Why we can't capture Bin Laden

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 9:02 AM on January 20, 2006.

In light of Bin Laden's most recent communiqué, it's worth revisiting the big question: why hasn't Bush, 4+ years after the fact, been able to get him?

With all the administration accusations of "pre-9/11 thinking" to justify any and all liberty-reducing measures, it's all the more disconcerting to learn that, according to ex-CIA Larry Johnson's sources: "the bureaucratic walls that separated the law enforcement and intelligence communities prior to 9-11 are back up and higher than ever."

Johnson also notes that nobody's actually in charge of capturing Bin Laden: "If you ask the CIA Chief in Pakistan, he'll tell you he is in charge of the mission. If you ask the CIA Chief in Afghanistan, you will get a similar answer. If you ask General Brown at SOCOM he will tell you that he has the mission. And, if you ask the folks at CENTCOM and at JSOC you will get similar responses..."

Here's another theory, wacko though it may seem. Some have suggested that the worst thing that could happen to the fragile right wing coalition would be for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Its existence and promises to overturn it are simply too powerful a rallying cry to be replaced.

Could the capture of Bin Laden function similarly? Could the continued freedom of Bin Laden function as a free-floating bogeyman for the Bush administration to whip out when fear ebbs and civil liberties come to the fore?

Naah, that's just crazy talk. (BoomanTribune)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.