Stephen, that's certainly a legitimate point of view, but I doubt that too many Americans would agree with you. I don't, and here's why:

1. The goal was never just to bring in bin Laden and a few lackeys. The terrorist threat is much more widespread that just a few individuals, as recent events around the world continue to show. While bin Laden is certainly one target, and there are advantages to identifying an individual leader as a focal point of our efforts (which is why we fought WWII against "Hitler" and "Tojo", and the Gulf War against "Saddam"), in reality this is about breaking up some pretty extensive networks that would/will continue to function even in bin Laden's absence. It's a very ambitious goal, we have a long way to go, and I hope we're up to the task.

2. It is nice to imagine that we're capable of these terribly sophisticated, James Bond type operations that we can easily and cleanly accomplish because we're so smart and capable. In fact, our country (the USA) has in the past had a real problem with our over-confidence about our abilities in this regard, partly because of a few easy successes in the early days of our post-WWII intelligence agencies. In reality, it's pretty damn difficult to do what you're suggesting. I have no doubt that we have a number of covert operations underway now (we should), but I think your notion that if we had gone this route exclusively "the diplomats would, just about now, be finishing up all of their wrangling and hoo-hah about where the trial should take place" is pretty naive. And, as stated above, this would not have accomplished the real objective in any case.

However, I do appreciate the fact that you were polite in your posting; not all of the contributors to this/these threads have been. -- WS