Where's OBL?

[Cpl Kendall]

Thanks to MkSheppard on SDN for posting this and Darth Fanboy for finding the link.



Linky Dinky

[quote]
It isn’t a comforting assessment.

A "Western military analyst" was asked earlier this month about reports that Osama Bin Laden was seen on the slopes of K2, the world’s second highest mountain on the Pakistan-China border, or in the Khost Province of Afghanistan.

His response was stunning in both its honesty and its frustration.

"We don't have a clue where he is or even may be,â€

[SirNitram]

MSNBC is actually as described. It's also the main source for news that isn't kissing up constantly to the Right on TV. NO LIBERALS ON THE TEEVEE!

More seriously, should I post the story where Bush is suddenly concerned about OBL, because apparently he won't be caught in time to save Bush's Legacy?

[Cpl Kendall]

MSNBC is actually as described. It's also the main source for news that isn't kissing up constantly to the Right on TV. NO LIBERALS ON THE TEEVEE!

More seriously, should I post the story where Bush is suddenly concerned about OBL, because apparently he won't be caught in time to save Bush's Legacy?

Yes please, I haven't read that one yet.

[SirNitram]

Link

[quote]President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. “If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,â€

[Cpl Kendall]

SRR? Haven't heard of them before, new formation?

Anyways, good call on getting the Brit SF involved, they seem to have a better track record of working amongst the Afghani's. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadian SF are being recruited for it as well.

A few years too late mind you. So if they want to find him without massive bribes they may as well bring in a medium (I think that's what their called, the ones that help out cops in movies).

[frigidmagi]

If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have

left

the world a safer place,â€

[Derek Thunder]

I thought the overriding message was not to go on adventures in the Middle East.

[frigidmagi]

How isolationists of you.

[Derek Thunder]

I'm not an isolationist. I just believe that soft power, through humanitarian aid and opening of cultural and trade barriers are more effective means of creating positive change than regime change.

It's also quite possible that reforms occurring internally in the Islamic world will be more permanent and meaningful than if they were imposed by outside, alien forces, especially in light of a cultural norm that prizes honor and self-determination.

[frigidmagi]

You're right you are not an isolationist and it was wrong of me to paint you as such even flippantly. I am sorry.

Soft power is a good thing. I'm not discounting that. However it is merely one of several tools. To each job the proper tools. There are times when it best to mind your own business. There are times when it best to use diplomacy and influence. There are times when it best to bomb armies and kill people. One should be very aware that there are going to be times that there is no other option but to go in and remove the bad guy.

For example let's take Sudan. Everyone says they want to save Darfur, but no one does shit. The results? Blacks get enslaved, raped and mass murdered by Arabs and the world twiddles it's thumbs. All the soft power in the world is not going to change their minds. What is needed is bombs and troops willing to actually keep the murdering slavers away from the innocent villagers.



As to the question of whether the reforms are more meaningful if coming from within or not. I would prefer that they woke tomorrow realized their women were human beings with the right to be treated as adults. I would also prefer to get a million dollars tomorrow and my own working Iron Man suit.

But then I don't always get what I prefer. Also you forget there are several examples of societies being reformed from the outside. Sometimes one should just settle for reforms that work and are done and enforced. No matter who does the enforcing and how they got there in the first place. Yes there are limits. It is not acceptable or moral to conduct mass genocide, slavery or other assorted warcrimes as a matter of policy in order to "bring civilization" to the "natives".

[Derek Thunder]

In regards to Darfur, there's a lot that we could be doing but we're not, either because of a lack of goodwill around the world or political disinterest. For example, convincing China to attach humanitarian conditions to oil contracts would go a long way, although the state of our relations prevents it. Alternatively, we could try and help fund the African Union forces already in the area, which has had some success but remains poorly trained and equipped, and chronically undermanned. Once some stability is in place, our goal should primarily be to help secure and delineate water rights, which has been one of the largest sources of conflict.

It's not that I want to give a pass to slavery and genocide. I don't. It's just a matter of a calculation that has a hard time pointing to successful occupations during the 20th century. If a well-meaning country actually increases net suffering by the inevitable and natural response of insurgency, should that be considered a victory? There's also the question of whether it's worthwhile on our end - money spent on new weapons systems is money not spent on finding alternatives to oil, or more efficient means of growing food, or providing health care to those unable to afford it. Future conflicts could be headed off entirely through developing those things, as access to food and water become more important in the 21st century. Instead of reacting to events, we could prevent wars by eliminating the conditions under which they're likely to occur.

[frigidmagi]

And China is not going to attach humanitarian conditions to Sudan oil anymore then we do to Saudi Oil. To be blunt China needs the oil to much and Sudan knows that if China won't buy it someone else will. Hell China itself isn't that attached to humanitarian concerns in it's own territory. Why should it care about someone else's? Also saying you will convince China of this betrays the fact that you are unaware of the guiding ideas behind China's foreign policy the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.

Number 3 of the 5 principals is "Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs." Meaning you stay of China's shit, and China will stay out of yours.

While this may or may not change in the future, I'm not betting on it either way.

You are correct that our state of relations does prevent this. But even a quick study would tell you that even if the Chinese and us were bestest best friends in the whole world, it still wouldn't happen. If anything else the Chinese would have to ask why we don't do the same via the Saudis and let's admit... They got a point.

As for the African Union funding it's a great idea. How are you going to be sure that A: the African Union actually uses the funds to pay for gear and training instead of sport cars and booze B: The African Union actually deploys troops where you want them to. The most successful African Union to date is overrunning an island with a few hundred people on who discussed succession due to a crooked election. C: Having the African Union troops do the job when they get there, in Sudan the AU troops in question have actually managed to make your average UN peacekeeper mission look good. That takes alot of slacking off and corruption.

There's also the question of getting them to accept the aide but I'll hand wave that.

The water rights is a good idea, although I am inclined to believe that they'll keep up the violence anyways. Still it would be completely worth a shot, I could be wrong. Tell me, how are you going to enforce it? Who is going to enforce it? Hell who is going to make the judgment? Remember a bad judgment will only cause more bloodshed and problems.

On to the military funding. Yes it's true that every weapon bought and every soldier paid is money you can't spend on anything else. That's the cost of life. Every cent I spend on power or rent is one I can't spend on college or food. To be blunt the military is going to be necessity of life no matter what you do. Some jack ass will always want to make trouble. I happen to believe we can feed, educate and advance scientifically and keep a well armed military that keeps conventional warfare against the US a form of suicide. Some reform is necessary for that ends, but again this is life. The need for reform crops up every now and again, so you reform. But you do not disarm.

You cannot remove every condination leading up to war and sometimes the military is the condination that stops war from occurring.