NATO Forces Kill 13 Pak FC's out of a total of 27!
- Thread starter AgNoStiC MuSliM
- Start date
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
The US plan to widen the war in Afghanistan
Eric S. Margolis
16 June 2008 Print E-mail
THE killing of 11 Pakistani soldiers by US air and artillery strikes this last week shows just how quickly the American-led war in Afghanistan is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan. It also shows Washington's growing readiness to attack old ally Pakistan.
Pakistan's military branded the air attack unprovoked and cowardly.' There was outrage across Pakistan. However, the unstable government in Islamabad, which depends on large infusions of the US aid, later softened its protests. The US, which used a B-1 heavy bomber and F-15 strike aircraft in the attacks, called its action, self-defence.'
This latest US attack on Pakistan came just before Pakistani lawyers were staging a long march' to continue protests over the ouster of Supreme Court justices by the Musharraf dictatorship. These national demonstrations underscored the illegality of Musharraf's continuing presidency and the Western power's unseemly efforts to sustain his undemocratic regime.
Asif Ali Zardari, head of the ruling Pakistan People's Party, has shamefully joined Musharraf and Washington in opposing restoration of the justice system out of fear the reinstated judges would reopen long -festering corruption charges against him.
This is unfortunate. Zardari's claims of innocence can never be validated until his case is heard in a fair court free of political influence. By blocking the return of the first honest high court Pakistan has had in memory, the serious corruption charges that have dogged Zardari will continue, undermining his personal and political credibility.
Meanwhile, attacks by US aircraft, Predator hunter-killer drones, US Special Forces and CIA teams have been rising steadily inside Pakistan's autonomous Pashtun tribal. But instead of intimidating the pro-Taleban Pakistani Pashtun, US air and artillery strikes have ignited a firestorm of anti-Western fury among FATA's warlike tribesmen and increased their support for Taleban.
The US is emulating Britain's colonial divide and rule tactics by offering up to $500,000 to local Pashtun tribal leaders to get them to fight pro-Taleban elements, causing more chaos in the already turbulent region, and stoking tribal rivalries. The US is using this same tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This week's deadly US attacks again illustrate the fact that the 60,000 US and NATO ground troops in Afghanistan are incapable of even holding off Taleban and its allies, even though the Afghan resistance has nothing but small arms to battle the West's high-tech arsenal. US air power is almost always called in when there are clashes. In fact, the US and Nato infantry's main function is to draw Taleban into battle so the Afghan mujahideen' can be bombed from the air.
Without the round the clock overhead presence of US airpower, which can respond in minutes, Western forces in Afghanistan would be quickly isolated, cut off from supplies, and defeated. But these air strikes, as we have seen in recent weeks, are blunt instruments in spite of all the remarkable skill of the US Air Force and Navy pilots.
They kill more civilians than Taleban fighters. Mighty US B-1 bombers are not going to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Each bombed village and massacred caravan wins new recruits to Taleban and its allies.
Now, the US and its Nato-allies are edging ever closer to open warfare against Pakistan at a time when they are unable to defeat Taleban fighters due to lack of combat troops. The outgoing commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, US Gen. Dan McNeill, recently admitted he would need 400,000 soldiers to pacify that nation. "We just need to occupy Pakistan's tribal territory," insists the Pentagon, to stop its Pashtun tribes from supporting and sheltering Taleban.' But a US-led invasion of FATA will simply push pro-Taleban Pashtun militants further into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province, drawing Western troops ever deeper into Pakistan. Already overextended Western forces will be stretched even thinner, and clashes with Pakistan's tough regular army may be inevitable.
Widening the Afghan War into Pakistan is military stupidity on a grand scale and political madness. But Washington and its obedient allies seem hell-bent on charging into a wider regional war that no number of heavy bombers will win.
Eric S. Margolis is a veteran American journalist and contributing foreign editor of The Toronto Sun
Eric S. Margolis
16 June 2008 Print E-mail
THE killing of 11 Pakistani soldiers by US air and artillery strikes this last week shows just how quickly the American-led war in Afghanistan is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan. It also shows Washington's growing readiness to attack old ally Pakistan.
Pakistan's military branded the air attack unprovoked and cowardly.' There was outrage across Pakistan. However, the unstable government in Islamabad, which depends on large infusions of the US aid, later softened its protests. The US, which used a B-1 heavy bomber and F-15 strike aircraft in the attacks, called its action, self-defence.'
This latest US attack on Pakistan came just before Pakistani lawyers were staging a long march' to continue protests over the ouster of Supreme Court justices by the Musharraf dictatorship. These national demonstrations underscored the illegality of Musharraf's continuing presidency and the Western power's unseemly efforts to sustain his undemocratic regime.
Asif Ali Zardari, head of the ruling Pakistan People's Party, has shamefully joined Musharraf and Washington in opposing restoration of the justice system out of fear the reinstated judges would reopen long -festering corruption charges against him.
This is unfortunate. Zardari's claims of innocence can never be validated until his case is heard in a fair court free of political influence. By blocking the return of the first honest high court Pakistan has had in memory, the serious corruption charges that have dogged Zardari will continue, undermining his personal and political credibility.
Meanwhile, attacks by US aircraft, Predator hunter-killer drones, US Special Forces and CIA teams have been rising steadily inside Pakistan's autonomous Pashtun tribal. But instead of intimidating the pro-Taleban Pakistani Pashtun, US air and artillery strikes have ignited a firestorm of anti-Western fury among FATA's warlike tribesmen and increased their support for Taleban.
The US is emulating Britain's colonial divide and rule tactics by offering up to $500,000 to local Pashtun tribal leaders to get them to fight pro-Taleban elements, causing more chaos in the already turbulent region, and stoking tribal rivalries. The US is using this same tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This week's deadly US attacks again illustrate the fact that the 60,000 US and NATO ground troops in Afghanistan are incapable of even holding off Taleban and its allies, even though the Afghan resistance has nothing but small arms to battle the West's high-tech arsenal. US air power is almost always called in when there are clashes. In fact, the US and Nato infantry's main function is to draw Taleban into battle so the Afghan mujahideen' can be bombed from the air.
Without the round the clock overhead presence of US airpower, which can respond in minutes, Western forces in Afghanistan would be quickly isolated, cut off from supplies, and defeated. But these air strikes, as we have seen in recent weeks, are blunt instruments in spite of all the remarkable skill of the US Air Force and Navy pilots.
They kill more civilians than Taleban fighters. Mighty US B-1 bombers are not going to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Each bombed village and massacred caravan wins new recruits to Taleban and its allies.
Now, the US and its Nato-allies are edging ever closer to open warfare against Pakistan at a time when they are unable to defeat Taleban fighters due to lack of combat troops. The outgoing commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, US Gen. Dan McNeill, recently admitted he would need 400,000 soldiers to pacify that nation. "We just need to occupy Pakistan's tribal territory," insists the Pentagon, to stop its Pashtun tribes from supporting and sheltering Taleban.' But a US-led invasion of FATA will simply push pro-Taleban Pashtun militants further into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province, drawing Western troops ever deeper into Pakistan. Already overextended Western forces will be stretched even thinner, and clashes with Pakistan's tough regular army may be inevitable.
Widening the Afghan War into Pakistan is military stupidity on a grand scale and political madness. But Washington and its obedient allies seem hell-bent on charging into a wider regional war that no number of heavy bombers will win.
Eric S. Margolis is a veteran American journalist and contributing foreign editor of The Toronto Sun
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
How can you provide education to the people who keep on blowing up girls schools, stop barbers from plying their trade and kill Pakistani soldiers. FATA tribes have been engaged in gun running, smuggling and heroin trade for a very long time. Have you forgotton that during the bigot Zia's time, there was a thriving smuggled goods market owned by these people at the begining of super highway at Karachi. No one cared about it earlier as they were not killing Pakistanis. It was only when they shot up hundreds of unarmed Bihari mohajirs in Karachi that MQM was formed. People do have very short memories!
You have no sympathy for the innocent civilians killed in their suicide attacks inside Pakistan. Who do you think is sending all those suicide bombers to various Pakistani cities. Even in the good old days, any one who entered tribal area was doing so at his own risk; there used to be a notice saying that Pakistani laws dont apply here. These people never considered themselves Pakistanis. They only want to use Pakistan's protection because they dont want to be bombed by the Nato.
This is not jihad;this is a simple case of war lords trying to establish their hegemony by exploiting religion. How can you say that Tajiks and Uzbecks and Afghan troops that Taliban are fighting are not Muslims? Would you call killing of PA soldiers also jihad. Lal Masjid thugs thought so!
The attrocities committed in the name of Islam by these jihadis puts me to shame. Yes they are the barabrians, and I have very little sympathy for the people who attack and kill more Pakistanis than the Americans.
t-birds
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 323
- Reaction score
- 0
US attack raises fresh questions in Pakistan
M Ilyas Khan in Karachi examines the fallout from Tuesday's deadly air attack by the US on Pakistani territory.
Footage released by the Pentagon allegedly shows air strikes taking place
There are two possible explanations for the US-led coalition air strike that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers at a post on the border with Afghanistan late on Tuesday - intelligence failure, or outright confrontation.
In the past, faulty intelligence is thought to have led to a number of similar attacks on Pakistani territory.
The Pakistani army, which is a partner in the US-led "war on terror", has even owned up to some such strikes to avoid embarrassing its US allies.
But a Pakistani army spokesman called Tuesday's strike "deliberate", saying it had "shaken the foundations of co-operation" between Pakistan and the US.
Not surprisingly, a US Pentagon spokesman has called the attack "legitimate" and "in self-defence".
Meanwhile, the media is quoting a coalition spokesman in Afghanistan as saying the attack came when coalition troops were fired upon "during an operation that had been previously co-ordinated with Pakistan".
If so, Pakistan has not acknowledged such co-ordination, leaving room for further speculation that relations between the two militaries may be cooling.
Muted Pakistani response
This does not augur well for the new democratic Pakistani government.
Pakistan's ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, has been at pains to explain that while Pakistan reserves the right to protest over such attacks, it by no means intends to pull out of the fight against militancy'.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44736000/gif/_44736517_pak_afghan_border_226.gif
Pakistan-US relations hit a low
Meeting feared Pakistani militant
He has also resisted suggestions by the Pakistani media to call for a US apology, and has instead asked for an investigation into the circumstances that led to the attack.
There are obvious reasons for this muted Pakistani response.
Since 9/11, Pakistan has received about $10bn from the US, most of it for conducting operations against militants in its north-western border region with Afghanistan.
The country also has US influence to thank for the rescheduling of its foreign loans and a wider inflow of more than $60bn in direct foreign investment.
The new government can ill-afford to forego these benefits by making a stiff response to US strikes.
But the fact remains that far from curbing militancy, Pakistani policy in recent years has helped militants create a wider sanctuary along the entire length of its border with Afghanistan.
The militants have also penetrated other parts of Pakistani territory and now challenge the writ of the government across North West Frontier Province.
There are two main reasons why this happened.
First, many believe the Pakistani security establishment has been reluctant to deal a final blow to the Taleban, who it perceives to be central to its quest for "strategic depth" in Afghanistan against India.
By default, this policy has led to the survival and regrouping of al-Qaeda, which is protected by the Taleban.
Second, the US focus shifted to Iraq too soon, leaving unattended the task of systematically monitoring finer digressions by Pakistani security operatives and pressing for their correction.
Tackling the militants
But the major long-term fault lies in the fact that Pakistan's security policy has evolved under military regimes supported by the US, instead of more accountable democratic governments.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44740000/jpg/_44740070_730ce012-25f8-48a7-9faf-61945aa54f37.jpg
The militants have spread their influence across the border region
The promotion of Islamic militancy as an instrument to fuel low-intensity wars in Afghanistan and Indian-administered Kashmir have been a cornerstone of this policy.
After 30 years of political domination, the Pakistan army's popularity hit rock bottom last year when President Musharraf sacked senior judges, and suicide attacks by militants created a widespread sense of insecurity in the country.
In the February elections, all parties sympathetic to the militants in the north-west were routed, undercutting their moral standing.
Pakistan's new rulers have since announced that they want to replace the idea of a military solution with that of dialogue with the tribes aimed at isolating the militants and taming them through selective use of force.
Analysts believe that given recent public opinion trends, the new government could achieve these targets over the next two to three years.
But since it took power on 31 March, three major variables in the situation seem to have played out to the government's disadvantage.
First, the current political crisis involving the reinstatement of judges has kept it from focusing on more pressing issues, such as constitutional reforms and economic problems.
Second, the expected dollar inflows into the country have been on hold since the beginning of this year, compounding the problems of tackling widespread poverty in the country.
Third, these two problems have prevented the government from snatching the initiative from the country's traditional security establishment that may still be entertaining ambitions in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/imag...0069_e210e32a-e750-478c-866e-1d4ea209e846.jpg
Funeral prayers were said for the soldiers in Peshawar on Wednesday
Meanwhile, the Americans are desperate for Pakistan to deal with the militants - something Pakistan appears unwilling or unable to do at the moment.
There are also indications of an unspoken agreement that coalition forces in Afghanistan be allowed to engage in "hot pursuit" of militants who cross back into Pakistani territory.
This has assumed urgency in recent weeks as increased attacks by militants in Afghanistan have led to an increase in US military strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Most observers doubt US forces would set out to kill their Pakistani allies, but it is not clear why they hit a border post they should have known was there.
The weakening of Pakistan's new government is bound to strengthen elements that have influenced the country's previous policies towards militancy and regional security.
Attacks like the one on the Pakistani border post are likely to further strengthen those elements.
M Ilyas Khan in Karachi examines the fallout from Tuesday's deadly air attack by the US on Pakistani territory.
Footage released by the Pentagon allegedly shows air strikes taking place
There are two possible explanations for the US-led coalition air strike that killed 11 Pakistani soldiers at a post on the border with Afghanistan late on Tuesday - intelligence failure, or outright confrontation.
In the past, faulty intelligence is thought to have led to a number of similar attacks on Pakistani territory.
The Pakistani army, which is a partner in the US-led "war on terror", has even owned up to some such strikes to avoid embarrassing its US allies.
But a Pakistani army spokesman called Tuesday's strike "deliberate", saying it had "shaken the foundations of co-operation" between Pakistan and the US.
Not surprisingly, a US Pentagon spokesman has called the attack "legitimate" and "in self-defence".
Meanwhile, the media is quoting a coalition spokesman in Afghanistan as saying the attack came when coalition troops were fired upon "during an operation that had been previously co-ordinated with Pakistan".
If so, Pakistan has not acknowledged such co-ordination, leaving room for further speculation that relations between the two militaries may be cooling.
Muted Pakistani response
This does not augur well for the new democratic Pakistani government.
Pakistan's ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, has been at pains to explain that while Pakistan reserves the right to protest over such attacks, it by no means intends to pull out of the fight against militancy'.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44736000/gif/_44736517_pak_afghan_border_226.gif
Pakistan-US relations hit a low
Meeting feared Pakistani militant
He has also resisted suggestions by the Pakistani media to call for a US apology, and has instead asked for an investigation into the circumstances that led to the attack.
There are obvious reasons for this muted Pakistani response.
Since 9/11, Pakistan has received about $10bn from the US, most of it for conducting operations against militants in its north-western border region with Afghanistan.
The country also has US influence to thank for the rescheduling of its foreign loans and a wider inflow of more than $60bn in direct foreign investment.
The new government can ill-afford to forego these benefits by making a stiff response to US strikes.
But the fact remains that far from curbing militancy, Pakistani policy in recent years has helped militants create a wider sanctuary along the entire length of its border with Afghanistan.
The militants have also penetrated other parts of Pakistani territory and now challenge the writ of the government across North West Frontier Province.
There are two main reasons why this happened.
First, many believe the Pakistani security establishment has been reluctant to deal a final blow to the Taleban, who it perceives to be central to its quest for "strategic depth" in Afghanistan against India.
By default, this policy has led to the survival and regrouping of al-Qaeda, which is protected by the Taleban.
Second, the US focus shifted to Iraq too soon, leaving unattended the task of systematically monitoring finer digressions by Pakistani security operatives and pressing for their correction.
Tackling the militants
But the major long-term fault lies in the fact that Pakistan's security policy has evolved under military regimes supported by the US, instead of more accountable democratic governments.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44740000/jpg/_44740070_730ce012-25f8-48a7-9faf-61945aa54f37.jpg
The militants have spread their influence across the border region
The promotion of Islamic militancy as an instrument to fuel low-intensity wars in Afghanistan and Indian-administered Kashmir have been a cornerstone of this policy.
After 30 years of political domination, the Pakistan army's popularity hit rock bottom last year when President Musharraf sacked senior judges, and suicide attacks by militants created a widespread sense of insecurity in the country.
In the February elections, all parties sympathetic to the militants in the north-west were routed, undercutting their moral standing.
Pakistan's new rulers have since announced that they want to replace the idea of a military solution with that of dialogue with the tribes aimed at isolating the militants and taming them through selective use of force.
Analysts believe that given recent public opinion trends, the new government could achieve these targets over the next two to three years.
But since it took power on 31 March, three major variables in the situation seem to have played out to the government's disadvantage.
First, the current political crisis involving the reinstatement of judges has kept it from focusing on more pressing issues, such as constitutional reforms and economic problems.
Second, the expected dollar inflows into the country have been on hold since the beginning of this year, compounding the problems of tackling widespread poverty in the country.
Third, these two problems have prevented the government from snatching the initiative from the country's traditional security establishment that may still be entertaining ambitions in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/imag...0069_e210e32a-e750-478c-866e-1d4ea209e846.jpg
Funeral prayers were said for the soldiers in Peshawar on Wednesday
Meanwhile, the Americans are desperate for Pakistan to deal with the militants - something Pakistan appears unwilling or unable to do at the moment.
There are also indications of an unspoken agreement that coalition forces in Afghanistan be allowed to engage in "hot pursuit" of militants who cross back into Pakistani territory.
This has assumed urgency in recent weeks as increased attacks by militants in Afghanistan have led to an increase in US military strikes in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Most observers doubt US forces would set out to kill their Pakistani allies, but it is not clear why they hit a border post they should have known was there.
The weakening of Pakistan's new government is bound to strengthen elements that have influenced the country's previous policies towards militancy and regional security.
Attacks like the one on the Pakistani border post are likely to further strengthen those elements.
The question "Do we know where Bin Laden is hiding?" is such a regular feature in US press conferences, that it gets boring to hear it. The answer is always "No, but intelligence has lead us to believe he might be in the border area of Pakistan" The last question may have some merit, but I already know the response "We have been trying to take out Bin Laden since 2001, but have so far not succeeded." Is that precisely true? I don't know, but by their own statements SF operators have constantly been looking for "Senior Al-Qaeda leadership" . I think Bin Laden falls into that category? All this stuff is on the internet, Google could be helpful.
From 2005:
CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005
2006:
U.S. official: Bin Laden likely in Pakistan - South and Central Asia - MSNBC.com
...
And on it goes....
And making Fun of this...
Osama Bin Laden Found Inside Each Of Us | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Tang0
Silly statements such as on the border between pakistan and afghanistan as a location for bin laden are just that, silly - there may be water on mars - does that tell us where on mars ? And these are in rsponse to questions, these are govt. leaks.
The original question posed were does bush know where bin laden is? if he does, when did he know this? why has he not told the american public where in laden? why has he waited for the end of his presidency to go after bin laden .
Putting out vague statements that he most likely on a more than 1800km border, is just that vague and vacuous and unfortunately motivated.
Silly statements such as on the border between pakistan and afghanistan as a location for bin laden are just that, silly - there may be water on mars - does that tell us where on mars ? And these are in rsponse to questions, these are govt. leaks.
The original question posed were does bush know where bin laden is? if he does, when did he know this? why has he not told the american public where in laden? why has he waited for the end of his presidency to go after bin laden .
Putting out vague statements that he most likely on a more than 1800km border, is just that vague and vacuous and unfortunately motivated.
TOPGUN
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 8,689
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Unreal when all this is happening and its time to take a stand! i am sure that u guys have heard how Afgan pres is acting now giving us threats this dumb A$$ as no clue wat he is talking about we would finish them in a hours time if that not that thats wat we want but with these foolish threats stating i will go in to PAK to finish off the ones that attack us from PAK wata dumb A$$ umm futhermore, in all due respect we have all these prob's in our nation cuz we did a good thing years ago in the Soviet era by taking in 4 million refugees now we got all these issues GOD help us all .
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Very well said Niaz.
Some people have perhaps assumed that criticism of the US and its policies in the region amounts to support for the Taliban or support for the PA turning a blind eye to their activities.
It does not, for most of us. There has been virulent criticism of the Taliban on this forum, and most of us want them disarmed and the Tribal Areas integrated into mainstream Pakistan. I have noticed even those who would sing praises of the Taliban less than a year ago now arguing that it is not possible to have "peace deals" with them.
The peace deals will fail, most of us recognize that. But this process of attempting dialog is part of a "natural process" of introspection and national discourse that allows Pakistanis to perceive that their elected government is following their wishes realize the repercussion of that path, and hopefully change accordingly.
There is no regime or dictator in Pakistan that is an obstacle to full fledged military operations in Pakistan. The obstacle is the Pakistani people. They are the ones that need to go through this process and come to the conclusion that peace and security in the region will only be possible if the Taliban disarm - either through deals or through force.
The West, and specifically the US is either ignorant of the culture, sentiments and mindset of Pakistanis, or is deliberately refusing to acknowledge it. Threats of military force, sanctions and attacks on Pakistan's sovereignty will never change the mind of Pakistanis. We are a stubborn, emotional lot, that place a huge premium on honor (though we also tend to carry it to hypocritical and extreme lengths sometimes).
"“If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own,” said Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one of the most popular political leaders in Pakistan's history. We suffered through sanctions after our nuclear tests. Cowing down in the face of threats is not an option for the people.
So long as the perception persists that the US is dictating the terms of this WoT, Pakistanis will not accept it, so long as the GoP or Pakistani military is perceived to be following US diktat, Pakistanis will not support their armed forces.
Kiyani is correct in distancing himself from the US, and advocating for a withdrawal of the regular army from FATA. Capacity building in the FC has to continue, and if when that is complete the FC still is unable to handle the situation, a civilian government can request the Army be deployed after consultations in Parliament.
To Muse:
Sure the statements are vague and not very good. Still, the US media has been asking about the location of Bin Laden for years. That was my point, no more, and no less. The administration says it does not know, and there is no evidence to point to it knowing. At this point suggesting that the US knows where he is falls in the realm of conspiracy theory. The US had everything to gain and nothing to lose by killing or capturing him if they knew his location, and has been trying to do so since 1998 when they sent cruise missiles. As to if Bin Laden is still an effective leader I cannot speculate, but his death would do wonders for Bush's approval rating.
Sure the statements are vague and not very good. Still, the US media has been asking about the location of Bin Laden for years. That was my point, no more, and no less. The administration says it does not know, and there is no evidence to point to it knowing. At this point suggesting that the US knows where he is falls in the realm of conspiracy theory. The US had everything to gain and nothing to lose by killing or capturing him if they knew his location, and has been trying to do so since 1998 when they sent cruise missiles. As to if Bin Laden is still an effective leader I cannot speculate, but his death would do wonders for Bush's approval rating.
Similar threads
