Bush Knew bin Laden was in Tora Bora

[Hentor the Barbarian]

One of the things that always pissed me off about the invasion of Afghanistan was that we seemed to go about it afraid to commit to the job. Job number one was getting bin Laden. However, rather than putting people on the ground ASAP, we spent a long time dropping daisy cutters.

A lesser part of my reservations of this strategy was that if it were successful, then someone out there would miss out on the opportunity to be the one with a boot to bin Laden's neck and a fully loaded weapon in hand.

A larger part of my reservation was that such a strategy would have less likelihood for success, would be more likely result in a situation where we couldn't know for sure if he had really been in the smoking crater before it was a smoking crater, and just seemed like we were too afraid to risk lives to get the guy who attacked us on 9/11.

Even when we did have people on the ground and apparently did have an opportunity to capture or kill him, we farmed out the job to Afghans.

Now it turns out that Bush actually did know that bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Bush let him get away, and lied about it later.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. [...]

That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops." I feel very strongly that Bush must be held accountable for this failure. Bin Laden attacked us on Bush's watch, escaped on Bush's watch, and remains at large and in operation four years later. Rather than capture bin Laden and dismantle al Queda, we have weakened our own military, created a hotbed for terrorists in the middle east, and appear poised to cut and run from Iraq.

[NurseCarmen]

He still hasn't committed the needed resources in Afghanistan.

But Bin Laden is in Pakistan now. And heroin is cheaper than evah!

[Neurotik]

Mmmm...cheap heroin. Who says Bush's presidency has been a disaster.

[ShibbOleth]

Mmmm...cheap heroin. Who says Bush's presidency has been a disaster.

Yeah, sure, the heroin is cheaper. But it costs me a fortune to gas up the Escalade and drive downtown to buy, so it's all a wash.

[Squink]

so it's all a wash.Not at all, depending on your point of view. If Bush had actually captured bin Laden back when he had the chance, it would have been much harder to convince the country we needed to fight terrorism by invading Iraq. Letting bin Laden go was a win win situation; the president got his invasion, and bin Laden got his freedom.

[Tripler]

Job number one was getting bin Laden.

I'll somewhat agree with you, but I understand the mission as that "job number one" was to eliminate the Taliban, which provided training camps and a supply line to those existing-but-haven't-struck-yet terrorists that are still out there. For all intents and purposes (save a few small enclaves), we've done that.

Catching Bin Laden would be a side benefit--aka the "icing on the cake". Destroying his organization and its links would be much more beneficial: "cut the body off the head of the snake".

I will say though, that after reading that article, if the CIA had as much knowledge as the article claims, they didn't make enough noise to get as much support as required as to capture the SOB. This story continues to strike me as typical Capitol Hill mudslinging.

Tripler
Unfortunately sometimes, the politics gets too involved with the military job at hand.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'll somewhat agree with you, but I understand the mission as that "job number one" was to eliminate the Taliban, which provided training camps and a supply line to those existing-but-haven't-struck-yet terrorists that are still out there. For all intents and purposes (save a few small enclaves), we've done that.No. It couldn't have been, because we gave the Taliban the opportunity to give bin Laden up. That just doesn't square with the idea that we were going after the Taliban.

Apart from that, how could "job number one" for America in the fall of 2001 have been anything other than getting Osama bin Laden?

Catching Bin Laden would be a side benefit--aka the "icing on the cake". Destroying his organization and its links would be much more beneficial: "cut the body off the head of the snake".No offense, but are you confusing the Taliban with al Queda?

I will say though, that after reading that article, if the CIA had as much knowledge as the article claims, they didn't make enough noise to get as much support as required as to capture the SOB.Again, I'm not sure how much more noise would have been needed to go after bin Laden than the noise of 9/11. Perhaps, given the choices Bush has made since, you are right. I mean, there is that quote out there from Bush saying that bin Laden wasn't really on his mind.

[RickJay]

I'll somewhat agree with you, but I understand the mission as that "job number one" was to eliminate the Taliban, which provided training camps and a supply line to those existing-but-haven't-struck-yet terrorists that are still out there. For all intents and purposes (save a few small enclaves), we've done that.
"A few small enclaves" is a funny way to say "Most of Afghanistan."

I note that Canada's sending combat troops back again to fight in Kandahar. Isn't Kandahar like the second biggest city in the entire country?

[elucidator]

I doubt it. I just can't see it as plausible. GeeDubya would have sacrificed either of his daughters to be Bride of Cthulhu if it would mean he could mount ObL's head on a pike outside the White House.

[XT]

Well, since this isn't in GD I'll just go from memory of the military situation prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. IIRC a large scale invasion of Afghanistan was never in the cards due to its remote location and rugged terrain. Looking at a map would show how difficult it would be to get large bodies of troops into Afghanistan AND support and sustain them once they were there...beans and bullets and all that.

It would essentially have been impossible to put enough forces in and around Tora Bora to seal it off effectively (i.e. it would have required a VERY large US/allied ground force with a huge logistics tail)...and much easier to use local forces augemented by our own special OPs folks to provide support in the form of liason and directed air strikes. The reality of the situation precluded using a large contingent of US ground forces in Afghanistan. I don't blame Bush for this, nor for ObL's escape, as its just how things had to be there.

Where I start blaming Bush myself is that after the conflict it was appearent that the focus was shifted rapidly to our Iraqi adventure. This shift in emphasis I think more than the initial strategy of US using local ground forces coordinated with US air and special forces was I think where Bush fucked up royally. Had we followed up after the country was mostly subdued I think we would have been much more successful in getting Afghanistan back on its feet (such as thats ever going to happen given the realities of Afghanistans access to resources and such) and I don't think the Taliban would have been given the breathing room to stage any kind of come back at all. Plus we wouldn't be hip deep in the shit that is Iraq, wouldn't have a large percentage of our available military tied down, wouldn't be strapped logistically...and would have saved something on the order of a hundred billion dollars. Oh, Afghanistan would have cost us money too, no doubt, and we'd have had to tie down troops there...but not as many troops nor as much money IMO.

-XT

[duffer]

I feel very strongly that Bush must be held accountable for this failure. Bin Laden attacked us on Bush's watch, escaped on Bush's watch, and remains at large and in operation four years later. Rather than capture bin Laden and dismantle al Queda, we have weakened our own military, created a hotbed for terrorists in the middle east, and appear poised to cut and run from Iraq.

Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html)


Apply all of the above to 1993 Right Wing source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm)

Yeah, we all know your feelings of Bush. Thanks for reminding us.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html)Yes. You are right. The failings of the Bush administration did begin with their complete lack of interest in the warnings of the outgoing Clinton administration and of Richard Clark. I'm surprised that you feel that way, though. Welcome aboard.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Well, since this isn't in GD I'll just go from memory of the military situation prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. IIRC a large scale invasion of Afghanistan was never in the cards due to its remote location and rugged terrain. Looking at a map would show how difficult it would be to get large bodies of troops into Afghanistan AND support and sustain them once they were there...beans and bullets and all that.But we did eventually establish a base in Bagram, no? How are we supporting that?

It would essentially have been impossible to put enough forces in and around Tora Bora to seal it off effectively (i.e. it would have required a VERY large US/allied ground force with a huge logistics tail)...Well, you are at odds with the CIA guy who was on the ground then, who said that we could very well have gotten him.

and much easier to use local forces augemented by our own special OPs folks to provide support in the form of liason and directed air strikes.But that failed. Are you suggesting that all bin Laden needs to do to avoid capture is go into some mountains? Perhaps we could have sent in a force of, oh I don't know, something like 130,000 troops? We may have had them at the ready.

It sounds like perhaps, after all, bin Laden can run and he can hide, and he can also make videos, direct terrorist strikes, play soccer, have parties...

The reality of the situation precluded using a large contingent of US ground forces in Afghanistan. I don't blame Bush for this, nor for ObL's escape, as its just how things had to be there.I see no reason why we would have been prevented from doing anything we chose. Didn't we, after all, topple the Taliban government? Couldn't Brown and Root service us just as well there as anywhere else?

[tnetennba]

Yeah, we all know your feelings of Bush. Thanks for reminding us.

Yeah, we all know your opinion of any thread against Bush. Thanks for reminding us.

[Measure for Measure]

From the link:

But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora—intelligence operatives had tracked him—and could have been caught. I'm inclined to withold judgement regarding this "definitive intelligence", pending some informed setting of context. I doubt it. I just can't see it as plausible. GeeDubya would have sacrificed either of his daughters to be Bride of Cthulhu if it would mean he could mount ObL's head on a pike outside the White House.Fog of war. Within a couple of days of 9/11, GWB was pushing his minions to find some sort of BL-Iraqi connection.

W had the political capital to commit the necessary resources to Afghanistan. But a high body count might have given Americans cold feet regarding Iraq, which, oddly enough, apparently remained a higher priority to Bush Cheney etc.

Higher priority: Look at the resources devoted to both, the larger scope of the Iraqi mission notwithstanding.

Directing his troops to define their mission narrowly permitted subsequent foreign adventures. It was a saavy political decision, IMHO, given W's goals.

[DanBlather]

I doubt it. I just can't see it as plausible. GeeDubya would have sacrificed either of his daughters to be Bride of Cthulhu if it would mean he could mount ObL's head on a pike outside the White House.But he won't send them to Iraq to fight.

[Measure for Measure]

Notwithstanding my previously expressed skepticsm, a quick google search shows that the "Bin Laden Escaped Tora Bora" story is old news.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/pentagon.binladen/

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

Regardless, I await a more definitive treatment of this contention.

[XT]

But we did eventually establish a base in Bagram, no? How are we supporting that?

It’s not supporting an invading army...its smaller scale than what would have been required to put enough boots on the ground and support them in and around Tora Bora...it was done essentially after hostilities had ceased not as part of a major invasion and search and destroy mission.

Well, you are at odds with the CIA guy who was on the ground then, who said that we could very well have gotten him.

Maybe he's right and I'm wrong then. I got my position from reading a few different officers accounts on what we could and couldn't do in Afghanistan. Also, I'm going from memory here so I could be completely wrong (though looking at a map and understanding HOW the US fights wars I don't think I am in this case).

But that failed. Are you suggesting that all bin Laden needs to do to avoid capture is go into some mountains? Perhaps we could have sent in a force of, oh I don't know, something like 130,000 troops? We may have had them at the ready.

No, we didn't. We built up our logistics and troop concentrations (troops, planes, tanks, supplies, etc) in Saudi prior to our invasion...and we did it over the course of months. In addition Iraq and Afghanistan are worlds apart as far as the terrain goes. Iraq is nearly tailor made for an armored invasion...Afghanistan is mountainous and some of the most desolate territory on earth with a reputation of eating armies and spitting out corpses since Alexander’s day. In addition look at a map...what country is next to Afghanistan that we could have staged our invasion out of?

It sounds like perhaps, after all, bin Laden can run and he can hide, and he can also make videos, direct terrorist strikes, play soccer, have parties...

If I were on friendly terms with the tribes in the area (like, if I had given them millions of dollars and the odd bulldozer to help build their well or a new meeting hut or something), if I spoke the language, etc I can't think of a better place on earth for someone to hide out in than the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The border is extremely porous, the tribes are unfriendly and clannish to outsiders, and the terrain is such that it mitigates a lot of the advantages that a modern army has. Look what the Afghani's did to the Soviets for example...or the British earlier.

I see no reason why we would have been prevented from doing anything we chose. Didn't we, after all, topple the Taliban government? Couldn't Brown and Root service us just as well there as anywhere else?

We knocked off the Taliban because we had the support of anti-Taliban forces (i.e. Northern Alliance). We (wisely) used these local forces to provide the majority of the heavy lifting on the ground while using our special forces to provide liaison and forward observation for air and missile support. Toppling the Taliban was easy compared to trying to hunt down one man in that region.

-XT

[Clothahump]

...snip...
Now it turns out that Bush actually did know that bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Bush let him get away, and lied about it later.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

I feel very strongly that Bush must be held accountable for this failure. Bin Laden attacked us on Bush's watch, escaped on Bush's watch, and remains at large and in operation four years later. Rather than capture bin Laden and dismantle al Queda, we have weakened our own military, created a hotbed for terrorists in the middle east, and appear poised to cut and run from Iraq.

You're quoting a story from Newsweek, which we all know is a bastion of journalistic integrity. Why am I not surprised by that?

If you're that upset about bin Laden getting away, how about Clinton's being handed bin Laden on a silver platter and refusing to do anything about him because he couldn't be "disturbed" at the time? If he had acted, we wouldn't have had 9/11 and we wouldn't be in Iraq today? Why aren't you bitching about that instead?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

If you're that upset about bin Laden getting away, how about Clinton's being handed bin Laden on a silver platter and refusing to do anything about him because he couldn't be "disturbed" at the time? If he had acted, we wouldn't have had 9/11 and we wouldn't be in Iraq today? Why aren't you bitching about that instead?Because it is a bullshit allegation that has been debunked, and is only believed by right-wing shithead nutcases at this point.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Yep, just as bullshit as all the other allegations that Clinton ignored terrorists, as Snopes, for one, points out. (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm)

[Revtim]

You're quoting a story from Newsweek, which we all know is a bastion of journalistic integrity. Why am I not surprised by that?

If you're that upset about bin Laden getting away, how about Clinton's being handed bin Laden on a silver platter and refusing to do anything about him because he couldn't be "disturbed" at the time? If he had acted, we wouldn't have had 9/11 and we wouldn't be in Iraq today? Why aren't you bitching about that instead?So can we assume your source for Clinton "being handed bin Laden on a silver platter" is more trustworthy than Newsweek?

[Liberal]

As far as I'm concerned, it is inconceivable that the Bush administration lacks the intelligence (in the other sense of the term) to find Bin Laden. No bribery, deceit, or violence against al-Qaeda should be spared. Maybe it would help for Bush to think of Bin Laden as a US citizen. An atheist one. A gay atheist. A gay atheist Democrat. A gay atheist Democrat who reads forbidden books in the library. Then by god, they'd nab his ass.

[Lemur866]

Anyway, even if Clinton let Bin Ladin get away, what relevance does that have to whether Bush let Bin Ladin get away?

None as far as I can see. Clinton's alleged failures don't excuse Bush's alleged failures, nor do Bush's alleged failures excuse Clinton's alleged failures. I'm sick of this Tu Quoque bullshit.

We didn't send 100,000 troops to Afghanistan because there was no way to supply that number of troops. Yes, we could drop soldiers and tanks there, but they'd be out of ammunition, food, fuel, medical supplies, and spare parts within a week. An armored division cut off from supply lines is just a very expensive junkyard guarded by light infantry. We could invade Iraq with 100,000 men because we could build up vast supply depots in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia then drive across the border essentially unopposed. Where exactly were we going to do that in Afghanistan? No roads, no airfields, no friendly neighboring countries, no flat desert.

The invasion of Iraq was easy. A comparable invasion of Afghanistan would be much much more difficult, just ask the Soviet Union. They failed even though they were literally next door.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

So can we assume your source for Clinton "being handed bin Laden on a silver platter" is more trustworthy than Newsweek?That would depend on how much you trust a multi-forwarded glurge email, wouldn't it? :dubious:

[Ponder Stibbons]

Well ... maybe if he was a gay atheist Democrat who reads forbidden books in the library and supports stem cell research and women's rights.

But, AFAIK, IRL, OBL actually opposes all of those things. Just like GWB.

Coincidence? Well, yes, actually. But it makes for a fun conspiracy theory. :)

[Clothahump]

So can we assume your source for Clinton "being handed bin Laden on a silver platter" is more trustworthy than Newsweek?


Yep.

Dereliction of Duty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260603/qid=1123517688/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_3/102-9015075-9041742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) , by Robert Patterson.

[Clothahump]

That would depend on how much you trust a multi-forwarded glurge email, wouldn't it? :dubious:

If that's what *you* choose to trust as a source, then have at it.

I prefer the eyewitness account of someone who was there and saw it happen.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Maybe it would help for Bush to think of Bin Laden as a US citizen. An atheist one. A gay atheist. A gay atheist Democrat. A gay atheist Democrat who reads forbidden books in the library. Then by god, they'd nab his ass. :D

Now there's a question for Ann Coulter (or Karl Rove): is bin Laden worse than a Democrat?

[Fear Itself]

If you're that upset about bin Laden getting away, how about Clinton's being handed bin Laden on a silver platter...You know, we have Gaudere's Law of spelling and grammar karma, and we have Godwin's Law of Nazi comparisons. I propose that any knee-jerk Clinton reference in response to any criticism of Bush be from now on called "Clothahump's Law of Clinton Irrelevancy".

This thread's been Clothahumped by the Clothahumper!

[Revtim]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Clothahump finds an obvious partisan hack-job trustworthy, and Newsweek not.

[elucidator]

Mr. Clothahump

Most esteemed sir! I am to be writing you to offer a most excellent investment opportunity! My late father was Banking and Financial Minister here in Nigeria. As you may be knowing, he was assassinated on the orders of Mr. President Clinton to prevent the revealing of a scandal about illegal rhinoceros horn to be imported to bolster his flagging boogabooga.

At the time of his death, he had been placed 30 billion Nigerian dorku in the most scenic and illustrious Cayman Islands bank accounts, but did neglect to name an executor for this accounting. As his son, I cannot approach these accountings for fear of raising suspicousness.

There is where your most excellent financial opportunity arises!...

[XT]

Wow, you guys are sure easily sidetracked. Clothahump comes in, writes paragraphs and drops the dreaded 'C' word and off you go. :p

-XT

[Clothahump]

You know, we have Gaudere's Law of spelling and grammar karma, and we have Godwin's Law of Nazi comparisons. I propose that any knee-jerk Clinton reference in response to any criticism of Bush be from now on called "Clothahump's Law of Clinton Irrelevancy".

This thread's been Clothahumped by the Clothahumper!

I suggest you not ignore your scheduled meds. That was really lame, even for a lib.

[Clothahump]

Mr. Clothahump

Most esteemed sir! I am to be writing you to offer a most excellent investment opportunity! My late father was Banking and Financial Minister here in Nigeria. As you may be knowing, he was assassinated on the orders of Mr. President Clinton to prevent the revealing of a scandal about illegal rhinoceros horn to be imported to bolster his flagging boogabooga.

At the time of his death, he had been placed 30 billion Nigerian dorku in the most scenic and illustrious Cayman Islands bank accounts, but did neglect to name an executor for this accounting. As his son, I cannot approach these accountings for fear of raising suspicousness.

There is where your most excellent financial opportunity arises!...

ROTFLMAO!!

At least yours was funny. It was a better effort than the drivel that Fear Itself posted. Still lame, though. You both ignore the source and concentrate on the messenger, a common problem with libs when confronted with facts they can't refute. Have you bothered to read the book I referenced? You should. It's an eye-opener.

[Revtim]

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Clothahump, let's assume the book you linked to is 100 percent blessed-by-God true.

It's still a tu quoque fallacy to bring it up as if it means something to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to excuse Bush's failures, which is what this thread is about.

[Fear Itself]

At least yours was funny. It was a better effort than the drivel that Fear Itself posted. I shall endeavor to raise the level of my drivel.

Still, to be considered in the same class of "lame" with luci is high praise indeed.

[NurseCarmen]

Gee, with book titles under his belt like Reckless Disregard : How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security , How could we not assume he's a partisan hack?

[Maeglin]

both ignore the source and concentrate on the messenger, a common problem with libs when confronted with facts they can't refute.

Perhaps you would care to remind the peanut gallery who began this strain of the conversation by dismissing Newsweek as an unacceptable source?

[Contrapuntal]

I prefer the eyewitness account of someone who was there and saw it happen.That's the bestest kind!

[Cervaise]

It's an eye-opener.Every time some poster or other comes up with some new tidbit of idiocy, we can count on Clothahump, Our Stupidest Doper, to come along and re-establish the bar and show us what being truly dense is really about. Kudos!

[Lemur866]

Every time some poster or other comes up with some new tidbit of idiocy, we can count on Clothahump, Our Stupidest Doper, to come along and re-establish the bar and show us what being truly dense is really about. Kudos!

Wait a minute, Stupidest Doper?. Surely you've heard of a little doper called Scott Plaid?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Okay, then the stupidest right-wing Doper, to counterbalance Scott.

[Tripler]

No. It couldn't have been, because we gave the Taliban the opportunity to give bin Laden up. That just doesn't square with the idea that we were going after the Taliban.

Just because we gave the Taliban a chance to hand over OBL, doesn't mean that we didn't realize they were providing support and comfort for OBL and al Qaeda. Policy makers realized that, "Hey look, the Taliban and al Qaeda are brothers-in-arms and heavily intertwined. To get one or the other, we have to get both".


Apart from that, how could "job number one" for America in the fall of 2001 have been anything other than getting Osama bin Laden?

"Getting OBL" was the popular media-driven and justly so thought on the mind of every American that fall. The overall strategic aim of Op Enduring Freedom was to stop terrorist training/activities (which necessitated the removal of the Taliban), and to capture key leadership in/dismantle al Qaeda.

No offense, but are you confusing the Taliban with al Queda?

Nope. Like I said earlier, they're brothers and had multiple connections with each other. The Taliban was a repressive governmental fixture, not really recognized by any of the world's legitimate governments--save three (and I can't remember which countries those were). Al Qaeda was a terrorist organization that assisted the Taliban where it needed firepower and muscle, in exchange for support, in order to take its fight against the West. They both used each other and one would sanction the other.

Again, I'm not sure how much more noise would have been needed to go after bin Laden than the noise of 9/11. Perhaps, given the choices Bush has made since, you are right. I mean, there is that quote out there from Bush saying that bin Laden wasn't really on his mind.

One man does not make a terrorist organization--just a lone nut. We've gotten quite a few higher leaders from al Q, but OBL would again simply be "icing on the cake". Cut off his communication, leadership, and support mechanisms, and you've essentially cut off his means to strike. Granted, nabbing OBL would serve a good blow to al Q, but the organization would still function.

Tripler
Ain't anti-terrorism fun?

[Cervaise]

Surely you've heard of a little doper called Scott Plaid?You probably didn't make it all the way through the multi-page trainwreck about Mr. Plaid (how many did?), but I gave my impression near the end that he is not in command of his faculties, and thus cannot be entirely held responsible for his vacuousness. The 'humpster, on the other hand, appears to be of sound mind, and nevertheless persists in posting flannel-headed jabber of startling intellectual ineptitude. To me, there's no contest.

[E-Sabbath]

Okay, then the stupidest right-wing Doper, to counterbalance Scott.
Dude, lekatt outdoes them both.

[duffer]

Okay, then the stupidest right-wing Doper, to counterbalance Scott.

I take offense! :p

[Cervaise]

Dude, lekatt outdoes them both.Does lekatt have a wing? I thought he staggered along on a club foot, a tentacle, and a collection of flagella that curl up to spell "love" when they aren't waving him along.

Or maybe that's just back hair.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I take offense! :p Sorry, duffer, but sometimes you're cute, and I don't kick puppies. :p

[Scylla]

One of the things that always pissed me off about the invasion of Afghanistan was that we seemed to go about it afraid to commit to the job. Job number one was getting bin Laden. However, rather than putting people on the ground ASAP, we spent a long time dropping daisy cutters.

I'm not sure I agree. I thought the goal of the invasion was to overthrow the Taliban who were complicit with Bin Laden in the 9/11 and get Bin Laden (not to mention freeing the Afghanis and bringing them to Democracy so they could buy Big Macs and shop at Walmart)

If you agree with me that the invasion was more than just "get Osama" than I guess we did have to conquer the whole country. Given that, I'm really not qualified to say whether it's better to put people on the ground fast or fight from the air first. Nor, would I suspect, are you (but I might be wrong.)

That being said, the current military doctrine seems to be that the best way to conduct a war is to use your air superiority if you have it. That way you can take out hardened targets, artillery, C&C , armor, air, and other concentrations of military power so that when you do put men on the ground they suffer fewer casualties as the men on the ground won't have to deal with these things (or at least at full strength.)

I can find no flaw with this strategy, but I'd be willing to listen as to why you military doctrine is wrong and it's better to put men on the ground, in harms way, against stronger forces sooner, rather than soften the opposition from the air first.

A lesser part of my reservations of this strategy was that if it were successful, then someone out there would miss out on the opportunity to be the one with a boot to bin Laden's neck and a fully loaded weapon in hand.

A larger part of my reservation was that such a strategy would have less likelihood for success, would be more likely result in a situation where we couldn't know for sure if he had really been in the smoking crater before it was a smoking crater, and just seemed like we were too afraid to risk lives to get the guy who attacked us on 9/11.

I'll be honest with you. I really don't care too much whether we actually catch him, shoot him, or have a body to display or a person to put on trial. What's most important to me is that he be rendered powerless. Putting him on trial, or kicking his body is a distant second in my book. If he's dead in a crater and we never identify him, that's almost as good as hanging him from the Capitol building.


Even when we did have people on the ground and apparently did have an opportunity to capture or kill him, we farmed out the job to Afghans.

You may be right. This might have been a big mistake, or maybe we simply didn't have the resources to do all things at once or follow all leads. I really don't know, but I do agree with you that it certainly seems stupid to delegate such an important task.


Now it turns out that Bush actually did know that bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Bush let him get away, and lied about it later.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

I feel very strongly that Bush must be held accountable for this failure. Bin Laden attacked us on Bush's watch, escaped on Bush's watch, and remains at large and in operation four years later. Rather than capture bin Laden and dismantle al Queda, we have weakened our own military, created a hotbed for terrorists in the middle east, and appear poised to cut and run from Iraq.


Well.... I agree with you, at least to a certain extent. Bush is responsible for what happens on his watch and, assuming the sources cited are accurate in their statements this is certainly a serious tactical failing.

But, is this kind of thing that you blame on Bush in a personal way, or more of a "commander in chief taking the blame for the failing of underlings." It looks to me like it's more of the former. For that to be valid I think that it's necessary that Bush had been making the day to day tactical military decisions.

I would be surprised if Bush actually personally knew about Tora Bora and planned and executed the action himself or made any of the decisions about how to proceed there. My understanding is that the President delegates these things to the military and the military handles the tactics and execution.

As such I feel that the failing is that of commander in chief being responsible for the military's failure rather than it being a specific personal failing of Bush's judgement as you seem to think.

Does that sound reasonable?

[Scylla]

But, is this kind of thing that you blame on Bush in a personal way, or more of a "commander in chief taking the blame for the failing of underlings." It looks to me like it's more of the former?


What I meant to say was "It looks to me like you think it's more of the former."


Sorry about the typo.

[Frank]

You probably didn't make it all the way through the multi-page trainwreck about Mr. Plaid (how many did?), ...
*raises hand* But I was the OP, I had to.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'm not sure I agree. I thought the goal of the invasion was to overthrow the Taliban who were complicit with Bin Laden in the 9/11 and get Bin Laden (not to mention freeing the Afghanis and bringing them to Democracy so they could buy Big Macs and shop at Walmart).Your post is thoughtful and I will address it more completely tomorrow. I have to get off to bed now, but I wanted to address this point, since you've raised it (and others as well, e.g. Tripler and xtisme, IIRC).

I thought maybe my memory had gone, but it seems more the case of another example of revisionist history on the right (no offense intended).

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/20/ret.afghan.bush/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday delivered an ultimatum to Afghanistan's ruling Taliban: hand over terrorists "or share in their fate".None of Bush's ultimatum suggests that the Taliban will be removed from power if they do not comply. Perhaps you can argue that behind the scenes, Bush knew that the Taliban couldn't or wouldn't comply, and would therefore be removed from power, but the stated "job number one" was to get bin Laden, pure and simple. Had the Taliban actually complied, it seems to me, they would have remained in power, if Bush were a man of his word.

Don't you remember this? It wasn't that long ago. What am I missing?

[Lemur866]

Well, if the Talibs had actually handed over Osama son of Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership, it would have been very difficult to justify invading Afghanistan. Yes, Bush gave them the option of handing over "the terrorists", but I don't think anyone seriously thought they would, since Al Qaeda and the Taliban were so intertwined. If they were the kind of people who would hand over Osama just because he'd masterminded the most deadly terrorist attack in US history, they probably wouldn't be the kind of people to host him in the first place.

I don't think the Taliban thought we had much of a chance to do anything except drop a few bombs on Kabul, make some speeches in the UN and then go home and sulk. After all, irregulars had chased out the USSR, the USA was even softer and more decadent, we didn't have the stomach for actual fighting, they could fade away to the hillsides, etc etc. The biggest reason we won was convincing the local warlords to stop supporting the Taliban and switch to the Northern Alliance instead. And the Taliban suddenly realized that nobody liked them anymore, and their former allies were now on the side of the US.

[Tripler]

None of Bush's ultimatum suggests that the Taliban will be removed from power if they do not comply. Perhaps you can argue that behind the scenes, Bush knew that the Taliban couldn't or wouldn't comply, and would therefore be removed from power, but the stated "job number one" was to get bin Laden, pure and simple. Had the Taliban actually complied, it seems to me, they would have remained in power, if Bush were a man of his word.

I'll respectfully disagree, because I don't think you're seeing the big picture. I don't remember that particular speech, but I do remember some (and some of my own briefs) that indicated the overarching purpose into invading was to stop all terrorist activities. Threatening the Taliban publicly was a move to put political pressure on the them, even though we knew we would have to go in and put military pressure on them. Afghanistan has been known for years to harbor multiple terrorist agencies, mainly al Qaeda, Hizbollah, and a handful of others.

The American people wanted justice, and OBL was the primary target--publicly. The White House realized that asking the Taliban to hand over all the terrorist group leaders wouldn't wash, so they asked for the one guy. When that didn't work, the NCA implemented their already drawn-up plans to overthrow the Taliban.

Invading a country for one man isn't a wise strategic move. It costs way too much money and resources. For that sort of undertaking, there's a much larger goal in mind.

Tripler
Just don't get me started on Iraq.

[ElvisL1ves]

Disavowed the Big Dog Theory of International Relations now, have you, [b]Scylla[/b? Forgotten Bush's "Wanted, dead or alive" too, speaking of "taking the blame for the failing of underlings", as if there's a difference that matters?

Sheesh. We've got warhawks coming out of the woodwork all over the place to claim themselves new histories. I believe the word is "Orwellian".

[elucidator]

Shouldn't rebuke someone for changing his mind, Elvis. Rather the whole point of the excercise, no? The clear validity of our arguments have won out, which is as it should be. If one seeks to fudge a bit of history, well, that's why pencils have erasers, if they hadn't, self-esteem would be impossible.

I have a contribution form to MoveOn.org all filled out in friend Scylla's name, only awaiting The Day. I plan to celebrate with a brisk walk with my great-grandchildren to the teleportation center, as we carefully dodge the pig flop falling from the skies.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

If you agree with me that the invasion was more than just "get Osama" than I guess we did have to conquer the whole country. Given that, I'm really not qualified to say whether it's better to put people on the ground fast or fight from the air first. Nor, would I suspect, are you (but I might be wrong.)I think the invasion became more than just “get Osama” when Osama wasn’t handed over, but as I’ve said, Bush’s statements on the matter make me believe that the stated message was always that our primary mission was bin Laden, and the Taliban were a means to that end (“Send him out or we’re coming in after him.”).

By the way, I have never made any claims to expertise on the matter. Given the context of this discussion (an open internet discussion board), I think that comment (about expertise) is a bit disingenuous.
That being said, the current military doctrine seems to be that the best way to conduct a war is to use your air superiority if you have it. That way you can take out hardened targets, artillery, C&C , armor, air, and other concentrations of military power so that when you do put men on the ground they suffer fewer casualties as the men on the ground won't have to deal with these things (or at least at full strength.)

I can find no flaw with this strategy, but I'd be willing to listen as to why you military doctrine is wrong and it's better to put men on the ground, in harms way, against stronger forces sooner, rather than soften the opposition from the air first. Giving this general comment about conducting a war is fine and all, but it moves well beyond the mission of Afghanistan. Again, I am no expert, but Afghanistan severely lacked armor, air, significant concentrations of military power, and really, artillery of any meaningful sort. Your proposition is also a subtle strawman, since I hardly suggested that we shouldn’t have “softened up” the opposition first. It seems to me our opposition was fairly soft from the beginning; yet I think we spent about a month or so employing solely air power. I would have thought it better to soften up a portion of the country well enough over a few days to introduce ground based forces sufficient to begin the process of taking out al Queda and getting bin Laden. Since the Northern Alliance was already at war against the Taliban, it seems we should have given them support to occupy the Taliban while we pursued our main objective of attacking those who had attacked us.
I'll be honest with you. I really don't care too much whether we actually catch him, shoot him, or have a body to display or a person to put on trial. What's most important to me is that he be rendered powerless. Putting him on trial, or kicking his body is a distant second in my book. If he's dead in a crater and we never identify him, that's almost as good as hanging him from the Capitol building.I agree. Goal number one should be ending him. Whether it satisfies my own or others’ blood lust should be secondary.

You may be right. This might have been a big mistake, or maybe we simply didn't have the resources to do all things at once or follow all leads. I really don't know, but I do agree with you that it certainly seems stupid to delegate such an important task.In line with what I said above, we shouldn’t have been doing all things at once. Our objective was, or should have been, stopping our sworn enemy. Giving the Northern Alliance a little goose to keep the Taliban from getting in our way, rather than hiring them out to do our job, seems to me a more reasonable strategy.
Well.... I agree with you, at least to a certain extent. Bush is responsible for what happens on his watch and, assuming the sources cited are accurate in their statements this is certainly a serious tactical failing.

But, is this kind of thing that you blame on Bush in a personal way, or more of a "commander in chief taking the blame for the failing of underlings." It looks to me like it's more of the former. For that to be valid I think that it's necessary that Bush had been making the day to day tactical military decisions.Why is that? Such a construction seems only to serve the purpose of defending Bush from any possible criticisms. He certainly wanted to strut around like a peacock in a flight suit, taking very personal credit for the “Mission Accomplished.” Why shouldn’t he be subject to personal blame for overseeing the “failing of his underlings”? Tenet can bite the bullet for the CIA, a bunch of privates can eat it for Abu Gharaib, Clinton can be to blame for his economic woes, and so on and so on. At some point, someone has to place a modicum of responsibility where it belongs, even if it means acknowledging that you made a mistake in voting for and defending Bush in the past.

I would be surprised if Bush actually personally knew about Tora Bora and planned and executed the action himself or made any of the decisions about how to proceed there. My understanding is that the President delegates these things to the military and the military handles the tactics and execution.I largely agree, although I think that the president must have been informed that we knew where bin Laden was. Don’t you think even the briefest of the briefings he would have received would have included primary information about our stated number one goal? He surely would have given tacit approval for the course of action (farming out the effort to the Northern Alliance), and he would have been listened to, no doubt, if he had said, “Hey, wait a minnit. Our boys are the best damn fighters in the world, and we cain’t trust them Afghans any futher ‘n we cain throw ‘em. I promised the American people that I wouldn’t just shoot a rocket into a tent and hit a camel in the butt. I promised that we would smoke him out of his hole. We better dadgum do it.”

As such I feel that the failing is that of commander in chief being responsible for the military's failure rather than it being a specific personal failing of Bush's judgement as you seem to think.

Does that sound reasonable?It sounds unsurprising, and like another attempt to deflect criticism from a man who seems to be at the center of every failing of this administration, but at the periphery of any blame. We need a leader who will take personal responsibility, not just administrative demerits.

[ElvisL1ves]

Self-esteem has never been an issue for our interlocutor, has it? I'm rebuking him for, shall we say, incomplete forthrightness in expounding his intellectual evolution, if that is indeed what it is, and not the simple bandwagon-hopping it might appear to the more cynical of us who have been through this crap with Sam already.

[ElvisL1ves]

Goal number one should be ending him. Whether it satisfies my own or others’ blood lust should be secondary.Seems to me Osama's power isn't his tactical skill but his persuasiveness, his ability to convince a fair number of devout Muslims that their faith and their land is under attack by the West and that they have an obligation to fight back. While he lives his power is undiminished. Yes, he has to be "ended", but it isn't necessary to posit bloodlust at all to think so. Even that won't be sufficient anymore, though, as Al Qaeda has been allowed by Bush's failures to morph and grow from a small cult-of-personality organization into a religious movement that will survive him.

[Tripler]

Giving this general comment [regarding airpower] about conducting a war is fine and all, but it moves well beyond the mission of Afghanistan. Again, I am no expert, but Afghanistan severely lacked armor, air, significant concentrations of military power, and really, artillery of any meaningful sort. Your proposition is also a subtle strawman, since I hardly suggested that we shouldn’t have “softened up” the opposition first. It seems to me our opposition was fairly soft from the beginning; yet I think we spent about a month or so employing solely air power. I would have thought it better to soften up a portion of the country well enough over a few days to introduce ground based forces sufficient to begin the process of taking out al Queda and getting bin Laden. Since the Northern Alliance was already at war against the Taliban, it seems we should have given them support to occupy the Taliban while we pursued our main objective of attacking those who had attacked us.airpower note added by Tripler

The Taliban had some old Soviet mechanized equipment, some artillery pieces, and lots of ground troops with small arms, however they did lack anti-air assets. What they abounded in is time to construct command bunkers (some of which were so complex, the Viet Cong would be proud), foxholes, and fortifications over the years following the Soviet withdrawl. The Air Force was sent in to destroy these key "centers of gravity", thus rendering the Taliban as blind and dumb as possible before sending in land forces.

I think you underestimate the toughness of the Taliban. They fought off the Soviets, and have had years to adapt to a Stone-Age infrastructure with modern weapons. They've learned how to communicate amongst themselves and use the land to their advantage. Trust me, that month of sorties was definitely necessary.

Tripler
Yes, it really did need to be "softened up".

[XT]

Giving this general comment about conducting a war is fine and all, but it moves well beyond the mission of Afghanistan. Again, I am no expert, but Afghanistan severely lacked armor, air, significant concentrations of military power, and really, artillery of any meaningful sort. Your proposition is also a subtle strawman, since I hardly suggested that we shouldn’t have “softened up” the opposition first. It seems to me our opposition was fairly soft from the beginning; yet I think we spent about a month or so employing solely air power. I would have thought it better to soften up a portion of the country well enough over a few days to introduce ground based forces sufficient to begin the process of taking out al Queda and getting bin Laden. Since the Northern Alliance was already at war against the Taliban, it seems we should have given them support to occupy the Taliban while we pursued our main objective of attacking those who had attacked us.

Ok. For a moment lets forget all about logistics and how difficult it would be to move in heavy armored formations, artillary, troops, and all the supplies they would need to fight in Afghanistan from gods know where (Saudi I suppose). Lets just work with what you are saying here (at least what I THINK you are saying).

So, the US would pound some area into dust (i.e. soften them up), then create a base out of whole clothe so to speak, then move in all these forces and supplies. You are right...Afghnistan didn't have a lot of tanks, planes, AA, artillary, etc. Oh, they had some of all of that...mostly outdated Soviet stuff IIRC. What they DO have is some mean ass terrain and a lot of nasty irregular fighters who know how to use that terrain extremely well.

So, we would soften em up then start the process of building a base (or bases), moving in our military (into hostile territory) and supplies and such. At the same time we would do what we essentially did...which was to support the Northern Alliance by infiltrating in special forces to act as liason and to coordinate air strikes, to give them supplies and support. How would this help us to capture ObL? How would this have helped us to win the war faster in Afghanistan? How would it have helped us in Tora Bora against the AQ forces there (since that was the point of this thread)?

You are talking about months worth of build up to have sufficient forces to actually accomplish anything meaningful (and this is disreguarding the near impossibility of pulling off this logistics miricle in the first place). Look how long it took us to stage troops and supplies for either of the Gulf Wars...months. And we were staging them out of friendly countries and not while under fire.

Then gods know how long it would take to move that army out and surround Tora Bora (something I think is patently impossible no matter HOW many troops we put on the ground there...but I digress). We'd have to establish lines of communication and supply from our pounded out base, then you'd stage from there (presumably) and move your army into position. I'm not sure if you see where I'm going here so I'll just cut to the chase...everyone and their goat would see exactly what we were doing and where we were going months ahead of time. ObL would know that Tora Bora was our objective because of how we staged out and set up lines of communication and resupply.

It would have been laughably easy for him to do exactly what he did anyway...slip out across the Pakastani border while leaving the rest of the spear carriers behind to fight the good fight and die for the cause. Hell, with the kind of time he'd of had he might even have been able to get more folks away (if that was his goal...gods know).

Essentially what it looks like to me you are advocating would have worked out exactly the same as it worked out anyway...except we would then have a large base in Afghanistan before hostilities officially ended, and a large body of troops and heavy equipment...and we probably would have lost more men. What would we have done while we were building up this base, filling it with tanks, bombs and beans? Exactly what we DID do...relied on the NA to harrass AQ and the Taliban on the ground while providing close air and tactical strikes, probably using special forces as liason and to scout. The only other difference is that this might have pissed off some additional Afghani's as they would rightfully have seen our move as a more full scale invasion than what we actually did. Might not have mattered but could have been a factor.

Even assuming we COULD put a large ground force into hostile Afghanistan AND supply them I don't see how this buys us anything at all...and I see it costs us a hell of a lot. Afghanistan, IMHO, went surprisingly well and was a very good basic plan...up to the point where the Taliban folded and we just kind of flailed around while the Administration decided that Iraq was shinnier.

-XT

[Tripler]

...except we would then have a large base in Afghanistan before hostilities officially ended, and a large body of troops and heavy equipment...


Actually, we do have several "bigger" bases (as big as you want to get, to do the job at a forward deployed location).

Air Bases at Kandahar, Bagram, Kabul and other Army/Marine bases at Khowst, Tora Bora, and Gardez.

While they're not like the typical mega-base you'd see around the Continental US, they're not the rinky-dink company-sized hasty bases you see in the movies. The air bases especially have at least a thousand guys and gals at them.

Tripler
It's an austere environment, but we do have bases there.

[Miller]

Does lekatt have a wing? I thought he staggered along on a club foot, a tentacle, and a collection of flagella that curl up to spell "love" when they aren't waving him along.

Or maybe that's just back hair.

If you check out the latest Michael Schiavo thread in GD, you'll find him touting Fox News as a welcome antidote to the rest of the secular liberal media. However, much as you've come to the conclusion that scott plaid is crazy, and undeserving of scorn, I've come to a similar conclusion that lekatt is not merely stupid, but rather, functionally retarded.

[Loopydude]

Does lekatt have a wing? I thought he staggered along on a club foot, a tentacle, and a collection of flagella that curl up to spell "love" when they aren't waving him along.

Or maybe that's just back hair.

Goddamnit, Pepsi One in your nose burns like a motherfucker.

[XT]

Actually, we do have several "bigger" bases (as big as you want to get, to do the job at a forward deployed location).

Never denied that we didn't have bigger bases in Afghanistan...now. I believe several of them (IIRC) were former Soviet or Afghan bases. Afaik though we mainly occupied them in force AFTER the majority of hostilities had ceased and in the occupation phase (and probably to use as staging bases for air raids into Iraq during that brief war). The point I was trying to make is we didn't attempt to move into those bases in force while hostilities were still going on, nor did we attempt to move heavy forces and the logistics to support them...and for good reasons. It takes months to build up sufficient supplies and force to fight a major battle (especially the way the US fights such things)...as surrounding and interdicting Tora Bora would have been.

-XT

[Tripler]

Never denied that we didn't have bigger bases in Afghanistan...now. I believe several of them (IIRC) were former Soviet or Afghan bases. Afaik though we mainly occupied them in force AFTER the majority of hostilities had ceased and in the occupation phase (and probably to use as staging bases for air raids into Iraq during that brief war).

Well, yeah. That's the point of my job. Nearly all of them were Soviet built, but we did occupy them as they were taken, and the potential opposing forces situation calmed down around them. That's just simple strategic doctrine--why occupy a taken base if you think it'll be overrun next week?

The point I was trying to make is we didn't attempt to move into those bases in force while hostilities were still going on, nor did we attempt to move heavy forces and the logistics to support them...and for good reasons. It takes months to build up sufficient supplies and force to fight a major battle (especially the way the US fights such things)...as surrounding and interdicting Tora Bora would have been.

Then I misread your post. I thought you were under the misunderstanding that we didn't have any 'substantial' bases in Afghanistan. My bad!

It's like the flood before the storm. You have to trickle in water in puddles before you let the flood wash arrive, just like aircraft and supplies. I can't rebuild an old Soviet base if you don't trickle in a bulldozer or grader here and there. . .

Tripler
What do I do? Just google a search for RED HORSE

[Apos]

Both of these wars were run as if they were political campaigns rather than sincere operations actually working under the hood the way they were sold as grand projects. That's the core of the problem.

[Tripler]

Both of these wars were run as if they were political campaigns rather than sincere operations actually working under the hood the way they were sold as grand projects. That's the core of the problem.

The only problem I have with this is that there's an impetus of four airplanes, three of which slam into buildings.

Tripler
They may have been run politicaly, but they are neccesary.

[Scylla]

I think the invasion became more than just “get Osama” when Osama wasn’t handed over, but as I’ve said, Bush’s statements on the matter make me believe that the stated message was always that our primary mission was bin Laden, and the Taliban were a means to that end (“Send him out or we’re coming in after him.”).

Well, I largely agree with this. We said "Hand over Bin Laden, or else!" At that point in time our primary goal was getting Bin Laden. At the time the Taliban said "Poop on you, you yankee imperialistic scum," Bush decided to remove the Taliban (unless you think "Join his fate" meant have a knish and relax for a while ;) )

So, from a military understanding, the mission was to remove the Taliban and ferret out Bin Laden, that's what they planned and that's what they tried to execute.

I really didn't have a problem understanding that the mission had changed when the Taliban refused, though I concede that up until the point that they did, the goal was to get Bin Laden.

I think we can both agree that the goal changed at the time the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, and that from that point forward the goal presented to the public and the mission of the military in Afghanistan was twofold.

Are we in agreement?

By the way, I have never made any claims to expertise on the matter. Given the context of this discussion (an open internet discussion board), I think that comment (about expertise) is a bit disingenuous.

Not really. I'm not an expert, and while I didn't think you were, I thought it presumptious to assume you were not without checking.

this general comment about conducting a war is fine and all, but it moves well beyond the mission of Afghanistan. Again, I am no expert, but Afghanistan severely lacked armor, air, significant concentrations of military power, and really, artillery of any meaningful sort.

Without getting into a quest for cites, I think you are mistaken. In reading Charlie Wilsons War the military capabilities and weaponry of the Afghans is detailed. They were particularly strong and accurate in artillery, and the Taliban had been hoarding arms and armor, so there was certainly no shortage of air targets and their military was nothing to laugh at (as the Russians learned.)

But this is besides the point. Certainly there were targets to be hit from the air.


Your proposition is also a subtle strawman, since I hardly suggested that we shouldn’t have “softened up” the opposition first. It seems to me our opposition was fairly soft from the beginning; yet I think we spent about a month or so employing solely air power. I would have thought it better to soften up a portion of the country well enough over a few days to introduce ground based forces sufficient to begin the process of taking out al Queda and getting bin Laden.

You may be right. I suspect though that the truth of the matter is that logistics procluded an immediate ground invasion. It takes time to move troops, equipment and the necessary support into place. In the meantime air power is much easier to project across distance, so we went with what was available. The protracted air war allowed us the time to get our troops in place. I don't think the decision was made to have the ground troops hang back. Quite the contrary, I think they were rushed into place and implemented pretty damn fast.

Do you concur with this analysis?


Since the Northern Alliance was already at war against the Taliban, it seems we should have given them support to occupy the Taliban while we pursued our main objective of attacking those who had attacked us.

Well maybe, but it seems to me that previously we were in agreement that delegating important tasks to our Afghan allies was kind of stupid. I certainly wouldn't want our allies to botch the job and then have the Taliban on our troops' collective ass while they were hunting Osama. I think that the responsibility for our troops safety and prudent military planning make the first priority eliminating the Taliban military. Secure the area and then search.


I agree. Goal number one should be ending him. Whether it satisfies my own or others’ blood lust should be secondary.

Cool.

In line with what I said above, we shouldn’t have been doing all things at once. Our objective was, or should have been, stopping our sworn enemy. Giving the Northern Alliance a little goose to keep the Taliban from getting in our way, rather than hiring them out to do our job, seems to me a more reasonable strategy.

I dunno man. I again, delegating our troops' safety to the Northern Alliance seems imprudent, to say the least.

While I agree that getting Bin Laden was and should have been a priority, first things first. It would be hard to conduct a search in the middle of a civil war.


Why is that? Such a construction seems only to serve the purpose of defending Bush from any possible criticisms. He certainly wanted to strut around like a peacock in a flight suit, taking very personal credit for the “Mission Accomplished.” Why shouldn’t he be subject to personal blame for overseeing the “failing of his underlings”?

It's a matter of degree. I guess he's also responsible for the air conditioning being out at the DMV in Harrisburg today. However, I don't think he personally made the decision to neglect the maintenance of that facility, so while blaming him in the abstract as the final link in the chain of command of government may be valid, it's not particularly useful or satisfying. Being pissed at him personally for such a thing is just silly.

Similarly, the President generally isn't and should not be involved in day to day tactical military decisions. That's why we have a chain of command. The Pres. hands down large objectives and the military goes about executing them. The President says "overthrow the Taliban and bring me the head of Bin Laden." THe military says "Yes, sir!" makes a plan, moves troops and takes it from there. The Pres doesn't go out on patrol, take point or make any but the most general military decisions. That's what the military is for.

Tenet can bite the bullet for the CIA, a bunch of privates can eat it for Abu Gharaib, Clinton can be to blame for his economic woes, and so on and so on. At some point, someone has to place a modicum of responsibility where it belongs, even if it means acknowledging that you made a mistake in voting for and defending Bush in the past.

I really don't blame Clinton for the economic woes of 2000-2003. I don't think we had too much control or influence and I do think he took steps to try to moderate the impact of the tech bubble. In hindsight, just not enough (but I didn't think he could have known any differently.)

On the other side of the coin, I just don't think one can reasonably suppose that Bush had an awful lot to do with the Tora Bora incident, and seeing that is the case, blaming him personally is kind of silly.

I largely agree, although I think that the president must have been informed that we knew where bin Laden was. Don’t you think even the briefest of the briefings he would have received would have included primary information about our stated number one goal? He surely would have given tacit approval for the course of action (farming out the effort to the Northern Alliance), and he would have been listened to, no doubt, if he had said, “Hey, wait a minnit. Our boys are the best damn fighters in the world, and we cain’t trust them Afghans any futher ‘n we cain throw ‘em. I promised the American people that I wouldn’t just shoot a rocket into a tent and hit a camel in the butt. I promised that we would smoke him out of his hole. We better dadgum do it.”

I honestly don't know. Maybe. Personally, I'd be more afraid of Bush second guessing and interfering with the tactical decisions of his military.

It sounds unsurprising, and like another attempt to deflect criticism from a man who seems to be at the center of every failing of this administration, but at the periphery of any blame. We need a leader who will take personal responsibility, not just administrative demerits.

Well, of course he's at the center of every failing of this administration. He's the President.

Personally, I don't hold any President responsible for the failings of government in general. I hold the president responsible or laud him for his influence and leadership upon the body of government.

If you can demonstrate that Bush's leadership or decisions he made contributed to or influenced a military mistake at Tora Bora then I think you have a case for holding him personally responsible. Failing that his responsibility is simply that of being commander in chief while a mistake was made.

[RickJay]

I think you underestimate the toughness of the Taliban. They fought off the Soviets,
I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves.

Tha Taliban was barely organized, if it existed at all, when the Soviets left, and was not a force of much significance until well into the 90s. I'm sure that some of the guys who had fought the Soviets were also in the Taliban, but they aren't the same set of people.

[elucidator]

Bush is responsible for the fundamental error in all of this: the desire of a hammer to treat all problems as nails. The single most powerful military force in human history was precisely the wrong instrument, to the wrong end.

If the Taliban had wanted to hand over ObL, could they have done so? If they had offered no resistance to our efforts to seize ObL, would it have made the difference? I can't say as I know the answer, but my point is that the question wasn't asked. Is the real problem the Taliban, or Pakistan? What did we accomplish by raining baskets of hundred dollar bills on some of the worst examples of our species, the warlord?

We ached to strike back, its only natural, human, all too human. Its not that the Bushiviks were carried along by a tide of emotion, or ruthlessly exploited that emotion, its about half of each. And so we reached for our strong suit.

But you can't effectively fight shadows with bullets, nor fend off a cloud of hornets with a baseball bat. This is a war that must be fought with stealth, treachery, snitches and propaganda. We need sympathetic eyes and ears in the markets of Ankara and the slums of Hamburg. We need people who will drop the dime on terrorists, either for love, money, or a green card. But it is purely futile to launch an artillery barrage on an incoming fog.

All in all, I think the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake, on balance. A mistake, perhaps even a blunder. Amnesty Unintentional. But compared to the collossal blunder that is Iraq, it is the merest "oopsy".

[Sevastopol]

Unless you hold to the notion that the goal of the invasion was to have Bush elected in 2004, in which case it worked a treat.

[Tripler]

I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves.

Tha Taliban was barely organized, if it existed at all, when the Soviets left, and was not a force of much significance until well into the 90s. I'm sure that some of the guys who had fought the Soviets were also in the Taliban, but they aren't the same set of people.

No, you're absolutely right. For simplicity's sake, I grouped 'em all into "the Taliban".

Scattered bands of mujahadin warriors sucessfully attrited the Soviets to the point they witdrew, and through that experience, built their command and control networks, learned basic tactics, and built an overall strategy of defending Afghanistan. But of course, all militaries need one thing--money. That's why they built up their opium business: to help fund their fight.

So, take your organized militias of muhajadin, throw in a little religious fervor, make 'em think they're a legitimate government (which, for all intents and purposes, they were the only semblance of any government, since nobody else was around), and BAM! Instant Taliban.

Tripler
Just add water.

[World Eater]

Not at all, depending on your point of view. If Bush had actually captured bin Laden back when he had the chance, it would have been much harder to convince the country we needed to fight terrorism by invading Iraq. Letting bin Laden go was a win win situation; the president got his invasion, and bin Laden got his freedom.

In the same vein that the Pentagon went to Bush THREE times to take out Zarqawi when they knew where he was in Northern Iraq, and Bush nixed them each time.

[Cervaise]

If you can demonstrate that Bush's leadership or decisions he made contributed to or influenced a military mistake at Tora Bora then I think you have a case for holding him personally responsible.They were too smart for that. The civilian meddling — and there was a hell of a lot of it — was carried out by Rumsfeld to insulate Bush from exactly this sort of accusation. But if you don't think Rumsfeld was doing his boss's will, you're fooling yourself.

[PETERFI]

Hiding Place Bush Knew
But Iraq Preferred to Screw
Dead cry out, Traitor!