Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

CIA Disbands Bin Laden Unit

The left is going to have a field day with this, but I think it simply represents and logical step in the war on terror. People will be prone to overreact to this news, but this is clearly a step in the righ direction.

Critics of President Bush's anti-terror policies like to harp on the fact that we haven't caught or killed Osama bin Laden yet, but this is something of a canard. Those people are just using bin Laden as a political weapon against Bush. The reality of the war on terror is that Islamic terrorism is not a single nation with a single army and a single leader. While killing or capturing terror leaders like Zarqawi and bin Laden are certainly worthy and important goals, achieving those goals will not bring us overall victory in the war on terror. They can help, but this isn't a game of chess where capturing the "king" brings us instant victory.

Fighting terror means fighting an ideology. You don't fight an ideology by killing that ideology's leaders. Doing so only turns those leaders into sainted martyrs for the ideology's faithful. Instead, you fight an ideology by changing the conditions that create adherents to the ideology in the first place.

Islamic terrorism springs from the oppressive, fundamentalist rule Muslims have lived under in the middle east for centuries. By toppling oppressive regimes in the middle east and replacing them with governments that rule at the will of the people we end the conditions that breed terrorists.

Attacking the Islamic extremists by going at the very roots that supply them with a steady stream of zealots to take up their cause is the only way we are going to defeat them.

You don't get rid of weeds by simply mowing over them (nor, I might add, do you get rid of them by retreating to the inside of your house when getting rid of them seems too tough). You get rid of weeds by killing them at their roots.

Which is what we're doing to terrorism in Iraq.

Comments

Avatar for diane

This is no big deal; they’re still looking, just combined it rather than make it a separate unit.

diane on July 4, 2006 at 02:47 pm
Avatar for Stephen

Osama Bin Laden is why we are at war in the first place, no? He is the one that orchestrated 9/11. no? What ever happened to bringing him to justice, to avenge the victims of terrorism? I think it’s a huge step, if not an incredibly illogical step to say that the abandoment of the CIA’s bin-Laden unit is the NEXT LOGICAL STEP in the war on terror? That’s absolutely ludicrous.

I agree with you on the point that fighting terror is fighting an ideology. There are many ways to remove the root of the problem, it is fallacious to think that removal of a leader is not one way to do it. Al-Qaeda is not a government group, it is a militant group of Islamic extremists. If a government’s head was removed, there would be a new elected official. Whose to say if Osama is killed that extremists will not lose hope and abandon their efforts? Granted we don’t know what the best way to pursue this is, as… we are still in Iraq and seemingly not pursuing the real reason we are supposed to be in the middle east, justice.

You are not going to just get heat from the left. Rational Americans from both parties are going to be heated over this. There is no logical justificiation that I have heard from you or the CIA that makes sense. Removing Osama removes the biggest organizing and recruiting element in the area. To me it seems like they are abandoning the unit not because the war has moved from micro to macro, it is because they have been wasting time and money and the fact of the matter is, they can’t find him.

Our national conscious forgot about Afghanistan and it is devolving into a carmudgeon. We are now abandoning the hunt for Osama. Why not just say we went to the middle east to search for Atlantis?

Stephen on July 4, 2006 at 02:48 pm
Rob
Rob
19146 comments
Send a private message

Stephen, you make a mistake in assuming that we’re not still looking for bin Laden.  We are, we’re just consolidating our resources.

As I stated in the post (which you apparently failed to read thoroughly), getting terror leaders like Osama and Zarqawi are important...but that is not how we’re going to win.

Your belief that we can defeat terrorism by simply killing the terror leaders is both naive and foolish.  Terrorism, as Justice Thomas referred to it in the recent Hamdan decision, is a “hydra-headed monster.” Chopping off one head just causes more heads to grow.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on July 4, 2006 at 03:03 pm
Avatar for robert108

"What ever happened to bringing him to justice, to avenge the victims of terrorism?”

Vengeance is a very stupid reason to go to war.  It is certainly not a sustaining reason.  It takes commitment to a higher purpose, like bringing a modern nation to the Middle East.

robert108 on July 4, 2006 at 03:04 pm
Avatar for robert108

dd: Good point!

robert108 on July 4, 2006 at 03:14 pm
Avatar for Stephen

"You don’t fight an ideology by killing that ideology’s leaders.” My point was that such an approach is not something that we can just discard. Is it the silver bullet and single solution, of course not, you pointed that out too, but to discount it as a way to fight terror is something that we do not know.

There have been far too many historical examples of ideologies toppoling from power and influence when their leader was removed. Omar Torrijos. Sadda Hussein, Hitler, etc. When they were removed the entire attitude and governing structure was completely changed.

Note however that I did not say that killing leaders was going to solve any kind of middle eastern crisis. I said that it is not something that we can abandon, although you said that is not how you fight an ideology.

Again, when referring to Judge Thomas you are oversimplifying the facets of war. Regimes have been replaced over night through the removal of leaders, we should know, the United States has done it many times for decades. In this case I do think you are partially right, removing leaders is not the end all solution; what I was getting through to you is that by saying leadership removal is not a good strategy, that is not a strategy in itself. How do you fight the war on terror? How do you stop the largest religion on earth’s followers from turning to extremism? How do we “win” the war? Nobody seems to have any idea, and that in itself is the reason for our disastrous campaign in Iraq.

Also, please do not bastardize my words. I did not say that we should be going to war for vengeance, although it’s in part exactly why countries goto war. President Bush said directly after 9/11 that we would hunt down and kill those responsible. Wars have always been fought for vengeance, status quo, power, etc. Not acknowledging that fact is removing yourself from reality. Is it a stupid reason to goto war, absolutely I agree. Before we goto war there should be rational analysis of options. Clearly the initial catalyst was to goto war to bring justice for 9/11 and for all the terror brought upon the modern world by Al-Qaeda.

If we did not goto war because of 9/11, please show me some sort of outline during the 2000 election or afterwards where someone said we were going to perform regime change in Iraq. That was never on the agenda. Why not save the whole world, why not goto clear threats like Iran or N. Korea, why not goto known human rights violators like Sudan? Commitment to higher purpose is a justification for remaining in Iraq. It was never a reason to go in the first place.

Stephen on July 4, 2006 at 03:27 pm
Avatar for Stephen

and may I add/edit:

Clearly the initial catalyst was to goto war to bring justice for 9/11, for all the terror brought upon the modern world by Al-Qaeda, and to keep the American public safe from future attacks of this nature.

Stephen on July 4, 2006 at 03:35 pm
Avatar for WOOF

3000 New Yorkers , 2 of the largest buildings in the world, 4 airplanes, the Pentagon .

Not bringing Osama to justice after 4 years shows weakness and enourages others to follow him.

Pastime to remedy this failure.
Hercules killed the Hydra.

WOOF on July 4, 2006 at 03:36 pm
Avatar for diane

19 hijackers.

The theory here (the meme, if you will) is that we are not to judge the many for the actions of the few.

Wha hoppen?

diane on July 4, 2006 at 03:39 pm

Stephen said, How do you stop the largest religion on earth’s followers from turning to extremism? How do we “win” the war?

You fight against the evil ideology. Winning is not guaranteed, of course.

Nobody seems to have any idea, and that in itself is the reason for our disastrous campaign in Iraq.

“Disastrous”? We’re winning and winning quickly.

diane gets confused, The theory here (the meme, if you will) is that we are not to judge the many for the actions of the few.

Wha hoppen?

What are you talking about? We’re not judging the many for the actions of the few. We’re going after “the few” for the actions they have committed.

likwidshoe on July 4, 2006 at 03:49 pm
Avatar for diane

You fight against the evil ideology. Winning is not guaranteed, of course.

How do you bomb an ideology?  We are bombing people.

*************

What are you talking about? We’re not judging the many for the actions of the few. We’re going after “the few” for the actions they have committed.

Really? Too bad for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died.  I guess they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

*****************

diane on July 4, 2006 at 03:59 pm

How do you bomb an ideology? We are bombing people.

Very good diane! We bomb those who are of an evil ideology. You’re making progress!

Really? Too bad for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died.

*NEWSFLASH* for the clueless - innocent people die in wars.

I guess they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Very good diane! You’re getting some things.

likwidshoe on July 4, 2006 at 04:30 pm
Avatar for Jim

Maybe it’s just a ruse to smoke OBL out - make him look unimportant so he’ll do something stupid and we can nail him in the koran. Same thing for Zawahiri (sp). I understand saving face is a big deal for Islamic types.

Jim on July 4, 2006 at 04:34 pm
Avatar for robert108

likwid: Those innocent Iraqis are mostly the casualties of the illegal and immoral terrorists using them for human shields and target practice.  Terrorists don’t care who they kill.

robert108 on July 4, 2006 at 04:51 pm
Avatar for Outmigrated NoDaker

Question:  Should we disband from operations in Iraq?

Answer: Of course not.

So why is this ok?

Outmigrated NoDaker on July 4, 2006 at 06:43 pm
Avatar for E.M.

Seriously, Rob, this was my TOKEN LIBERAL’S cause du jour...not mine. Its a Raw Story thread, meaning no ones investigated whether its been replaced, or whether there were good reasons for abandoning it in the first place (there probably were). Somehow I doubt he did much research into it.

smile

E.M. on July 4, 2006 at 06:54 pm
Avatar for Stephen

"*NEWSFLASH* for the clueless - innocent people die in wars.”

Newsflash for the man who says he wants to defeat the ideology. If you kill 10,000 innocent Iraqis and shrug it off as just a part of war, I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing people not to hate America and not to become extremists.

Defeating the ideology requires that we understand the ideology. Find the root cause, is it US occupation, is it the diverse government unable to come to accords, is it an intrinsic hate of the west, figure it out and we can defeat the ideology. It is stupid and irresponsible to say that we are going to solve the problem by blowing everyone up. Who are you, Al-Qaeda?

Stephen on July 4, 2006 at 07:06 pm
Avatar for robert108

"If you kill 10,000 innocent Iraqis...”
Mostly killed by the terrorists.  The Iraqis should hate the terrorists, and most of them do.  Radical Islam has hated every non-Muslim for over 1300 years, so you are way off there.  Wake up and face the facts.  The root cause is not “US occupation”, it is the core teachings of Islam, rooted in the 7th century, and savage even by those standards.  As long as there are fools who believe that God tells them to “Kill all the Infidels”, that ideology will be deadly to the civilized world.  Al Qaeda wants to use terrorist violence to intimidate and subdue anyone who isn’t willing to fight for their way of life.  It is medieval thinking, so we have to use appropriate measures.  Their choice, not ours.  They choose to live by the sword, so many of them will die by it.

robert108 on July 4, 2006 at 07:16 pm
Avatar for WOOF

Foreigner terrorists are not about to take over Iraq.

When the Iraqis stop fighting each other and the US,
they will take care of the foreigners.

WOOF on July 4, 2006 at 08:00 pm
Rob
Rob
19146 comments
Send a private message

So why is this ok?

Because we’re not stopping the search for bin Laden, just re-focusing some assets.

See the difference?


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on July 4, 2006 at 08:06 pm
Avatar for Stephen

Rob what are you even arguing anymore? I’m trying to get you to explain where your initial argument even came from, when I said we should not discard removing terrorists leaders as a tactic and you said otherwise; “You don’t fight an ideology by killing that ideology’s leaders.”

You say the root is radical Islam. Ok. What is your solution? If it’s not killing radical Islamic leadership and those who prod it on like Osama Bin-Laden how are you going to stop the influence of radical Islam? Are you hoping we just blow everyone up? Since you are ok with civilian casualities in the name of a ‘higher cause’, is that your solution? You can call everything naive and foolish, but at the end of the day you still have not offered up any kind of substantive point other than your 2 cents towards fueling the ‘burn those hippie liberals’ fan club.

I agree with you completely, Islam in its writings and its leaders failures in denouncing extremism is a large part of the problem. Islam is backwards in its existence in the modern world of law and human rights. What is perpetuating the conversion of Muslims to radicalism are radical religious leaders and people like Osama.

So what is your proposed method of dealing with the problem of militant ideology? And it really doesn’t matter who killed 10,000 Iraqis, the Iraqi people know one thing, those people are dead. Partially it’s been terrorists, Iraqis hate them. Partially it has been coalition forces fighting with terrorists and air strikes. It is not like we can just wash our hands and you can pretend like you can read Iraqis minds. Read the media coming from the region, people are not happy with terrorists (they sold out Zarqawi), they are not crazy about us either.

Be realistic. I understand we are trying to fix things, but I also realize we are part of the problem.

Also what is this ridiculousness that you won’t address about Bin-Laden? We did not go to Afghanistan for a greater purpose as you purport, we went to retaliate against Al-Qaeda to keep our country safe. Please keep your facts straight, I know it’s difficult since the Bush administration has given a number of changing answers on why we are at war.

Stephen on July 4, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Avatar for Mickey

We’ll get him.

Mickey on July 5, 2006 at 04:36 am
Avatar for Stankleberry

Lefties whine about everything.  I don’t know why anyone still pays any attention to them.  They are very stupid children.

Stankleberry on July 5, 2006 at 05:15 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

R108:

It takes commitment to a higher purpose, like bringing a modern nation to the Middle East.

Flip Flopper in Chief:

“I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”

R108:

Vengeance is a very stupid reason to go to war.

Why do you hate America, r?

S.J. RES. 23: “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

realitybasedbob on July 5, 2006 at 06:09 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

And before all you nutters start to foam up:

We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.

President Bush
September 17, 2003

realitybasedbob on July 5, 2006 at 06:35 am
Avatar for robert108

rbb: None of the mouthpieces you cherry-pick quotes from changes the truth of what I wrote.

robert108 on July 5, 2006 at 11:45 am
Avatar for Stephen

"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.” - George W. Bush- March 21, 2006

“Saddam Hussein had his agenda and al-Qaida had its agenda, and those two agendas were incompatible. And so if there was any contact between them, it was a contact that was rebuffed rather than a contact that led to meaningful relationships between them.” - Larry Wilkerson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,944589,00.html
“The talks are thought to have ended disastrously for the Iraqis, as bin Laden rejected any kind of alliance, preferring to pursue his own policy of global jihad , or holy war.”

Stephen on July 5, 2006 at 02:16 pm
Avatar for robert108

Stephen: No matter what anyone thought or said in the past, it is now known that there was a connection between major terrorists.  What a surprise!  It’s funny that the lefties want to convict our soldiers of cold-blooded murder and rape on the basis of preliminary reports, but when we think that major terrorists are in collusion to accomplish a common end, killing all the infidels, you want to wait for the proof, and when it is found, you want to ignore or minimize it.

robert108 on July 5, 2006 at 03:02 pm
Avatar for realitybasedbob

If that’s true, then why does our president keep lying about there not being a connection?

As Stephen posted:

“First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”
George W. Bush
March 21, 2006

Where is our Decider on this?
Why doesn’t he just come out and back up your oft repeated meme?

Why hasn’t he come out and definitely stated “We found the WMD we went to war over”

Perhaps I missed that announcement. Will you please post a link to our president’s words verifying the 9/11 connection with Saddam and his most recent declarations concerning Santorum’s WMD find.

realitybasedbob on July 6, 2006 at 06:21 am
Avatar for Stephen

Wait wait wait Rob, please address the comments that exist, don’t start going off on tangents. I never said anything about accusing our soldiers of anything until the information has been sorted out. Of course we wait for the proof, although it makes no sense why the “proof” of a Saddam- Al-Qaeda connection wasn’t revealed until 2003, 2 years after we went to war. The telegraph was the only news organization to pick up and report on that story. If you read all the information currently available, there is a reason why that information has not been used by news organizations OR the government. Members of the Bush administration and the intelligence community have said that they have researched it and although they may have met, they did not get along and did not cooperate.

Why are you lecturing me about waiting for the evidence and the truth? You are using a Telegraph piece from 2003 to try and counter the President of the United States’ statement which contradicts the Telegraph article from 2006. Who is the one ignoring the truth here. Wake up. Nice try, come back and play again.

Stephen on July 6, 2006 at 09:18 am
Avatar for Zsa Zsa

I think we have a code pink here!

Zsa Zsa on July 6, 2006 at 09:40 am
Avatar for robert108

rbb: It’s interesting that the guy you related to as “Bush lied, people died” is now your source of accurate information.  The translations of these documents are out, and they reveal what most of us figured out a long time ago.  I know you think you are being cute by using a cherry-picked statement against the President, but not all of us are partisan thinkers like you.  Only the truth matters here, and you are trying to deny it.  Same for you, Steve.

robert108 on July 6, 2006 at 10:01 am
Avatar for Stephen

Robert,
Please find me one current quote that has the President linking Saddam to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Those documents have been shown by the intelligence committee to not be the silver bullet you were looking for. You are absolutely a partisan thinker. I am a new poster on this site, you have no idea what my political views are, yet because I present an opposing view you get mad. Where is fair discourse? If I were reading my own posts I wouldn’t think that I was a member of either the left or the right.

Why don’t you Robert108 or Rob address the questions instead of ad hominem attacking me. Is there a reason why you don’t want to confront the issues? Bush and his administration have said countless times that there is no substantive proof of a Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection and that if there was one it was fruitless. No one is cherry picking statements. Those are the statements of the administration and the intelligence committee. Sorry you don’t want to believe that.

Stephen on July 6, 2006 at 10:10 am
Avatar for realitybasedbob

So r,…you can’t give us even one instance where The President of The United States of America has spoken definitively about the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden or the weapons of mass destruction he invaded Iraq over.

It’s interesting that the guy you relate to as our leader is now nowhere on record as a source of accurate information.

realitybasedbob on July 6, 2006 at 10:12 am
Avatar for Stephen

And Rob, what is the deal with you trying to use a article that for three years has not been shown by anyone of expertise to be a compelling piece of evidence. If the President says that there is no connection, why don’t you believe him?  So since you don’t believe the President when he says that there is NO connection, aren’t you just cherry picking what you want to believe? It seems you are stuck in a pre-2006 mindset.

Stephen on July 6, 2006 at 10:19 am
Avatar for Stephen

This is funny. I get accused of beating a dead horse, yet the other posters are the ones who are evasive on the questions and have offered nothing substantive.

Reasons for war are extremely important. Let me ask you, do you think in WWII if German soldiers had thought en masse that they were participating in horribly unethical practices and that their leader had drawn them in to a continental conflict for aspirations of power and not for the well being of Germay, would it not be permissable for German soldiers to be unsupportive of Hitler’s reasons for war and to not pursue victory? Isn’t a moral stance victory in itself?

If we enter an engagement and do not realize that we have made mistakes and retroactively try to justify ourselves we set a precedent for all other conflicts. We could enter into any conflict, so long as we could retroactively find some way to justify it. These are not the principles our country was founded on. I find it alarming that you support such a view.

Stephen on July 6, 2006 at 10:46 am
Avatar for robert108

Stephen: You are mistaken.  I have never attacked you in any manner, ad hominem or otherwise.  I don’t agree with what you say, but that is dissent.  Thought you lefties supported dissent.

robert108 on July 6, 2006 at 11:37 am
Avatar for Stephen

No Dave, you are unreal and quite typical. I only started discussing the causes of war and their importance because you started some infantile fight with Bob. You have not addressed anything that I have said, I guess because if you did your argument would fall to pieces.

If you look at my earlier posts they were about what we are doing in Iraq and how we are going to win. Perhaps you forgot or have a selective memory. I was talking about how we are going to win the war in the first place, you were the one talking about dismantling the CIA. Funny thing is neither you nor Rob wanted to discuss how we are going to win in Iraq. He said bomb everyone is a step in the right direction, I challenged him and well, no response from you or Rob. You can debate till your face turns blue that we need to worry about winning, but with all your typing you still avoid actually facing the question of how to win.

Please. Stay focused and stop redirecting the argument and then accusing me of doing so. Better luck next time.

Stephen on July 6, 2006 at 11:37 am
Avatar for robert108

Stephen: Winning a war is not rocket science.  When it comes right down to it, there are only two ways:  You destroy the other guy’s will to fight, either by resoundingly defeating his military resources or killing so many of his combatants that he is no longer able to fight; or you convince him with propaganda and willing sympathizers in his own country that the war isn’t worth winning.

Now, which side are you on?

robert108 on July 6, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.