Is bin Laden in China?

Now Dick Cheney AND Porter Goss know where bin Laden is.

What makes this interesting is that Goss last week basically said that they know exactly where bin Laden is, but that considerations for the country where he make it impossible to go get him.

Hmm . . .  Let's ponder this a minute.  Consider the countries where he could be:

  1. Afghanistan.  No brainer.  Go get him.  Call it that.  So he ain't there.

  2. Uzbekistan, Kyrghyzstan, Turkmenistan, rest of central Asia.  Couldn't stop us if they wanted to.

  3. Pakistan.  Would be glad for OBL to be gone.  Might go get him themselves.  US commandoes operate there anyhow.

  4. Indian Kashmir.  Well, fuck, India would be plain giddy to go get bin Laden.

  5. Iran.  The Bushies wouldn't pass up the chance to accuse Iran of harboring OBL.

  6. Russia.  Putin would be even happier than the Indian gov't to hand OBL over to the US on a silver platter.

That leaves two places: Saudi Arabia or China.

Saudi Arabia makes too much sense.  Likewise, the Saudis would be tempted to tip us and OBL off at the same time to make him flee and then stand there going, "Oopsies!"  The Saudis I don't think could long stand bin Laden's presence anyhow, since it would make them look like shit as rumor got out that he was there.  It would exist as a threat to the Saud family's authority.  Eventually, al-Qaeda would establish itself as a parallel government.  The Sauds are jealous and mean rulers.  Don't bet on them tolerating any threat too long.

The old conspiracy theory is that OBL is in Xinjiang, the Muslim NW frontier of China.  Interestingly, terror attacks in Xinjiang have fallen off since OBL fled Afghanistan.   This, IMO, is the most likely place OBL is.  I believe he is in Xinjiang with the tacit approval of the Chinese government.

Why?

Because China is the only country that the US would not even venture a small CIA or commando op into.  China is the one country that America would be afraid of even public humiliating as the harborer of bin Laden.  BEtween the economic and military fears regarding China, the United States would want no part of the Chinese, even if it meant avenging the worst foreign attack on US soil ever.

Plus, it's the kind of snippy, miserable "fuck you" that is typical of Chinese policy.  The Chinese love to fuck with their enemies.  The main goal of any Chinese policy is to breed crippling uncertainty in the efforts of all who oppose them.

Harboring bin Laden would certainly serve this purpose.

The Chinese have nothing to lose and everything to gain.  A long-term US defeat in the Middle East is an essential next step in China's economic expansion.  The Chinese want unmitigated access to Middle Eastern oil.  A militarily defeated US could no longer project power in the Middle East, leaving China in the strongest position of any international power.

China's long-term goal is to build overland pipelines through central Asia.  This is one of the goals behind the efforts to acquire Unocal, which already controls a number of overland pipelines in the region.  Likewise, overland pipelines would bring oil to China through countries that are easier to influence than those on the sea lanes (since the Indian Ocean is dominated by US and Indian naval airpower).  It would negate US warplans that focus on fighting a coastal war with China, by forcing the US into a fight in central Asia.

It is an audacious plan.  A plan so audacious, in fact, that only China would be willing to get into.  The Chinese love their proxy wars, and it suits them to watch the US wane in years of warfare in the Middle East.

Which, brings us back to why is it very possible that China is harboring al-Qaeda leaders.

The Chinese could care less who runs the Middle East or Central Asia, just as long as they deliver the goods.  Likewise, al-Qaeda isn't going to bat an eyelash at using the Chinese to defeat the Americans, just as the mujihideen didn't flinch at using the Americans to defeat the Soviets.

Al-Qaeda has become expert at playing the middle in the superpower grand game.

There is little reason to believe they aren't doing it right now.

http://mybrainisturningtogoo.blogspot.com/2005/06/now-dick-cheney-and-porter-goss-know.html

Poll
Where is bin Laden?
Afghanistan or Pakistan
Indian Kashmir
Central Asia (Uzbek- Krgyz- Turkmen- etc.istan)
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Xinjiang (Chinese Turkmenistan)
Africa
East Asia
Somewhere else

Votes: 24
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Bin Ladin (none / 0)

If he were a CIA asset they could have him anywhere..
by donkeykong on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:05:01 PM EST

give me a break (3.00 / 1)

Plus, it's the kind of snippy, miserable "fuck you" that is typical of Chinese policy.  The Chinese love to fuck with their enemies.  The main goal of any Chinese policy is to breed crippling uncertainty in the efforts of all who oppose them.

what is this but a string of unfounded assertions? evidence? proof? you got nothing here but a crude repackaging of the 19th century "inscrutable chinaman" slur. back it up.

The Chinese love their proxy wars, and it suits them to watch the US wane in years of warfare in the Middle East.

which proxy wars, exactly? again, i'd be interested to see what you come up with. other than backing pol pot's khmer rouge against hun sen's vietnamese-backed faction from the 70s through the 80s,  i can't think of another chinese proxy. north korea, for all the propaganda, had far closer ties to the USSR than it ever did with china, with the brief exception of china's participation in the korean war in the 1950s.

given that the chinese government is seriously concerned about muslim unrest in xinjiang, are dealing with a steady string of bombings associated with that problem, and have been jailing and slaughtering fundamentalist and dissident uighur groups by the truckload ever since 9/11 out of fear that the movements in central asia could spread to xinjiang, i find it highly unlikely that china would knowingly harbor, let alone talk to bin laden or any of his mujaheddin associates. if he's there, he's hiding in the mountains (an easy enough thing, really). they are not james bond supervillans, and they're far more concerned with maintaining their control over their populace than in the kind of schemes for global domination that so inspire american neocons.

my guess would be that bin laden's in pakistan, for the reason that the pakistani military and intelligence services both have a large number of sympathizers who could protect him, because musharraf has to be careful not to go too hard into waziristan for fear of sparking a civil war that could topple his presidency, and because big chaotic cities are easier places to hide in when you've got a trusted network supporting you. fear of accidentally toppling musharraf and getting an al-qaeda-friendly nuclear-armed regime in pakistan is what's holding porter goss off. biiiig clusterfuck waiting to happen there.

by wu ming on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 04:14:59 PM EST

Re: give me a break (none / 0)

I agree. Pakistan is in a difficult situation. The China accusation sounds too much like a half-baked conspiracy theory.
by liberal atheist on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 05:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Proxies (none / 0)

So, for example, China's efforts to arm up Pakistan have utterly nothing to do with India?
by jcjcjc on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 12:49:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Afghanistan/Pakistan border (none / 0)

Do some Google news research or news program research and you would see that almost every full time Terrorist and Global Security Expert agrees that bin Laden is in the 'native' regions of the Afghanistan/Pakistan bordder where there is NO goverment authority. And yes we could get him...at the cost of the one friendly government, Pakistan, in the area who is nuclear capable not to mention the fragile govt in Afghanistan...if it can be called that...a real government when the officials can't leave the capital city.

 This was a long subject on NewsNight just after the Gross statement. Every other show carried the conversation as well.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 07:11:55 PM EST

I still don't buy Waziristan (none / 0)

I can't believe that the current US military and CIA ops types are so chickenshit that they wouldn't do this particular op if it were doable on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

There has to be some point, on some level at which some officer or commander would have this whole thing mapped out.

Of course, if you're in the Michael Moore crowd, then you know why the op has never gone forward.

What gets me most is that Goss and Cheney are even saying these things at all.

Why?  What purpose does it serve?

My thought process is that it's their way of quietly telling the government that might have bin Laden that there is a soft way and a hard way this can be done.

I struggle to believe there isn't an op-plan in place for dealing with the Pakistani nuclear contingency.  Even if we didn't have one in place, India certainly does.

I'm just not convinced that if OBL were in a known area in Waziristan that the spooks wouldn't have something in play.

I also can't believe that if the US is protecting bin Laden that there isn't one officer in all the ranks who couldn't leak that fact to the press with credible evidence and leads.

Xinjiang, IMO, is the logical place after all else is eliminated.

by jcjcjc on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 12:55:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still don't buy Waziristan (none / 0)

The smart thing to do is to take out the 2nd tier and leave bin laden.

What would bush be if rove was in jail and cheney was in jail  ......and all his loyal guys are in jail..

same effect with bin laden

better to leave the top guy and take out the 2nd tier

by donkeykong on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 04:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still don't buy Waziristan (none / 0)

More would rise up.

Besides, if you ever build a time machine with the goal of stopping Bush, you'd be better off having Karen Hughes thrown in jail.

Karen Hughes is responsible for the likeable, moderate Bush.

Karl Rove is just a balls to the wall prick who has never won any election by any good margin, and has won at least two in the courts.

by jcjcjc on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 12:22:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.