Wow! A Very, Very Important Taliban Leader Has Been Killed, Maybe!

Technorati Tags: Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, Taliban, Afghanistan

The Associated Press reports that a leading Taliban figure was killed in a NATO airstrike:

A top Taliban military commander described as a close associate of Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar was killed in an airstrike this week close to the border with Pakistan, the U.S. military said Saturday. A Taliban spokesman denied the claim.

Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani was killed Tuesday by a U.S. airstrike while traveling by vehicle in a deserted area in the southern province of Helmand, the U.S. military said. Two associates also were killed, it said.

There was no immediate confirmation from Afghan officials or visual proof offered to support the claim. A U.S. spokesman said "various sources" were used to confirm Osmani's identity.

First, the overstatement:

Osmani, regarded as one of three top associates of Omar, is the highest-ranking Taliban leader the coalition has claimed to have killed or captured since U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime in late 2001 for hosting bin Laden. U.S. military spokesman Col. Tom Collins described Osmani's death as a "big loss" for the ultraconservative militia. "There's no doubt that it will have an immediate impact on their ability to conduct attacks," Collins said. ...

and the shameless hype:

How big of a blow is this? Very big, apparently.
[...]
Th[e] fact that Osmani was one of the leaders in southern Afghanistan is key because that's where the insurgency is the strongest. And to sweeten the pot even more, according to the AP, Osmani was also in charge of the Taliban's finances.

So, as Borat would say, "Great success!"

Then the hint of reality:

"There's no doubt that it will have an immediate impact on their ability to conduct attacks," Collins said. "But the Taliban is fairly adaptive. They'll put somebody else in that position and we'll go after that person, too."

And the obvious questions:

And you'll find him when? In another five years? And then they'll put another somebody else in that position and you'll go after that person, too; and you'll find him five years after that? And what's the point?

Some say the point is killing for the sake of killing, at the same time that they acknowledge no practical benefit will come from the killing:

We’ve killed enough #2 and #3 leaders in various al Qaeda affiliated groups at this point that we can be reasonably sure that it’s not going to have much impact in Iraq. On the other hand, there does seem to be a widespread consensus that al Qaeda proper is a shadow of its 9-11 self. And, certainly, to the extent that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist, killing them off is worthwhile for its own sake.

Others say that a load of tripe will never be a porterhouse steak:

As to who and what the great and mighty Mullah Akhtar is, or rather was, he is, or rather was, "regarded as one of three top associates of Omar," and "is the highest-ranking Taliban leader the coalition has claimed to have killed or captured since U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime in late 2001 for hosting bin Laden." (And if it turns out that there really was such a person, and he really was killed Tuesday, or sometime, will any of us be surprised if it turns out that being Mullah Omar's No. 3 meant that he handled party favors for the mullah's weekly wienie roasts?)

Only time will tell. And lord knows we have plenty of that.