BF2S Forums US Could Have Caught Bin Laden

rdx-fx wrote:

The larger issue on the ground in Afghanistan when we 'missed' Osama is being completely ignored.
The SF groups working in Afghanistan worked very hard at building a working relationship with the local tribes.
Local Afghani group, and their ruling warlords, are fiercely independent and generally muslim.

The US Special Operations people on the ground had the cooperation of the local Afghani mountain tribes precisely because they were not the big, loud, noisy Big Army.  As long as the SF groups were bringing in the airstrikes, but otherwise keeping their ground presence unseen - the tribal Afghanis were happy.  The Afghani warlords cooperated with the SF, because the thought of a large conventional army of 'infidels' crawling around their mountains would've been impossible to sell to their people.

The SF groups enlisted the aid of the local Afghanis to help find Osama, to learn 'who's who' in the region, and to differentiate between good-guy and bad-guy.

To say it one more time, in case it got missed:
The SF guys were mostly welcome amongst the Afghani mountain people precisely because they were NOT thousands of regular army troops stomping about, they had warfighting capabilities the Afghanis did not (SF skillset, precision airstrikes, global communications, night vision, .. and did we mention AC-130's & B-52's on tap 24/7?), and they kept mostly out of sight in deference to Afghani sensitivities to foreign troops.

Exactly my points. All that time spent by the SF troops building up good relations was destroyed as soon as the first loud, boisterous, obnoxious regular army troops hit the ground. Our regular army troops are just like any other 18-22 year old kids you see in this country that really don't give a crap about, well, anything. To them, the Afghani's were just a bunch of hadji's and the enemy. They couldn't differentiate between various groups, or whether they were the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys' so they treated them all the same and probably sent far more people into the hands of the Taliban as soldiers than they prevented.

burnzz wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

rammunition wrote:

blah blah blah

Out of all the people that've received perma-bans here, and Rammunition is still around playing obvious-troll?

no, he really believes it.

Exactly.

And that is why he hasn't been banned. He actually believes the shit he types.

Probably the most concise summary of the whole Bin Laden hunt immediately after 9/11 is the following book;
Kill Bin Laden by Thomas Greer"Dalton Fury"

It's written by the Delta Force commander who ran the operation.
(And he broke a shitload of NDAs to write that book, wiped his ass with his security clearance, and generally said a bit more than he probably should've.  SF community isn't happy with him either)

I have no doubt the boots tried their damndest.
I say he was never meant to be caught. If he  will be caught it will either right around Nov. 2010 or summer 2012.

Amra wrote:

I have no doubt the boots tried their damndest.
I say he was never meant to be caught. If he  will be caught it will either right around Nov. 2010 or summer 2012.

The way D.C. politics works, you very well might be right.
(Reagan and the Iranian hostages...)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

rdx - What was our goal in Afghanistan though?

I thought it was to capture Bin Laden and prevent Afghanistan being used as safe haven for AQ.
Now that Bin Laden is free and Pakistan is a safe haven for AQ I'm not sure whats been achieved.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

rdx - What was our goal in Afghanistan though?

Our goal, a goal that made sense, a goal that was strategically useful, the stated goal, or President Bush's concept of the goal?

Which one are you asking for?

The stated goal was, as I recall, to go after the nation that'd provided host to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda.
We even gave them a chance to give up Bin Laden without invasion.  Though that was improbable at best...

It's noteworthy that we went into the two nations on either side of Iran though.
Considering we'd gone in to Iraq to remove Saddam from power in Gulf War II, it was almost necessary to also provide a counterbalance to Iran while we removed the previous counterbalance (i.e. Saddam's Iraq).

Remove Saddam only, and Iran becomes the regional power overnight.
Remove Saddam, and surround Iran with US forces (Iraq and Afghanistan) - they become a little more circumspect about their actions.


Also..
The majority of the world's poppy fields are in Afghanistan. Opium trade, etc.
(teritary reason at best)

Also..
Taliban's violent interpretation of Islam could be viewed as a cancer needing to be removed from the region.
A little too much violent, radical Islam in the region could give the malcontents of Saudi Arabia the inspiration to pull a 1979 Iranian revolution of their own. (as one example)

But, in the end, the final reason for sending our troops into the middle east was part revenge for 9/11, part the vital national interest of middle eastern oil (not that we need it, but that if we gave it up it'd become cheaper for India, China, and our competitors), and part that 'Islamofascism' is the new enemy of the season (read 1984)..

... and part, that the US psyche has a fondness for the underdog, a love for black-and-white  good-versus-evil cowboys.  Our people go to war to fight tyrants, opressors, dictators, or regimes that seem 'unfair'  (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam taking Kuwait, Al Quaeda terrorists, the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Bloc, etc).  Our people are NOT motivated by "Hey! they gots the cool bling!  we be jackin' yo shit nao!!" or however you'd say it.
WTF the politicans are motivated by, on the other hand, is anyone's guess.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So catching Bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11, was not in the plan?

Many people put much time, effort, and money into catching Bin Laden.
That wasn't just 'for show'.
We put alot of time and effort into catching Saddam too.

Catching him, however, is not the end goal.
The end goal would be to disable or destroy Al Quaeda as an effective terrorist organization.
Bin Laden being the charismatic and financial leader of that organization makes him an objective.
Catch Bin Laden, get plenty of play on the news channels, politicians have an excuse to grand-stand and pat themselves on the back on TV, and the enemy is demoralized at the loss of a leader.

Similar reasoning behind capturing Saddam.
With him on the run, there was always the fear of him returning to power.
Just that possibility, caused many Iraqis to adopt a "wait and see" non-commital attitude towards a 'new iraq'
Saddam comes back to power, those who were working towards a 'New Iraq' are going to suffer a grim fate.


Functionally, I think we've done more damage to Al Quaeda with all of the other lieutenants we've captured.
It's possible that someone has realized an Osama in hiding is more damaging to Al Quaeda than a dead Osama too.
If a leader's ability to communicate and plan is cut off, he's not going to be as effective.
If a leader is killed or captured, he can be replaced with someone free to act.
Every intelligence agency in the world knows what Osama looks like, sounds like, writes like, and acts like -- if he were dead and replaced, the new head of Al Quaeda would not have such handicaps.
And, a dead Osama is a mythical martyr figure rather than a flesh and blood man.

I know this story has come back, but isn't this old news?

Flecco wrote:

Wars were never actually fought to stop tyranny and injustice.... Just to change who holds the power.

Meh, w/e.

you know, several centuries back, when certain individuals or small groups of people held the power to wage war by themselves, the above mentioned purposes could have actually been considered - because, ultimately, the wars were waged by humans against humans. today, in the era of financial capitalism and globalisation, it's outright impossible - today system fights a system for resources and influence and all the fancy words about "fighting a good fight" is nothing more than propaganda made up to motivate 'em "cowboys" or "freemen" or what have you.

rdx-fx wrote:

Shahter wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

... and part, that the US psyche has a fondness for the underdog, a love for black-and-white  good-versus-evil cowboys.  Our people go to war to fight tyrants, opressors, dictators, or regimes that seem 'unfair'  (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam taking Kuwait, Al Quaeda terrorists, the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Bloc, etc).  Our people are NOT motivated by "Hey! they gots the cool bling!  we be jackin' yo shit nao!!" or however you'd say it.

wow! you actually beleave this crap, don't you? you actually think that wars costing fucking trillions are fought to counter injustice and tyranny? in this day and age? you really do think so? oh, well...

If you would've read the examples listed, you may have seen the truth of it.
(Hitler, Stalin, Saddam taking Kuwait, Al Quaeda terrorists, the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Bloc, etc)

Oh, wait.  Your beloved country was two of the examples. Oops.

wat? when did i say i "loved" this country again?

rdx-fx wrote:

Remind me again, please.  Why was it that the Germans held out in Berlin just long enough to be able to surrender to the US troops, rather than the Soviet Russian troops?

sure. it's quite obvious, actually:
did nazies kill some thirty millions of americans? did they burn them alive in concentration camps? did they starve them to death? did they ruin american cities? did they rape americam women? no? who do you think they'd rather surrender to then - those, whom they did all that nice stuff to or those whom they didn't?

rdx-fx wrote:

And, you seem to have conveniently forgotten the last line of that paragraph;
"WTF the politicans are motivated by, on the other hand, is anyone's guess. "

which has what to do with what i was saying about wars?

your "fighting a good fight" nonsence is only good for the likes of yourself, dude, and to those, who braiwashed you into thinking you are a jedi fighting injustice across the world. i'd actually say it was funny if it wasn't so sad.

Last edited by Shahter (2009-11-30 09:00:25)

M.O.A.B wrote:

Killing intolerant muppets who like to blow up children and innocents and decapitate prisoners isn't a form of justice?

"justice" does not exist. your "justice" is someone else's "intolerance and blowing up innocents". grow the fuck up.