Excellent post '66
Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
I don't want Osama Bin Laden captured because I think it'll make Iraq a better situation. I want him captured, tried, and executed because he murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
He didn't personally murder them. But the terrorist organization he fronts/heads did.
Isn't that also what Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's network/organization is doing in Iraq? How many thousands of lives (coalition forces and the innocent) has he taken?
But doing so isn't going to do much when it comes to Iraq, and it probably wouldn't do much with regards to terrorism either. There's always going to be someone else to step into a leadership role.
You don't know that it's not gonna be effective in putting a hurt on the insurgency. Any time you can capture/take out a terrorist leader you have to do it. It sure doesn't hurt the situation.
You start wiping out the leadership, and sooner or later the soldiers will get demoralized and scatter.
You are damaging their organizational structure and chain of command
. Sure someone else may step in. But are they gonna be as effective, and provide the leadership that is desperately needed? You're forcing "utility" players to now take on the role of leadership.
If we had lost some of our generals during WW2, such as Ike, Patton, Clark, McArthur, do you think it could have set us back and hurt our cause?
Any time you lose an instrumental leader it helps your cause while setting the opposition back.