Eight Long Years: Where Is Osama Bin Laden?

[12thMan]

I wanted to broach this topic in a non-partisan and intelligent way on the day of the eight year anniversary since the United States occupied Afghanistan. To be clear, let's get past bashing Bush for a moment and deal with the present debate regarding the war on terror under the current administration. This is now President Obama's war.

The United States is about to double down in Afghanistan and send an additional 40,000 troops there, and it seems the idea of actually capturing or being close to capturing Bin Laden isn't often discussed. He's no longer in our consciousness like he was during the aftermath of 9/11.

President Obama declared during the campaign that he would kill Osama (not related to Obama) if the opportunity presented itself. But here's the rub, in a study published online February 17 by the MIT International Review, the geographers report that simple facts, publicly available satellite imagery and fundamental principles of geography place the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. in one of three buildings in the northwest Pakistan town of Parachinar, in the Kurram tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.

Now I'm not one easily, if ever, given to conspiracies but if the United States knows the general area where this son of bitch is located, why can't we just focus there? If we have the most capable intellingence and military personnel in the world, how come we can't get a whiff, some DNA, a hair fragment, a video machine, anything that let's us know Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts.

My question to you fellow Warpathers is, if we caught Bin Ladin tomorrow would you still be in favor of sending 40,000 troops into Afghanistan or at least drawing down? It seems to me that the government, and to an extent the media, has controlled the narrative and have done a good job continuing to justify and selling the war on terror; particularly in Afghanistan.

[KLHJ2]

12th I hear ya and I would love to partake in this discussion, but my beliefs, ideas, and theory's would turn some heads and even piss many people off. Needless to say I will be reading but not contributing. Good luck!

I will give you this, I am just glad that it is not my decision to have to make.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Angry

12th I hear ya and I would love to partake in this discussion, but my beliefs, ideas, and theory's would turn some heads and even piss many people off. Needless to say I will be reading but not contributing. Good luck!

I will give you this, I am just glad that it is not my decision to have to make.

As your a military man(or were) I'd love to hear your opinion even if I end up disagreeing with it.

[12thMan]

Well let me see if I can kick this off with a couple of thoughts.

I think President Obama is determinded to go in Afghanistan no matter what. This is the one area where he has broad Republican support. The cynic in me wonders if he's so desperate to add a bi-partisan bullet point to his resume that he's leaning towards giving General McChrystal what he wants.

But I also wonder if he would flip on his promise if we magically come up with Bin Laden? I think public sentiment would sharply turn against us being there at that point. And the conspirosist in me wonders if we've long held off from capturing Bin Laden because of the politics of war.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Angry

12th I hear ya and I would love to partake in this discussion, but my beliefs, ideas, and theory's would turn some heads and even piss many people off. Needless to say I will be reading but not contributing. Good luck!

I will give you this, I am just glad that it is not my decision to have to make.

Were you in the Marine Corp?

[Trample the Elderly]

If I had my way everyone would know where Osama was. He's be in the radio-active dust cloud circling the globe.

There is basic tenant to warfare that was taught by Sun Tzu. Long protracted wars bankrupt countries and drain a nation's health.

This whole BS makes me sick. I think it's a lie. It stinks of money if you ask me. I find it awfully convenient that we're spending a lot of money to keep oil in the ground when China needs it the most. It's also convenient that the Chinese want to decouple oil prices with dollars.

This war that we're being shown is only a small part of the larger economic war that the West (& Russia) is fighting against China. When the West wants to ramp up the war, Iran will get lit up, not because of Nukes but to keep China from getting oil out of the Persian Gulf.

I don't believe anything that I hear on television or read in newspapers.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I wanted to broach this topic in a non-partisan and intelligent way on the day of the eight year anniversary since the United States occupied Afghanistan. To be clear, let's get past bashing Bush for a moment and deal with the present debate regarding the war on terror under the current administration. This is now President Obama's war.

The United States is about to double down in Afghanistan and send an additional 40,000 troops there, and it seems the idea of actually capturing or being close to capturing Bin Laden isn't often discussed. He's no longer in our consciousness like he was during the aftermath of 9/11.

President Obama declared during the campaign that he would kill Osama (not related to Obama) if the opportunity presented itself. But here's the rub, in a study published online February 17 by the MIT International Review, the geographers report that simple facts, publicly available satellite imagery and fundamental principles of geography place the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. in one of three buildings in the northwest Pakistan town of Parachinar, in the Kurram tribal region near the border with Afghanistan.

Now I'm not one easily, if ever, given to conspiracies but if the United States knows the general area where this son of bitch is located, why can't we just focus there? If we have the most capable intellingence and military personnel in the world, how come we can't get a whiff, some DNA, a hair fragment, a video machine, anything that let's us know Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts.

My question to you fellow Warpathers is, if we caught Bin Ladin tomorrow would you still be in favor of sending 40,000 troops into Afghanistan or at least drawing down? It seems to me that the government, and to an extent the media, has controlled the narrative and have done a good job continuing to justify and selling the war on terror; particularly in Afghanistan.

I have actually seen more in the media asking the question if we should stay in Aghanistan then I have seen in support of building up even more troops.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

We're going to be in Afghanistan long term. This is way past Bin Laden at this point. Lots of problems in the region that aren't going away in our lifetimes. We will always be able to use the "instability" of the Afghan gov't as a justification to be there. Afghanistan is too strategic with everything going on in the region. Permanent presence there allows us to project firepower quickly where necessary.

Even if we wanted to leave the country would quickly destabilize and breed many more Bin Ladens. Another issue of major concern is the stability of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. We've seen Pakistan's government isn't exactly on rock solid ground either.

To your conspiracy theory, it definitely isn't outside the realm of possibility. Or another conspiracy theory is that he's already dead and these "tapes" that occasionally surface are fakes created by us.

from wiki:
As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field base, described as "a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries - the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army."[181] The Bagram Air Base, run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.[181]
As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar.[182]
In February 2009, The Times reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan.[183] One will be built in Kandahar province near the Helmand border, at Maiwand - a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army during the Second Anglo-Afghan War. The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul, a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.[183]
Geo-strategic military build-up

The dramatic build-up of an indefinite American/American-led military presence in Afghanistan has unsettled some regional powers, including Russia. However Russia has agreed to let the United States and NATO to use its airspace for logistical purposes[181]
"Is it all to fight a number of Taliban - 10,000, 12,000 Taliban?" Zamir Kabulov, Russia's ambassador to Kabul, has questioned. "Maybe this infrastructure, military infrastructure, [is] not only for internal purposes but for regional also."[181]
Russia views the large and indefinite military build-up as a potential threat "because Afghanistan's geographical location is a very strategic one," Kabulov said. "It's very close to three main world basins of hydrocarbons: Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, Central Asia." [181]
Other observers have also noted that through a stronger military presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. may be seeking to strengthen its own position in the region to counter increasingly warm relations among India, China and Russia.[180]
Along with its proximity to the vast Central Asian and Caspian Sea energy sources and being in the midsts of the regional powers of India, China, and Russia, Afghanistan also holds strategic significance given its border with Iran.[179][184]

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

We're going to be in Afghanistan long term. This is way past Bin Laden at this point. Lots of problems in the region that aren't going away in our lifetimes. We will always be able to use the "instability" of the Afghan gov't as a justification to be there. Afghanistan is too strategic with everything going on in the region. Permanent presence there allows us to project firepower quickly where necessary.

Even if we wanted to leave the country would quickly destabilize and breed many more Bin Ladens. Another issue of major concern is the stability of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. We've seen Pakistan's government isn't exactly on rock solid ground either.

To your conspiracy theory, it definitely isn't outside the realm of possibility. Or another conspiracy theory is that he's already dead and these "tapes" that occasionally surface are fakes created by us.

from wiki:
As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field base, described as "a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries - the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army."[181] The Bagram Air Base, run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.[181]
As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar.[182]
In February 2009, The Times reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan.[183] One will be built in Kandahar province near the Helmand border, at Maiwand - a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army during the Second Anglo-Afghan War. The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul, a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.[183]
Geo-strategic military build-up

The dramatic build-up of an indefinite American/American-led military presence in Afghanistan has unsettled some regional powers, including Russia. However Russia has agreed to let the United States and NATO to use its airspace for logistical purposes[181]
"Is it all to fight a number of Taliban - 10,000, 12,000 Taliban?" Zamir Kabulov, Russia's ambassador to Kabul, has questioned. "Maybe this infrastructure, military infrastructure, [is] not only for internal purposes but for regional also."[181]
Russia views the large and indefinite military build-up as a potential threat "because Afghanistan's geographical location is a very strategic one," Kabulov said. "It's very close to three main world basins of hydrocarbons: Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, Central Asia." [181]
Other observers have also noted that through a stronger military presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. may be seeking to strengthen its own position in the region to counter increasingly warm relations among India, China and Russia.[180]
Along with its proximity to the vast Central Asian and Caspian Sea energy sources and being in the midsts of the regional powers of India, China, and Russia, Afghanistan also holds strategic significance given its border with Iran.[179][184]

Your making my arguement stronger.

The Oil Card - Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century, by Jim Norman

Believe what you want. This war isn't about freedom or any of that "Mom & Apple Pie" BS the media spews.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Your making my arguement stronger.

The Oil Card - Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century, by Jim Norman

Believe what you want. This war isn't about freedom or any of that "Mom & Apple Pie" BS the media spews.

I'm not disagreeing with you, oil, control of nukes, shutting down future terrorist training grounds, China, Russia, Iran it's all in play here.

[budw38]

Great points SS33 and Trample . As far as leaving Afganistan if Bin Laden is killed, I doubt we leave anytime soon as SS33 pointed out . I would add , if you saw a rat in your house , it's a good bet it is not the only one , you do not kill just one as they breed like crazy. Oil .... interesting read Enormous Oil Seepage in the Gulf of Mexico | Geology.com . Should we send the 40,000 troops , hope all Americans back the President and our young men and women serving our country.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by budw38

Great points SS33 and Trample . As far as leaving Afganistan if Bin Laden is killed, I doubt we leave anytime soon as SS33 pointed out . I would add , if you saw a rat in your house , it's a good bet it is not the only one , you do not kill just one as they breed like crazy. Oil .... interesting read Enormous Oil Seepage in the Gulf of Mexico | Geology.com . Should we send the 40,000 troops , hope all Americans back the President and our young men and women serving our country.

We do what we can.

Paralyzed Veterans of America: Paralyzed Veterans of America Home

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

We do what we can.

Paralyzed Veterans of America: Paralyzed Veterans of America Home

Thanks for the link , we can all help a little .

[FRPLG]

Everyone has brought up good points. Essentially it all comes down to oil. The region (Afghanistan is a good example) is simply an unstable region. Very factional and culturally difficult to control. We only care about the region because of oil, they only dislike us because of things we have done because of oil, we're only there because of oil. It all comes back to oil. It is why the energy policy of our nation is of such importance. Forget all the crunchy-granola peace-pipe propaganda about the climate...plain and simple oil is going to put our country in its grave if we don't figure out how to not need it.

As for Afghanistan, the biggest mistake that's been made, and the same error made in Iraq, was the definition of our goals. Dumdum Bush and his administration had this ridiculous notion that they could sell a war in the middle east as a simple national security issue.One that could be solved via toppling of a few despots in the region and some mild rebuilding. Voila! Stability. In fact the stability of the region, by our definition and for our own benefit, will only come from a protracted presence of our own troops. This has always been the case. There never was a magic bullet strategy for going in, doing the job and getting out. The JOB is to be there. Removing the Taliban was th easy excuse but ultimately bullcrap. It was simply step one in a decades long list of things we need to do there. That's what we committed ourselves to with the first bullet. Decades. Most Americans didn't know this but our politicians, Dems and Reps both, sure knew it. And if there were a few that didn't then they're dumdum donkey idiots. If we're going to be there, and we can't leave, then we need to send every single troop that's needed. I'd rather we send an extra 40k, 100k or a million if we had it and cut down the casualties. Otherwise we're stuck executing Rumsfeld's ill-fated strategy of light and fast which as we've found out actually means half-assed and dangerously.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

..... I'd rather we send an extra 40k, 100k or a million if we had it and cut down the casualties.....

If we're sending more troops (which i have no problem with if they have a defined short-term mission) the higher ups and civilian leadership (SECDEF, Congress) need to make the rules of engagement such that we protect our kids rather than leave them under fire for fear of injuring civilians.

Oceana pilots face new restrictions in Afghanistan | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com