Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.

The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... l_headline

Good strategy change or not?

Capture has its advantages and disadvantages. So does killing outright. It may or may not be a different approach, because the White House ultimately controls what gets out about these types of operations. The Bush Administration was usually mum about this sort of thing.

I think it is probable that Obama is giving the green light for this kind of operation because he has painted himself into a rhetorical box over what to do with live terrorists in our custody. NYC has already proven to be a bugaboo for him, so I'd say the decision to just whack the guy (when capture is an option) is pretty much the only choice he has right now.

Personally I am for more killin' and less snatchin'.

dbackjon wrote:Good strategy change or not?

I like it. These bastards don't need nor deserve the benefit of the US judicial system. (see my thread on the 94 year old that just died on death row after 27 years).

CID1990 wrote:Capture has its advantages and disadvantages. So does killing outright. It may or may not be a different approach, because the White House ultimately controls what gets out about these types of operations. The Bush Administration was usually mum about this sort of thing.

How do you know?

The military announces: "today we killed the #12 terrorist in al quaida", and it is met with cheers (or indifference) from the general public.

If they announce the capture of said terrorist, then they face scrutiny over how that terrorist is treated in prison and whatnot.

So why not just kill them and be done with it, it is better for PR.
(or SAY that they were killed, for all I care, then take them to one of them secret CIA bases to be interrogated for intel and then killed or whatever. Makes no difference to me)

JayJ79 wrote:The military announces: "today we killed the #12 terrorist in al quaida", and it is met with cheers (or indifference) from the general public.

If they announce the capture of said terrorist, then they face scrutiny over how that terrorist is treated in prison and whatnot.

So why not just kill them and be done with it, it is better for PR.
(or SAY that they were killed, for all I care, then take them to one of them secret CIA bases to be interrogated for intel and then killed or whatever. Makes no difference to me)

JayJ79---a man after my own heart.

kalm wrote:

How do you know?

About which part? Capture having advantages and disadvantages? Or about the Bush admin. not usually publicizing every capture or kill?

Good. It's war... not a police operation. Killing is ok. Capturing probably puts our soldiers more at risk.

I agree with most, this is probably a good thing. The fact is they have a religious mandate not to crack if we captured them. Short of going Jack Bauer (or is it Renee Walker now?) on them, we have zero chance of getting any reliable useful intel out of them -- especially if they are high in the food chain. Might as well take them out and send a message that we intend for all of Al-Qaeda to get their 50 virginis sooner rather than later.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
How do you know?

About which part? Capture having advantages and disadvantages? Or about the Bush admin. not usually publicizing every capture or kill?

The Bush administration usually being mum about this sort of thing.

need to now that we don't have camps for them. Overall I rather kill the enemy than capture them and try to get information.

JayJ79 wrote:(or SAY that they were killed, for all I care, then take them to one of them secret CIA bases to be interrogated for intel and then killed or whatever. Makes no difference to me)

Bingo!

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
About which part? Capture having advantages and disadvantages? Or about the Bush admin. not usually publicizing every capture or kill?

The Bush administration usually being mum about this sort of thing.

I'll give you the unclass version. You can go to youtube or Google and search on drone videos, etc. There's a lot of targeted killings going on there that were not being crowed about by the White House at the time. We did not suddenly start doing airstrikes in Afghanistan in 2008. Most of these strikes were just against people setting IEDs, etc. However, our government has been doing targeted killings since 9-11, using drones, AC-130s, you name it. The Bush Admin. was notoriously quiet about it. I never really had an opinion on that policy. In fact, when we killed Al Zarqawi in Iraq, the initial report was classified. I imagine they backed off being hush hush about it because it got out on the Iraqi open sources. Of course, if the Bush people HAD been vocal about the people they were killing, the response would have been that we're killing too many people, or people would have said that the reports were being made up, the usual stuff from back then.

There is intelligence value to staying quiet about who you have killed, and definitely intelligence value in staying quiet about who you have captured. It is a different strategy, that's all. I can't really tell which one is better, and neither can the White House. That's something that historians will argue about forever.

JayJ79 wrote:The military announces: "today we killed the #12 terrorist in al quaida", and it is met with cheers (or indifference) from the general public.

If they announce the capture of said terrorist, then they face scrutiny over how that terrorist is treated in prison and whatnot.

So why not just kill them and be done with it, it is better for PR.
(or SAY that they were killed, for all I care, then take them to one of them secret CIA bases to be interrogated for intel and then killed or whatever. Makes no difference to me)

+1

But MoveOn and CodePink might not approve... oh... nevermind.

From what I can tell, neither killing or capture of these guys is more incendiary than the other in rallying the remaining terrorists. There seems to be no issue whatsoever in getting more recruits at any given time - capture or killing doesn't seem to deter these guys when they've been brainwashed with a religious mandate to kill Americans at any opportunity. Lopping off the head(s) of the organization doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent either, as another one pops right up in his place. Eventually I think it might take the US turning their home into a glass factory to show them that this is going to have to come to an end.

Killing them does leave fewer problems to deal with as long as we aren't taking out lots of civilians at the same time. Why don't we just declare war and make it official?

Obama is killing people?

Where are the large protests? We need a picture of Obama with a death mask holding a bomb over a car...and Biden saying how Obama should instead be brave enough to meet the enemy face to face, mano-a-mano!

Hey, who the hell are those freaking peace loving nut jobs going to vote for in the next election...Big Bird?

Cluck U wrote:Obama is killing people?

Where are the large protests? We need a picture of Obama with a death mask holding a bomb over a car...and Biden saying how Obama should instead be brave enough to meet the enemy face to face, mano-a-mano!

Hey, who the hell are those freaking peace loving nut jobs going to vote for in the next election...Big Bird?

houndawg wrote:

houndawg...popping off one for Obama's killing machines!

Cluck U wrote:Obama is killing people?

Another job the previous administration didn't finish......

houndawg wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Obama is killing people?

Another job the previous administration didn't finish......

He learned from his predecessor.

houndawg wrote:Killing them does leave fewer problems to deal with as long as we aren't taking out lots of civilians at the same time. Why don't we just declare war and make it official?

Because Congress doesn't have the guts to do it, and it isn't politically expedient...

ASUMountaineer wrote:

houndawg wrote:Killing them does leave fewer problems to deal with as long as we aren't taking out lots of civilians at the same time. Why don't we just declare war and make it official?

Because Congress doesn't have the guts to do it, and it isn't politically expedient...

And who, pray tell, would the United States of America declare war on???

Col Hogan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Because Congress doesn't have the guts to do it, and it isn't politically expedient...

And who, pray tell, would the United States of America declare war on???

Well, I was just answering HD's question as to why.

But, I would assume the two countries we're fighting. I mean, didn't we go to war to topple the existing governments and install new ones? Sure, it's a moot point now (thanks to Congress' lack of action and leadership running up to the "wars.")