Plus, if they were able to secure the corpse, they were likely able to secure plenty of, e.g. papers, intelligence and so on.
Plus, if they were able to secure the corpse, they were likely able to secure plenty of, e.g. papers, intelligence and so on.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Not only that, but it means that all of the AQ leadership is constrained in their movement and communication, including Zawahiri and the likes of KSM (i.e. operational planners and commanders). They can't have public appearances (which are great for propaganda), have extremely limited contact with underlings, etc.Originally Posted by Flixy
But each of those things was already true beforehand...
Hope is the denial of reality
Only because there was the credible threat that the US would capture or kill him. This threat remains credible because the US has routinely captured or killed high ranking members of AQ and its affiliates over the last decade. OBL is just the highest profile in a long string of successful operations.
The US captured or killed plenty of other al-Qaeda leaders. I don't think anyone is going to change how they approach their objectives due to the killing of one individual. The real game changer were the drone attacks in Pakistan.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sweet!
There is a Shell in that area, as well as several churches, church-schools, and at least one "girl's college"... many universities, an airport, at least two hospitals, and... a huge military base.
I think that OBL was a very high profile target who had eluded the US for at least 13 years. Killing him made a point that killing or capturing lower level guys didn't. I'd say this is on par or better with the killing of Zarqawi or the capture of KSM. It happens once every few years and enhances deterrence (or whatever you want to call it) far better than knocking out a bunch of mid-level or low-level guys.
I agree the drone attacks in Pakistan have significantly damaged insurgent/terrorist networks in the AfPak region, but AQ is honestly not as hard-hit by those attacks as the Taliban are. Most of the guys killed in the attacks are important but not irreplaceable. It's the OBLs, Mughniyahs, and Yassins of the world who make a statement and cause behaviors to change. They also are the 'least' replaceable in the organization, though obviously anyone can be replaced.
I said it early on in this thread; I don't think it's going to cause a major strategic shift (outside of possibly straining US-Pakistani relations even further) in the balance between the US and AQ. Even so, it is a good thing for more than just revenge.
Bin Laden was definitely just a symbol, a figurehead but I think this is the kind of war where those things really matter.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
What happened when we killed the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Yemen?
Hope is the denial of reality
Has Trump taken credit for this yet?
As soon as they release the long form death certificate.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
¬_¬
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
My view is summed up by the following comment made by a random person on the BBC:
For me, this death means nothing. In fact I'd be more alarmed for my friends serving in the middle east for example.0632: Indrajit in Kolkata, India, writes: "People like bin Laden are not born, they are made. By poverty, inequality, discrimination. As long as these are prevalent in the world, I fear killing one Bin Laden won't really solve anything."
Indeed, and I hope they filmed killing him so he can be exposed as the coward he appears to be.
Congratulations America
Bin Laden wasn't impoverished, he was born into wealthy Saudi family. He was killed in compound valued over a million dollars in the middle of a relatively affluent neighborhood. He wasn't subject to inequality or discrimination in his homeland, he was a member of the elite. In short, to ascribe Bin Laden's motivations to any of the items listed is rubbish.
Can each of the listed items be contributors to criminal, or even terrorist actions? Sure. Were they the root cause in this instance? Absolutely not.
Actually, it does need to be coupled temporally. Basic psychology of punishment. Punishment needs to be reliable, consistent and temporally adjacent for it to serve as a deterrent.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I assume this was directed at me (?). AQI started winding down after early 2007, and they lost a lot of their cohesiveness - most of Zarqawi's network fell apart in the next year or two. For Yemen, I assume you're talking about AQAP, since AQ in Yemen doesn't really exist any more. AFAIK, Abu Basir is still alive, and there's precious little proof that their third in command was killed a year ago by Yemen. To my knowledge, everyone else killed has been rather less important than those two. Given Abu Basir's central role in the organization, I don't doubt that taking him out would harm their operational capabilities.
If we wanted to train OBL not to carry out more attacks, you're right. Doesn't apply to everyone else in the organization, though, since the 'pain' isn't directed directly at them.
Came home yesterday and found a reddit front page full of silly Osama memes.
Glad this place provided a little more discussion
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Easily the most fascinating part of the analysis is this from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl...sama_bin_laden
If you have a few minutes, I'd strongly encourage you to see the EC press conference here. It's not that their questions are bad ones from a philosophical perspective, it's just that no similar group of American reporters would have this question first on their minds. I think it really illustrates a fundamental divide in how Europe and the US think about things. (And thank god I'm not the press secretary for the EC; I'd probably murder a reporter within the first day on the job.)
In other news, the Muslim Brotherhood condemned the attack as an assassination. That might prove a challenge to US-Egyptian relations if the MB has significant success in the upcoming elections. Also, Hamas (not entirely unexpectedly) strongly condemned it and had nice things to say about OBL - will this further jeopardize peace talks after the upcoming Fatah-Hamas unity government?
It is interesting. But first consideration is whether this was a targeted assassination (death penalty by another name), or an accidental death in a firefight while SpecOps were trying to capture him.
I'd assumed it was the latter.
In which case the EC doesn't really have a point to moan about.
There's different stories circulating around the media - one 'government source' implies it was a kill op, while another says it was intended as a 'capture or if necessary kill'. That being said, there's a number of sources indicating that they seriously considered using a bunch of 2,000 lb JDAMs launched from a B-2 but chose to go with a helicopter assault to confirm they had him and to limit collateral damage. This implies the main mission was intended to kill, but they may have at least theoretically asked DEVGRU to capture him alive if possible with the understanding that they didn't care too much about the alive part.
I think the interesting part of the EC statement's language was about 'crimes not going unpunished'. That is probably what the reporters latched onto as an implicit acceptance of death as a reasonable punishment for his crimes.
I also found it interesting that the English language questions - notably the one on Pakistan - were far closer to what an American audience would have asked and be concerned about. I assume they were British reporters, which implies this might not be an American/European divide but more of a Anglo/continental divide. *shrugs* Then again, the first questions asked at the White House briefing right after Obama's speech had to do with: whether it was a CIA or DOD op, the circumstances of OBL's death, details on future threats of retaliation, the type of helicopter used and the nature of the mechanical malfunction, questions on Pakistan, the nature of the compound, and the disposition of OBL's body. This is in stark contrast to what a different group with a different focus might have asked.
Uh, no. This also goes for uninvolved observers. It's independent of who is actually the target of punishment.
Our justice system only works because it creates the illusion that criminals will be caught reliably in a timely fashion and will get a fitting punishment.
As soon as one of those factors is seen lacking, the crime rate for that particular type of crime will rise.
One of the reasons why violence among youths is a problem over here - the perps are usually caught, but the trials take too much time and the punishment is usually only a slap on the wrist.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
A different look at events. Link found at The Economist:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...5/02/bin_ladenThe killing of Osama bin Laden is one of those events which, especially in the immediate aftermath, is not susceptible to reasoned discussion. It's already a Litmus Test event: all Decent People -- by definition -- express unadulterated ecstacy at his death, and all Good Americans chant "USA! USA!" in a celebration of this proof of our national greatness and Goodness (and that of our President). Nothing that deviates from that emotional script will be heard, other than by those on the lookout for heretics to hold up and punish. Prematurely interrupting a national emotional consensus with unwanted rational truths accomplishes nothing but harming the heretic (ask Bill Maher about how that works).
I'd have strongly preferred that Osama bin Laden be captured rather than killed so that he could be tried for his crimes and punished in accordance with due process (and to obtain presumably ample intelligence). But if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the U.S. military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture. But those are legalities and they will be ignored even more so than usual. The 9/11 attack was a heinous and wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, and it's understandable that people are reacting with glee over the death of the person responsible for it. I personally don't derive joy or an impulse to chant boastfully at the news that someone just got two bullets put in their skull -- no matter who that someone is -- but that reaction is inevitable: it's the classic case of raucously cheering in a movie theater when the dastardly villain finally gets his due.
But beyond the emotional fulfillment that comes from vengeance and retributive justice, there are two points worth considering. The first is the question of what, if anything, is going to change as a result of the two bullets in Osama bin Laden's head? Are we going to fight fewer wars or end the ones we've started? Are we going to see a restoration of some of the civil liberties which have been eroded at the altar of this scary Villain Mastermind? Is the War on Terror over? Are we Safer now?
Those are rhetorical questions. None of those things will happen. If anything, I can much more easily envision the reverse. Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden -- and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders -- can easily rejuvenate that war love. One can already detect the stench of that in how Pakistan is being talked about: did they harbor bin Laden as it seems and, if so, what price should they pay? We're feeling good and strong about ourselves again -- and righteous -- and that's often the fertile ground for more, not less, aggression.
And then there's the notion that America has once again proved its greatness and preeminence by killing bin Laden. Americans are marching in the street celebrating with a sense of national pride. When is the last time that happened? It seems telling that hunting someone down and killing them is one of the few things that still produce these feelings of nationalistic unity. I got on an airplane last night before the news of bin Laden's killing was known and had actually intended to make this point with regard to our killing of Gadaffi's son in Libya -- a mere 25 years after President Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gadaffi's infant daughter. That is something the U.S. has always done well and is one of the few things it still does well. This is how President Obama put it in last night's announcement:
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Does hunting down Osama bin Laden and putting bullets in his skull really "remind us that we can do whatever we set our mind to"? Is that really "the story of our history"? That seems to set the bar rather low in terms of national achievement and character.
In sum, a murderous religious extremist was killed. The U.S. has erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force. Other than that, the repercussions are likely to be far greater in terms of domestic politics -- it's going to be a huge boost to Obama's re-election prospects and will be exploited for that end -- than anything else.
Those primitive, bloodthirsty Muslim fanatics sure do love to glorify death and violence.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong - you might be right - but do you have data from psychological/behavioral studies that demonstrates this to be true?
It is an important question, since assassinations are at least frowned upon here. And doesn't the US also have an executive order prohibiting all assassinations? The whole drone strike-assassinations has always been a bit of a shady area. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to send a team instead of bombs had more to do with identifying the body than collateral damage.
This is also probably why a lot of European leaders have stated they are happy that he's gone, the world is safer, etc., etc., but that they'd have preferred him to be captured alive. I can imagine the US public (and therefore media) are not really interested in such things, they are just happy he is dead and want as many details as possible about his death, and as little critical questions as possible.
I can find myself in his view.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Perhaps in poor taste, but you gotta love Google Maps:
Osama Bin Laden's Hideout Compound: reviews
The US has an executive order prohibiting assassinations without much further explanation of what that means (EO 12333 if you're curious, signed by Reagan in 1981). That being said, it has been significantly relaxed since the 90s to exclude killings of terrorist leaders. There's significant debate on the issue, but many legal scholars draw a distinction between 'assassination' and 'targeted killings'. The terminologies and circumstances are different, so generally the response would be that such attacks are considered extrajudicial, i.e. not done following the rule of law and a competent court system, but not assassinations.
I agree, though, that the questions were very valid ones, especially given the EC's rather loud pronouncements about extrajudicial killings and the death penalty. It's just that these wouldn't be the first questions asked by people writing for an American (or Anglo?) audience. I thought it was a fascinating observation.
As for identification vs. CD, I can't really speak to that. Certainly both reasons were cited by officials, but I couldn't begin to tell you what they actually thought. That being said, the missiles carried by Reaper drones that carry out most of the strikes in Pakistan only go up to 500 lb munitions, far too small to do the job appropriately for a fortified target, but much less likely to cause significant CD. Thus even the relative willingness of the Obama administration to use Reaper strikes extensively in the AfPak border region does not necessarily imply they would be willing to stomach the rather greater death toll from a more heavily armed bombing mission.
I suspect you're probably right about a number of Americans, but I've seen plenty of ambivalence about the details and a much more muted response than the jubilant celebrations a few hundred people put on that night. In the media, there's a lot of speculation about the broader questions (how does this affect AQ, US-Pakistan relations, retaliation threats, etc.) and at least some introspection about whether it's 'good' we're happy he's gone. I don't think anyone's too upset about the philosophical implications, though.This is also probably why a lot of European leaders have stated they are happy that he's gone, the world is safer, etc., etc., but that they'd have preferred him to be captured alive. I can imagine the US public (and therefore media) are not really interested in such things, they are just happy he is dead and want as many details as possible about his death, and as little critical questions as possible.
Uh. I'd have to dig a bit to find stuff that's non-German. However, as I said, it's basic psychology and can be demonstrated to be true with a few thought-examples, if you allow those.
Let's first create 3 examples which, uh, exemplify each of the 3 factors which make deterrence effective. Let's also assume for the sake of the argument, that a person does act rationally (according to his own framework of morals, of course)
a) Consistency. This is important because if you think that you can get away with something because there's only a 50% chance of being caught and the reward is sufficiently high, you'll at least think about doing it.
b) Appropriate punishment. A slap on the wrist for murdering someone is obviously not a deterrent. However, too harsh a punishment also has its problems - it may produce rebellion or a "I'm not afraid of you!"-type of mindset. In children you may also produce "broken" personalities with too harsh punishments.
c) Temporal adjacency. This is because we're not so good connecting long-term relationships, I mean, we can rationalize about them - but there's also a subconscious part involved - and that one cannot relate the deed and the punishment if it's too long apart temporally. Just look at a dog who's done something wrong and you slap him with a paper for it - if you wait 2 weeks, the dog won't understand why you just slapped him.
Then there's the group aspect - if you ever worked with a group of people in a supervisory capacity you'll surely have heard those guidelines:
Be consistent. Be fair.
Because if you are not fair, the group (of youths in my case) will NOT like that. They'll think you have favourites. They won't take you seriously. They'll try to work the system by pointing out that you treated a certain situation differently just now than you did before. If you and your co-supervisor don't apply the rules consistently and equally, they'll go to the supervisor first who they think will be less strict. (Replace "supervisor" with "parent" if need be)
As evidence for this group-wide effect for appliance of rewards or punishment, I'll point towards monkeys:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...airness_2.htmlBrosnan said the response to the unequal treatment was astonishing: Capuchins who witnessed unfair treatment and failed to benefit from it often refused to conduct future exchanges with human researchers, would not eat the cucumbers they received for their labors, and in some cases, hurled food rewards at human researchers.
I hope this rambling excourse makes it a little bit more clear?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Sure, but especially within the first few hours the attention went to the jubilant celebrations.
Slightly amusing and related: apparently two Dutch guys tried to file a report at the local police for this 'murder'. Police politely t old them they have no jurisdiction and sent them to the ICC in The Hague
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I did find people celebrating in the streets to be a bit...well, third-world. It's one thing to be glad he was found (and killed), but the signs saying "America Fuck Yeah" and the idiots in the street made me think of the reverse situation 10 years ago, when other countries were celebrating America being under attack on 9/11. Makes us look no better, really.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote