Why Bush Does Not Want to Capture Bin Laden

December 25, 2003

After the terrorist attacks in 2001 Bush said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." Since then, he has been saying the hunt was still on and he would be captured... eventually. On December 16, 2003 his spokesperson Scott McClellan said this about bin Laden, "I think he can fully expect that he will be brought to justice by this administration."

Nonsense.

The Bush administration has long ago given up on capturing or killing bin Laden, at least in the short term.  The United States and Pakistan agreed in early 2002 he would not be captured for mutual benefit. It is best to isolate him in northern Pakistan along the Afghan and Pakistan border.

The symptoms of this agreement in 2002 were conflicting reports about bin Laden, his location, health, even whether he was dead or alive. Until the capture of Saddam Hussein he was barely mentioned.

The agreement was made because bin Laden's capture would lead to significant unrest in Pakistan and threaten Pervez Musharraf's political stability. There would also be more terrorist attacks on Western targets across the world. It was more than we could handle.

Will the U.S. ever "get bin Laden"? Maybe, if it suits our interests. Right now a stable Pakistan is more important because it helps with Afghanistan stability which in turn, is necessary for a new government there.

The Bush Administration's focus away from bin Laden also helped with the Iraq invasion. We could more easily plan for an invasion and allocate troops and resources for it.

When will it suit the U.S. to capture bin Laden?

After his terrorist infrastructure is so weak it is no longer effective and Musharraf's government is stable enough to handle the consequences of a bin Laden martyrdom.

Neither are likely right now.