So basically, US president "orders" British troupes to save his butt - nice title. Makes him -30% more popular over here >.>
we're worried enough as it is with his un-popularity here at home..but leadership, as you know, has never been about a popularity contest.
officially crash into another country to hunt for the main villain.
There's already an American presence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, we don't have to crash into their country, because we don't have to. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are aware of this...they are in fact cooperating with American forces to combat al-Qaida and the Taliban, ever since 2001.
redcometfm said:
Back on Topic, why is it that we still haven't caught [Osama bin Laden]?
read
THIS. It's a long read. (and don't worry that it's by the New York Times. I've read it, and it's ok).
In a nutshell, the New York Times piece summarized the situation as: we haven't caught bin Laden because of our preoccupation with Iraq, and repeated indecisiveness on the part of senior officials in Washington, and in-fighting between several intelligence agencies, as to how to capture bin Laden, and/or his officers.
There's been a covert mission planned since late last year, and the Democratic Congress approved it. The problem is that the administration has been reluctant thus far to give the greenlight.
...
Now that Iraq is getting more stable, we have Iran to worry about, so we can't really catch a break. It's clearly a distraction to the mission of capturing bin Laden. The best we can hope for at this time is to keep a close eye on both Iran and al-Qaida, which some experts claim, have "reconstituted" itself in the tribal areas of Pakistan. I doubt Bush will be able to capture or even find bin Laden, but that will be a task most likely to be handed to the next administration.
We have a fragile alliance with Pakistan. I think it is preferable that we have their cooperation, than not.
Obama once stated, that he'll bomb Pakistan "with or without permission", if intelligence said bin Laden is hiding there. The consequence of such drastic action would result in engaging in a war with Pakistan (a country with a nuclear weapon, might I add)....which is yet another reason why not to vote for Obama.
You'd think Obama is a pacifist, but in his rhetoric, he's even more scarier than Bush, at times.
[EDIT]
I have a slightly different take than the NY Times' oversimplified view of the matter. New York Times claims we haven't caught bin Laden because we were "distracted" in Iraq. Not necessarily..
Neo-neocon puts it brilliantly:
Ah, but what about Pakistan? Yes indeed, al Qaeda is still there, hiding out in the tribal areas. But the war in Iraq has not kept us from doing anything about that; the political niceties involved in dealing with our “ally” Pakistan have.
With the assassination of Bhenazir Bhutto last year, Pakistan is currently undergoing difficult times, domestically. They haven't been able to fully utilize their energy into fighting terrorism, and so in many ways, we have been handicapped. As much as we want to go after bin Laden, we are trying not to aggravate Pakistan's struggling domestic politics. In other words, we're trying to be as least intrusive as we can, while at the same time, Pakistan is doing their best to cooperate, as it would be in their best interest, to capture bin Laden, more than anything.
But I use wikipedia...lol
