fools rush in

[low_delta]

I just read in the paper today, that we (this administration and the previous) have been negotiating for years to get Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden. They said they'd hand him over to a neutral country, but we said "no, it's got be us."

Right there.

What were we thinking? Let this guy go, just so we could look tough? We refused to give them the option of saving face, *and* turning over the bad guy, just so... why? There was a real solution, and we were too shortsighted to take it.

(Can anyone find this story? I think it was AP)

I think it comes down to shortsightedness. I think the reason the military solution sounds like the best one, is because nobody will take the time to think of a better one.

Comments

[cynnerth.livejournal.com]

Would a neutral country hold him for trial and punishment?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

That's a valid question, but given the countries that would be lining up to get a piece of him, I think "yes."

It is certainly a complex situation though, and the article didn't go into detail about the possible arrangements.