Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Why we don't want to capture Bin Laden
It seems there exists a strong case justifying the Bush administration's apparent willingness to allow Bin Laden to remain free (via BOTW):

"If the world's most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB 'Buzzy' Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA's third most senior executive.
'You can make the argument that we're better off with him (at large),' Krongard said. 'Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.'"
Personally, I think this is an even bigger issue than "Buzzy" acknowledges—it is compounded by the fact that, should Bin Laden be captured, the democratic nations of the world would find that their citizens lose the stomach for any sustained war on terror. Like it or not, we have allowed Al Quaeda and Bin Laden to be associated as the only terrorists we have a right to pursue (hence the "sure, Saddam is a terrorist, but he's not associated with Bin Laden" argument regarding Iraq). If he were to be captured, too many people would find themselves satisfied.

1 comment:

Beth said...

The argument that taking out Saddam would unleash a dangerous series of attempted power grabs didn't deter you from supporting the war against Iraq.