Replies

Using a ground offensive instead of the airstrikes to capture Osama is dangerous, obvious and slow, therefore it creates a low probability of successful capture of Osama. Disposal of the evidence is still a big problem with a ground offensive. This would also create at least some American witnesses to his demise, and violates Strategy #5. The information would leak out eventually.

You don't understand the terrain of Stan all that well - It takes boots on the ground 9 our of 10 times to gather and find the needed HUMINT...Then boots on the ground still to flush an HVT into a target zone...where death from above can arrive... "Decapitation" strikes (sans any shooters on the ground) are much more Hollywood then real life...

And all those eyes in the sky, bells and whistles you give so much credit to....They are for d*ck more often then not in this region of the world....The landscape / terrain simply do not allow for such suggestions as

"We have satellites and other above-ground-level vehicles that can actually read the brand on a pack of cigarettes laying on the ground"....

...Not throughout much of the Stan/Pak Mtns & border regions we do not.....

Thanks for your comments.

When Bush proclaimed that the US would withdraw from the war if BinLaden was handed over for $25M, it implied that Bush knew Bin Laden had already been killed.

When the “American Taliban fighter, John Walker”, was captured in late 2001, it cemented the fact that infiltration of the Taliban would be possible by Americans, and that Bin Laden could be monitored closely, so that the huge strike in Afghanistan could wipe him out.

We saw a tape of Bin Laden a week after 9/11 talking about the WTC attacks.

However, notice that since then, we have never seen a video tape of Bin Laden that proves he has been alive anytime after the initial WTC attack and his follow up video.

The Islamofacists would love nothing better than to taunt the US with recent video images of Bin Laden proving that he’s alive.

But they can’t.