Lies and Deceit

[Boz]

Aug 13, 2008 12:18:45 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Boz--I can't argue with a lot of what you say. The one thing that stood out to me, though, was, "We had enough resources to capture bin Laden. We were able to cut off escape routes. But we missed him. It happens." I can't help but wonder if more resources might have allowed us to cut off just one more escape route: the one he obviously used.

I think that's fair enough. And I'm certainly not saying that mistakes were not made in Tora Bora specifically or Afghanistan in general.

I'd just ask people to remember that Tora Bora was in 2001. We invaded Iraq in 2003. If we thought we had needed more troops in Afghanistan for those operations, they were available at the time.

[Nevada Hoya]

I just think it was a mistake invading Iraq, when we were waging a conflict against the Taliban and seeking out bin Laden. Did we limit our resources in Afghanistan because we were planning a major action in Iraq? Who knows, and I am not going to go there. Invading Iraq, in my mind, was a recruiting poster for the terrorists of the world.

Gen. Jim Jones could probably shed some light on the Afghan situation, because he was in charge of the NATO troops there.

[The Stig]

It's not like Tora Bora was the last operation in Afghanistan. The Taliban were pretty beaten then, despite Bin Laden's escape, but they've made a big comeback since then. Karzai has gone on record saying that Afghanistan's problems would be solved by now if the US had devoted the manpower and resources that they've devoted to Iraq to Afghanistan.

[theexorcist]

Ok. A few things. My views only.

1. I know a few people who have been to Afghanistan. It is remarkably inhospitable country with lots and lots of caves and is perfect insurgent country. We went in there and fought and one person who many other people consider the key figure in the movement was able to escape.

2. Afghanistan has never been fully "safe" or "secure" since the Taliban fell in 2001. Much of the country is remarkably lawless and the border with Pakistan is pure fiction.

So what's victory in Afghanistan? The Taliban don't run the majority of the country, anyone who lives in Kabul can conduct their business without fear of death or kidnapping, a democractic tradition continues developing, and the "Kabul bubble" expands to eliminate drug dealers, the Taliban, and local warlords from running things.

3. Neocons - who ran the Iraq war - spent numerous years selling Iraq as the domino theory - if Saddam's region falls, democracy overtakes everything. Read Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, a book Bush recommended to his staff.

What people get wrong is assuming that Bush invaded Iraq for oil. I fundamentally believe that he believed and still believes that democracies are in the US interest.

And it's really easy to claim the WMD item. Every single intelligence agency save one (State's) and numerous foreign ones said that Saddam was pursuing WMD and was close to attaining them. In a case where you can take down a leader who has threatened to use WMDs AND possibly remake the Middle East, he took it.

I think that you can still argue that the decision is defensible while still arguing that the postwar planning was bungled seriously.

[SFHoya99]

The issue isn't the idea that Democracies are good for the U.S. That I agree with.

The idea is that capitalism solves everything -- and that Iraq would explode without help into a fully formed and stable capitalistic democracy based purely on market forces. That's the insanity.

Also, the idea that the way to introduce democracy is through armed conflict and occupation. Seems a bit off to me.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 13, 2008 12:30:55 GMT -5 Boz said:

Aug 13, 2008 12:18:45 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Boz--I can't argue with a lot of what you say. The one thing that stood out to me, though, was, "We had enough resources to capture bin Laden. We were able to cut off escape routes. But we missed him. It happens." I can't help but wonder if more resources might have allowed us to cut off just one more escape route: the one he obviously used.

I think that's fair enough. And I'm certainly not saying that mistakes were not made in Tora Bora specifically or Afghanistan in general.

I'd just ask people to remember that Tora Bora was in 2001. We invaded Iraq in 2003. If we thought we had needed more troops in Afghanistan for those operations, they were available at the time.

More troops were available, and Rumsfeld chose not to use them.
It is one thing to make the initial foray into the country using CIA and Special Ops along with Northern Alliance and others to establish position.

It is quite another to fail to use every means at our disposal to go all out to nail Bin Laden -- who really is responsible for 9/11. That was a Huge error on the part of Rumsfeld/Bush.

Also, there has been a lot written about the diversion of key assets to Iraq beginning in the fall of '01 when we were supposedly still 100% after Bin Laden and team. Special Ops, arab speakers, UAVs and more precious and scarce resources were taken from AFG and devoted to Iraq. The invasion wasn't launched until Spring '03, but the prep started long before that.

There was no reason, no justification and no need to invade Iraq. It got a lot of Americans and Iraqis killed and has done nothing whatsoever to make us safer, it has done just the opposite. Quite possibly the worst strategic move in American history.

Meanwhile, we still have not established a serious alternative energy program and that is the number one challenge to US and global security.... just look at Georgia.