You are assuming that Osama is in Pakistan. However, he may well be in Iran or Tibet. How does that change the equation?

The point is that the crew that captured the White House in that pivot point of our time five years ago was incapable of leading in any meaningful way when the bell was rung.  This is a tragedy that may bring us to our knees.  Osama slipped the noose at Tora Bora as a result of a strategeic error of great magnatude.  The United States and Britain invaded Iraq in a strategic blunder of grand ineptitude.  The world was united for a moment after September open to moving in a direction of vision, a direction of intelligence and meaning.  What it got was little people, very little people running around with visions of empire riding into the Middle East on on the backs of our abused military, little people without the honor of a simple private or lance corporal or a drill instructor, criminals, profiteers without the slightest shame.

Outrage is good. 

In the area of international affairs, you don't get a second chance very often.

President Bush had a unique window of international compassion and priceless offers of cooperation in the hunt for OBL in the months following 9/11 and we all know what he did:

He failed to get Bin Laden, spat the international community in the face and decided to illegally invade and occupy another country.  

At this point in time, apprehending bin Laden should still be a top priority for America's security apparatus – it is a point of principle. And the other commenters here have already pointed out the folly of thinking about such an operation in terms of military force instead of police work.

But let's not delude ourselves about the nature of the threat that the West faces today: every aspect of the terrorist threat has undergone huge changes since 9/11. Everything has changed: the numbers of people affiliating themselves with 'Al-Quaeda', their training grounds, their whereabouts. And thanks to President Bush, it has become more lethal than it ever was.

Guess what the response of any country would be if the US were to mount an invasion of their country to "get bin Laden". No leader in another country could possibly survive approving such an invasion. How about we allow other countries to invade America to capture a terrorist leader - George Bush? Lets not get carried away here.

As far as I have read or heard on the news, no one can be sure just who is behind the London attacks, or even if it involved more than a small group of malcontents in the UK. Perhaps before we go capture the leaders we need to find out who those leaders are.

The sloppy reasoning and language in this post are frustrating enough to be worth a comment...

"Failing to find the leadership of Al Qaeda cannot be tolerated." Is this the absurd claim that "failure is not an option," or a dangerous willingness to disregard international law (e.g. the Geneva conventions) in our efforts to capture them? Sure, Bin Laden's a terrible criminal and his capture and/or death would be an important symbolic victory, but there should be limits to what we will do to avoid this failure.

"Nobody in the civilized world ... can tolerate..." Well, I certainly don't like the fact that Bin Laden remains free, but as an ordinary, anonymous citizen I find myself quite able to tolerate his escape from justice, and I suspect many others feel the same way. I suspect this skill can be learned -- we're good at accepting the "intolerable".

"The governments of the countries where he and his killing crew are located must tolerate the intervention because they lack the policing power to do the job themselves." Another misplaced absolute. Why does a failure to seriously attempt to capture Bin Laden obligate Pakistan (and neighboring -stans) tolerate a large-scale western military incursion? And why the insistence on massive use of force? Musharraf must avoid being seen as a western puppet, so we would be much better-served by offering (i.e. insisting upon) some discreet CIA and/or special forces help in solving the problem, rather than tramping around the region in jackboots.

"Saying we have to finish another war in another country, complaining we cannot afford to do this job right now, dithering..." Which of these things is not like the others? Pointing out the practical difficulties has nothing to do with "dithering". How would North Korea, Iran, or China respond to our being so thoroughly overcommitted to three simultaneous wars? "...none of those responses is suitable to the moment, or even logical." How is consideration of the costs and risks of our actions illogical?

Gah!

What cannot be permitted are any more half-assed, ill-informed, spittle-driven crusades by American troops stomping around the Middle East and southern Asia.

On September 12, 2001, I was all on board with the "Hunt Down Osama" program.

But it's too late now. We've screwed the pooch but good, and squandered nearly four years, nearly all our store of good will and nearly all our (borrowed) cash in misadventures that were fueled by revenge and greed and paid almost no heed to the realities of the societies in which we freely meddled.

Osama is a figurehead now. Most security professionals agree that al-Qaida has become a loosely-affiliated group of autonomous cells, "metastasized", in Richard's Clark's description.

Osama doesn't need to do anything more than issue the occasional video or audiotape and leave us to destroy ourselves with our own hysteria and fear.

Sure, Osama, Zawahiri and even old one-eyed Mullah Omar should be caught and made to pay. But their strength these days is more symbolic than operational. Putting them in prison or executing them will not stop one terrorist attack.

The best course in dealing with them is patience, diplomacy and spycraft.

Sounds like a bunch Bushesque tough-guy bullshit to me.  There are any number of knowledgeable scholars -- Peter Bergen, Juan Cole, et. al. -- who have already shown this style of armchair claptrap to be naive, misguided, and just plain wrong about what the whole bin Laden / al Qaeda phenomenon is all about. 

In any case, just what do you find objectionable?  Bombing cities?   Murdering civilians?  What's your stand on, say, dropping cluster bombs on civilian neighborhoods in Iraq?  Or annihilating entire cities, like Fallujah?  Kerosene-based napalm proved quite effective in this particular case. 

Boo fucking hoo.

The London bombings were probably the work of cells operating independently of Bin Laden and Zawahiri. As noted in a New York Times op-ed this morning, the immediate need may be to end the current program under which UK and other EU passport holders can travel to the US without visas. This will inconvenience travellers but we need at least to debate the risk vs. the inconvenience.

Longer-term, there needs to be much less isolation of Muslims in the UK and Europe (which will require Muslims there to decide whether and to what extent they want to assimilate) and a more effective strategy in the greater Middle East.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the need is to apply basic principles of political counter-insurgency (clear and hold territory in increments, build up local police instead of armies, support the rule of law) instead of military search-and-destroy operations that abandon places once they have been swept. Time is running out.

The Iranians are probably going to get nuclear weapons after 2010 if it is true that very little can or will be done to stop them. Pakistan could then come under pressure to supply nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and other countries. Outside intervention in the Islamic world may not have much time to make a difference, if it has the possibility of doing so at all, before nuclear conditions make such intervention prohibitive.

what good finding the 'leaders' when our country has become an extremely efficient creator of more leaders, bombers, ...?

 what goes around, comes around.  break the cycle of violence.

<A HREF=http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20041101.middleeast.sageman.under
standingterrornetworks.html>Marc Sageman</A>, <I>Understanding Terror Networks</I>:

<blockquote> The 400 terrorists on whom I’ve collected data were the ones who actually targeted the “far enemy,” the U.S., as opposed to their own governments. ......

.... They also seem to have clustered around ten mosques worldwide that generated about 50 percent of my sample. If you add the two institutions in Indonesia, twelve institutions generated 60 percent of my sample. So, you’re talking about a very select, small group of people. </blockquote>

Marc Sageman's work also talks about how young men join the jihad.

<blockquote> When they became homesick, they did what anyone would and tried to congregate with people like themselves, whom they would find at mosques. So they drifted towards the mosque, not because they were religious, but because they were seeking friends. They moved in together in apartments, in order to share the rent and also to eat together - they were mostly halal, those who observed the Muslim dietary laws, similar in some respects to the kosher laws of Judaism. Some argue that such laws help to bind a group together since observing them is something very difficult and more easily done in a group. A micro-culture develops that strengthens and absorbs the participants as a unit. This is a halal theory of terrorism, if you like.


These cliques, often in the vicinity of mosques that had a militant script advocating violence to overthrow the corrupt regimes, transformed alienated young Muslims into terrorists. It’s all really group dynamics. You cannot understand the 9/11 type of terrorism from individual characteristics. The suicide bombers in Spain are another perfect example. Seven terrorists sharing an apartment and one saying “Tonight we’re all going to go, guys.” You can’t betray your friends, and so you go along. Individually, they probably would not have done it.</blockquote>

Such cliques find their way to the jihad because they are referred to it by someone who knows someone in the jihad.

Shut down the places where the young men are referred to the jihad - some small and finite number of religious establishments, and you'll have made a good start in eliminating the terrorist threat.

 

What is a legal war?

Under the UN Charter (of which the US of course is a signatory)

(1) In individual or collective self-defence (a right under customary international law, which is expressly preserved by Article 51 of the Charter).
(2) Pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution.

(The second of these is arguably from an ethical perspective problematic because of the structure of the UN Security council.  The first remains a fine principle)

Without a much stronger internatonal community than now exists international law are a set of unenforceable goals.

The fact that the law is not always observed is - with all due respect - an extremely poor reason for ignoring its existence.

Powerful countries, or those with powerful friends, do of course sometimes act as if they are not bound by international law, and while it is sadly true that they are often not so bound in practice, this does not remove them from the binds of morality that insist that one should adhere to an agreement which one has signed.

Just because the law is not always a good indicator of how things are, this does not lessen the fact that it is a reflection of a commonly agreed upon understanding of how things should be.

Right on, and thank you.

Regarding the legality of any such invasion, the US was attacked.  We are, quite simply, entitled under international law to respond in our own defense.  Congress has authorized the response.  Let's go.

Regarding Musharraf, if he wants to get on board, covertly, overtly, in full or in part, mazel tov.  If not, likewise, just stand to the side if you don't mind.
 
Regarding the value of capturing or killing Bin Laden for curbing terrorism, I can't see how it would hurt.

Goss has said we more or less know where he is, but we're not taking action to protect the sensitivities of "somebody".  How in the living hell did we get to the point where that statement can be made without being shouted down?

Enough geopolitical chess.  Let's find, capture, or kill the people that want to kill us. 

Thanks 

I am not really trying to start an arguement but as to the first clause that was exactly what Bush claimed was the reason for going to war in Iraq, it was a matter of self defense. The problem is that if you make that argument there are police and courts to decide if it is true. In the international arena basically each nation is free to determine the matter for themselves.

It is one reason why Europe especially France and Germany are trying to create a more national entity for the continent.

But no one in the civilized world (that plainly includes Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of all other faiths and creeds) can possibly tolerate the fact that Osama has not yet been apprehended.

Are you kidding? Half of THIS COUNTRY tolerated the fact that OBL wasn't caught last November 2nd.

What, now has the London bombing "Changed Everything(tm)"?

I really don't get this line of thinking here. So, NOW we should get serious about finding OBL? I mean, it's not enough that Bush has wasted lives and billions of dollars in Iraq? And that Bush has done NOTHING to make us safer here at home?

Did it actually take more people dying to get you or anyone else outraged about what Bush has done?

I mean, there's a lot of people, me included, that have been saying what you're saying since we invaded Iraq. I disagree that we need some type of full scale military invasion -- I mean, that might get us OBL (if we knew exactly where he was), but won't stop al-Qaeda.

But I share your viewpoint that it's about fucking time SOMEONE saw justice for 9/11.

The notion I had in mind was that the US was attacked under the direction and sponsorship of a relatively sophisticated militant organization, which is to say Al Qaeda, whose leadership was and is well known.

At the time we were attacked, Al Qaeda enjoyed the sponsorship of the Taliban, who constituted whatever formal government existed in Afghanistan.  They refused to surrender Bin Laden & co, so we responded militarily.  I found, and find, this response appropriate.

There is ample evidence that Al Qaeda then, and now, are the beneficiaries of assistance from the Pakistani intelligence organization ISI.  There is also evidence that Musharraf's actions to apprehend him have been less than vigorous.

So, I would find a military action on the physical terrain of Pakistan, not to include an invasion of Pakistan per se, entirely defensible.  If Musharraf chose to support it, his help would be welcome.  If not, fine, but if he was wise he would also not hinder it.

My two cents.

To me, the notion that we have no right to pursue, militarily, the leaders of an organization that has, literally, declared war on the US, has engaged in deadly acts of violence against US military and civilians here and abroad, and which vocally and publicly looks forward to doing the same in the future,  is the notion that is staggeringly misguided.

These guys aren't bank robbers, nor are they political agitators.  They are a studious, disciplined, armed military force.  They don't happen to be associated with a specific state, but they are a military just the same.  They bear military arms and study and practice their use, they study tactics and strategy, and carefully plan their actions to further strategic ends.  They are an army.

Police action is fine when appropriate, ditto intelligence operations, financial sanctions, whatever you like.  So is a military response.

Cheers - 

I think it is a heartfelt plea like one of those John Wayne- America the Beautiful appeals to the crusader in all of us. There is no similar outrage for innocent Iraqis being bombed like this every day. Are Muslims really worth so much less than we Anglo Christians?

Libertine -

Thanks for your comments and kind words.

I do not support the unilateral invasion of another country without provocation.  I did not support the invasion of Iraq, and consider it to have been an act of stupendous, stunning, willful folly.  We'll pay for it for at least another generation.

Wherever OBL is, we have the right to demand vigorous, effective action on the part of that nation to apprehend him and surrender him to us.  If that action is not taken, IMO we have the right to go in and get him.

That's all I'm saying.

Cheers - 

If we have a clearcut chance to snatch OBL, I think we should try to do it and worry about the legal repercussions later. If the Pakastani government has no presence in the tribal territories, who's to verify that we conducted operations there anyway? If someone did raise a question, we could simply explain that we observe Pakistani sovereignty, which we interpret to mean territory that is under the sovereign control of the Pakistani government. As we have seen, borders do not have a lot of meaning in that region of the world, so we should act accordingly, and very discreetly, which I would imagine is exactly what we are indeed doing at this very moment wrt OBL. 

Oldschool, I don't know what to say.  You have fully admitted to not being an expert on international law but you refuse to accept it when I explain it to you.

In international law, as best as I can make out, and as stated in the citation you provided upthread, nations must, and are entitled to, act in their own defense. 

Again I clearly described the circumstances in which "self-defence" is applicable and you just ignored it and applied this vague notion of "acting in your own defence".  It's just wrong.  I don't know how I can be clearer.

There are a few very limited circumstances in which a nation can act in its own defence and the one you describe is just not one of them.

But don't take my word for.  Here is someone called Daniel Webster speaking in 1837:

it will be for her rules of national law the destruction of the "Caroline" is to be defended.  It will be for that government to show a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, no moment for deliberation.

This speech is considered appropriate authority on the doctrine of international self-defence, and it simply cannot logically be said to apply to an invasion of Pakistan.

There is a public service commercial that runs on cable now and then. It has a group of people on a New York City sidewalk, standing near a trash can with a candy wrapper laying on the sidewalk beside the trash can. The six or seven people have a conversation something like this ...

Person 1: "I can't believe that someone just threw this on the sidewalk."

Person 2: "Don't they know any better"

Person 3: "Someone ought to do someting about littering"

Person 4: "Wonder if we should call someone"

and so on.

Then, a young woman walks by, picks up the candy wrapper, and throws it in the trash can, and continues on her way.

OBL is our announced enemy. We go after him where he is if we know his location. If we have an opportunity to grab OBL in the tribal territories, we should just go ahead and do it. If Pakistan has no presence in those territories, then we become the temporary law enforcement authority. We have announced that those who harbor 9/11 terrorists will be held just as accountable as the terrorists, so we act in accordance with the policy we have announced. Sometimes you just have to pick up the trash and throw it in the can, and let others do the talking!

This idea is mind-boggling bad.  Even assuming the very unlikely--that Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to a massive military action to capture bin Laden--the likelihood of success of such an enterprise would be approximately 0%.

Look, for comparison, at the hunt for Eric Rudolph in NC.  His location was known down to the town; the US government's control over western NC is considerably greater than Pakistan's control over the Northwest Territory; the FBI agents all spoke the same language as the residents.  In spite of these advantages, the FBI irritated the townpeople, made itself a laughingstock, and didn't capture Rudolph.

It is a tragedy that Osama Bin Landen and his lieutenants have not been captured. Reed is right, it is impermissible that we do not employ all resources available to the US to bring them to justice.

In addition, because the leaders of terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda are rarely suicide bombers themselves making examples of them is important as a deterrent, even if limited.

The fact that we sent over 150,000 troops to Iraq (which was never a threat to the vital interests of the US) but failed to have enough troops in Afghanistan to capture Bin Landen and his lieutenants will be recorded in history as one of the greatest examples of incompentence by a US administration.

Unfortunately, there are many other related areas where similar levels of incompetence are at work.

It became patently clear on 9/11 that the first responders in New York (and probably in most other cities in the US) were unprepared to deal with large, complex terrorist incidents. For example, their telecommunications capabilities are pathetic. The inter agency training and cooperation is mediocre at best (this is not only a New York issue), they have inadequate and/or insufficient equipment and training (e.g., haz mat), and are simply not as prepared as they should be in absolute terms or compared to first responders in countries such as the UK and Israel.

Parenthetically and in fairness to the people of the NYPD and FDNY a lot of their problems were due to an incompetent mayor who choose Commissioners with no management expertise (von Essen for fire and Kerik for police), allienated the uniformed and civilian career personnel, and sought to control and influence the FD and PD to levels never seen before, and took horrible management decisions that clearly compromised people's ability to respond on 9/11, like placing the city's emergency response center in the towers, even after the 1993 bombing - how incompetent is that? So, after 1993, the city and the government did not take enough steps fast enough, and when 9/11 came we could not avoid it or respond to it well enough. The outcome of all that was that the Mayor who took all those bad decisions became some sort of cult hero (even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and mentoned by many as a candidate to the Presidency), and in conjunction with his former FD and PD commissioners opens a consulting firm on security issues!!

We have had bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, Kenya/Tanzania, AFTER 9/11 and what do we do? The Secretary of Homeland Security goes on TV to change the alert level, we make millions of flyers  take off their shoes every day (while all tests of airport security indicate the system is not working), and we put dogs and cops in train stations while the terrorists sit back and wait for the guard to go down or think of different ways to hit us.

And we do nothing or very little to improve first responder communications (e.g., create a national first responder and law enforcement communications network using next gen technologies on 700 MHz spectrum currently licensed to broadcasters serving less than 5% of the population), almost nothing on ensuring that there are national standards of training and enough funding for first responders in the areas most likely to be targeted (e.g., NYC only has one haz mat unit!), we bungle some big ass IT project and use it as excuse for the glacial pace of  cultural change in the FBI when it comes to information sharing, we argue about who is responsible for which intelligence budget, but do nothing to ensure agencies share information effecitvely and efficiently, we leave thousands of privately owned critical infrastructure locations go virtually unprotected because we don't like regulation and will make do with "voluntary" programs (you don't know but probably there is a large chemical plant with tons of clorine or sulfuric acid next door to you, or some big hospital radiology center!), our ports and railroads are mostly unwatched, and we divide funding for Homeland Security like pork. All in all, a pretty pathetic state of affairs for the welathiest and most resourceful country in the World.

Shame on us. As Reed said, this cannot be permitted. Things will only change when the War on Terror stops being just news and cable news and blog discussions for and by (foreign) policy junkies, and becomes truly a national enterprise, owned by all citizens.

Like Jose Padilla?

Assuming that a completly innocent man has not been incarcerated for years without a trial.

In other words you feel the US should be entitled to disregard international law, including treaties to which it is a signatory.

On that we will have to agree to differ.

Not for nothing, but the text of Article 51 from the UN Charter defines as the limiting condition for direct action in self-defense *not* the point at which authorities have been summoned, but the point at which those authorities have established international peace and security. 

This may be a point at which the analogy to domestic police protection breaks down, in which case I submit that we should abandon that analogy, and address the actual case.

As far as I can tell, regarding the threat presented by Al Qaeda, international peace and security *have not been established*.  The principal leadership of Al Qaeda remains at large, and remains apparently all too active.

Do you disagree?

Cheers -