Barrel-Fishing With Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald, lefty fabulist extraordinaire, brings his story-telling talents to the question of whether Bill Clinton's debacle in Somalia emboldened Osama Bin Laden.

My post this morning on Salon concerns the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton "emboldened" Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.

Pardon me, it is "neoconservative mythology" that Osama was emboldened by Somalia?  Well then, based on this interview, Osama must be a neocon, yes?

After a few blows, [the United States] forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.  America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them.  I was in Sudan when this happened.  I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

The gist of Greenwald's argument is that following the Black Hawk Down debacle in Oct 1993, Clinton's conservative critics wanted to abandon Somali immediately.  Clinton, however, insisted that the immediate Cut and Run would make America appear weak.  Clinton's proposal amounted to Cut and Walk: here is the description provided by PBS in 1995:

Oct 7, 1993:  Clinton's response: withdraw troops
President Clinton decides to cut his losses. He sends substantial combat troops as short term reinforcements, but declares that American troops are to be fully withdrawn from Somalia by March 31. The hunt for Aidid is abandoned, and US representatives are sent to resume negotiations with the warlord. Two weeks later, in a letter to President Clinton, General Garrison accepts full responsibility for what happened in the battle.

I'm just guessing, but apparently that charade did not exactly terrify Osama Bin Laden.

Mr. Greenwald builds at least part of his pro-Clinton case on the use of selective excerpts.  For example, the Times story noted below cited Bob Dole as a Senate leader of the group supporting the President's plan to stay an additional six face-saving months in Somalia.  However, Greenwald gave us this snippet to make his contra-historical argument that Dole was in the Cut and Run contingent:

GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993

I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close.

Oh, please.  Let's go with a longer excerpt, shall we?

I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. It is up to the administration to give us a plan--a plan--not a U.N. plan, an American plan, that will stress American interests because I do think if we just say, `OK, we are out of there,' and everybody packs up and goes home, we place American hostages in danger, of course. We also, I think, would jeopardize anything else we might be involved in from this time for the next 5 or 10 years.

Any questions?

As to Mr. Greenwald's other excerpts, his links are not supported by the LOC software.  Folks who want to double-check him can go to this page, then select the 103rd Congress, the specific Senator in question, and try a search word like "Somalia".

And I have a question - are any of the Senators on offer really "neocons", as per the Greenwald vision?  In the interview Clinton focused on "conservatives", which could certainly include the isolationist wing of the Republican Party.  The names we are given are Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dirk Kempthorne (my go-to guy on darn near every issue), Bob Dole (dinged!), and Jesse Helms.

Now, Clinton's observation was that his "plan" in Somalia was opposed by conservatives.  Yes it was, but... it was also opposed by liberals.  In an post decrying "historical revisionism", one might have thought that Greenwald would want to bring clarity to that point.  Instead, we get this from Greenwald:

...it was primarily conservatives in Congress -- mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats -- who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately...

For support, Greenwald offers this snippet of reporting from Tom Friedman:

As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

Probing behind the ellipsis, JH Hanes found this (emphasis added):

As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. The opposition led the White House to send Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Capitol Hill to try to calm critics from the left and right of both parties and to beg lawmakers for additional time to draw up a new policy.

Angry Legislators

But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

On the left I have found Russ Feingold and Paul Simon in the Cut and Run crowd (to be fair, Simon may be better placed as a "Cut and Walk" advocate).  As to whether Clinton's opposition was "primarily" conservatives, the jury is out.

CUT AND RUN v. CUT AND WALK: Let's be crystal clear - Congress was not debating a strong response (e.g., send more troops and capture Aideed) versus a weak response (Cut and Run).  Instead, Congress was debating a weak response (end offensive military action and re-open talks with Aideed) versus a weaker response (pick up our prisoners and leave.)  The Clinton plan did not impress PBS and it did not impress Osama Bin Laden.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH:  The lesson I took from Somalia is that the US won't fight if its vital interests are not at stake.  Apparently the lesson Osama took is that the US won't fight at all.

A QUESTION ANSWERED:  Per Greenwald, John Kerry supported Bill Clinton's extended troop commitment in Somalia.  I can't wait to read Kerry's speech just to see his answer to the question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

And having read through his speech, here is Tall John's concluding sentence:

I think the President's plan, as currently outlined, will allow us to step aside.

Bold words.

THE DOG ATE MY CUT AND RUNNERS: A software glitch or operator error has swallowed this original update, but briefly let me hit the highlights - Russ Feingold was "Cut and Run".  Carl Levin, Nancy Kassebaum, and Dianne Feinstein were "Stand and Fight".  Paul Simon called for a bridge over troubled waters, i.e., a resumption of the political process and a de-emphasis of a military solution - let's call that "Cut and Walk". 

The Times has more about Clinton's Cut and Walk approach:

U.S. Is Reported to Be Seeking An Informal Truce With Somali

The White House's special representative in Somalia said today that the United States was seeking an informal truce in its undeclared war with Gen. Mohammed Farah Aidid that would make it possible to begin withdrawing American troops by early next year.

...Spelling out some of the implications of the Administration's new emphasis on a political settlement, Mr. Oakley said the United States would not engage in any mission to arrest the general, even though he remains on a United Nations "wanted" list for his forces' alleged role in an ambush in June in which 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were killed.

And a United States commander said today that he had ordered his troops not to take any actions that might be considered offensives against Somalis.

Mr. Oakley said an independent commission should determine whether General Aidid's forces had carried out the ambush of the Pakistanis. The envoy thus endorsed a proposal made by General Aidid himself in a letter last summer to former President Jimmy Carter.

...The envoy, making his first extensive comments since he arrived on Sunday, said he had made some progress in persuading supporters of General Aidid that President Clinton was genuine in his desire to shift the focus of the United States military mission away from the faction leader.

...Mr. Oakley also said his talks with Somali leaders left him optimistic that a United States helicopter pilot held captive here since Oct. 3 might be released this week. He stressed that he had made no deals for the release of the prisoner, Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant of the Army.

...Mr. Oakley said his objective in Mogadishu was to restore the status that prevailed in May, before the United States turned over military control here to the United Nations. Since then, 28 Americans have been killed in action as the United Nations stepped up it campaign against General Aidid.

Specifically, the attack on the Pakistani peacekeepers set off the bloody undeclared war here as United Nations forces tried to hunt down General Aidid and to carry out a Security Council resolution that those responsible for the killings be captured.

The portrayal by Mr. Oakley of the new restraint toward General Aidid was echoed by both a top United States commander and a senior United Nations official.

The American officer, Brig. Gen. Greg Gile, who commands most United States troops here who are not under United Nations command, said that over the past week, his soldiers had been ordered to restrain from any operations that could be considered as an offensives.

"What we are doing differently is, we're trying to allow the political process to take the lead," General Gile said. He said the 1,300 personnel in his "quick reaction force" of infantrymen and helicopters had halted its searches of buildings suspected of being weapons caches or sites used by General Aidid's forces as bases for mortar attacks. Rethinking by the U.N.

See, what Clinton did with his forceful commitment to Six Months And Out was make it clear that if you killed American troops in combat the consequences would be swift and unpleasant - long talks with Presidential envoys, letters from Jimmy Carter, and hanging over everything: the threat of a visit from Madeleine Albright.

How Osama could ever have interpreted this as weakness will be an enduring puzzle.

THE METAPHOR MANGLER:  Yes, sailors weep when they see "Cut and Walk", but I have moved on.  Dot Tom.

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's pretty clear that "an American plan" speaks to that UNSCOM II was under UN command, and IIRC the US troops under UN command was an issue of concern at the time.

But of course that's not Greenwald's beef; just what his beef actually was has consumed a great deal of comment space.

[Gary Maxwell]

How do you know it was Glenn and not (1) his Brazilian boyfriend or (2) any number of his sock puppets come to life?

[danking70]

If only Clinton had the same backbone as Bush...

"As long as I am President..."

[Slartibartfast]

And we have a Glenn sighting. Well, his point appears to be that Chris Wallace is repeating an old right-wing Jedi mind trick to the effect that Clinton pulled the old cut-and-run.

And certainly it's not the case that no one has ever suggested that, so I guess there's a point in there somewhere. But the Chris Wallace quote wasn't where that point was, because Chris is just quoting bin Laden. Who doesn't mention Clinton.

[Ranger]

I seem to remember that Jack Murtha was tooting his horn about what a driving force he was behind convincing Bill to pull out of Somalia. But he wasn't in the Senate, so I guess he doesn't count for much.

[bgates]

In regards to your first 2 rhetorical questions, would it surprise you if Glenn did think Osama was a neocon?

[A.S.]

Why does the "Biden" comment begin "Mr. PRESSLER"?

[clarice]

I'd guess that Senator Pressler was chairing the Senate when those remarks were made.

[Patton]

Its pretty simple,

Clinton was offered Bin Laden, the papers reported he was offered Bin laden, and he admitted on tape he was offered Bin laden and turned him down.

Now its like semen on the dress, the lefties have to deny its existence.

You can tell when Clintons lying, he starts wagging his finger and gets in your face, the same as he got in Americas face when he told us I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMEN.

[Patton]

Even the Village Voice reported Clinton turned down terminating Bin ladens terrorist career years ago:

A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, this week called the Clinton administration's decision to pass up a chance to arrest Osama bin Laden in 1996 a "disgrace," saying "somebody didn't want this to happen."

A second intelligence official, also speaking anonymously, corroborated the charge that there was a deliberate effort to let bin Laden escape from the Sudan to Afghanistan, saying "somebody let this slip up."

The intelligence officials, both of whom were involved in secret negotiations between Washington and Khartoum to take bin Laden into custody, offered the damning accounts to New York's Village Voice.

The Voice's first source said the chance to arrest bin Laden should have been a no-brainer, despite FBI claims that it lacked the evidence to convict him in an American court. "We kidnap minor drug czars and bring them back in burlap bags," he told the paper.

The State Department may have blocked the wily terrorist's arrest to placate a part of the Saudi Arabian government that supported him, he speculated.

The second official lamented that the U.S. lost a treasure trove of intelligence on the elusive al Qaeda chief when it let him slip away. "It was not a matter of arresting bin Laden but of access to information," he told the Voice.

We could have dismantled his operations and put a cage on top..... That's the story, and that's what could have prevented September 11. I knew it would come back to haunt us."

[Green Glenwald]

I'll have you know, Glenn Greenwald's writing has appeared in the New York Times, he has written a best selling book, and has been quoted on the floor of the Senate.

And his Brazilian Cabana Boy describes him as "Super Cool."

[002 - VRWC]

That's only because the cabana boy gets paid to "fan" him....

[Sue]

I think the exact quote was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...insert sneer...Ms. Lewinsky.

Clinton failed to mention that bin Laden was under federal indictment when the Cole incident occurred. He didn't need anything 'certified' to go after him. He did not have the courage to answer a declaration of war with war.

And all of this would be moot and not being discussed had Clinton answered the question posed to him in a dignified manner.

[totopsecretk9]

And all of this would be moot and not being discussed had Clinton answered the question posed to him in a dignified manner.

Yeah, what happened to the most brilliant man alive, you'd think he of all people could handle in a smooth manner one question form the fools at Fox news, no?

[PeterUK]

"Glenn Greenwald's writing has appeared in the New York Times, he has written a best selling book, and has been quoted on the floor of the Senate."

I can't quite work out whether this is praise or criticism of Mr Gangrene,it would seem good enough reason to run away to Brazil.

[Pofarmer]

And the wheels come a little further off.

My wife and I were talking earlier this afternoon. If you'd heard Clintoons comments even 5 or 7 years ago you would have to have taken them at face value, unless you wanted to go to the library all afternoon, and even then, you wouldn't have found half the stuff. Thank God for the internet.

When are these guys gonna figure out we can fact check their asses?

[Specter]

Pofarmer,

That's not it at all. The problem is a serious issue (grin) called selective amnesia. They only remember things the want - in the way they want to remember them. The facts? Who cares. Look at tic.....

[maryrose]

The blogs are tools for honesty and for fact-checking. Politicians can no longer talk out of both sides of their mouth. The truth is the ultimate goal and I'm afraid people like the Clintons have a distant relationship with the truth.

[Jane]

I remember when Clinton was running for president in 1992 he gave a speech in the northeast in the morning, and another one in the south in the afternoon. In the two speeches he directly contradicted himself. He promised teachers in the south he would never do something, after promising business people in the northeast he would definately do the same thing. ON THE SAME DAY!

The media, of course, gave him a pass, and they have been doing the same thing ever since.

[Neo]

The worst of the Somalia incident is that while Clinton stood and smiled for the cameras with some returning troops on the White House lawn in May-93, by the next election in 96, it was was all Bush 41's fault.

[totopsecretk9]

Greenwald writes:

President Clinton's response was refreshingly aggressive because the premise of the question is so patently and outrageously false.

Which just illustrates how phony baloney all they unhinged ire at anything Bush is, well, unhinged. If a simple question can be deemed "patently outrageously false" out of hand then I happen to deem the last six years of leftist BS hurled at the current President as like, and therefore all their overblown and patently false charges to be ignored from here on out.

[Neo]

This Somalia chronology helps to fill in the memory lapses.

It's part of a PBS program "Ambush in Mogadishu" ..

...The program suggests that a legacy of Somalia, which one of tonight's critics calls "a failed political military operation," was the reluctance of Washington to be drawn into other danger spots like Bosnia and Rwanda. One critic says policy makers were left "actually not knowing what to do at all."

Note the May 4 entry ..
While Clinton supported this expansion of the UN's mandate, he simultaneously ordered the number of US troops in Somalia to be reduced and replaced by UN troops. By June, only 1,200 US combat soldiers remained in Somalia, with 3,000 support troops.

This explains the photo op that I remember of Clinton on the White House lawn at the end of May. The photo op that was all but forgotten by the 96 campaign.

[Neo]

Also not the October 7 entry:

Clinton's response: withdraw troops
President Clinton decides to cut his losses.

If this had come from FoxNews or the Washington Times, the left leaning political hemisphere could easily ignore it. But, this is from a 1995 PBS show .. a non-conservative media outlet during the Clinton administration.

[Foo Bar]

And I have a question - are any of the Senators on offer really "neocons", as per the Greenwald vision?

Did you read all the way to the end of Greenwald's blog post? He has a "bring them home" quote from McCain. Is McCain neocon enough for you?

If that's not enough, there is this from an October 14, '93 McCain speech on Somalia (I took your advice and searched the 103rd Congress at the Library of Congress site):

Mr. President, I want to talk for a minute about the upcoming situation in regard to an amendment involving our continued presence in Somalia .

As we all know, and gratefully so, the American fighting man who was being held prisoner, Warrant Officer Durant, was released this morning. It is my understanding that most, if not all, of our missing-in-action have been accounted for.

Mr. President, to me, and I believe to a majority of the American people, that removes the last impediment for the total, rapid, prompt, and safe withdrawal of American troops from Somalia .

There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia . The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Even better, here's an amendment he offered that same day:

MCCAIN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 1043 (Senate - October 14, 1993)

[Page: S13516]Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Smith, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Roth, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Coats, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Craig, Mr. Mack, Mr. Brown, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Murkowski) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 3116, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

SEC. . PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SOMALIA .

(a) Prohibition.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act to the Department of Defense may be obligated for support of operations of United States Armed Forces in Somalia except as provided for in subsection (b).

(b) Exceptions.--

(1) funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available for continued operations of United States Armed Forces in Somalia to support the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Somalia in a manner most consistent with the safety of United States personnel.

(2) funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available for continued operations of United States Armed Forces in Somalia in the event that American prisoners of war have not been returned to United States authorities and Americans missing in action have not been accounted for.

[Rallph]

This pattern has been with the Democrats for a LONG time. Remember that they concealed the fact that Roosevelt was dying when they ran him for a fourth term.

It's not that I think that Republicans are necessarily inherently more honest, but for years that had to be since the national media has long had a left/liberal slant, and it would "fact check" Republicans. That's probably why they tried to always appear "reasonable."

The Democrats (and the Republicans for that matter) have not awakened to the fact that the "major" media no longer completely defines the debate.

[clarice]

McCain is not a "neo-con".

[cfw]

Your titles are beginning to routinely overstate your text.

What was wrong with the way C handled Somalia after Black Hawk down? It was done wrong how? If no one has some better way that should have been followed, put a sock in it.

[totopsecretk9]

I just heard Chris Wallace on Gallager. He said he did not think this was staged and the Clinton's people had told producers they needed to stop the interview now. If he was smirking it was because he was stunned at how Clinton reacted. Wallace, simply did not think is was that explosive of a question. Clinton did read his people the riot act after and to Howard Dean's response, Chris said Dean was on a few weeks ago after Wallace grilled Condi, and Dean told Wallace he couldn't believe how tough Wallace was to her ...Dean then signed Wallace's guest book, Wallce "tough but fair"

[Foo Bar]

McCain is not a "neo-con".

Who did Bill Kristol support in the 2000 primary?

McCain has chosen to put this article on his own website, in which Ron Brownstein writes:

McCain has become the champion for the hard-line, neoconservative thinkers who want to move quickly against Iraq, no matter how many countries agree.

[clarice]

Champion for the neo-cons does not make him a neo-con.

Here's another article indicating the neo-cons don't like him (they don't,with the possible exception of Kristol):

"You want to be on board with the neocon crowd, you’ve got to help row George W. Bush’s boat full time, no breaks. Take your hands off the oars for a second or pause to utter a discouraging word and you’re dog meat.

Anyone who doubts this should ponder the contempt neocons hold for Sen. John McCain.

That would be the same McCain who ran against Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, earning himself a chance to experience the pain of Bush and his “brain,” Karl Rove’s anything-to-win dirty tricks. It’s also the same McCain who on occasion has waxed less than enthusiastic about some of Bush’s many foul-ups and fiascoes(more)"http://wpblog.ohpinion.com/?p=84

[Neo]

The biggest irony in the whole Somali thing comes from June 5, 1993.
During an inspection of a Somali arms weapons storage site, 24 Pakistani soldiers are ambushed and massacred. The next day, the UN Security Council issues an emergency resolution calling for the apprehension of "those responsible" for the massacre.

With "24 Pakistani soldiers" at the beginning, leading to BlackHawk Down (and bin Laden at the end).

[Tom Maguire]

Re the "Pressler" question - I am starting to think that I have found a statement by Sen. Pressler - Biden is mentioned at the bottom of the text, which may be why the search took me there. Baffling, at least for the non-mavens of this search engine.

[Neo]

ouch

[Tom Maguire]

Did you read all the way to the end of Greenwald's blog post? He has a "bring them home" quote from McCain. Is McCain neocon enough for you?

Ditto the "McCain's a neocon?" query above. That said (or asked), per Drezner there are "McCain neocons" and "Bush neocons". But were there any neocons in 1993?

FWIW (and I am quite sure Green Glenwald does not know this), "neocon", "conservative" and "war supporter" are not synonyms.

What was wrong with the way C handled Somalia after Black Hawk down? It was done wrong how?

Ahh, is it OK to suggest that maybe Somalia could have been handled better *before* the dark matter impacted the whirling cooling system?

Just for starters, Clinton should have defined the new mission and built public and Congressional support for it.

He might have then considered matching troop levels and equipment to the mission.

Just thinking out loud here...

[Foo Bar]

But were there any neocons in 1993?

Does Greenwald allege that there were? I don't think he does. That's why he calls it "mythology"- he's saying it's a story told today about what happened in '93.

The term has been around since the 70s, by the way.

In any case, perhaps you could have asked "were there any neocons in 1993?" in your post, instead of noting that the conservatives in question could include the isolationist wing. It appears to me you were wondering whether anyone Greenwald cited was of the school of thought that values aggressive, unilateral use of the military to achieve idealistic goals not limited to narrow interpretations of U.S interests. McCain is a prime example.

[Foo Bar]

While we're on the subject of lessons Bin Laden may or may not have learned, let's go to a recent WaPo chat with Dana Priest (who TM loves to cite):

Chicago, Ill.: One of Bin Laden's complaints was the presence of the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia. After the invasion of Iraq, sure enough, we withdrew most of our military from Saudi Arabia. Do you think this could have sent a message to him that he can achieve his goals via attacks like 9/11?

Dana Priest: yes, possibly.

[clarice]

It could also mean that the Saudis wanted us to move our troops and we now had a beter place to put them.

[clarice]

Our troops were in S.A. to protect that country and Kuwait FROM IRAQ.

"On August 6, the United Nations Security Council voted 13-0 to set up a trade and financial boycott of Iraq and of occupied Kuwait. Cuba and Yemen abstained (Resolution 661). At the same time, Iraq sharply reduced the flow of oil it normally exported to tanker ports at Yumurtalik, Turkey, and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. The next day (August 7), U.S. troops began deployment to Saudi Arabia at the invitation of King Fahd to help defend his country against a possible Iraqi attack, the opening phase of what Bush administration officials began referring to as "Operation Desert Shield." (In the late nineties and early years of the new millennium, it was the ongoing presence of U.S. "infidel" troops on Saudi soil and so near the holiest sites in Islam that extremists like Osama bin Laden pointed to as justification for attacks on American attacks anywhere in the world.)"

[Tom Maguire]

I admire Dana Priest for not laughing out loud, but really - US troops were in Saudi Arabia because of Saddam. We did not put them there specifically to annoy Osama.

[Foo Bar]

Yes, I understand that's why the troops were there in the first place, but the issue is how their removal may have been perceived by Bin Laden and others in Al Qaeda.

What happened to the idea that we never give in to terrorists' demands and never reward terrorism?

Here was Deputy SecDef Wolfowitz a few weeks before the Iraq invasion:

... the stationing of U.S. forces "in the holy land of Saudi Arabia," were "part of the containment policy that has been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device, even more than the other grievances he cites," Wolfowitz said.

Implying that a takeover in Iraq would eliminate the need for U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, and thus reduce the appeal of terrorist groups for new members, Wolfowitz said: "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."

What an appeasing pansy wimp!

I thought the idea was that there's no point in worrying about who our actions might anger, since "the terrorists" will always hates us and always did.

[Patrick Wells]

One of Bin Laden's complaints was the presence of the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia. After the invasion of Iraq, sure enough, we withdrew most of our military from Saudi Arabia.

Interesting. After WWII we withdrew most of our forces from Europe. I never stopped to consider that the Germans and Italians may have thought to themselves, "Hey, we've got them on the run!"

[clarice]

Well, Patrick, that's cause you lack nuance..or because you're not nuts.

[Foo Bar]

We did not put them there specifically to annoy Osama.

We didn't put them in Somalia specifically to annoy Osama, either.

[MayBee]

We didn't put them in Somalia specifically to annoy Osama, either.

What did we accomplish in Somalia before we pulled the troops?

Isn't Clinton really trying to say about all of this, "You shouldn't listen to your opponents. They don't always have the answer and will turn on you when it's convenient."

Cause if that's what he meant to say, hear hear.

[Foo Bar]

After WWII we withdrew most of our forces from Europe. I never stopped to consider that the Germans and Italians may have thought to themselves, "Hey, we've got them on the run!"

Interesting analogy. Am I to infer that you consider us today to have won the war on Islamofascism to the same degree that we had won WWII as of late 1945?

From TM:

I admire Dana Priest for not laughing out loud

Yes, I'm sure that while she acknowledges failing to answer a lot of the chat questions and tells other questioners they are dead wrong, in this instance she answered "yes, possibly" solely out of concern for the questioner's self-esteem.

[Patrick Wells]

No, Foo Bar, you are not to infer that.

For one thing, we still have large numbers of forces active in the region.

However, after GW1, our drawdown of forces was a natural followup to a victory. OBL is a fairly intelligent man, so I'm pretty confident that he did not actually imagine that this redeployment was in response to his wishes.

That is a marked contrast to Somalia, where we did exit as a direct result of a military setback. Since you are also a fairly intelligent man, I'm sure you can see the difference.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

The ellipsis in the quote from Tom Friedman is revealing as well! Here's the way Greenwald presented it:

As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

Now here's the original with the deleted material in bold:

As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening operation swept Congress. The opposition led the White House to send Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Capitol Hill to try to calm critics from the left and right of both parties and to beg lawmakers for additional time to draw up a new policy.

Angry Legislators

But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were unclear or unrealistic.

Greenwald has always relied on folks not taking time to follow his links or check his quotes. It's also worth noting that while Clinton dispatched additional troops, it was primarily to protect our own withdrawal.

When it comes to the Sudan, of course, the infamous Wag the Dog phenom got traction because going after bin Laden was so entirely out of character.

[Foo Bar]

so I'm pretty confident that he did not actually imagine that this redeployment was in response to his wishes.

Well, it certainly didn't help for Wolfowitz to go before Congress before we invaded and say "gee, having our troops in Saudi Arabia is really making Bin Laden mad, and if we went into Iraq that would probably calm him down and take away one of his prime recruiting tools".

The Iraq invasion and hence the withdrawal from Saudi Arabia was ultimately set in motion by 9/11 (an attack by Bin Laden), was it not? Does anybody here think we end up invading Iraq if 9/11 had not occurred (Saddam's lack of involvement notwithstanding)?

[antimedia]

Calling McCain a neo-con is about the same as calling Hillary a moderate. Both claims reveal a profound ignorance of reality.

[antimedia]

Foo Bar, I'm still not certain if you're truly serious or if you putting us all on. Because even an idiot can see the difference between leaving Somalia after suffering minor losses and leaving Saudi Arabia to pursue the enemy.

What does that make you?

If Bin Laden is still alive, I'll bet he's thinking, "Boy did I f**k up this time. Hope I can recover from this." 9/11 was his Yamamoto moment.