# Best synopsis I've seen to date on Bush Admin & the war - M. Hirsch Newsweek article **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691 "2006-02-22T22:28:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/1 "2006-02-22T22:28:17Z")
Not a debate, but politically pointed enough I think it belongs here rather than the other forums. All the swirling miasma of disappointment and frustration I feel with our Iraq policy is crystallised in this insightful article. [Clumsy Leadership - The furor over Dubai’s planned takeover of some U.S. ports is a sign of how out of control the ‘war on terror’ has become.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500950/site/newsweek/) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/2 "2006-02-22T23:18:27Z")
Great article, and spot on. I’ve worked for guys like George W. Bush before – no head for details, no grasp of the big picture, talking out of their asses, making major decisions on nothing but a prayer and gut instinct. Usually it takes 'em far less than five years to crash and burn. Of course, the typical upper-management dimwit doesn’t have the entire federal government covering for his sorry ass … . ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/3 "2006-02-22T23:36:05Z")
Nice summary. I remember actually being impressed with Bush and his decision to go into Afghanistan and chase down Bin Laden. I also remember being stunned beyond words by his plan to go into Iraq. And saddened beyond tears by the push to paint anyone who didn’t jump on that bandwagon as anti-american and soft on terrorism. I truly believe that had we stayed the course in Afghanistan, we’d have been well on our way to co-opting the majority muslim mainstream into greater productive participation while marginalizing the wild-eyed maniacs. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/4 "2006-02-23T00:08:47Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > I remember actually being impressed with Bush and his decision to go into Afghanistan and chase down Bin Laden. Really? Wasn’t going after bin Laden and his protectors a massive no-brainer? ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/5 "2006-02-23T00:34:43Z")
a “no-brainer”, when in the hands of bush still has the capacity to require a decision. i was still impressed that they jumped into afghanistan as quickly as they did. that was a good thing. leaving afghanistan and letting it decay in our wake and moving off into iraq…well, that was a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/6 "2006-02-23T00:35:34Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Really? Wasn’t going after bin Laden and his protectors a massive no-brainer? It was, but even before Iraq, the administration found a way to even skew up that no brainier: [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2004\_10\_17.php#003767](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_17.php#003767) > [@](#): > > Last night when discussing the White House’s truth-bending revisionism on Tora Bora, I wrote that I had been “pretty skeptical of the Bush team’s revisionism on this count since the outlines of the Kerry critique have been a commonplace in national security and counter-terrorism circles for literally years.” > > You’ll remember that what I’m referring to here as ‘Kerry’s critique’ is the charge that the US let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora because we ‘outsourced’ the job to local warlords and militiaman. The Bush campaign is now calling that a lie. Dick Cheney says it’s “absolute garbage” and the campaign has enlisted retired general and now Bush surrogate Tommy Franks to help back their case. > > Now Steve Soto points out one more reason why I and others who’ve followed this story for years were so skeptical. > > Look at the lede of this Washington Post article from April 17, 2002 … > > > [@](#): > > > > The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge. > > That really says it all. …. Aaannd, I wonder if the issue to outsourcing security came to the front because this administration has a history to do what is cheap rather than what is correct, from the same Afghanistan article: > [@](#): > > And as to the issue of ‘outsourcing’? > > One more time from the article … > > > [@](#): > > > > After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war’s operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda’s leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units. > > In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. “No one had the big picture,” one defense official said. > > I quote here at length for a simple reason, to make a simple point. Though we cannot in the nature of things have absolute certainty about bin Laden’s whereabouts, there is little doubt that bin Laden was there. We had a “reasonable certainty” he was there when the critical decisions were being made. And subsequent intelligence has only tended to confirm that belief. As to the issue of ‘outsourcing,’ the claim is unquestionably true. And it is widely believed that this was a key reason for the failure to capture bin Laden. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/7 "2006-02-23T01:44:39Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Really? Wasn’t going after bin Laden and his protectors a massive no-brainer? Well, I thought so. I wasn’t sure about Bush, though. After he did that, I had a burst of hope that he would do the right thing: listen to his dad about middle-east affairs. That was about the last time I agreed with him on anything major having to do with US-ME relations, save for a few things he’s done with Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/8 "2006-02-23T03:18:50Z")
The article’s comparison of of the U.S. shifting its forces from Afghanistan to Iraq and Germany’s WWII invasion of the Soviet Union is very interesting. And scary. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/9 "2006-02-23T05:42:24Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > The article’s comparison of of the U.S. shifting its forces from Afghanistan to Iraq and Germany’s WWII invasion of the Soviet Union is very interesting. You know, I read a lot of WWII history. I thought the same thing. [sub]Of course at the time, when Bush announced Iraq as a threat, I thought of the Saddam Hussein character on _South Park_. ‘Hey, look over there!’[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/10 "2006-02-23T05:53:08Z")
> [@astro](#): > > [Clumsy Leadership - The furor over Dubai’s planned takeover of some U.S. ports is a sign of how out of control the ‘war on terror’ has become.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500950/site/newsweek/) Dang. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/11 "2006-02-23T10:21:26Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > The article’s comparison of of the U.S. shifting its forces from Afghanistan to Iraq and Germany’s WWII invasion of the Soviet Union is very interesting. > > And scary. A move that was, in good part, motivated by the need of securing oil fields, and I´m talking about Germany here… But in any case I don´t see it as such a good analogy, Germany was at war, Soviet Russia was an impending threat to the country and Hitler was a veritable lunatic (which still doesn´t absolve him of anything he did), at least two of those things don´t apply to the other side of the comparision. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/12 "2006-02-23T15:55:46Z")
Well, it’s a well written article and definitely contains some thoughtful observations but, like many articles of this vibe, it leaves me a bit puzzled. Why continue beating a dead horse? Why can’t these insightful reporters suggest alternatives instead of just raising questions as to this administrations motives? Are they so afraid of congecture? I thought part of their responsibility was to create intelligent discourse. So Rumsfeld et al, tacitly admit that WMD’s were a red herring. So they admit that they dropped the ball on capturing Bin Laden in Afghanistan. So they claim (speciously, IMHO) that Al Queda has handled the world media/pr machine better than this administration. Why does it all seem like the administration is playing possum here? It seems somehow obvious to me that it’s safer for them to admit incompetence on some level than to disclose the actual motive/rational for occupying Iraq. I don’t believe for a second that this administration experienced a collective bout of ADD with Afghanistan and Bin Laden. There was something of greater, deeper and far more important interest in Iraq and the greater Middle East. I wish I could hear some intelligent (and supported) dialogue from that angle. Simply saying, “it’s a war for oil”, is not what I’m angling for. I think oil is a critical part of this but there are also motives that have far reaching economic impact between the US and both the EU and emergence of China/Asia. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/13 "2006-02-23T16:17:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It was, but even before Iraq, the administration found a way to even skew up that no brainier: > > [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2004\_10\_17.php#003767](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_17.php#003767) > > …. > > Aaannd, I wonder if the issue to outsourcing security came to the front because this administration has a history to do what is cheap rather than what is correct, from the same Afghanistan article: I may be in the minority, but I think Gen. Franks made a wise decision. If he had committed US troops in a major way, we may have taken huge casualties. Actually, I think OBL has been kept off-gaurd and on the run, and that is a better outcome than capturing him. It would be a mistake to capture OBL and put him on trial-some idiot like ramsey clark would come out of the woodwork to defend him. far better that OBL be kept powerless and running. Of course, we should have been much more brutal in Afghanistan-if we had emulated “general” Dostum, anybody expressing any sympathy for OBL would have had their heads chopped off. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/14 "2006-02-23T17:14:13Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Actually, I think OBL has been kept off-gaurd and on the run, and that is a better outcome than capturing him. It would be a mistake to capture OBL and put him on trial-some idiot like ramsey clark would come out of the woodwork to defend him. Except the premise for going into Afghanistan was to capture OBL. Seems a bit of rationalization to now claim that we’re better of now that he’s on the lam. If that were really the case, I bet the administration is thinking the very same thought with Saddam Hussein in custody. Wonder if they’re trying to come up with a plot to help him escape. Then Rumsfeld could stand up and claim that the US administration underestimated Hussein’s ability to cleverly file a soup spoon into a lock pick. Seems Hussein is currently thwarting that option by going on a hunger strike. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/15 "2006-02-23T17:19:28Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I may be in the minority, but I think Gen. Franks made a wise decision. If he had committed US troops in a major way, we may have taken huge casualties. Actually, I think OBL has been kept off-gaurd and on the run, and that is a better outcome than capturing him. It would be a mistake to capture OBL and put him on trial-some idiot like ramsey clark would come out of the woodwork to defend him. far better that OBL be kept powerless and running. Of course, we should have been much more brutal in Afghanistan-if we had emulated “general” Dostum, anybody expressing any sympathy for OBL would have had their heads chopped off. This makes no sense at all. “Huge casualties”? How many are you thinking? 5,000? 10,000? Given that to date we’ve only lost ~2,300 in Iraq, a larger and more populous country, I think it’s unlikely that casaulties from a proper occupation of Afghanistan would have topped 1,000. Or we you just talking about the Tora Bora operation? I think if we’d lost 100 soldiers at Tora Bora but had captured or killed OBL in the process the American people would have been dancing in the streets. If our primary goal was keeping our soldiers safe the correct course of action was not to invade Afghanistan at all! Once we decided to invade the only prudent course was to track down OBL, secure the country, and pour buckets of money into rebuilding it. At the time, that’s what Bush said we would do and I agreed with him. 1,000 dead American soldiers and $50 billion would be a fair price for OBL’s head and a stable Afghanistan. And now we’re supposed to let OBL go free because **we’re afraid someone might defend him at his trial!?** Yes, he’s a little less dangerous on the run than if we ignored him completely. (Although just how “on the run” he is at the moment is debateable.) But he would be infinitely less dangerous locked up in Gitmo, or, better yet, dead. Letting OBL get away with 9-11 makes us look weak. Weak and ineffectual. It encourages our enemies to strike against us and gives strength to their poisonous rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/16 "2006-02-23T23:29:25Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > It would be a mistake to capture OBL and put him on trial-some idiot like ramsey clark would come out of the woodwork to defend him. No, it wouldn´t, if you can proove the guilt and abomination of his crimes (not too difficult I presume), on a fair trial you show respect for law and justice, the (perceived and actual) lack of which is one of the largest components of the fundamentalist muslim call for arms. It also works on demistifying the man and showing the psychopathic bastard that lays beneath. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-synopsis-ive-seen-to-date-on-bush-admin-the-war-m-hirsch-newsweek-article/345691/17 "2006-02-23T23:44:18Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > It also works on demistifying the man and showing the psychopathic bastard that lays beneath. It would also mean that his captors get to control his interactions with the outside world. No more charismatic-mystic-leader shticks recorded in his mountain retreat and distributed to his fans on videotape.