Are we actually going to see change in America?

When Will Obama Give Up the Bin Laden Ghost Hunt?
By ROBERT BAER Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008


In a talk to the Atlantic Council this week CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said Osama bin Laden is alive. I'll take his word for it. But bin Laden's strange disappearance makes one wonder what exactly happened to him. The last relatively reliable bin Laden sighting was in late 2001. A video that he appears in last year shows him with a dyed beard. More than a few Pakistani intelligence operatives who knew bin Laden scoff at the idea he would ever dye his beard. They think the tape was manipulated from old footage, and that bin Laden is in fact dead. But then again, they would have an interest in making us believe bin Laden is dead, since it would relieve American pressure to find him by any means necessary, including going into Pakistani territory.

And what about all the other audiotapes bin Laden has put out since 9/11? Experts will tell you that off-the shelf digital editing software could manipulate old bin Laden voice recordings to make it sound as if he were discussing current events. Finally, there's the mystery why bin Laden didn't pop up during the election. You would think a narcissistic mass murderer who believes he has a place in history would find it impossible to pass up an opportunity to give his opinion at such a momentous time, at least dropping off a DVD at the al Jazeera office in Islamabad.

I asked a half dozen of my former CIA colleagues who have been on bin Laden's trail since 9/11. What surprised me was that none would say for certain whether he is alive or dead. Half assumed he is dead, the other half assumed he is alive. I suppose a lot of their timidity has to do with the still open wounds about the CIA's missing an event like Saddam's destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It would be so much easier to miss the death of a single man.

The important point of Hayden's Atlantic talk Thursday was that Muslims have turned against bin Laden, realizing that his campaign against the West has ended up killing more Muslims than it has Islam's enemies. Al-Qaeda may be picking up adherents in North Africa and Yemen, preparing its return, but it certainly is no longer in a position to destabilize Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country. And, although Hayden didn't say it, there is no good evidence bin Laden is capable of mounting a large-scale attack. He failed to pull off an October surprise, as many in the FBI and CIA had feared he would.

Despite all this, whether bin Laden is alive or dead is actually pretty irrelevant. Obama has no real choice but to revitalize the search for him, if only for political considerations. If al-Qaeda were to attack in the United States the first months of his term, Obama would end up for the rest of it explaining why he wasn't more vigilant.

But what if bin Laden really is dead, buried under a hundred tons of rock at Tora Bora or so weakened that he might as well be dead? Indefinitely crashing around Afghanistan and Pakistan's wild, mountainous tribal region on a ghost hunt cannot serve our interests. The longer we leave troops in Afghanistan the worse the civil war there will become. One day Obama will need to give up the hunt — declare bin Laden either dead or irrelevant. He has more important enemies to deal with, from Iran to Russia.

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower
 
Duke Frost said:
Despite all this, whether bin Laden is alive or dead is actually pretty irrelevant. Obama has no real choice but to revitalize the search for him, if only for political considerations. If al-Qaeda were to attack in the United States the first months of his term, Obama would end up for the rest of it explaining why he wasn't more vigilant.

This line from the article is the most important one, I think. You have to proceed as if bin Laden is still alive until you have evidence he isn't, for political reasons if nothing else.
 
I guess I would have to agree to disagree with that one...america harbors criminals all the time...that would mean the bombing of the two towers was justified due to us harboring those criminals...no nation should be punished for the crimes of a few..but then thats just my personal opinion. Back to the topic....Obama has a very large plate in front of him.
I think that "harbor criminals" in this case means that the Government harbors them, not that they physically exist within the borders. It's impossible to keep criminals out of a country - there are no utopias. If, however, the government harbors them, that's a different story. That's where the phrase "State Sponsor of Terrorism" comes from - a state that aids terrorists. However, I do agree with you that a nation shouldn't be punished for having extremists within its borders, unless, as previously stated, they're not doing anything about it.

-Tim
 
Honestly, I expect to see business as usual for the Democratic Party from the Obama presidency, but I am a dedicated cynic. At least he says he will work to end some of the more obvious abuses of power that have occurred in recent years, which is hopeful. Although I'd still like to see some concrete numbers on how he intends to fund the sweeping social and economic programs he campaigned on. ;)


For all that many are upholding Obama as a champion of the Bill of Rights, his stated position on the 2nd Amendment makes me leery. Especially given that his Vice President-elect's major claim to fame is the Assault Weapons Ban of the Clinton era, which banned weapons based on cosmetic features and fear rather than any supporting evidence of threat. I don't want to see another position on the Bill of Rights that rests on the 'these rights are inalienable, except if they are inconvienent for us' line that the Bush administration has been walking.
 
Back
Top