We Still Need to Kill Bin Laden

9/11's Unfinished Business
USA Today
September 11, 2009

In the eight years since 19 al-Qaeda terrorists struck at America's heart, the nation has taken significant strides both here and abroad to make its citizens safer.

Security around everything from ports to pipelines to jetliners has been hardened. Intelligence agencies are vigilant in a way that was tragically lacking before Sept. 11, 2001.

The government has disrupted the terrorists' financial networks and imprisoned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed tactical mastermind behind the attacks. The military has eliminated al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and Predator drones have taken out dozens of terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Yet amid all the success in weakening the al-Qaeda network, vulnerabilities remain, and one gaping piece of unfinished business stands out. Osama bin Laden and his partner, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain at large.

After 9/11, getting bin Laden seemed the only way to redress at least some of America's anger and hurt. But as the pain of that awful day has receded, so too has the urgency of bringing him to justice. (In a Fox News Poll in July, only 50% said the U.S. should attempt to assassinate bin Laden, down from 66% soon after 9/11.)

The excuses and rationalizations are plentiful: He's only one man, and one man is hard to find. He's weakened and in seclusion. If eliminated, he'd just be replaced. Al-Qaeda has splintered into a fractured network of franchises. Even in the Muslim world, its popularity is sinking: In Pakistan, a recent Pew Global Attitudes poll found that support of the terrorist group had plummeted to 9%.

Yet no matter what the state of al-Qaeda, the importance of getting the organization's leaders should not be downplayed. Bin Laden is the person most responsible for the collapsing New York skyline, the battered Pentagon and a smoldering hole in the Pennsylvania countryside. For would-be terrorists, he is inspirational proof that you can get away with mass murder.
The trail has gone cold since the U.S. botched an effort to get bin Laden in late 2001 in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region. The Times of London reported this week that a small band of CIA operatives and special operations officers remains on the hunt in Pakistan, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

Unrelenting pursuit is essential. For Islamic extremists, bin Laden's death or capture would deprive them of their charismatic leader. For the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11, it would bring justice. And for all other Americans, it would reinforce the message that anyone who attacks the USA will be hunted to the ends of the earth.

Gen Cartwright on Success in Afghanistan

Afghans’ Attitude Will Be Measure of Success, Vice Chairman Gen Cartwright Says

By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 9, 2009 – A key measurement of success in Afghanistan will be the attitude of Afghans affected by U.S.-led operations, the military’s second-ranking military officer said today.

Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan elevates the civilian population as a main determinant of success or failure, much as it did in Iraq.

“I believe personally that one of our key metrics for success will be over the next few months to see whether or not there is a shift in the attitude of the local residents,” Cartwright said. The committee is considering the general’s reappointment.

Cartwright fleshed out the “clear, hold, build” strategy under way in Afghanistan. The latter elements of the strategy emphasize the role civilians play in establishing stability.

Articulating how local attitudes could be gauged, Cartwright said a favorable view of U.S. and multinational forces could come in the form Afghans providing intelligence or other resources.

“If they start supporting us with intelligence, with the giving of their own sons and daughters in the fight, and that they see there is more value in being able to produce crops rather than warriors, and that they can be sustained in that type of a lifestyle, then we will have an opportunity to turn the corner,” he said.

The general advised that the Marines engaged in a joint operation with Afghan forces in the Helmand River valley pay attention to the sentiment in villages and towns they operate in. Now in its eighth day, some 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan security forces are engaged in Operation Khanjar, which translates to “Strike of the Sword“ the biggest military offensive since President Barack Obama announced a new Afghanistan strategy in March.

“I think those are key metrics that we have to watch as the Marines move into Helmand, and followed by the [Army’s] Strykers as they move in on their flank,” Cartwright said.

At a briefing with Pentagon reporters yesterday, the commander overseeing the operation described how the interaction between U.S. Marines and local Afghans are playing out.

Anticipating that local residents would be curious about the Marines’ intentions, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Lawrence Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, established a requirement: Company commanders must hold a “shura,” or meeting, with local elders within one day of arriving.

“The focus of this operation from the very beginning has been on the people, not the enemy,” Nicholson said. “And I know that may sound very strange, and I got some raised eyebrows, even with talking to Marines. On the way, we'll take care of the Taliban. But get to the people.”

The “clear” phase of the three-stage approach refers to the type of mission the Marines undertook when Operation Khanjar launched, with the brigade fanning out across the southern Afghanistan region during the early morning hours of July 2. The strategy was two-fold: overwhelm opposing forces while saving civilian lives.

Current operations in Helmand are fundamentally different from previous missions, in that Marines are remaining behind to protect those villages as the remainder of forces moves through, Cartwright said. He added that forces have been successful in avoiding civilian casualties in the ongoing “clear” phase.

“Our approach here is to win their hearts and minds,” Cartwright said. “And we can't do that by having unnecessary civilian casualties.”

Finally - To Reinstate the Draft !

Rangel To Reintroduce Military Draft Measure
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill
January 15, 2009

((Note: Rep Rangel, an Army artilleryman, was awarded both a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his service in Korea))

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”

Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.

In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.

Reintroducing the military draft bill, which would attract media attention, will be trickier for Rangel in 2009 than it was a couple years ago because the Ways and Means Committee chairman is now under investigation by the House ethics committee.

Democratic leaders have given Rangel a leading role in helping craft the new economic stimulus bill despite an array of ethics allegations that have surfaced over the last several months. The charges have ranged from failing to report rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic to an alleged quid pro quo involving a legislative favor for a donor to an education center bearing Rangel’s name.

Always eager to be at the heart of the action, Rangel clearly is relishing discussing the high-profile stimulus package. During the first days of the 111th Congress — and for the first time in months — reporters have been swarming around Rangel to discuss policy matters rather than ethics.

Republicans are likely to seize on the reintroduction of Rangel’s unpopular military draft bill. When they controlled the House in 2004, Republicans scheduled a vote on the Rangel measure, which was defeated 402-2. Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Pete Stark (D-Calif.) supported it, while Rangel voted against his own bill, claiming the GOP was playing political games.

But Rangel told The Hill that he recently heard talk about rewarding mandatory service with two years of college credit.

“That doesn’t make sense,” he said. “People shouldn’t have to join the military to get an education.”

A decorated Korean War veteran and a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Rangel argues that the burden of fighting wars falls disproportionately on low-income people and that cost should be borne more broadly.

If a draft had been in place in 2002 when members were making the decision on whether to support the war in Iraq, Rangel has said, Congress never would have approved the war resolution, because the pressure from constituents would have been too great.

With the Iraq war off the front page and the economic crisis taking center stage, nerves are not as raw on the topic of strain on the military as they were a few years ago, so Rangel’s legislation may not make as many waves this time around.

But some Democrats — even one who supported Rangel’s efforts in the past — are a little perplexed about his plans to reintroduce the legislation, especially now that President-elect Obama is poised to take over the White House.

“That was really a political statement at the beginning of the war that we continued,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), one of only two co-sponsors of Rangel’s draft bill. “I’m not sure we’re going to do that this time.”