"When do we go after bin Laden?"

[monster]

....so we should definitely pick up some sushi on the way. Brown bag is soooo... federline.

[classicman]

Ok, who is arranging the cars? - cuz last time I had to listen to tw complain about mgmt. not planning properly the WHOLE TIME.

[classicman]

Sooooooo, Now that Obama is in office - When do we go after Bin Laden?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Sooooooo, Now that Obama is in office - When do we go after Bin Laden?

Obviously ASAP. We know the Marine Corp tried to do that long ago when the Marines wanted completely out of "Mission Accomplished" - to be only in Afghanistan. Obama has been quite blunt about it. Completely out of the unwinnable war - "Mission Accomplished" - in 18 months. Fully into the justified war that Obama has said (quoting the generals) that we are losing - Afghanistan.

How bad has Afghanistan become? Well the military supply line has again been completely cut off by the Taliban. Khyber Pass is again closed to the US military supply line. The military must be supplied from ships. The Khyber Pass was the only supply line. So Russia and unnamed Central Asian republics will now permit supply lines through their territories.

Appreciate how tenuous America’s supply lines have become. Look on maps to see how unloaded ships connect to soldiers in Afghanistan via Central Asia. Because we screwed up for so long, now a war to get bin Laden and his allies will become massively more expensive. But at least we will finally make an effort to get bin Laden. George Jr all but protected bin Laden.

Meanwhile, Cheney was quoted recently as saying bin Laden was not relevant - not a threat to anyone. That makes obvious why America made no effort to get bin Laden for seven years. Cheney wrote America’s enemies list.

[TheMercenary]

Good question classic. I want Obama to give us an answer. Right after he closes Gitmo.

[classicman]

Srsly, I just haven't heard Obama really mention him yet. I know its only his first week, but still.
Perhaps the first we'll hear him mention the guy is as his body is being dragged outta the cave that got "bunker busted." That works for me too.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Srsly, I just haven't heard Obama really mention him yet.

I recall Obama making mention of bin Laden. He made a passing reference to the fact that we have not gone after bin Laden. But going after bin Laden means that the disaster ongoing in Afghanistan must be fixed first. The loss of Khyber Pass only suggests how tenuous the Afghanistan war has become.

Kandahar - a major Afghan city of about 500,000 has 3000 Canadian troops. It is essentially under Taliban control. We have been losing Afghanistan so much and that quickly that even major cities are now controlled by the Taliban.

Then next door is probably the world's greatest threat - Pakistan.

Let's see. Pakistan is an American ally. It has been the only NATO supply line into Afghanistan. Pakistan considers Afghanistan as an enemy. Simply a sound byte example of how complex that problem has become now that we did not even make any effort to get bin Laden.

Appreciate how close to defeat NATO really is in Afghanistan from the NY Times report of 21 Jan 2009 entitled In Afghan South, Taliban Fill NATO’s Big Gaps. In order to get bin Laden, this problem (war) must be solved. A problem that got this bad because America wasted time and resources where threats never existed in "Mission Accomplished".

To get bin Laden means we must completely refight the Afghanistan war - this time having alienated so many potential allies.

[TheMercenary]

Well until I see some action on his part showing me that he is strong on defense and taking care of some of these terrorism issues, including the borders, I will reserve judgement. I doubt he is going to authorize a bunker buster anywhere, but that is JMHO. I envision him to be more like Clinton and choose not to take action.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I envision him to be more like Clinton and choose not to take action.

Not at all - Now that he is the President? No way.

[classicman]

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I think you are painting an overtly negative picture. Its never as good nor as bad as it seems. Once we start moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, I think things will turn rather quickly.
Another issue is what do we do after we get him?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I think you are painting an overtly negative picture. Its never as good nor as bad as it seems. Once we start moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, I think things will turn rather quickly.
Another issue is what do we do after we get him?

Optimism doesn't have much to do with the current situation. I don't have the exact numbers as of now but in the past year the Taliban gained about 20% of Afghanistan and now hold around 75% of it. The supply lines in Pakistan are very unstable and Central Asia is not allowing us to send troops or weapons through their routes.

The fight is by no means lost or even close to failure, but the situation is not good at the moment.

Though, I would really like to see some set goals for Afghanistan, bringing freedom and democracy will not cut it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

... and Central Asia is not allowing us to send troops or weapons through their routes.

Apparently that has changed now that America has a new leader. Supply lines were just recently opened through Central Asia and through Russia.

[Aliantha]

What do you think the chances are of getting him alive?

[classicman]

Hopefully ZERO

[Undertoad]

Capture, interrogation, military trial, execution, burial in suit of bacon.