Before Abbottabad: hunting AQ leaders (merged thread)

[jcustis]

That's what I'm trying to dissect wm...did the benefit of putting a face on terrorism really bear any fruit, relative to a credibility loss? Did the balance of the scale favor us, and then shift as Afghanistan lingered, or was the balance always favoring the extremist

I know folks are somewhat inclined to say that we shouldn't cry over spilt milk, but put our shoulder squarely into the business of finishing what we started. I read/hear that over and over again, but I believe we need to look at these "moot points" in order to make more informed decisions in the future. This is just one of those points that intrigues me.

Don't get me wrong, I am all about making sure we have our share of boogeymen to use as a target reference points. I just think we need to be very judicious when we decide to set priority targets, cancel them, and roll to a new one.

[Steve Blair]

I don't consider this a moot point at all, but rather an opportunity to learn from what might be one of the bigger mistakes of the immediate post-911 period.

Tom's right in that humor and sarcasm could have been used, but I tend to think they should have been aimed at the group in general. While it can be handy to have a "face on the evil menace," that same face can also grant legitimacy to someone who might not otherwise have it. It also sets you up as targeting that person, whether or not that's actually a valuable or practical option.

[wm]

That's what I'm trying to dissect wm...did the benefit of putting a face on terrorism really bear any fruit, relative to a credibility loss? Did the balance of the scale favor us, and then shift as Afghanistan lingered, or was the balance always favoring the extremist

I know folks are somewhat inclined to say that we shouldn't cry over spilt milk, but put our shoulder squarely into the business of finishing what we started. I read/hear that over and over again, but I believe we need to look at these "moot points" in order to make more informed decisions in the future. This is just one of those points that intrigues me.

Don't get me wrong, I am all about making sure we have our share of boogeymen to use as a target reference points. I just think we need to be very judicious when we decide to set priority targets, cancel them, and roll to a new one.

I'm not sure that we can cancel the priority targets that simply. Even the FBI tends to leave folks on their 10 most wanted list for a long time, despite putting their priorities/sights on other bad guys.

I think we might need to look for other targets to take out, but we probably need to do so very quietly.

As others have pointed out, putting a face on a bad guy in an asymmetric war provides a rallying point for the folks on the short end of that assymmetry to rally around--I think that is the ultimate point I would derive from my reading of 1984--real or not, a rebel name provides a point arond which nascent rebels can rally. Since there will probably always be rebels, it may be a good thing to give them a focus that makes it easier for the powers that be to locate and target. In other words, keeping OBL around may be a good thing because at least we have an idea where the threat comes from -- he and AQ will draw the bulk of the malcontents who desire to disrupt the status quo. At least that is the point I get from Orwell (as well as the other anti-Utopian writers I've read, like Aldous Huxley in Brave New World).

[jcustis]

Since there will probably always be rebels, it may be a good thing to give them a focus that makes it easier for the powers that be to locate and target. In other words, keeping OBL around may be a good thing because at least we have an idea where the threat comes from -- he and AQ will draw the bulk of the malcontents who desire to disrupt the status quo.

Excellent point, perhaps more so when looking at our surreptitious collections effort. "he must take these to brother Osama" must make for a decent spike to orient on.

[slapout9]

From an LE standpoint it was one of the worst possible things we could have done along with GWOT. The war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty were and are political slogans that set you up to loose. The moment you call it a war it implies an enemy and a victory date, none of which is going to happen in the long war. Which is why we should call them global law enforcement operations or something like that. Take the wining and loosing part out of the equation. You need to position him (OBL) as a psyco-mass murderer of all people, not a War Hero which is exactly what you do when you call it a War. When you call him a criminal the capture date is left open because people are used to seeing the effort and time required to catch people like serial killers in our country, but they also see that you never close the case until he is caught or killed by us or someone else. My2.5 cents.

[Steve Blair]

The only issue I see with labeling him a criminal is that you then get into that odd position of having to "arrest" him (at least according to MSM criteria), "try" him, and so on. It creates a whole new level of expectations that may not be at all suited to the situation at hand.

I have mixed feelings about calling it a global law enforcement operation. Not sure why, but it just doesn't sit right.

[slapout9]

Steve, no doubt the name sucks, I just couldn't think of anything else. Key word is try to arrest, no requirment to be stupid and it dosen't mean you don't use military forces.
Remember the man from U.N.C.L.E.? United Network Command for Law and Enforement. See we already had a TV show about it.

[Steve Blair]

Yeah, slap, I remember that show. Interesting stuff....

But what gets me with LEO-type stuff is that the media jumps on it and acts like you should be replaying "Dragnet," complete with reading the rights and all that. It's the outside spin that comes with it that tends to drive me nuts.

[carl]

I agree with slapout on the disadvantages of declaring "war" on everything.

I think Americans aren't as tolerant or patient as in the past. There is also a tendency to equate lack of immediate result with lack of legitmacy. By putting OBL front and center we set ourselves up for discouragement that it is taking so long along with doubts whether the effort against the irhabists should be made at all.

Additionally when he does go down, some will think it is all over and be further discouraged when it is not.

The irhabists stand to win when he does go down. They have their martyr who defied the mighty US and did it for a long time.