first, i don't think they use the term 'war' on terror anymore...pundits and the media might, but i don't think it is a slogan anymore...i think they realized the term hurt them in that it created an unrealistic expectation of an end to the conflict in the near term...that seems highly unlikely
it is important to understand that the 'campaign' (word tricks, i know) against terrorism (we'll use the acronym CAT froim here on in...
) is directed against a different enemy than such terrorists as, the PLO. for instance...clinton clearly recognized this, although it is less certain if bushco does...one can generalize terrorists into two categories: political terrorists a la PLO, IRA, free aceh movement, etc..; and jihad terrorists a la al qaeda and numerous other groups...the main difference is that the political terrorists get their perceived authority from some wrong that was done against them that they have an inherent human right to correct...the jihad terrorists get their perceived authority from interpretation of religious text...i don't have my reference material handy, so i can't point towards exact names, but there was a guy around about 50 years ago, al mayqim, or something like that, who started the movement in egypt...previous jihadists saw the primary jihad as being the jihad for the minds of people, and that the jihad of war was subordinate to that...mayqim? reversed that and put the jihad firmly against all those who oppose the prophet mohammed...the gist was that heavy violence on unprecedented scales (even for terrorists) was divinely justified because it was for the greater good of the ultimate jihad...this also marked an acceptance of muslims being casulaties (which the political jihadists tried to avoid)...the reasoning was that if a good muslim was killed, he/she went to heaven anyway, but if a bad muslim was killed, he/she deserved it...so the war jihadists turned their attention towards whomever was against the prophet and the measuring stick was their actions...this is why the leaders in most arab countries are targets (especially saudi arabia and egypt), because they tend to act with pragmatic realism as opposed to in accordance with the texts...
much of the terrorism going on in egypt is of this bent, as is the al qaeda terrorism...bin laden is a direct disciple of the mayqim? character, through (i think) that blind cleric dude from egypt (i think there is an extra link between the blind guy and mayqim?)...of note, the bin laden - blind cleric link has not been frimly proven, but much of what is found in bin laden's speeches comes directly from mayqim's? writings and the relevant parts of the koran
so what does all this mean? it means that first we have to understand that, regardless of what the press says or how they interpret things, this is not a campaign against all terrorists...it is a campaign against the war jihadists...those jihadists who have so fervently bought into the war aginst all rhetoric that they pose a threat to anyone and everyone in their way...the media's representation of them simply wanting the west out of the middle east is rubbish...a simple way to present a complex problem...these folks don't even care about the palestinians all that much...they hate the jews because of their proximity in holy lands, but the palestinians aren't exactly the good-living muslim community the war jihadists want to see...
so the problem is that some folks have bought into the war jihad cause...again, the press commonly describes poverty and uneducation as root causes, but the movement gathered momentum primarily through the involvement of egyptian students and a certain high percentage of egyptian academia, so that's not the whole story...yes, poverty and uneducation contribute greatly to the creation of war jihadists in pakistan, indonesia, and yemen...but many come from sudan, somalia, syria, and saudi arabia, as well as some of the stans in ex-USSR...
the reason these folks turn towards war jihadism is that their governments are corrupt...look at the muslim countries where the leaders have promoted some level of traditional muslim lifestyle but have not had huge problems with mass exodus of jihadists...oman, UAE, bahrain, qatar...these are muslim countries with relatively little government corruption...in these places, although fundamentalists may not agree with their approaches (and they exist - i've walked through the neighbourhoods), they stomach them...the added element of huge government corruption does not add enough to get them to the critical mass of war jihadism
sunni and shi'ite splits also contribute, but that is a whole other story
bin laden is merely a guy who had the money, organizational skills, and vision to draw all these folks together into a single organization...yes, they run on sleeper cells and the like, but he has also drawn in other organziations or elements of them, such as splitting fundamentalists off the free aceh rebels...(this is why indonesia wants the americans out)...cutting off the head does not destroy the whole body, but it weakens its organizational abilties somewhat, which weakens them and allows those in the CAT to attack other vulnerabilities with greater ease...but bin laden isn't the only piece...they have to take out all the upper levels of command to truly have an impact...but before they can do any of this in earnest, they really have to develop sources of HUMINT (human intelligence)....you can imagine the amount of time it takes to establish HUMINT operators in such war jihad organizations...contrary to common belief, CIA HUMINT operators were cut back considerably during the peace dividend period of the 90s (clinton, but bush sr. started it)...intel on these guys is bad because the US let their HUMINT capabiltity atrophy, and also because bush jr. didn't really believe clinton during their handover that al qaeda/war jihad was the emerging enemy
so yes, bin laden must be taken out, but he alone won't do the trick...it requires taking out the upper levels, and better int is required to do that...unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) have thought they found some of these guys in the past, but the pictures were grainy (don't believe what you see in the movies) and they needed a secondary source of intel to follow up on ot - there are simply not enough resources to follow up on everything...so the bottom line is that it will take a while
even if they take out the leadership, that's not the end of it...they have to eliminate the corruption and cronyism that goes on in many of these countries....i think bushco only understands part of that...iraq is all about this, whether you agree with it or not...it is an attempt to get rid of corrupt leadership...but they will still need to reduce corruption in other countries, most notably indonesia...perhaps they made a mistake trying to fight a two-front war (al qaeda & iraq), but honestly, they weren't going to get anywhere with the al qaeda leadership until their HUMINT got better...so they turned their gaze to perhaps the easiest foe on the list, saddam
what's next? dunno...but i do know this is going to go on for a long, long time...maybe 100 years...huntington will use this to promote his 'clash of civilizations' theory, but i disagree...the war jihadists are only a small portion of the beautiful muslim culture...but i suspect syria might be next
so to answer your question, the capture of bin laden is really about the elimination of the upper command levels...what that will accomplish is a disorganization that will allow focusing on other areas before the head has a chance to grow back...it is only one Decisive Point of many in the CAT...but it is vitally important
sorry for the long convoluted rant...i just didn't feel like answering 100 follow-on questions, although that could still happen, i suppose (insert emoticon here)