Whither Bin Laden...?

Which is best for the USA?

1. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by US Special forces
2. A dead Osama Bin Laden, killed by Afghan troops
3. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in some world court
4. A captured Osama Bin Laden, in jail and on trial in US District court
5. A scared Osama Bin Laden, running for his life, living in caves and spider holes

The answer is (5). Congratulations for your insight! Let’s analyze the responses.

(1) – Clearly not a good solution. Martyrdom is huge for Islamic fundamentalists, and the void left by Bin Laden would possibly encourage violent auditions to be the next big terrorist figurehead. Plus, if the US killed him, guess who would be hosting these auditions?

(2) – Hmmm, closer. This way, it would show that OBL didn’t have the full support of all Muslims, and also establish the newly elected Afghan leaders as men of action. Of course, this could also spark theocratic wars against the new government by some of the fundamentalists and could potentially undo all of the gains made by the democratization process. Not bad though…

(3) – Please. This would only provide a forum for this camera-hungry lunatic to vent his anti-American and anti-Israel venom, and rile up the other terrorist cells that might currently be dormant. Also, do we really want a court where France might have a vote? Any bets as to which way they’re gonna vote?

(4) – Ooooh, Johnnie Cochran would love to have this one. The videotape of OBL admitting guilt in 9/11 would somehow be found to be inadmissible. There is no physical evidence linking him to the hijackers other than the confession. He was thousands of miles away when the attack took place. OBL couldn’t get a fair trial because of the media coverage. Blah blah blah. But all questionable legal tactics aside, what state would even want to host this trial?

(5) – OK, think about this. Before that video blurb right before the election, when was the last time we had heard from our little robed buddy? Have there been any terrorist strikes against Americans…. anywhere? Have there been any terrorist activities directly tied to Al Qaeda? Even the most rabid anti-Bush folks have to admit, OBL has become a non-factor in recent months, perhaps due to the constant pressure of the American and Afghan forces chasing him all through the hills. It seems like many of the old Al Qaeda forces are either dead, captured, running scared, or just waiting to see when/where OBL will pop up next.

Except for one guy, Al Zarqawi. He seems to be the one who is trying to fill the void left behind by the fleeing OBL as the new top terrorist jihadist du jour. He seems to be satisfied and proud to kill unarmed civilians as his form of expression, and is either unwilling or incapable to expand his horizons into large-scale violence outside the Muslim world. By all accounts, he is much more shortsighted than OBL and seems to be content with the frequent small strikes rather than the years-in-the-making-mega-strikes, and consequently, will be much harder to pin down.

Regardless, OBL has seemingly been taken out of the equation, and capturing him is not nearly as important as keeping him powerless. What does this mean? It means Iraq and Zarqawi need to be the focus of our forces now, not Afghanistan and the increasing irrelevant OBL.