The WSJ described ObL's network as committed, well-financed, and well trained, with what seems to be intelligent leadership, but also with a rather loose structure. This seemed to support the view that no single person, such as ObL himself, could be indispensable to its continued effectiveness. The other side of this, as I interpret it, is that this makes any individual, again including ObL himself, less vulnerable to being gotten "dead or alive" as the result of a "crusade," to slip for a moment, into the ineffable stupidity of the President of the United States and Leader of the Free World.
Consider that ObL has been on the most-wanted list for some years and still, the authorities seem to have no idea of how to approach him. Of course, the same issue of the WSJ also reported that those intelligence services we pay billions for have no staff that know Dari and Pashto, the dominant languages of Afghanistan.
I think I see some signs that the initial enthusiasm in the media for a "get Osama" approach is flagging. Probably those who formulate the news can also read the WSJ. Is this an opening for voices of reality from the left?
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema