« Update On Story Of Al Qaeda Plans For Nuclear Attack | Main | The Washingtonienne On The Persuasionatrix »

Re-enabling genocide

There's an old saying in military thought that amateurs study battles, professionals study logistics. Because in the end, the essence of military victory is a matter of "getting there firstest with the mostest."

Today is supposed to be a day to focus on the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. Current estimates say that about 10,000 black Christians, Muslims, and Animists are being killed each week by the Arab Muslim militia, the Janjaweed, while the government of Sudan says it can't do anything, but quietly supports the slaughter. And the Arab nations have coalesced into a solid bloc to prevent the United Nations from doing more than wringing its hands. (Although it must be said that wringing its hands is pretty much the most effective thing the UN does when it comes to stopping slaughter -- witness Rwanda, for one.)

John Weidner had a piece on his blog last week that brought the Darfur genocide back to mind for me last week, and it's a pretty good piece. It's full of passion and conviction. But I hate to do this, but it lacks practicality.

John says that it would only take a "couple of battalions" of US forces to put an end to the genocide. I am not well versed enough in matters to dispute his numbers with any serious argument, but I'll say he's a little on the low side. A battalion runs roughly 1,000 troops, so let's say it'll take 5,000 troops to stop it.

The first problem is getting them there. The government of Sudan is not willing to accept peacekeepers, so flying over the non-Darfur parts of the country are problematic. And the Darfur region itself is bordered by Libya, Chad, and the Central African Republic -- none of whom have expressed much interest in getting involved. So we'd have to either bribe, threaten, or sneak into the area.

Once there, we'd have to support our troops. That means guaranteeing them a steady stream of food, water, weapons, supplies, spare parts, electricity, and replacement troops. All the troubles of getting them there would be compounded, and the supply chain would be very vulnerable to disruption.

OK, let's presume that we get our forces there, we can maintain them indefinitely, and we don't have to worry about them getting stranded or cut off. Then what? What will they do once there?

I'm going to steal from myself here, and lift from something I wrote over two years ago on the same issue, because not one damned thing has changed except for the number of dead bodies:

These troops will not be going in as "peacekeepers." There is no peace to keep. They're going in as peace MAKERS. Their mission will to be instantly assert that they are the baddest asses in the neighborhood, and things WILL be done their way or the wrath of God (or the wrath of the United States Armed Forces, the next closest thing) will come down. This will not be pretty. There will be many "skirmishes," many "battles," and many other things that translate into dead bodies. Piles of dead bodies. Piles of dead African bodies, killed by Americans.

And since the dead bodies will be belonging to African Muslims, if Iraq and Afghanistan are of any predictive value, the fighting will draw in other anti-American Muslims from surrounding nations. Sudan borders Egypt (with rising anti-American sentiment), Libya (who has recently "seen the light" and is trying to distance itself from it's terrorist past, but still has a huge anti-American element), Chad (51% Muslim), Kenya (where Al Qaeda blew up our embassy), Eritrea (heavily Muslim), Ethiopia (45-50% Muslim), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (torn by civil war, which spills over into Chad, Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda, among others), and has access to the Red Sea.

And let's not forget that we have no real interests in Sudan apart from humanitarian. I hate to sound so cold and mercenary, but we have no major economic, historic, or security ties to that region. It's hard to get the American people involved in a cause that doesn't hit them where they live, and western Sudan just doesn't have any real relevance to the vast majority of Americans.

But let's assume we get past all THAT. There's still one last thing we need to successfully intervene and stop the genocide in Darfur, and it's the most important of all.

We need the WILL to do so.

We need the determination to overcome all the above obstacles and persevere anyway. We need to be willing to stand up to these murderous, genocidal thugs and tell them to stop. And when they refuse, we need to back up our words with actions.

No, that's too soft, too smooth, too bland. I can't sugarcoat the reality of the situation. We need the willpower to back up our words with piles of dead bodies. We have to be ready to kill black and Arabic Sudanese by the dozens, the hundreds, by the thousands, by the tens of thousands if need be, if they will not stop killing and raping and terrorizing the people of the Darfur region. We need to pile on more and more death and destruction until they either finally realize that we will NOT let them continue their rampage, or there aren't enough left of them to continue it.

It's a huge price to pay. I can only imagine the toll it will take on the souls of our troops who will have to fill all those body bags. Such a campaign would quite likely make the post-traumatic stress syndrome our Vietnam veterans suffered look like a couple bad boogeyman dreams.

Genocide is never undertaken lightly. It takes great passion and determination to carry out. And it takes even greater will to stop it. We've only done it once, in World War II, and even then we had to be dragged into the fight. We did the right thing, but it was at a terrible cost. The only thing more damaging would have to have not done anything.

And that's why I don't think the United States will intervene in Darfur.

Laurence Simon had an interesting idea two years ago that might be worth exploring. He pointed out that there is a sizable group of people with military training who repeatedly say that they want to prove their worthiness to be part of the international community, and they're mostly Muslim to boot. He suggested training and equipping them, slapping blue helmets on their heads, and sending them off to Darfur to protect the Darfurese. We could handle the logistics of moving and supplying them, other nations could contribute money and goods towards the effort, and voila - a win/win for all concerned.

It's a pity that the Palestinians seem to be too interested in killing innocents than in protecting innocents, but it was a good idea nonetheless.

The genocide in Darfur is going to continue. It's going to continue until something significant changes that alters the cold calculus I've outlined above.


Comments (38)

Wonder how dhimmi-Lee will ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Wonder how dhimmi-Lee will blame this on America and/or GWB.

We need to try to do SOMETH... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

We need to try to do SOMETHING! Should we provide aid to the African Union troops? Or take another approach?

How many times will we (not just America; the whole world) stand by impotently and just watch a genocide?

Publicus.Why do <i... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

Publicus.

Why do we need to do "something?

The U.N., the Europeans and the LLL's have always relied on us to do their dirty work.

The Europeans have armies and the military assets capable of doing the job. They would have their orders and blessings from the U.N. to go in and do so like the LLL's demand to justify any use of military force out of the western nations.

No, they will never do anything about it because their troops will not be sitting in some nice U.N. compound doing the "humanitarian" thang during the day and drinking at their camp pub at night. Noooo...it means they will actually have to use their weapons and it means they might actually die in doing so.

How many times will we (not just America; the whole world) stand by impotently and just watch a genocide?

Are you willing to pick up a gun and go to Darfur and fight and die? Or are you going to be like the U.N. and the Euros and sit there and whinge and ask questions like the one you asked while essentailly demanding that the U.S. go and clean up after your freaking LLL "peacelovedove if-we-all-have-a-big-conference-peace-will-magically-happen" shinola?

My guess is you are going to sit there and whinge like a five year old girl, just like the U.N. and the Euros are doing. Darfur is the perfect opprotunity for both of those entities to prove they can walk the walk and not just talk the talk. It is something they can handle on their own without having the U.S. involved and I will guarantee they will do absolutely nothing because it will mean that they put their lives on the line, not U.S. soldiers.


Nahanni -Ok. Fine.... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Nahanni -

Ok. Fine. Let 'em die.

Something needed to be done... (Below threshold)
tyree:

Something needed to be done 5 years ago. Something still needs to be done.

Publicus, I'm going to avoi... (Below threshold)

Publicus, I'm going to avoid the "chickenhawk" theme Nahanni broached, and simply ask this: you say we need to do "something." Just what? As I outlined, there are tremendous practical concerns and problems with "doing something," especially the sorts of something that would actually do some good.

Simply "doing something" is WORSE than doing nothing. It gives the illusion of doing something, while in reality not achieving a damned thing. That's what needs to be done here -- and you nor anyone else has come up with answers to the problem.

Yeah, it sucks. It sucks bad. But what can we do?

J.

It's not good enough to do ... (Below threshold)

It's not good enough to do *something* if it's not the right thing.

Jay is right about what it would take. It would take imposing order. Peace making rather than peace keeping. And we'd be doing it alone because if we did what needed to be done we'd get the same "support" as we get for Iraq.

Because as much as people want the genocide in Darfur to end, there will be people killed by Americans and there will be Americans dead.

And we all *know* that nothing is worth those two things. Right? And we *know* that war never solves anything. Right?

I disagree that we don't have an interest. The potential for the nightmare that is Africa to become a nightmare to the world sometime in the future is significant.

Get these people some guns ... (Below threshold)
moon6:

Get these people some guns so they can fight back.

Well do you really think we... (Below threshold)
Rory {Not from Hang Right Politics}:

Well do you really think we haven't done anything in the area?

Do some research.

Who airlifted the AU troops? Who payed for that?

Who send forward ground control troops? {this one I'll spot ya Australia}

How much money has been spent in the area-and who sent it? {Norway is up there but so is another country}

Who at least bothered to call it genocide?

Finally who refused to call it genocide, when that was definitely happening in Rwanda?

Who had a lot more troops available at the time?

re: Number of "peacemakers"... (Below threshold)
Lee:

re: Number of "peacemakers" required.

About 7,000 African Union troops have slowly been deployed in Darfur on a very limited mandate.

Experts say the soldiers are too few to cover an area the size of France, and the African Union says it does not have the money to fund the operation for much longer.

Sudan continues to resist strong western diplomatic pressure for the UN to take control of the peacekeeping mission. The latest plan envisages 17,000 troops and 3,000 UN policemen but at present there is deadlock.

Quote above from the B.B.C. - "Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict"

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Lee-Your from Brit... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Lee-

Your from Britain right?

That tends to be your sources and on Sept. 11th you made a statement that went something like "you Americans" ....

So-how much has Britain donated?

Who airlifted the AU troops?

Cripes that should read-... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Cripes that should read-you're from Britain..

Rory:"Who airlifted ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Rory:
"Who airlifted the AU troops? Who payed for that?

Who send forward ground control troops? {this one I'll spot ya Australia}

How much money has been spent in the area-and who sent it? {Norway is up there but so is another country}

Who at least bothered to call it genocide?"

-


And what good has all that done?
As Jay Tea sez :'Simply "doing something" is WORSE than doing nothing. It gives the illusion of doing something, while in reality not achieving a damned thing. '


The problem can be solved with several thousand troops from other Muslim nations going over there and destroying the Janjaweed. That would be a good sign that the Islamic nations want to be part of the civilized, modern world. The trouble is, I think the other Muslim nations may actually agree with what is happening in Darfur.

Or, we could just let things go as they are. Soon (or not so soon), all but the radical Muslims will be dead and the problem will have 'solved' itself.

What to do? Buy all the su... (Below threshold)
Brass:

What to do? Buy all the surplus SKSs, Enfields, Mausers, etc. that they sell cheap in the gun magazines. Buy all the surplus ammo. Drop those in the villages of Darfur and let's see how the machete wielding Muslims fare.

LessAre you a Demo... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Less

Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

Are you familiar with the current ops-tempo particularly of the career fields needed for what you are proposing-?

Brass-Seriously th... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Brass-

Seriously there was a long discussion about exactly that at The Winds of Change blog and you have to say there is an argument for letting these people have a means and a right to self protection.

Just try passing something like that by the holier than thou UN and the always judging from the sidelines press.

For all the hatred Democrats show towards religious groups-they are the ones doing the heavy lifting in Africa.

Compared to the UN which is not only useless but was committing phone fraud to the tune of millions of dollars when they were in Eritrea.

Less-Wait don't bo... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Less-

Wait don't bother answering the question-
that proud of doing nothing excuse of yours means your exactly proud of what Clinton did in Rwanda-which was-

nothing.

You know how you Democrats put sooooooo much value on "words" your Liberal Leader-Clinton couldn't even give the people of Rwanda the word-

Genocide.

Disgraceful.

What do you want from me?! ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

What do you want from me?! I said, okay, let 'em die. If that works for you it works for me.

Simply "doing something"... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Simply "doing something" is WORSE than doing nothing. It gives the illusion of doing something, while in reality not achieving a damned thing. That's what needs to be done here -- and you nor anyone else has come up with answers to the problem.

Yeah, it sucks. It sucks bad. But what can we do?

Sure. If its hard work and challenging, what can we do? Give up. Don't think too hard about it. Let 'em die.

The President let Osama bin Laden go free. It would be hard to capture him or kill him. So, if he murdered 3,000 Americans and is free to plot futher attacks...well, it would be nice to do something about it, but with a half a trillion dollar defense budget—how could we expect someone to come up with an idea of how to do something about it? It's just hard.

Okay. Here's my view. We are a very powerful country with lots of smart people. If we don't care about people in Darfur, let 'em die. But if we DO, we should get the best minds to put their best options on the table of how to save those people. And the President, as commander in chief, could pick the option he thinks best.

If the President honestly cared about capturing or killing bin Laden, he could have tried to do more about it. But he told us, in March 2002 (only 6 months after 9/11): ""I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

We gave Carter 444 to rescue the hostage and then threw him out of the White House because he couldn't get the job done. So far, Bush has failed for 5 years 6 days and counting. And, by his own admission, he lost interest in getting the job done.

If we don't care that the murderer of 3,000 Americans, and the father of the current wave of terrorism is free...well, then it's okay that Bush in effect pardoned bin Laden.

I feel differently. We let that bastard killer get away with 9/11—the way Bush is doing things, bin Laden will die comfortably in his sleep of old age. That is wrong and Bush failed at the most important responsibility of his presidency.

Hmm, take international arm... (Below threshold)
Mike Boelter:

Hmm, take international army surplus weapons and ammo (AK47 and 7.62 x 39). Give them to local people with training in their use for self defense and or counter terrorist operations. . . .

Does this not sound like a description of Green Berets or Special Forces?

Just wondering. . .

I can't get excited about B... (Below threshold)

I can't get excited about Bin Laden.

But... the real world isn't like the movies. It really is that hard to find a single person who is actively trying to hide. Plus, there is no reason at all to think that people aren't looking and that US forces aren't actively looking. If the man is even alive he's probably in Pakistan and while they seem to have been reasonably good about looking the other way when it comes to US activities there, we do have to be discrete.

It's politics.

It amazes me when people, (and I don't know if you have this opinion, Publicus) who absolutely condemn our invasion of Iraq and list a whole litany of dire consequences of that, speak as though we should invade Pakistan. It's not quite as insane as condemning the invasion of Iraq and how it has made us so unsafe and than calling for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, but it's close.

National borders actually do matter.

Bin Laden, if he still lives, is ineffectual and in a practical sense is "locked up". He's not a martyr, though I don't think we should fear killing him if we can find him, and he's not been given an international forum on our dime as would be the case if/when we capture him, which is also not a reason to give up trying. My point is that all in all, this is sort of a win-win situation for the US.

We've got people looking for him and we've put a rather impressive price on his head to encourage other people to look for him.

I realize that Kerry has recently made some statement about Bush "giving up" but what is Bush supposed to do? Identify the people looking for him? Identify the methods?

Kerry is such an idiot.

Synova --Your apol... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Synova --

Your apologies for bin Laden don't let him off the hook for me. I REMEMBER 9/11. Those were REAL PEOPLE jumping to their deaths. This is ABOVE politics. What does it say about us if we let bin Laden go?

If the President of the U.S. promises not to rest until he gets bin Laden, I expected him to do so. The President, for all his tough talk, is too weak or incompetent to do the job. Or maybe I should just take him at his word. Maybe he just doesn't care.

In any case, I want a president who cares and who IS up to the job. NO EXCUSES. Get bin Laden. NOW.

Apologies?Are you ... (Below threshold)

Apologies?

Are you insane? This is why I'm glad that Gore wasn't president, because we need dispassion and not passion. Read any military text, talk to any martial arts philosopher... Sun Tzu warned of generals who "cared too much." It's a weakness, not a strength. What would have a passionate response to 9-11 brought us?

You can keep your passionate hatred and your burning memories, but frankly, I prefer mine *cold*.

In other words, Publicus...... (Below threshold)

In other words, Publicus... You want your passion indulged and f*ck the consequences.

Say what you like. I'm not ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Say what you like. I'm not willing to let bin Laden off the hook. You seem to be.

We hold different opinions. And I hold mine passionately. 9/11 wasn't a TV show. It was real. I'd lived in NYC. I knew those buildings. I know people who died in them. I won't forget and I certainly won't forgive.

Publicus, let me see if I c... (Below threshold)

Publicus, let me see if I can explain:

Osama is not THE enemy. He WAS the face of what was once THE major threat from the enemy. He has been, for all intents and purposes, "killed." He has lost nearly all his power to attack us.

To use a Godfather metaphor, 9/11 wasn't personal, it was "business." To take it personally, to get passionately wrapped up in cleaning up every single loose thread from that event, is to ignore all other terrorist attacks and threats that came before it and have occurred since. It is focusing on yesterday, and risks blinding us to tomorrow's threat.

I, personally, think he's dead. And I hate him as much as you do, I bet. But I will NOT grant him the power you do, to make him the be-all and end-all of the War on Terror.

He's been beaten. He's still on the run, with our people and our allies and those interested in our money looking for him. But he can't even take solace in that while we're focusing exclusively (or even primarily) on him, his allies have a free hand to strike us in turn. He's been reduced to a trivial nuisance, but NOT forgotten. It's a grave insult to him, and one I find particularly satisfying.

J.

He's NOT beaten. He's free.... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

He's NOT beaten. He's free. He's gotten away with murder. Bush forgot his promise. The victims are STILL dead and their deaths are not avenged.

Is there a statute of limitations for you on this? Has the president pardoned him? Does he have a "stay out of jail" free card?! Would you let other murderers off the hook? Is JUSTICE no longer important to you?

Is justice just to hard?

You know, I don't think anyone hates bin Laden as much as I do. I was and remain a proponent of using bombs to move mountains if that's what it takes to get him. In Pakistan. In Afghanistan. We should track him down and get him. Not make excuses for him.

Publicus,As I aske... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

Publicus,

As I asked before why isn't anyone else doing a thing about this except whinging that the United States needs to do "something" about it?

Where is the U.N.? Where is Europe?

I can tell where they are. They will not do a thing about it except to sit there and have press conferences so they can put on their best weppy faces and blame the U.S.. The U.S. and the UK have been trying for at least 3 YEARS to get the voilence stopped in Darfur and have been stymied every step of the way by your heroes in the U.N. and Europe.

Want to know why?

Because in this case it is all about oil. China, Sweden, Austria, Malaysia and France's oil. Here is a handy little map for you http://www.rightsmaps.com/html/sudmap2.html

The U.N. and Europe will not lift a finger to help there yet they are being the biggest hypocrites in whinging about the need for "someone" to do "something" about Darfur. Yet everytime the U.S. and the UK tries to get the U.N./EU off their asses they oppose doing anything in Darfur. They do not want anything to happen that might jeopardize their oil fields and pipelines.

Now you know why your buddies in France have fought any attempt to stop the fighting there.

France opposes UN Sudan sanctions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm

France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.

The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.

Note the date on the article. July 8th, 2004. If you had stopped your screeching about "Chimpy McBushilterhalliburton" long enough to pay attention you would have noted that about the only country in the world that has been trying to stop the genocide there is the U.S.. You would have also noted that they have been trying to do it by "your rules"-going through the UN, trying to set up truces etc. And you would have noted to your horror that it wasn't your heroes John Kerry or Mikey Moore that were taking these actions, either. It was "Chimpy McBushilterhalliburton". Ol' George Clooney was too busy at his Italian villa to be bothered about such things 3 years ago.

Want to know something else, Publicus?

I know the people of your ilk. If we went in there without a UN mandate to you would be the first out there screeching about how we "unlawfully" attacked another "peaceful" Islamist country because we wanted their oil. You would be demanding that our soldiers be brought up on "war crimes" because they had to kill alot of these Janjaweed bastards to get them to stop because that is the ONLY way they will stop.

Hate to break it to you but I think we are all done playing that game, hun.

This is the time for your vaunted "international community" and the U.N. to put up or shut up. It is time for them to prove that they are willing to put their lives and the lives of their countrymen where their mouths are. It is an opprotunity for them to show that they have the guts and the will to do the dirty job of fighting a war against the Janjaweed. A real war, with lots of pointysharpie things flying through the air. A war where their bodies will be hacked up by the Janjaweed if their comrades are not able to recover them in time. A war where their soldiers will come home in bodybags. A war that will last for decades and require large forces stationed there.

That is why I asked you if you were willing to go fight the Janjaweed in Darfur. Because it seems that you and your ilk are never willing "dirty" your hands to do what you say needs to be done nor are you willing to admit that this is not going to be some "humanitarian" effort where you go in with your pretty blue beret on and pass out cookies-it will be a war. You can not even say it! You demand that "something" be done when you know full well that they only solution to it is by going in and killing off the Janjaweed. So say it! You want us to go kill thousands of Janjaweed "rebels" in order to save the people they are slaughtering.

Nahanni, let's keep France ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Nahanni, let's keep France in perspective. This is hardly the first time they've been on the wrong end of a horrid African genocide. In fact, they are actually better here than they were in 1994.

During the Rwandan genocide --- they ARMED the Hutu majority who was slaughtering the Tutsi minority. And, yes, they knew exactly what they were doing (when the official Rwandan gov't radio station called on Hutus to kill all Tutsis --- and up to 1,000,000 were killed within 100 days --- you are quite aware of what is going on).

When the Tutsis started fighting back, the French then PROTECTED the Hutus and led the UN mission that ended up saving the "Hutu power" government remnants from being dealt with and allowed them to launch attacks against the Tutsis FROM UN "refugee camps".

France is, easily, the biggest supporter of human rights violators in the world today.
-=Mike

Nahanni --As I ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Nahanni --

As I asked before why isn't anyone else doing a thing about this except whinging that the United States needs to do "something" about it?

Here's what I'd do. I have the commander in chief DO HIS JOB.

He should get the best minds in our military machine and intelligence community to put their best options on the table of how to get bin Laden. And then, being the President, he evaluates the choices and picks the one most likely to succeed.

I hear a lot of talk about how we're looking for him. I've seen no evidence of that. But six months after 9/11 Bush said he lost interest. And, if after more than 5 years, he's got NOTHING...he's either not up to the job or he doesn't care.

I KNOW that with nearly half a trillion in annual defense spending and our enormous capabilities as a country, we could have done better than the lame or nonexistence "effort" Bush mounted.

I'll tell you, though. I respect your opinon and I'm sure you're sincere. But you're absolutely wrong on this. As far as I concerned, this government is soft on bin Laden. I think the facts support that characterization.

I'm tired and disgusted. I'm done for tonight.

Like me, I'm sure you want bin Laden. But, in effect, you're making excuses to let him go. I think that's just wrong.

He should get the best m... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

He should get the best minds in our military machine and intelligence community to put their best options on the table of how to get bin Laden. And then, being the President, he evaluates the choices and picks the one most likely to succeed.

You assume he hasn't.

Hmm, we're trying to find a man.

In a very large area.

Surrounded by supporters.

It'd be easier to find a needle in a haystack.

I hear a lot of talk about how we're looking for him. I've seen no evidence of that. But six months after 9/11 Bush said he lost interest. And, if after more than 5 years, he's got NOTHING...he's either not up to the job or he doesn't care.

Because it's not a war against OBL. Making OBL the focus makes him far, far more important than he is.

Again, we never "got" Hitler. And, lo and behold, we didn't NEED to.

I KNOW that with nearly half a trillion in annual defense spending and our enormous capabilities as a country, we could have done better than the lame or nonexistence "effort" Bush mounted.

Hmm, we had virtually no human intel on the ground. It takes A LONG time to develop a network to pull it off. So, all we have are satellites, which are virtually useless. Every method we have of tracking terrorists gets leaked to the press, so we have to stop using them.

Gee, I wonder why this isn't going smoothly.

Like me, I'm sure you want bin Laden. But, in effect, you're making excuses to let him go. I think that's just wrong.

If keeping OBL alive would end Islamic terrorism, I'd let the man live and not think twice.
-=Mike
...and, should he be caught --- just like with Saddam and Zarqawi, it "Won't be a big deal"

Publicus, like Kerry, wants... (Below threshold)

Publicus, like Kerry, wants the President to tell us all what is being done to find Bin Laden. He wants the President to publically assure us that we *are* violating Pakistani borders, removing the ability of Pakistan to pretend in public that we aren't. He wants to know how many Special Ops troops we have on the ground. He wants someone to tell him what electronic monitoring is being done and which sorts seem to be the most effective and hold the most promise. He wants the extent of our orbital survielance ability revealed as well as the limits to our orbital survielance abilities.

Just so he can feel better that we're still trying.

Publicus, the thing is, thi... (Below threshold)
Battsman:

Publicus, the thing is, this war isn't only about one man, and it's not "either or." It's not "either we capture Bin Ladin" or we kill AQ terrorists. We should do both, and I do believe we'll someday capture or kill Bin Ladin, but we shouldn't put everything else on hold just to pursue that one man. How foolish would that be?!?

We are at war. Many in the West refuse to recognize that fact, but it is true.

Well, I apprciate all of yo... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Well, I apprciate all of you sharing your opinions. At least I know where you stand: you stand with bin Laden, the terrorist who you're happy to forget and let free. You don't like him, but he's not important to you. Justice isn't important to you. Because getting bin Laden wouldn't solve ALL our problems, we shouldn't bother.

Somehow, Americans can muster the power to fight Afghanistan, Iraq and next Iran but we can't find the time or energy to get bin Laden. And you keep putting into my mouth nonsense about me claiming that bin Laden is the only bad guy in the world or that I'm simple-minded or all sorts of crap based on things I didn't say. I'm being as clear as I can. Let me say this:

Bush promised to bring bin Laden to justice. He said he wouldn't rest until he did so. He lied. He failed. He forgot. He's moved on to other things, and bin Laden benefits from Bush's short attention span. Yes, other things also need to be done. But that's no excuse for this failure.

Okay. At least its out in the open. Fine.

Well, something's out in th... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Well, something's out in the open, but it isn't what Publicus thinks it is.

Well, I apprciate all of... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Well, I apprciate all of you sharing your opinions. At least I know where you stand: you stand with bin Laden, the terrorist who you're happy to forget and let free

Is the sky blue in the alternate universe you reside in?

Or are you trying to engage in a fight of "Who hates bin Laden more"? Because I'll give that to you without a problem. He's a meaningless figurehead, which is a really suitable existence for him. Now if you wish to make him the single focus of your life, that is your decision.

It'd be a dumb one, but it's yours to make.

Justice isn't important to you.

Ya caught me, ya sly dog.

Because getting bin Laden wouldn't solve ALL our problems, we shouldn't bother.

More like "He's utterly incapable of doing much of anything. If we get hinm, great. If not, life goes on."

Somehow, Americans can muster the power to fight Afghanistan, Iraq and next Iran but we can't find the time or energy to get bin Laden.

You really are clueless as to the difficulties in finding one specific man in a region several hundred miles in size.

And you keep putting into my mouth nonsense about me claiming that bin Laden is the only bad guy in the world or that I'm simple-minded or all sorts of crap based on things I didn't say.

Thank God YOU don't do that kind of thing.

Bush promised to bring bin Laden to justice. He said he wouldn't rest until he did so. He lied. He failed. He forgot. He's moved on to other things, and bin Laden benefits from Bush's short attention span. Yes, other things also need to be done. But that's no excuse for this failure.

See, personally, if there was peace on OBL was alive, I'd be satisfied.

Clearly, you wouldn't be.

And if there was tons of bloodshed, but no more OBL, I wouldn't think it's a great thing.

Clearly you would.

That's your morality on display there.

Hey, why don't you call us un-American, too? You lefties are always good for that.
-=Mike

"Because getting bin Laden ... (Below threshold)

"Because getting bin Laden wouldn't solve ALL our problems, we shouldn't bother."

Practically speaking, I don't see how getting Bin Laden would solve ANY of our problems, except give people like Publicus one less whining point. On that basis, it's semi-valuable, but they'll simply find something else to whine about. They always do.

Publicus, two names for you: Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph. How tough was it to track THEM down, in our own country? With Rudolph within miles of where we knew he'd last been seen?

Finding needles in haystacks is easy compared to finding one guy in a region as large as the Afghanistan/Pakistani border, especially when they enjoy local support and in an area where the official government holds little actual sway. But sooner or later, his ego will get the best of him and he'll stick his head out...

And then we'll get him.

Or he'll croak. Either way, his ability to cause more mischief is pretty much minimized. And that's got to be killing him.

J.

Can anyone help me to find ... (Below threshold)
Littles:

Can anyone help me to find actual photo's of these rwandan's or does everyone just say they have the shot's but never show them.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy