Tora Bora - No Mas

Gen. Tommy Franks defends the plan at Tora Bora from Kerry's second-guessing. Kerry has been confusing hindisght with insight, and second-guessing the military rather than George Bush, as I noted at length here.

The key quotes are in the UPDATE to the old post - Kerry was for the Tora Bora plan before he was against it. Imagine my surprise.

MORE: Sure, I can reprint the CNN quote here:

CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?

KING: Senator Kerry?

...KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.

"Minimalize the proximity". "Protect our troops". Laudable goals, but what about "accomplish the mission"?

UPDATE: From Citizen SMASH, a reminder that the US troops had their hands full with the fall of Kandahar.

MORE: In a Dec. 2 Meet the Press interview, Rumsfeld said we had "1,500 to 2,000" troops in Afghanistan.

The 10th Mountain had 1,000 troops in Uzbekistan in Nov, 2001; they deployed "under 100" to Afghanistan in the first week of December.

Here is another accounting of US deployments in Afghanistan at the end of November.

In a history of their unit, the 10th Mountain says they were deployed to Afghanistan in Dec 2001.

The point - unless General Kerry wants to revisit the entire history of the US operation in Afghanistan, the troops he claims he would have used simply weren't there.

Now, some folks did say that the US method of relying on Special Forces, air power, and the Northern Alliance would not work, and that we should have gone in to Afghanistan with a much larger force. Is that Kerry's argument?

MORE: Reporter Peter Bergen on "Tora Bora: What Really Happened?". Summary - we had intel that Bin Ladin was there (no argument), and we should have moved in more US troops. From where, you ask? His answer is not wholly convincing:

Why did the United States military--the most powerful armed force in history-- not seal off the Tora Bora region, instead relying only on a handful of US Special Forces on the ground? Historians will no doubt be debating that question for many years, but part of the answer is that the US military was a victim of its own success. Scores of US Special Forces soldiers calling in air-strikes, in combination with thousands of Afghans on the ground, overthrew the Taliban in a few weeks of fighting; a textbook case of unconventional warfare. However, this approach was a failure at Tora Bora where large numbers of Americans on the ground were needed to throw up an effective cordon around al Qaeda's leaders.

Apologists for the US military failure at Tora Bora will no doubt provide several compelling reasons why this was the case, including a lack of airlift capabilities from the US base in neighboring Uzbekistan. However, such explanations are hard to square with the fact that hundreds of journalists managed to find their way to Tora Bora, a battle covered on live television by the world's leading news organizations. If Fox, CNN and NBC could arrange for their crews to cover Tora Bora it is puzzling that the US military could not put more boots on the ground to find the man who was the intellectual author of the 9/11 attacks. And in that sense, Sen. Kerry's charge that Tora Bora was a missed opportunity to bring bin Laden to justice isn't "garbage", but an accurate reflection of the historical record.

When CCN comes to shoot, they are normally non-lethal. And they don't stay as long.

Beyind that, does Mr. Bergen think that securing the area was a matter of a few hundred additional troops? My impression was that the area in question was much larger.

Comments

[reader]

isn't the mission to get osama?

[SaveFarris]

Apparently the mission is to pass the global test.

[meep]

To Tom:

Off-topic here, but I mentioned it below, and I thought I'd give you a more full text (and besides, email to you is bouncing):

here's the cite:
WSJ, Oct 19, pg D5
Cranky Consumer: "Tracking the Election on the Web" by Sam Schechner

You're mentioned alongside Talking Points Memo, Real Clear Politics, Electoral-vote.com, and Spinsanity.

In the article:
"On a more partisan level, Tom Maguire's conservative blog, JustOneMinute is a satisfyingly sarcastic read, replete with football metaphors and Dem bashing. Last week, he said one of Mr. Kerry's explanations about his Mary Cheney mention 'set our BS detector flashing to CODE BROWN!'"

Then there's a handy comparison chart of all the sites. Here's your entry:
Site: justoneminute.typepad.com
Politics: Right-leaning
Strength: Makes fun of both sides when warranted -- recently joked about a poll showing that more Republicans than Democrats are happy with their sex
lives.
Drawback: Some readers don't get his sarcasm
Comment: Unlike some other popular bloggers, he is good about responding to posted comments on the site

That's about it. I think it's interesting that yours was chosen as the representative right-leaning site.

[Crank]

I guess Kerry didn't love the smell of napalm in the morning.

[carsick]

I'm sorry where did you point out that the president "accomplished the mission"?

Oh, you didn't.

As Kerry said, "I think it depends on where you are tactically".

Where are we now tactically three years after Osama bin Laden had his terrorists team attack our country?

Osama who? "I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run."

[TM]

Thanks very much. I am not worthy.

[Cecil Turner]

"I am not worthy."

Yes you are. If not you, who?

"As Kerry said, 'I think it depends on where you are tactically'."

Where we are tactically is we retired the last flamethrowers back in the Vietnam era--and napalm requires a low-angle delivery that puts planes in the heart of enemy weapons systems. So we pretty much don't use 'em any more. Thermobaric FAE bombs are the new cool bunker-buster.

As far as Osama goes, haven't heard much from him lately . . . Maybe he caught a stray one. At any rate, rolling up his network (not him personally) should be the focus of effort if the goal is to prevent future attacks.

[The Kid]

Osama ain’t got no base no more. That’s important, as this points out, because without a base he’s got no facilities to conduct a lengthy curriculum for highly motivated whackjobs in murder, mayhem, operational security, producing chemical / biological agents, etc.

Then again, Osama’s not been heard from lately.

[Mantis]

Something I don't see anywhere in your analysis is Kerry supporting that we pull our 5th Special Forces group--who seemed to think they were close to catching bin Laden--out of Afghanistan and put them into Iraq after they had put in six months of fighting those terrorists who did attack us on 9/11. The decision to pull them out, despite the fact that they were most qualified to carry out the mission, was their experience in the first Iraq war and therefore their value in this one. Since Bush decided to invade Iraq during our Afghanistan incursion, doesn't the responsibility for this diversion of resources and expertice fall upon him?

[TM]

Here is a story about the 5th Special Forces. No date as to when they re-deployed, although this story suggests August 2002. Tora Bora was Dec 2001, of course.

The stock answer is, this is not a war on Osama, it is a war on terror. We did not want all our troops marching through the mountains of Afghanistan obsessing about a guy who might be dead and might never be caught when there are other bad guys to worry about. Global threat, keep the initiative, and all that.

John Kerry understood this in Dec. 2001, anyway. From the same Larry King show:

KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places...

KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we...

KING: We should go to Iraq? KERRY: Well, that -- what do you and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.

But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.

[Cecil Turner]

". . . and put them into Iraq after they had put in six months of fighting those terrorists who did attack us on 9/11.".

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are dead. Every operation since has been aimed at their support base (e.g., training facilities, financiers, training cadre, and operational leadership). That "base" (Al Qaeda) supports a loose confederation of terror outfits and provides expertise to increase operational effectiveness . . . it isn't limited to any one country.

Training camps in Afghanistan were part of it . . . and so were Zarkawi's facilities in Iraq. (And so is the sanctuary since provided by Iran.) But the biggest fear is that some terror sponsor will provide WMD materials and training (and that doesn't require large stockpiles of large pointy weapons with fins). Prisoners at Guantanamo indicated Iraq trained Al Qaeda members, and that Al Qaeda was looking to Iraq for help in manufacturing chem/bio weapons. And Saddam topped that list.

The state sponsors of terror in the Near/Middle East were: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan. Afghanistan was left off the list to avoid recognizing the Taliban as a government, and Pakistan was arguable. Now, Iraq and Afghanistan no longer support terrorism. Libya, Sudan, and Pakistan have also made credible pledges in the right direction. And we're in a strong position to lean on the two holdouts, Iran and Syria, precisely because of the much-criticized Iraq policy. A "distraction"? I don't think so.

The main goal of the Afghanistan operation was to shut down Mullah Omar's terrorist sanctuary and the training camps (and capture or kill as many terrorists as possible). It went pretty well. Snooping around the mountains looking for individual terrorists runs into a fairly obvious case of diminishing marginal returns. Sending more troops to look for the last terrorist cavedweller is not a sensible use of force. Kerry may have scored a cute debating point, but his position is unserious--and undermines what little defense credibility he has left.

[Al]

Re: CNN quote. Why is it that Tom Maguire is better than the entire RNC/Bush-Cheney opposition research team? This quote should have been put out there weeks ago. Now it's too late. Which is why Bush is probably going to lose. Karl Rove is way, WAY overrated. (And I'm one of Bush's supporters.)

[karen]

Kerry voted to say that comment before he voted against saying that comment. So he actually agreed with the tactics before he realized he didn't agree with the tactics. But Mary Cheney is a l-l-lesbian. General Sinseki was fired. Tora Bora outsourced.

Kerry and Heinz think the only "real" job you can have is marrying someone who has $500 million dollars more than you do. I will take Laura anyday.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Osama ain’t got no base no more.

"Al Qaeda" is from "the database", not a physical base of operations. Explained here and probably at many other sites.

[The Kid]

Sheesh, Lonewacko, I was only punnin'. I prefer to translate "al Qaeda" as "the base."

I did follow your link, but had prepared by wrapping my head in duct tape after apply not one, but two layers of time foil. It was just enough to protect me from the MK-Ultra mind altering technique I found there.

Yet, I gotta give credit to anyone who can, on one page, link together al Qaeda, Vince Foster, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Henry Kissinger. That is something truly special.

[Rob W]

Um, I don't see Kerry responding to any question about outsourcing to Afghan warlords here. I see a simple tactical question about whether we should use napalm or flamethrowers. Nowhere in the quote does he mention Afghan or U.S. troops at all. Maybe you guys could get some ammo by parsing that one out a lot and taking it out of context. That's all this is.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Al-your-Qaeda are belong to us.

[Cecil Turner]

"I prefer to translate 'al Qaeda' as 'the base.'"

I thought he was joking . . . but after visiting his site, I'm not so sure.

It's true that the "base" is more of an ideological foundation type of thing . . . but there's also training, finance, and operational expertise. In any event, the idea that other branches are somehow less of a threat because they don't have an interconnected command structure is ludicrous. Whether the Bali bombers reported directly to Bin Laden or not is surely not a primary concern.

Similarly, the "terrorism as ideology" argument is often used to excuse terror sponsors--ignoring the fact that plausible deniability is precisely why states choose terror tactics.

There may be a defensible US grand strategy that involves beefing up special forces and less overt use of US military power. But I sure can't think of one . . . and those who support such a plan are uanble or unilling to describe it.

[Cecil Turner]

"Um, I don't see Kerry responding to any question about outsourcing to Afghan warlords here. "

I don't see him bringing it up, either. In fact, the only thing he said about the operational concept was at the opening:

"I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on right track."

[Rob W]

When he's discussing the operation, he appears to be talking about the entire Afghan operation. The criticism he's leveled at Bush is: "You didn't put U.S. troops in for the critical moment where they were needed most." I've seen no real refutation from the Administration on this question. The quote is just an attempt to make something look like it's not.

The whole idea is disngenous. They were ripping on Kerry for having adovcated in the early '70's for UN authorization of force in all U.S. conflicts. According to the logic shown here, Kerry should turn around and say "Mr. President, you didn't criticize me for saying that in 1971, but now you are changing your tune for poltical purposes." The whole idea is a laugher.

[Cecil Turner]

"When he's discussing the operation, he appears to be talking about the entire Afghan operation."

That's one interpretation. But there's no doubt when he's responding to the question about the caves, he's talking about the Tora Bora operation. And there, he's says the same thing, as TM quoted above:

"But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way."

[Rob W]

Actually, some of the comments here seem to show Kerry as being amazingly consistent on these issues:

"Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.

But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it."

[Rob W]

p.s. I'm terrible at HTML. any hints on how to get my quotes to italicize and indent like yours?

p.p.s. I like this blog--seems like some rational discussion going on between both sides. What a welcome change from the rest of the internet.

[Cecil Turner]

"There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it."

That's a nice thought, but when he's getting tens of billions of dollars through UNSCAM, the only real pressure is threat of invasion. And at some point, you have to mean it.

You can download an easy HTML primer here. For simple stuff, just put your text between starting and ending tags like this: [i] italics [/i]; [b] bold [/b]; [blockquote] indent [/blockquote]. (replace brackets with these: < >)

[CroolWurld]

I'm against the Global Test. If we impose a Global Test, then teachers will begin teaching TO the Global Test. Also, what if there's not a Ebonics version of the Global Test? How un-Global would that be?

[Brian]

He doesn't specifically mention Tora Bora in the passages that you selected. There were obviously more things besides the hunt for OBL happening at th time. It seems ridiculous to assume that he's giving a pass to everything when that is very unclear.

Gen. Franks is clearly the military expert here, but it seems odd that he says we don't know exactly where Osama was, but that he was "never in our grasp." Which is it? Franks also avoids the question of whether the job was really given to warlords. He simply states it was given to Afghans. His third reason is even more vague. He doesn't say what our special forces were asked to do, just that they were there. And his final paragraphs are little more than a standard play for the re-election prospects of Bush and Cheney. I hate to say it, but it seems like he's muddying the waters here.

[martin]

Tora Bora Schmora-Osama's dead. Iraq-shmiraq. Some mop-up operations and elections in January.

So -seriously-what's the next operation in the war on terrorism?

[Grand Moff Texan]

Why is it that Tom Maguire is better than the entire RNC/Bush-Cheney opposition research team?

Because he's not as dumb as the people who see a Kerry flip-flop in this quote? I thought that was obvious.

Just like the other mangled Kerry quote on 'sensitivity.' Cheney picked that fabrication up from some moron at a stump speech.

I don't think it's that Rove is overrated, I think that Rove has simply overestimated the intelligence of the people he's trying to manipulate. Poetic justice, I guess.

[Paul Zrimsek]

"Very unclear", Brian? Everything Kerry says is always clear, no matter how the wingnuts try to tell you otherwise. Why, you can read all about it on his campaign site!

Don't know about you, but when a thing's in my grasp I always know where it is: in my grasp.

[Rob W]

Why is the Bush position about what Kerry said, until it is proven that Kerry has been consistent, and then the argument is then shifted to whether or not the strategy Kerry advocated at this or that time was correct?

That's a nice thought, but when he's getting tens of billions of dollars through UNSCAM, the only real pressure is threat of invasion. And at some point, you have to mean it.

My point was simple. Bush has been accusing Kerry of taking different positions on the war. But when one looks through everything he's said it comes out that (1) he was for putting pressure on Hussein; (2) That without solid evidence of a direct state link, going in would hurt our main goal of isolating and destroying terrorists; (3) Any action we would take would be best done with international support.

But here the subject was changed again. I think the flip-flop meme has to be discarded and the issues Kerry has brought up discussed openly.

p.s. Hey this HTML stuff works--Thanks Cecil!

[TM]

As to whether Kerry was specifically supporting the tactics used at Tora Bora, that battle began on Nov. 30; this interview was Dec 14.

And it seems pretty reasonable to argue that Kerry was talking about Osama; from the transcript, the previous questionhad been about what to do if Osama was captured, and the exchange I excerpted is here:

KING: Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania -- hello.

CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?

KING: Senator Kerry?

CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.

KING: Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.

KING: Congressman Cunningham, what do you think of that question?

CUNNINGHAM: I think Senator Kerry is right on the mark. To use a flamethrower, you've got to get right into the area close in. And plus, it doesn't penetrate that deep in those tunnels. You've got to go in there after him. So I think you have to neutralize that threat. And then you can get him out in a lot of different, various ways including what the gentleman spoke about.

It depends on the meaning of "him", I suppose, but really...

Here is a WaPo rebuttal to Gen. Franks from April 2002.

Doesn't affect my argument, which is that Kerry only became a critic after the fact.

[TM]

Bonus tub-thumping - if I were lauding Kerry's consistency on Iraq, I would NOT point to this:

"Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.

In that quote from Dec 2001, Kerry was surely referring to the specific legislation that authorized the Afghan war as a response to 9/11.

Now, I can't promise to keep track of every Kerry position On Iraq, but when he was the anti-war candidate defending at a debate in Feb 2004, he explained his Oct. 2002 vote authorizing war against Saddam this way:

GILBERT: “But what about you? I mean, let me repeat the question. Do you have any degree of responsibility having voted to give him the authority to go to war?”

KERRY: “The president had the authority to do what he was going to do without the vote of the United States Congress. President Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress. President Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress.

“That's why we have a War Powers Act. What we did was vote with one voice of the United States Congress for a process...

That is the shortest of excerpts, and John Edwards had the classic comeback:

That's the longest answer I ever heard to a yes-or-no question," Edwards said. "The answer to your question is ‘Of course.' We all accept responsibility for what we did."

I don't know whether Kerry is currently accepting responsibility for his vote.

[Reginald Thornton]

Isn't it time, yet, to get past the parties, and to agree that someone who plays politics with everything from another man's daughter to the war on terror is absolutely the worst thing that could happen to this country under any circumstances, let alone now?

[Brian]

"As to whether Kerry was specifically supporting the tactics used at Tora Bora, that battle began on Nov. 30; this interview was Dec 14."

I'm not entirely convinced.

"In that quote from Dec 2001, Kerry was surely referring to the specific legislation that authorized the Afghan war as a response to 9/11."

Are you for real?

"Now, I can't promise to keep track of every Kerry position On Iraq, but when he was the anti-war candidate defending at a debate in Feb 2004, he explained his Oct. 2002 vote authorizing war against Saddam this way:"

Oh, come on. It seems pretty obvious he was saying that the president can send troops somewhere without a declaration of war.

And I must say, it's amusing what you mock his consistency, yet give link to a site that has him saying things like "The process was to build a legitimate international coalition, go through the inspections process and go to war as a last resort" and "It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein. There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it." That's pretty much what he's been saying all along, plus or minus a little bit for the bullshit factor that all politicians have in their comments.

[Brian]

Correction: "that you."

[Cecil Turner]

"Why is the Bush position about what Kerry said, until it is proven that Kerry has been consistent"

I think it's fairly obvious TM and I have two different issues here. TM supported his case fairly well (and I agree the Senator flip-flopped from supporting to criticizing, I just don't care all that much). My problem with him is that his overall strategy is flawed (or incoherent). If he thought Osama should be the focus of the WoT--consistently or not--it's a stupid idea. The Administration is correct that the goal is to prevent a future attack, and that leads to a strategy of deterring state sponsors. Kerry's comments on Tora Bora are clueless (but, to be fair, so are Cunningham's . . . and he has a lot more experience).

"p.s. Hey this HTML stuff works--Thanks Cecil!"

You're welcome--glad it worked for you. It's nice to have a reasonable dissenting voice around here, so doubly welcome. (And sorry about the tardy reply, but I'm a little busy this week.)

[TM]

I'm not entirely convinced.

I'm not entirely rebutted.

"In that quote from Dec 2001, Kerry was surely referring to the specific legislation that authorized the Afghan war as a response to 9/11."

Are you for real?

Yes, I am real. However, despite my reality, I fail to grasp your point.

Do you think Kerry was referring to something else other than that legislation?

My point is that, in Dec 2001, Kerry said the President did not have authority to invade Iraq, at least under the legislation passed immediately after 9/11.

By Feb 2004, however, Kerry was arguing that his October 2002 vote, which had been widely misinterpreted as granting the President the authority to go to war with Iraq, was really just meant to display national unity. He further argued that the President had the authority to do whatever he wanted with Iraq under his normal constitutional powers, subject to the War Powers Act.

That is certainly not an implausible position, BTW. However, it is not exactly consistent with what he had said before.

Your position is what?

[Brian]

"Yes, I am real. However, despite my reality, I fail to grasp your point."

Unless I happen to be reading you point incorrectly or unless I am not picking up on some joke that you are making, it seems like you are saying that comment was in reference to Afghanistan. It most clearly was not, as the country in King's question was Iraq. Don't believe me? Check the transcript.

"My point is that, in Dec 2001, Kerry said the President did not have authority to invade Iraq, at least under the legislation passed immediately after 9/11."

And this is proved...how?

"By Feb 2004, however, Kerry was arguing that his October 2002 vote, which had been widely misinterpreted as granting the President the authority to go to war with Iraq, was really just meant to display national unity."

I do not see how anything you've presented relates to national unity.

If anything, the two links you gave me above prove that Kerry has been largely consistent with his positions. He mentions international coalitions and what not.

"He further argued that the President had the authority to do whatever he wanted with Iraq under his normal constitutional powers, subject to the War Powers Act."

This seems to be some sort of thing that was only relevant in Kerry's head. Unless we get inside his head, we won't know how it is related. (If I had to guess, I'd say it was to quell an notions that he would cede soveignty.) No worries, as it doesn't seem to matter that much.

"Your position is what?"

I don't know. For some reason, you threw in a dig at Kerry's allegedly shifting positions, when the topic at hand was Tora Bora. And for some reason, you ignored all of my comments that I made in response to your post that mentioned Gneral Franks.

[Rob W]

Cecil:
Too bad state sponsorship isn't the problem. According to today's Washington Post, (see here at MSNBC,) the second-tier leaders of the War on Terror see the problem as "metastasization," a collection of untrained individuals starting their own groups and improvising. Turns out the Madrid attacks took only five weeks from start to finish and were apparently carried out by near-amateurs. More importantly, the 12,000 members of the resistance are apparently mostly locals, with a smattering of professional jihadists. Bush's terrible Iraq strategy essentially created this breeding ground. What's worse is that the Administrations utterly deficient planning and reliance on bombing to acheive our aims in Iraq have led to an alienation of large chunks of the Iraqi population.

Indeed, I think in the long term, we should be more afraid of the army of average Muslims who are willing to look the other way when terrorists are operating nearby. These are the people who contribute to "charities" and are willing to help. If we don't win those people over we will lose. Kerry sees this. Bush mistakes posturing for will.

[Slartibartfast]

Unless I happen to be reading you point incorrectly or unless I am not picking up on some joke that you are making, it seems like you are saying that comment was in reference to Afghanistan. It most clearly was not, as the country in King's question was Iraq. Don't believe me? Check the transcript.

No, it's you that should be doing the checking, Brian. They clearly were not talking about Iraq, during the cited portion of the show, unless there were some caves in Iraq that you think bin Laden was hiding in. Plus, the word "Afghanistan" ought to have been a dead giveaway.

But if you need further clues:

Number if Afghanistan references: 18
Number of Iraq references: 1

They don't mention Iraq until after the cited passages, and then only incidentally.

[TM]

Brian - I'll try again.

On 9/11/01, America was attacked.

On 9/14/01, Congress passed a bill authorizing Bush to "may fight any "nations, organizations, or persons," if he "determines" that they "aided" the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – or even "harbored" anyone who did.

One might argue whether the President has a separate Constitutional authority to act, but this bill certainly gave authority to the President to invade Afghanistan.

On Dec 14, 2001, Sen. Kerry was asked on Larry King Live about expanding the war on terror beyond Afghanistan. His answer, as I cited earlier:

Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.

My guess is that Sen. Kerry is referring to the 9/14/01 legislation mentioned above which authorized war against Afghanistan, but (lacking evidence of an al Qaeda connection) not against Iraq. Your guess seems to be that he was referring to Iraq. Yes, the "Saddam Hussein" reference is a good clue there.

Rob W. then cites this as evidence of Kerry's consistency in an 8:15 AM Oct 21 post.

My response - Kerry argued on 12/14/01 that Bush lacked authority to invade Iraq.

Kerry then argued, in a debate in Feb 04, that the Oct 2002 vote authorizing war against Iraq actually did not really authorize the President to do anything special - the President already had a separate Constitutional authority to act against Iraq.

This, in my view, is different from Kerry's position on Dec 14, 01, when he argued that the President lacked authority to invade Iraq.

I continue to be unable to follow your answer.

[Cecil Turner]

"Too bad state sponsorship isn't the problem."

None of those lads attended training bases in some sympathetic polity? None received explosives training from experts holed up in a sanctuary provided by a state sponsor? Or funds from a government source, or a financial network that was allowed to flourish? Prove it.

"These are the people who contribute to "charities" and are willing to help."

We agree on one of the major sources of the problem. But do you really believe those "charities" can flourish without, at a minimum, governments turning a blind eye?

But all that's not the real issue. A Madrid group can cause a few hundred casualties, and is very difficult to stop. An effective bio attack can cause hundreds of thousands. Islamic terror sponsors are just now starting to develop effective WMDs. If we don't get a handle on state sponsorship soon . . .

[Rob W]

Cecil,

Read the article. The only Islamic terror sponsors I see developing effective WMD are Pakistan (v. India) and Iran. I can't fault the Administration for its handling of the Gordian knot that is Pakistan, but Bush has been terrible on Iran. Instead he has the greater part of U.S. combat strength tied up in Iraq. Face facts, Bush can't aim. Even if you take state sponsorship of terror as the most important issue, Iraq represents a major blunder. They had NO WMD and Iran was merrily building a nuclear infastructure while we carried out the fantasies of the Project For A New American Century.

We can't go after Iran right now because we have 140,000 U.S. troops who are struggling to deal with an insurgency which, according the the NY Times today, numbers between 8,000-12,000 people and has nearly unlimited funds provided by Saudis and run through the Syrian border. Without an expanded military force and better leadership, we won't be able to deal with Iran effectively. Furthermore, our distraction means that we must rely on allied support to do much of the job with Iran. And its not the kind of support that Poland can provide.

I think that Bush is nowhere near the war leader he is made out to be. He focuses on the wrong enemy, alienates the very people whose help we need, and then badly botches the campaign he wrongly chose. Case in point: Fallujah. We need somebody better.

[Slartibartfast]

We need somebody better.

Maybe in 2008, you can actually put someone better up for the office. That'd be refreshing.

[Rob W]

Somebody better? Kerry is somebody better. He is not who you think he is. His record has been systematically distorted more than any politician I have ever seen. Its the Karl Rove special. Bush has basically engaged in character assassination for months now, seeking to use procedural votes and statments made in campaigns 30 years ago as fodder for ridiculous statements that Kerry will turn over the defense of the United States to other countries, or worse Cheney saying that Kerry would not retaliate if a nuclear bomb went off in a U.S. city. This doesn't even include the Swift Boat lies. What I don't understand is how rational conservatives can just buy that stuff. Its not right and demeans the political discourse.

[Cecil Turner]

"Even if you take state sponsorship of terror as the most important issue, Iraq represents a major blunder. They had NO WMD and Iran was merrily building a nuclear infastructure . . ."

Nope. In the first place, the WMD's we're worrying about here are primarily small amounts of bio agents--nukes are considerably less practicable for terror attacks--and Iraq was well ahead of Iran on that score. In the second, an invasion of Iran is not militarily feasible without taking Iraq first.

"Without an expanded military force and better leadership, we won't be able to deal with Iran effectively."

Nice talking point, but unlettered. We have forces on both of Iran's borders, and have been working on regional defense agreements (Caspian Guard)--we are in a much better position to deal with Iran now than we have ever been before. And anyone who says differently is either operationally illiterate or disingenuous.

[martin]

Ah yes, now that we rule Assyria, we are going to take out the Persian empire. This is getting freaky.

Cecil-if your claim on the bios is true-why was Cheney discussing the nuking of an American city only 2-3 days ago?

[Rob W]

Forces on both of Iran's borders? We have a single DE (Division Equivalent) in Afghanistan. We have 140,000 troops in Iraq, but they're, um, busy. Not only that but if we had to do something about Iran with those forces we'd be screwed because we'd double our problem in Iraq--not enough troops to keep and win the peace.

Small amounts of Bio agents? Ha! Remember "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?" Condi Rice on Meet The Press. That's national TV folks. I love how as the WMD threat slowly was proven to be nothing, the rationale for the war magically shrank with it.

Nuclear proliferation is the number one threat. Bush and Kerry both agreed on that in the debate. Bio weapons are nothing compared with the big one. Some people will be immune from bio weaponry. A nuclear bomb makes areas sterile for decades.

And plenty of bomb material is floating loose around the former Soviet Union. We gotta get that stuff and so far Bush has been galivanting between the Tigris and Euphrates for 20 months. He's a terrible war leader--Got no aim.

[Rob W]

Let's look at CASPIAN GUARD. Azerbajan has 72,000 military personnel total. They aren't going to be helping us. With only 220 total tanks, I'm not going to betting the farm on this
club. They have 54 aircraft total.

Our other potential ally is Kazakhstan. They come in at a whopping 64,000 total military personnel. See here for
details.

Bush's lame attempts to put small up small nations with weak armies as some sort of compensation for real fighting coalitions is disengenous. Caspian Guard will do nothing to increase our ability to confront Iran if need be. The error in Iraq has weakend us.

[martin]

You forgot Poland, Rob W.