despite protestations from Afghan President Hamid Karzai. On a visit to Islamabad this month, Karzai handed Musharraf intelligence dossiers detailing how suicide bombers are being trained in Pakistan. In the past few months, at least 30 attacks have killed nearly 100 people in Afghanistan, including NATO peacekeepers and a Canadian diplomat.

The dossiers listed the names and addresses of Pakistani recruiters and people who equip suicide bombers with explosives before sending them to Afghanistan. Much of the recruitment takes place at a radical Islamic bookshop, several mosques and some madrassas in the port city of Karachi, while the training is done at safe houses in Quetta and Chaman, in Balochistan province.

"We have provided President Musharraf with a lot of very detailed information on acts of terrorism . . . and we discussed in great detail what actions Pakistan could now take," Karzai told me on Feb. 17 in Islamabad. ''Americans are dying, a Canadian diplomat has been killed, our people are suffering. So it is time that action is taken to stop these acts of terrorism and interference in Afghanistan internal affairs," he said. "We expect results."

Getting those results won't be easy. Bin Laden has fighters and sympathizers down the length and breadth of Pakistan's Pashtun belt. No Pakistani Pashtun has reason to betray bin Laden, despite the $27 million reward for his head. Thanks to the drug trade in Afghanistan and the suitcases full of cash still arriving from backers in the Arabian Gulf, neither al Qaeda nor the local Pashtuns are short money. The Pakistani army's failure to offer Pashtuns a greater political role in the national framework has not inspired any loyalty among the tribesmen. And misguided U.S. interventions, such as the January missile strike that killed women and children, do the rest.

Washington's recent decison to start pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan this year has only reinforced al Qaeda's belief that it is winning. After nearly five years of avoiding capture or death, every single day that bin Laden stays alive is a day that inspires the extremists who protect him and join his ranks.

[NoCalMike]

I wonder if Bush still knows who Osama Bin Laden is, considering a couple of years ago he was quoted as saying he doesn't spend much time thinking about him.

As if it matters anyway, the damage has been done in Iraq, and Bin Laden being captured now would merely be a media frenzy full of Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS circle-jerks for the administration, and then we would all wake up the next morning as the situation in Iraq is completely the same and looking more dim with each passing day.

[DarkLadyRaven]

In other news the sky is still blue my friend

[Fred Jones]

At first I thought the same thing about Osama not mattering much. The problem is he still leads these people. Not to say that they won't continue without him, but he has to go if you are going to shut down Al Qaeda.

Someone posed a thread a week ago about the job Bush was doing as President. I think he made a big mistake pulling out of Afghanistan and not finishing the job to concentrate on Iraq. I hope history burns him for that stupidity. His hollow claim about fighting terrorism hopefully will come back to haunt him.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That region of Pakistan can only be described as the wild wild west. No sane nor educated person ventures into the tribal areas unless its absolut'ey neccessary

The government of Pakistan has never had much control there, and nor will they for the forseeable future

If the army tries to move in and crush some skulls, Musharaff's position becomes very shakey domestically

To put it this way, there is a reason why people in Karachi despise pushtuns

[Fred Jones]

That region of Pakistan can only be described as the wild wild west

The government of Pakistan has never had much control there, and nor will they for the forseeable future

If the army tries to move in and crush some skulls, Musharaff's position becomes very shakey domestically

To put it this way, there is a reason why people in Karachi despise pushtuns

Ok, but from the article it sounds like we had a chance back in 01/02 and let the chance slip away. I agree, now it sounds very tough to get him.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ok, but from the article it sounds like we had a chance back in 01/02 and let the chance slip away. I agree, now it sounds very tough to get him.

Chance yes, but in those mountains? The perverbial needle in haystack analogy comes into play here

It also looks like we had a great chance to get him in 1996, and I hope history burns Clinton for that stupidity :doh:

[AbleDanger]

I wonder if Bush still knows who Osama Bin Laden is, considering a couple of years ago he was quoted as saying he doesn't spend much time thinking about him.

As if it matters anyway, the damage has been done in Iraq, and Bin Laden being captured now would merely be a media frenzy full of Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS circle-jerks for the administration, and then we would all wake up the next morning as the situation in Iraq is completely the same and looking more dim with each passing day.

The only reason Iraq looks "more dim with each passing day" to you is because your media circle jerk tells you so.

[Fred Jones]

I am not saying Clinton doesn't deserve some of the blame, but Clinton didn't know what Bush knew in 2001. Bush also had the backing of the people in 2001. The American people didn't know who Osama was back then besides Congressional hearings from the marine LTC who I can't remember his name.

Bush deserves more of the blame. The U.S. could have done a lot more, but instead they devoted resources to Iraq. A country that still is up in the air.

[Fred Jones]

Another good article by someone knowledgeable on the subject matter.

We've Lost Sight Of His Vision

By John Brennan

John Brennan, former head of the National Counterterrorism Center and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, retired from the CIA in November after a 25-year career.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022402303.html

Osama bin Laden's plan to use terrorism to trigger an Islamic reawakening that will challenge Western dominance of world events and assure the ascendancy of Sunni extremists is moving forward -- at an alarming rate.

Hibernating securely somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, bin Laden and his Egyptian sidekick, Ayman al-Zawahiri, must be deriving warmth from the fact that the Iraqi insurgency has taken on a decidedly Sunni extremist coloration; that Hamas has successfully exploited political opportunities in Palestine; that radicals within Europe's Muslim communities are gaining strength and destructive force; and that caricatures of the prophet Muhammad have led to violence even among Muslims not inclined toward terrorism.

Terrorism, in bin Laden's strategy, is only a tactic, a means to achieve what he believes is a providentially ordained objective -- global domination by an Islamic caliphate. Yet dangerously, the United States is focusing on countering that tactic, missing the growth of the extremist Islamic forest as we flounder among the terrorist trees. Maybe it's because we have led ourselves to believe that the term "al Qaeda" means "Kill Americans." It doesn't. It means "foundation" or "base" in Arabic. Bin Laden chose the word intentionally and cleverly. He knew that his battle-hardened core of veterans from the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s would serve only as the foundational wellspring to irrigate fields of political, social and economic discontent among the Muslim masses.

He also recognized that the global explosion of mass media outlets over the last decade gave al Qaeda a ready recruitment vehicle. Headline-grabbing violent attacks against the West, especially the United States, broadcast by al-Jazeera, CNN or the BBC -- and abetted by instantaneous Internet communication -- were certain to impress and win adherents.

Bin Laden has also insidiously convinced us to use terminology that lends legitimacy to his activities. He has hijacked the term "jihad" to such an extent that U.S. and other Western officials regularly use the terms "jihadist" and "terrorist" interchangeably. In doing so, they unwittingly transfer the religious legitimacy inherent in the concept of jihad to murderous acts that are anything but holy.

While al Qaeda has been rocked by a well-financed and increasingly successful international counterterrorism effort, there is no equivalent successful campaign to counter bin Laden's strategic plan and vision. Sunni extremist activists roam virtually unchallenged in the Islamic world, spreading political and ideological seeds among a younger generation thirsting for attention, power and celestial reward.

Leaders of Islamic countries, organizations and local communities have most of the burden, as well as the best chance, of steering Muslim hearts and minds away from bin Laden's world vision. Yet while most distance themselves from his terrorist acts, their penchant for engaging in fiery rhetoric castigating the West helps breed greater intolerance of non-Muslims. The wide disparity between the haves and have-nots in the Middle East also fuels the fires of Islamic activism.

It would be in the United States's best interests to locate and deal with bin Laden sooner rather than later, to undercut his image of invincibility among his followers. But whether his ultimate demise is the result of a well-targeted missile, disease or old age, his days are numbered. His strategic plan, however, has the disturbing potential to live on -- unless we are able to ensure that his vision, his values, his followers and he himself are discredited in the Islamic fields he has so adeptly cultivated.

[AbleDanger]

Bush deserves more of the blame. The U.S. could have done a lot more, but instead they devoted resources to Iraq. A country that still is up in the air.

Resources allocated to Iraq would not have helped us to find Bin Laden in Pakistan. Manpower is not the issue in finding Bin Laden. Intelligence is paramount.

[Fred Jones]

Another author tries to answer some of the questions posted. I posted excerts from the article

A Guide To the Hunt

By Peter Bergen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/24/AR2006022402330.html

Why bother?

According to recent USA Today polls, seven out of eight Americans believe that it is important to capture or kill bin Laden, while 75 percent believe he is planning a significant attack on the United States. These numbers suggest that bringing bin Laden to justice would be a key psychological victory in the war on terrorism.

There is another reason that finding bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is important. Bin Laden may no longer be calling people on a satellite phone to order attacks, but he remains in broad ideological and strategic control of al Qaeda around the world. An indicator of this is that two years ago Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent commander in Iraq, renamed his organization al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers and publicly swore bayat , a religiously binding oath of allegiance, to bin Laden.

Moreover, the 35 video and audiotapes that bin Laden and Zawahiri have released since 9/11 have reached tens of millions of people worldwide through television, newspapers and the Internet, making them among the most widely distributed political statements in history. Those tapes have not only had the effect of pumping up al Qaeda's base, but some have also carried specific instructions that jihadists have acted upon. In 2004, for example, bin Laden offered a truce to European countries willing to pull out of the coalition in Iraq. Almost exactly a year after his offer expired, explosions on London's public transportation system killed 56 people. On a subsequent videotape, Zawahiri explained that the bombings came as a result of the British government ignoring bin Laden's offer.

Why is it so hard?

Rumsfeld has a point. It can be difficult to find any fugitive, even one who stands out as much as bin Laden (who is 6 foot 5). Think of Eric Rudolph, the object of one of the most intense manhunts in U.S. history, who remained on the run for five years after bombing Atlanta's Centennial Park during the 1996 Olympics. Or the alleged Bosnian-Serb war criminal Gen. Ratko Mladic, whose arrest was reported and then denied by Serbian authorities last week -- more than a decade after he was indicted for genocide. Now imagine the challenge of capturing bin Laden, who is likely in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) on Afghanistan's border -- an area of 30,000 dauntingly inhospitable square miles.

The United States has had some success locating terrorists in Pakistan. Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two CIA employees in 1993 outside the agency's Langley headquarters, was tracked down four years later in the obscure town of Dera Ismail Khan. His capture was the result of a carefully cultivated network of informants and the payment of a substantial reward to the person who dropped a dime on Kansi.

But those in bin Laden's immediate circle do not seem to be tempted by the promise of rewards. There were no takers for the $5 million bounty the State Department put on his head following the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa. And there seem to be no takers now for the payout which has risen to $27 million. (Throw in Zawahiri, and the total reaches $52 million.)

What's more, bin Laden seems to have long been preparing for life on the run, adopting a lifestyle of monk-like detachment from material comforts. One Palestinian journalist who interviewed him in Afghanistan in 1996 recalls that dinner for bin Laden and some of his inner circle consisted of salty cheese, a potato, five or six fried eggs and bread caked with sand. Noman Benotman, a Libyan who once fought with al Qaeda, told me that bin Laden used to instruct his followers, "You should learn to sacrifice everything from modern life like electricity, air conditioning, refrigerators, gasoline. If you are living the luxury life, it's very hard to evacuate and go to the mountains to fight."

How to go about it?

Probably not by signals intelligence generated from phone calls. Bin Laden had been careful not to use satellite or cell phones since long before the 9/11 attacks. According to his media adviser, Khalid al-Fawaz, whom I met in London in 1997, bin Laden had already learned to avoid electronic communications. Bin Laden has released only one tape in the past 14 months, possibly because al Qaeda leaders are aware that every time they do so, they open themselves to detection as the chain of custody of these tapes is the one sure way of finding them.

One possible vulnerability is bin Laden's immediate family, with whom he may remain in contact. Three of bin Laden's wives, along with a dozen or so children, chose to remain with him when he adopted the jihadist life. After the fall of the Taliban they all disappeared. My hunch is that they are under the protection of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a formidable Taliban commander who has known bin Laden since the 1980s. Haqqani's forces are spread from Khost in eastern Afghanistan to Waziristan in western Pakistan, sites of some of the most intense recent fighting.

Dead or alive?

Making bin Laden a martyr would not serve our interests. Instead he should be subjected to the same treatment that Saddam Hussein suffered when he was captured -- checked for head lice and publicly humiliated on camera. Bin Laden is now a mythic personality, and the best way to revert him to the status of an ordinary human being is to treat him like one. (One U.S. official told me, though, that if al Qaeda's leader were captured, it would likely produce a significant backlash -- Americans being taken hostage with the aim of freeing him.) It is, however, unlikely that he will be captured. Last year his former bodyguard, Abu Jandal, told the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, "Sheikh Osama gave me a pistol. The pistol had only two bullets, for me to kill Sheikh Osama with in case we were surrounded or he was about to fall into the enemy's hands so that he would not be caught alive."

Of course, bin Laden may make a mistake that reveals his location and makes him vulnerable to American Predator drones. If the United States felt it had intelligence about bin Laden's location, the pressure to launch a missile strike immediately would be intense, despite the risk of his ensuing martyrdom and a rash of anti-American attacks.

As bin Laden himself put it to Jandal, if he were killed, "his blood would become a beacon that arouses the zeal and determination of his followers." The man who once enjoyed a quiet rural life in the mountains of Tora Bora aims in death to ascend into the pantheon of Islamic heroes -- a Saladin for the 21st century "martyred" by those he calls "the Crusaders."

[Seabee1973]

I am not saying Clinton doesn't deserve some of the blame, but Clinton didn't know what Bush knew in 2001. Bush also had the backing of the people in 2001. The American people didn't know who Osama was back then besides Congressional hearings from the marine LTC who I can't remember his name.

Bush deserves more of the blame. The U.S. could have done a lot more, but instead they devoted resources to Iraq. A country that still is up in the air.

Oliver North never mentioned Bin laden. Clinton New a great deal about bin laden. at least twice 2 countries offered to hand him over in the late 90s and the administration said no

[Mad Mike]

I am not saying Clinton doesn't deserve some of the blame, but Clinton didn't know what Bush knew in 2001. Bush also had the backing of the people in 2001. The American people didn't know who Osama was back then besides Congressional hearings from the marine LTC who I can't remember his name.

Bush deserves more of the blame. The U.S. could have done a lot more, but instead they devoted resources to Iraq. A country that still is up in the air.

We were attacked 8 times by bin Laden under Clinton. It was his job to make damned sure the american people knew the danger. But let's not pretend it was a secret either. I knew who bin Laden was and the danger he represented, years before 9/11.

[Fred Jones]

We were attacked 8 times by bin Laden under Clinton. It was his job to make damned sure the american people knew the danger. But let's not pretend it was a secret either. I knew who bin Laden was and the danger he represented, years before 9/11.

Fine, what has Bush done to fix that? Osama is still around just like when Clinton was President. I am not defending Clinton, but I get tired of always blaming him for everything. Not accepting responsibility for anything is getting old with this administration. The U.S. could have devoted a lot more resources in 2001/2002 to take down Al Qaeda, but decided to put those resources toward Iraq. In the long run having a democracy in Iraq might prove useful, but don't tell me that improves the global war on terrorism compared to providing the resources to hunting Osama in 01/02. We will never know if those resources would have made a difference, but it would have been interesting to see the results.

[NoCalMike]

The only reason Iraq looks "more dim with each passing day" to you is because your media circle jerk tells you so.

Riiiiiight. More "liberal media" nonsense.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Fine, what has Bush done to fix that? We will never know if those resources would have made a difference, but it would have been interesting to see the results.

When you make a comment about hoping history burns Bush for not providing enough troops in one of the most hostile enviornments on earth, you will face tons of criticsm because it was infinintley easier to have captured Osama in the mid 1990s, and saved thousands of lives, then it would have been after

When you make a typical partisan hack comment, expect those typical comments right back at you. 1996 was a very key year in a war which the White House did not want to wage for some reason or the other. If Bin Laden is captured then, literally 10s of thousands of lives could have been saved because of 9/11 not happening

But hey, lets blame Bush for not sending in 5,000 more troops into hostile terriotry which our soldiers did not know, and where our intel had not been for over a decade. Lets blame Bush for "outsourcing" the job of capturing Bin Laden while we straddling another nation's soverign territory

[Fred Jones]

When you make a comment about hoping history burns Bush for not providing enough troops in one of the most hostile enviornments on earth, you will face tons of criticsm because it was infinintley easier to have captured Osama in the mid 1990s, and saved thousands of lives, then it would have been after

When you make a typical partisan hack comment, expect those typical comments right back at you. 1996 was a very key year in a war which the White House did not want to wage for some reason or the other. If Bin Laden is captured then, literally 10s of thousands of lives could have been saved because of 9/11 not happening

But hey, lets blame Bush for not sending in 5,000 more troops into hostile terriotry which our soldiers did not know, and where our intel had not been for over a decade. Lets blame Bush for "outsourcing" the job of capturing Bin Laden while we straddling another nation's soverign territory

Right back at me. I didn't say troops. I said resources. That means everything including troops. Of course Clinton is not blameless. I never said he was. So let's just say he was fifty percent to blame and Bush gets the remaining 50 percent. That seems fair. I was speculating on what would have happened had we not moved resources to Iraq. Heck, we certainly were willing to take over Iraq. Why didn't we put more resources into Afghanistan. Maybe it would have dont nothing, but maybe it would have gotten Osama. We will never know.

I also was not making a typical partison comment. Clinton failed when he was given the opportunity. However, Clinton did not have the support of the people or the resources to take out Osama that Bush posseses today. That is not an excuse just stating the facts.

To continue, Bush lets Pakistan get away with a lot of stuff in the war on terror. Why don't we just send some nukes into the hills and take care of the problem. A number of right wing republican people I know have suggested that.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Right back at me. I didn't say troops. I said resources. That means everything including troops. Of course Clinton is not blameless. I never said he was. So let's just say he was fifty percent to blame and Bush gets the remaining 50 percent. That seems fair. I was speculating on what would have happened had we not moved resources to Iraq. Heck, we certainly were willing to take over Iraq. Why didn't we put more resources into Afghanistan. Maybe it would have dont nothing, but maybe it would have gotten Osama. We will never know.

(Rest of quote cut)

I can go with a 50/50 "blame" game here, although I haven't really wanted to "blame" anyone for 9/11 and the aftermath except Bin Laden and his cohorts.

I honestly have no clue how many resources were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq during the late stages of 2002. I know that once the Taliban fell and there was relative calm (relative being the key word) that it has become a much more intel/special forces battle there because of the nature of the terrian, and the small number of enemies we are facing.

I do think if Bill Clinton had presented more evidence to the American people in 1996 about Bin Laden (and after Khober towers there was a will) he would have had no trouble getting the man or oops killing him before he became the big name he did in 1998. Unfourtantley that is water under the bridge now

As for nuking the hills in Pakistan and Pakistan getting away with things, I don't think nuking is practical because no matter how "loose" Musharaff is with Al Qaeda we cannot allow the further Islamization of Pakistan that occured in the 1980s with General Zia in charge. If fanatics were to gain a hold of the nukes, we are in some serious doo doo with troops sitting right on the border in Afghanistan and 150k troops over in Iraq

[AbleDanger]

Riiiiiight. More "liberal media" nonsense.

Yes, according to those I have spoken to at the Pentagon, Iraq has never been closer to supporting itself under its own government since Saddam was toppled. Even Democratic party foreign policy expert Thomas Friedman said Friday on Good Morning America that Al Qaeda is losing in Iraq...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022406/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html

[CounterTrey]

I am an Indian who has lived in the US for the last 15 years and hope to get my US citizenship in 2 weeks. It is the only thing I can dream of right now because the US in an awesome country to live in and one I want to call my home forever.

I am also a 9/11 survivor as I worked for Standard Chartered Bank on the 29th floor on World Trade so this story has a personal attachment to me on a different level. I lost personal relationship, family and friends all within a matter of minutes. That day changed my life forever, but every day I am incensed that the SOB who did this is sitting in some Mullah's farm house sipping tea and making videos threatening us.

India had warned the US through its experiences in battling Militancy in Kashmir about the existence of terrorist camps in Pakistan and how little the Gov’t esp Mussharaff was doing about it to shut it down. Let me enlightened you on a couple of issues. There are parts of Pakistan that even Musharaff can't even control - Its known as the North West Frontier, a land still ruled by local tribesmen’s. An extremely rugged area where it is not easy to triangulate a location. Here Osama is under the control of Pakistani ISI (one can call them pak's CIA) where he is very comfortable. Musshaff isn't trusted by the ISI either as he was almost assassinated twice by them. That why Mussaraff doesn’t know where Osama is either and he more worried now about saving his own behind then helping the US locate him. The US is tired of hearing how they just missed him because it seems Osama and his sidekicks somehow find out before each attack so they vacate the area or simply down show up to a location that is going to be attacked.

Also these areas breed a large amount of Madrassas or religious schools that breed this fanatical Islam. Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorism and India has warned the US about the existence of these schools.

Next week Bush is in India where the US and India two stable democracies are going to embark on projects that will strengthen our ties. On numerous levels . India too can serve the US with its burgeoning economy, scientific knowledge transfer and by also keeping an eye on China, another threat to the US. India is also trying to mediate in the Iran crisis by letting Iran know it must step in line. With India long time strategic partner Russia looking keenly into the new renewed India-US relationship, the US could stand to get uptp 15-20 billions dollars worth of new defense contracts including a contract supply India 146 brand new aircraft.

I have alot of Pakistani friends and my father was born in Pakistan which as that time was still India - I have no hatred towards Pakistan except its current crop of politicians cannot be trusted. When Mussharff was shaking India’s hand in 1999 with the tri-state train link up between Pakistan and India, he knew the Militants had breached our Hilltop locations in kargill already. When the snow receded and our soldiers went up to regain our posts in summer, the Militants were already up there, stocked and ready to go.

Needless to say higher ground at 20,000 feet is a dominant advantage in a fight and we lost many lives but finally we reclaimed the posts after 2-3 months of war.

If one wants to shut down Terrorism or terrorist camps, we must shut down the Madrassas that teach this fanatical Islam. And Pakistan must do a better job of controlling terrorist camps and activities such as training and financing of Terrorists in its own country. Remember the Taliban were not Afghans but Pakistanis .

Sorry about the rant….I want Osama dead what he did ASAP

[AbleDanger]

Remember the Taliban were not Afghans but Pakistanis .

This is true, and the reason we didn't catch a lot of the most senior Taliban officials is because they caught a ride out of Kabul with Pakistani intelligence agents. I have many problems with Pakistan, and I can only hope that one day we are in a position to eliminate those SOB's responsible for the Taliban. The problem with Pakistan is that they are nuclear capable. Having nuclear weapons gives you a lot of leverage. We generally don't attack nations that have nukes because it can start a chain reaction. We are forced to negotiate.

[Thiebear]

I Blame Clinton more than Bush in the 3/4ths of the incidents under him vs. the last act under Bush... BUT:

Clinton prospered during the High times and EVERYONE was telling him to leave it alone. He didnt have the backing nor the timing for it. Had he gotten him from the Sudan that would have been the right thing to do at the time but it would have cost him with Martyr type attacks afterwards..

Bush did divert 153thousand Troops out of the way: But I'm betting Pakistan wouldnt have let them in... Special Forces/Delta Force/CIA should be the ones that assassinate OBL... and like DB Cooper I find it unacceptable so many people can find him....

So all in all will go 50/50 on the blame game...