The Fugitive
Tracking the one-armed man.

By James S. Robbins, a national-security analyst & NRO contributor
January 16, 2002 8:45 a.m.

n January 14, ABC News reported that an analysis sent to CIA Director George J. Tenent concluded that Osama bin Laden has "escaped from Afghanistan and has gone beyond Pakistan," most likely by sea. The report noted that bin Laden "remains one step ahead of the United States, with the central nervous system of his terror network still intact." ABC characterized this as a "major setback to the war on terrorism." The CIA responded quickly to the report, calling it "incorrect" and stating, "we have reached no such conclusion. ABC did not contact the Agency about this allegation before airing it." A senior-intelligence official quoted in the Washington Post dismissed the ABC report and noted that the CIA had received a flood of unconfirmed sightings "putting [bin Laden] all over, including Utah."

Utah? Yes, according to FBI Special Agent Kevin Eaton. There have been over two dozen reported bin Laden sightings in the Beehive State. Was the terrorist mastermind really "getting a drink at the 7-11 in Provo" as was alleged? Hard to say; Utah would be a poor choice for bin Laden were he trying to blend in with the population. Census Bureau statistics show an estimated 2,730 people of Arab ancestry in a state of 2.2 million. He is not likely to be able to pick up a Big Gulp unnoticed.

There have been several reported scenarios for bin Laden's escape, most of them by sea. Given the number of container ships, fuel tankers, and other vessels that traverse the Indian Ocean, it is reasonable to believe that an individual could evade the Navy dragnet were he to get that far. Perhaps bin Laden could slip off in a small dhow to avoid attention, following the same script as Mullah Omar, who reportedly left Kandahar in a rickshaw. Bin Laden is also alleged to have trekked across the western Afghan desert into Iran, aided by Iranian intelligence. This report may have been the prompt for the administration's recent warning to Iran not to harbor any members of the al Qaeda network. Another story had the terror leader heading overland to Chechnya by mule ala Napoleon crossing the Alps into Italy in 1800, or so his publicists might depict.

We really can't know at this point where bin Laden is, whether in Pakistan, Iran, East Africa, South America, or dead in a cave in Afghanistan. However, assuming he is on the run, is it really the major setback the strategic analysts at ABC News seem to think it is? Could he in fact energize his "intact" network and renew his attacks on the western world?

The first question is, where would bin Laden go? A super villain needs a lair after all. He could seek refuge through his established networks, at least those that still exist (given the number of arrests globally the notion that local al Qaeda cells are turnkey operations is questionable). But the countries in which his network operated, especially those with active Muslim insurgencies, have been taking aggressive steps lately. For example, rural Yemen used to be a safe haven, but would he take the chance these days?

Alternatively, bin Laden could retreat to an out-of-the-way place and lay low, give up the jihad, at least temporarily. This would be a safer move, but he would be less able to control his networks, and he would have to contend with his ego. Bin Laden styles himself as a man of destiny, and sitting in a hut in rural Tanzania would get old for him quickly. His compulsion to make taunting videos would probably get the best of him. (Note that al Jazeera reportedly has ten as yet unaired bin Laden videotapes, though why they don't show these ratings-grabbers is a mystery.)

Perhaps he could find shelter in a new client state, if any would have him. It is hard to believe that any established ruler would take the risk, since if it became known that bin Laden was hiding there the regime could expect to be treated to the same fate as the Taliban. Still, some might risk it. Maybe bin Laden will turn up under the defiant protection of Saddam Hussein, but that would be too much to ask for.

Wherever bin Laden might run, the mere fact that he fled would hardly be a major setback to the war effort. It could even be perversely beneficial. Bin Laden has become the personification of terrorism and his death might lead people erroneously to think that peace is at hand when in fact there is still much to do. A fleeing bin Laden would help maintain the momentum of the war. In fact the Iran Daily commented that the United States needs to keep bin Laden alive to push its agenda in the Middle East. The commentary alleged that it is "difficult to swallow" the notion that a technologically superior superpower, with troops on the ground and a friendly government in Afghanistan, doesn't know where bin Laden is hiding. Well, it would be impossible to believe that the United States is trying to keep bin Laden alive, but there can be no doubt that while he lives the war goes on.

Besides, flushing bin Laden from his cover must be counted as a victory in itself. He saw Afghanistan as an unconquerable bastion of radical Islam, not a smoking ruin away from which he would have to slink. And all things considered, he would probably rather be hiding than running. Moving around is dangerous. The more he travels the more variables he must contend with, and the more difficult his security problem becomes. Where does he go? How long does he stay? Does he take a large bodyguard for safety or just one or a few men for enhanced mobility and stealth? What means of transportation does he use? What means of communication? How does he fund his travels? If he can't use wire transfers does he carry cash, diamonds, narcotics, or something else of value? The $25 million reward for his capture is still out there — so who can be trusted, who can be bribed, who should be used, and then done away with? Where can he go to blend in — if he can blend in? His height would work against him, since it places him in the upper 1-2% of the population as a whole. If his left arm was disabled (as seemed the case in the latest video) that would be another identifier. Governments would be looking for him, as would freelancers, warlords, and mercenaries and the like. His luck would run out sooner or later. He could wind up like Kurdish terrorist Abdulla Ocalan, who was seized in 1999 at the Greek embassy in Kenya by Turkish commandos, though it is unlikely bin Laden would allow himself to be taken alive, if he was even given that option.

However there is a downside for the administration to "bin Laden as fugitive." Some critics have already speculated that the failure to catch the terrorist in a timely manner would eventually hurt Bush politically. It has been likened to the alleged political price paid by President Bush senior for not deposing Saddam Hussein. It is difficult to see the analogy, but more to the point, would any opponent of the president have the nerve to make the case? Or the poor judgment, the bad taste, and the shamelessness to use this issue for personal political gain?

This is America. Count on it.