Getting Osama bin Laden Without Military Action and Preventing Martyrdom

Several months ago the Bush Administration proclaimed the capture (or killing) of Osama bin Laden as a "success that has not yet happened". Much like my Nobel Prize in Medicine, van Gogh quality impressionist painting, and sub 9-second 100-meter dash. Coming from an Administration whose legacy unfortunately is a "tragedy that extends decades beyond its time in office", such pronouncements are as discomforting as they are ridiculous.

Contrary to the posture of the Bush Administration, a meeting of experts recently reconfirmed that getting Osama (and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his deputy) is of high importance in reducing the threats. They still direct traffic, pick targets of opportunity and send jihadists to these various venues to fight.

They have also been strikingly successful in snookering Bush to concentrate US military forces in Iraq, i.e., FAR from themselves. Every time Bush invokes Osama's statements about the central theater of the struggle being in Iraq, Osama and Ayman must have a great chuckle. Bin Laden said years ago that attacking the US was fairly easy because our society was so open, but he probably never banked on us having such a gullible President.

Osama has lost all the battles, but he is winning the war as the US fractures politically, overextends and exhausts its military, stimulates more jihad-recruiting, and abandons its cherished ideals and principles, becoming more like its enemies everyday.

Consider a radically different approach to the entire mess. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are thought to be hiding in various parts of the area in Pakistan called the "Federally Administered Tribal Areas" (FATA). It is difficult military terrain, hard to penetrate, and the people are sympathetic to the Taliban and their cause. The Pakistani Army is not very popular there, and elements of the Pakistani intelligence services were supporters of the Taliban pre-9/11. We have bounties on the head of bin Laden and Zawahiri, but who would ever cough them up, knowing that they and their families would be executed before they would ever see any money?

Taking the FATA region as a whole, there are approximately 3 million inhabitants. The per capital income in Pakistan is about $800 per year (according to figures from 2005, perhaps slightly higher today, but not much). The Pakistani Armed Forces are about 1 million strong. Let us suppose that they earn 3 times the per capita income, and that the people in the FATA region are at the national average.

What if we changed the game completely? Instead of a single bounty on their heads, we offer the 3 million people of the region 3 years of income (i.e., $2400/person) or $7.2B, about 2-3 weeks of operations in Iraq. Large families of 20 people, therefore, would wind up with $48,000, a huge sum in Pakistan. Means for distributing the money would have to be established, and systems to prevent a flood on the market would need to be considered. Aggregating the sums further on a village level would provide the people opportunities to improve the material parts of their lives substantially.

In order to ensure the military was on the same page, we could offer $5000 per soldier, costing us another $5B, so the total cost of this program would be about a month's worth of Iraq spending.

What's the deal? They have to produce both Osama and Zawahiri. Since everyone in the FATA is benefiting, and thus everyone is involved, the risk of execution for producing them is reduced. Because he would have been coughed up by their own people, neither would have been killed by the hands of the Western infidels, or even the Pakistani infidels, and thus the attraction of their martyrdom would be substantially diminished. That would be the ultimate defeat for both of them.

I realize that administering such a program, preventing graft, and ensuring the resources went to the right people would be very challenging. But, as challenging as hunting through the mountains with US or Pakistani soldiers? As challenging as bringing Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to an agreed powersharing in Iraq? As challenging as preventing more jihad-recruiting by military means?

And, here's the beauty of the program: it only is triggered when Osama and Zawahiri are produced. It costs no US soldiers their lives or limbs. And, it does not cost a dime unless we get the result.

Comments

[ValerieT]

An interesting question here is this: Liberals attribute much of the violent hostility directed by the Middle East at the US and Europe to injustice and despair. Personally, I think the formula is much more complex and includes things like culture and Koranic sanction of violence. (Where are all of the South American and Buddhist jihadis?)

But the theory seems nonetheless worth some testing. If we invested in economic development--health, opportunity, hope -- might we not get a better return on our $ than war?

[jhNY]

One day soon maybe somebody here is going to figure out that some people can't be bought, and that the would-be buyer looks like a corrupting devil to them. Till then ideas like this one will continue to have appeal among the self-styled pragmatists among us. The reason Bin Laden hasn't been caught is because millions of people love him and would die to protect him. To them, he is a generous and noble fighter against the enemies of their religion. We should accept this reality and plan accordingly.

In Pakistan, Bin Laden is more popular than Musharraff and Bush put together. And newsclips of our troops leading dogs into a Muslim woman's bedroom to sniff around her clothes have probably done more to wreck our reputation and goodwill than Bin Laden's propaganda ever could. Bottom line: we're not going to bribe our way to Bin Laden's capture, and we're not winning the hearts and minds of anybody in the area except for traitors, or the corruptible.

[Tubby]

We must be patient (something that's anethma to Americans). Sooner or later these two guys will make a mistake or anger a local warlord whose looking to become unimaginably rich and powerful. In either case, human nature will prevail and Osama's and Zawahiri's heads will wind up on a stick.

[loslobo]

I thought this was tongue-in-check until I saw you reply.

Why don't we find out what happened to the 10-11 billion already given to Pakistan before you cut any more checks? That money was well spent right?

[ohplease]

Forggetaboutit! nice try, these guys don't give up anyone who they have extended hospitality to.Did you ever take an Anthro class?

[MagisterLudi]

This would interesting... this is not any different from Alaskans being paid for the crude oil extracted there.

The actual procedure would be probably unworkable.

This would presume that Osama and Co. are not guarded 24-7 by a group of REALLY well armed body guards with orders to kill him if there's eminent threat of capture.

Would the tribes form a giant posse to hunt down Osama and his body guards?

Or would it be just some Strychnine in the goat's milk for everyone?

And who would protect the same tribesmen when vengeful Al Qaeda and Taliban comes calling right after that?

Actually lets also throw in another 5-6 billion for building schools, colleges,roads, tunnels, infrastructure, agricultural machinery etc.
Just for Deity's sake do NOT hire Haliburton to build it!

British Empire used to buy their way out of tight spots, and if that didn't work, there was always the British Navy, what?

[TheDoomed]

Interesting plan, but counting on this administration to distribute a large sum of money isn't going to work. They did once lose 30 billion dollars.

[mouselion]

I like it. It's cost effective (cheaper than the way they're going about it now, which is a holding pattern, at best).

It's just like what the U.S. military is doing with "former insurgents" in Iraq --only on a wee bit grander scale.

[SamThornton]

Like all proposals that might initially look reasonable on paper, this one ignores basic truths on the ground.

Consider this question: How much money would be necessary for you to sell out the United States to to a foreign power, to have our political leaders assassinated, and come under the rule of the murderers?

Most would answer, I believe, that no amount of money would be sufficient, that it's a proposition morally reprehensible and not something that would even be considered by a sane human being.

Alternative actions which would lead to the marginalization and effective neutralization of Osama and his group require more knowledge, thought and careful consideration, of course. Unfortunately, these are things our political leadership are not well trained to do.

Like it or not, we are hostage to our own naivety and ignorance. Time to wise up.

[Curedlib]

Sound kinda like the oil for food program. Since we are being ridiculous, may I suggest that the UN distribute the money?

Will you EVER learn?

[dissolvethecorporation]

But how does that stop Iran from controlling the Persian Gulf?