Catching Osama

Mark Coffey has fun mocking the firedogs but I see the question is also burning at skippy and DKos - how could Bush have ever let Osama escape from Tora Bora, as reported by Dana Priest in today's WaPo?

Oh, please - I promised no more o' Tora Bora after the John Kerry's campaign tried to confuse hindsight with insight.  But as to the notion that if we had only committed more US troops at Tora Bora we could have bagged Osama, let me repeat this: Osama was a shrewd military tactician who was certainly capable of monitoring US troop movements and keeping an eye on his own back door.  He could have left Tora Bora at any time, and may simply have chosen to stay as long as he did because he was well aware that his escape route was being "blocked" by Afghan warlords whose commitment to the US was negotiable.

However, if Osama had seen US troops moving to close off his escape, he might very reasonably have chosen to withdraw sooner.

So fine - if we had changed our tactics and Osama had not responded by modifying his, we might have caught him.  What is the evidence that he is that stupid?  He did pretty well against the Russians and is doing OK so far against us.

And a last point to ponder - Tommy Franks, not George Bush, was in command of that battle in Afghanistan.  If Franks had been asking for more US troops and Bush had turned him down, that would be one thing.  As I read it, Franks went with what had been a winning plan up to then - US Special Forces supplementing Afghan warlords.  Following Tora Bora, Franks changed his approach, but there was no reason at the time to think that Bush should have overridden his man in command and insisted on a new approach.

This 2002 WaPo story is helpful, as is this CSM article which says Osama left Tora Bora in November, a notion which seems to be contradicted by the new report.  This old post has some links as well.

A BEAUTIFUL MILITARY MIND:  Paul Krugman, military strategist:

The path to this strategic defeat began with the failure to capture or kill bin Laden. Never mind the anti-Clinton hit piece, produced for ABC by a friend of Rush Limbaugh; there never was a clear shot at Osama before 9/11, let alone one rejected by Clinton officials. But there was a clear shot in December 2001, when Al Qaeda’s leader was trapped in the caves of Tora Bora. He made his escape because the Pentagon refused to use American ground troops to cut him off.

Interesting - economists routinely study game theory, where players adjust their moves and strategy in response to decisions made by other players.  I wonder if the Earnest Prof has realized that game theory and the analysis of strategic choices could be applied to military situations?  Coming soon - chess commentary from Krugman along the lines of "White's approach would have led to checkmate if only Black had stopped looking at he board and reacting appropriately".

As to his statement that "there never was a clear shot at Osama before 9/11, let alone one rejected by Clinton officials", something happened with the Sudan in 1996 when they expelled Osama.  This is from the final 9/11 Commission report (Ch 2, p 62-3):

In February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching officials from the United States and other governments, asking what actions of theirs might ease the foreign pressure. In secret meetings with Saudi officials, Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March. Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan.  They had already revoked his citizenship, however, and would not tolerate his presence in their country.

And Bin Ladin may have no longer felt safe in Sudan, where he had already
escaped at least one assassination attempt that he believed to have been the work of the Egyptian or Saudi regimes, or both. In any case, on May 19, 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan—significantly weakened, despite his ambitions and organizational skills. He returned to Afghanistan.

And here is how Bill Clinton described that in comments taped on Feb 15, 2002:

And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Clintonistas, in trying to run away from that, had modest success with the 9/11 Commission and more success with Media Matters and Paul Krugman.  However, it is clear that Sudan wanted to expel Bin Ladin and curry favor with the US, and the US was aware of their desire to do so.  Whether Sudan formally offered Bin Ladin to the US may be a formality and a useful defense; it does not beggar the imagination to think they would have offered him if we had asked, and one might wonder why we did not.  Apparently there is no evidence of a formal Sudanese offer; if there was evidence of a formal US request and a Sudanese refusal, I suspect we would have been told.

Comments

[clarice]

If we'd killed him--and frankly, I do think he's dead or mostly dead--would there not be a plethora of articles and books about how (a) we had no proof he was responsible(b) he deserved to be captured alive and tried at the Hague (till he died or the judges did ) ; or (c) killing him only made it worse.

FIE FIE FIE

[JJ]

Osama stuck ineffective in a cave in the hills of Pakistan, is that such a bad thing?

[vnjagvet]

Well, we have had a plameout on plame precluding Fitzmas, a Democratic immigration strategy that is clearly failing, an ABC that didn't follow the Clintonian orthodoxy on al Quaeda, a netroots failure in the making in Connecticut, doubts regarding Harry Reids' Speaker ambitions, etc., etc.

What's a Washington Post reporter to do?

Let's dredge up Tora Bora. Play it as a Bush Screw-up. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Sue]

I watched a 2 hour show this afternoon on the History Channel about bin Laden. In it were the same allegations that on at least 2 separate occasions, Clinton and his security team would not give the okay to do anything. Only one attempt was made to actually kill bin Laden and that was the missle strikes that missed him by a 'couple' of hours. They were actively trying to figure out how to 'capture' him, using the Northern Alliance. The show claimed that the CIA's attorney nixed any attempt to assasinate him.

One thing I found interesting and I don't know if I have heard it elsewhere but before the US even started bombing Tora Bora, the CIA captured his radio transmission to his 'warriors' in the caves of Tora Bora. According to the History Channel, bin Laden left for Pakistan days before the bombings started.

Another thing that was very prominent in the show was how Clinton lost his nerve to make a decisive decision after the criticism he received over the bombing of the 'aspirin' plant.

It also made clear that Clinton was not concerned with the rise of the Taliban and he was distracted by the Lewinsky scandal.

I think Clinton forgot to check all of the channels when he had his lawyers send their stop picking on me letter.

[granny]

OT - For the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" File, also from Firedog, I kid thee not!

"[The following is an open letter to George W. Bush from Bill Clinton’s penis]"

[steve sturm]

You make a point I've tried to make as well. All the second-guessing by Bush critics presumes facts not in evidence.... that more US troops at Tora Bora would have snared Bin Laden and so on, that more troops in Iraq would have kept the insurgency from developing, that disbanding the Iraqi Army after the initial invasion was a mistake and so on. The fact is that none of the second guessing Democrats and retired military talking heads know for sure whether Plan B or Plan C would have worked better than Plan A. Heck, they don't even know for sure that the choices made by Bush haven't left us better off than the other options that were on the table. It's possible, just to speculate, that keeping the Iraqi Army intact and the Baathists in power would have infuriated the Shiites and led to an even bloodier civil war than what they're now facing.

To be fair, the GOP does its own share of secondguessing. For all their complaints about Clinton not taking terrorism seriously, does anybody really think that we'd have peace on earth right now had Clinton not pulled our troops out of Somalia right away or had he been more aggressive in going after Bin Laden? For all we know, had we stuck around in Somalia, we'd be approaching 3,000 dead about now, having no real exit plan and facing complaints from Republicans that our presence there has only infuriated the Muslim world and created far more terrorists than we had managed to kill.

The easiest (and laziest) thing one can to when looking at something that hasn't worked out great is to claim they would have done something else... whether it be calling for a pass when the run gets stopped or claiming they would have sent more troops to Tora Bora.

[Terrye]

I think he is dead already. I have no way of knowing that ofcourse, but I think he is.

And you know what? We do not even know for sure if he was there when the soldiers got there or if he would have been there if he felt threatened.

Dana Priest is just blowing off.

[Sue]

The easiest (and laziest) thing one can to when looking at something that hasn't worked out great is to claim they would have done something else... whether it be calling for a pass when the run gets stopped or claiming they would have sent more troops to Tora Bora.

You must be a republican. I say that because if you aren't, you are the first democrat I have encountered who gives both sides a fair shot. And for what it is worth, I agree with what you said, but the democrats have a short memory at their own duplicity in getting us where we are today. They want everything to start on January 21, 2001. Anything prior to that is effectively wiped off the slate.

[Rick Ballard]

"Osama stuck ineffective in a cave"

He is not!

Achmed says he's never seen a more effective wallpaper paste. OBL also confirmed his status as a true prophet with his last words "I'm becoming very attached to Afghanistan."

[Mickey Mouse]

It's not like the C.I.A./Special Forces had Osama in their crosshairs and had a call into Bush's National Security Advisor asking for approval to take Osama out but was turned down...10 times. Wait, that reminds me of another President.

"The Path to 9/11" on ABC in 12 minutes!!!!!

[Sue]

Steve,

I guess I was being presumptive thinking if you aren't a republican you are a democrat. You could be libertarian or green or independent or something else entirely. I apologize.

[cathyf]

I think OBL is dead, but don't have any proof. The problem with proof is that we can prove he's dead if we get his body, but there is no proof that I'm willing to accept that he's alive -- basically anything that would be "proof" could also be fauxtography.

I will say that if he isn't dead, he has become considerably stupider. Before Tora Bora he was a brilliant theologian; in his post-Tora-Bora statements he has been embarassingly vapid. Maybe the kidney disease has caused neurological damage. Or maybe the "OBL" statements have been sock puppetry...

[Terrye]

cathyf:

Yes, I agree, its just not the same old Osama we love to hate is it? He seems kind of silly now.

[boris]

does anybody really think that we'd have peace on earth right now had Clinton not pulled our troops out of Somalia right away or had he been more aggressive in going after Bin Laden?

Not much around here. My POV

One side tries to blame Bush for something neither president had a decent chance to prevent. Blame for being unserious about the issue is somewhat pointless. So it's really just a rhetorical foodfight they started and went crybaby now that something might set the record a little straighter.

[Kevin B]

I've just watched Part 1 of The Path to 911 and while much has been made in the blogs of it's depiction of the Clintonistas failure to catch or kill UBL, to me the main lesson to be drawn from the film is the range and scope of the forces ranged against us. Yes, UBL is an important part of the story, but the fact comes across that Muslim terrorist groups operate around the world in a loose affiliation and take advantage of terror sponsoring states to finance, plan and train for their outrages and that by taking a law enforcment approach to combatting this, we are doomed to suffer more and worse attacks.

Taking out the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghhanistan were vital. It would have been nice to take Bin Laden out at Tora Bora. It would be nice to take him out now. It would have been nice to capture him or kill him before 911. It may even have stopped that particular plot, but the virus of jihad has spread too far and wide to be stopped by the death of one man. The terrorists would have come again, and again, and again.

But the lesson to be learned from this program, or even a cursory view of history, is that this is a war on many fronts and we must fight it as such.

The Islamo-fascists have offered us three ways out of this war - conversion, subjugation or death. We have to show them by our actions, and by our words, and by our resolve, that we will submit to none of these. We have to show them that our Civilization is strong enough to resist them and that we will use all means necessary. We have to convince ourselves that we need to make tough decisions and take tough actions now, because if the terrorists continue to see us as weak, they will push too hard and the ultimate response will be one that neither they nor we will like.

But if it does come down to it, we will take that action. We will regret it but we will do what we have to do.

[Eric]

I just can't see the point of "thinking" Bin Laden is dead while admitting you have no proof.

Clarice: Point a) is borne out in Bin Laden's place on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list: 9/11 is not listed as one of his crimes. What this means looking over the past five years I don't know.

[PeterUK]

We may as well have a few maps of the area courtesy Global Security, Bearing in mind any force would be backing onto Waziristan.that pakistans early warning would be at the use of al Qaeda.Chances are very slim to insert US units unnoticed

[Dale in Atlanta]

Actually, knowing dozens of active duty officers in the Marines, Navy, etc., the blame for Tora Bora belongs one place, and one place only: fully on the shoulders of General Tommy Franks!

He categorically refused to listen to the advice of his subordinates, and deploy not only more forces to Tora Bora, but he also refused to deploye Artillery in general into Afghanistan!

That's a fact, and it made the difference, and Bin Laden escaped.

In addition, I know Active Duty officers who sat 6 feet away from Franks, during the planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom: he CATEGORICALLY refused to listen to his General Staff's continued recommendations to plan for a Post-War Iraq, and literally told the G-6 people (Civil Affairs); to literally "FUCK OFF" on numerous occasions, and that is a direct quote!

Tommy Franks has managed to escape with reputation intact, and it should not be that way.

Finally, there's that clip, of President Bush, awarding the Medal of Freedom to George Tennet, Tommy Franks, and Paul Bremer.

Unbiased History, should show that those 4 individuals are directly responsible for over 90% of the screw-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush and Rumsfield are personally responsible, for NOT Firing ALL three of them!

[BumperStickerist]

Tommy Franks NPR Interview

This is, imo, an overlooked interview given by Tommy Franks with Terry Gross.

Key points made by Franks deal with the timing of the invasion of Iraq, troop strength issues, the role of coalition, and a whole bunch of relevant issues.

I relistened to parts of it and it's refreshing to hear Tommy Franks hold forth - he's very forthright with the benefit of being plainspoken.

-

[BumperStickerist]

Well, having just listened to Franks talk about troop strength issues - balancing the size of force issue, waiting to build a force of 500,000 soldiers or going in with 100,000 comes up about 7 minutes in.

Having listened to Tommy and having read Dale - I'm going to side with General Franks as being the non-crazy one.

.

[Dale in Atlanta]

BumperStickerist: nice try, but you completely mis-represent the issues I raised.

And second of all, they're not even open to debate!

I was an AD Intel Officer for years; know dozens of AD Officers in all the services, who were in intimately involved in the planning for Both operations; not the "Generals"; who have a "legacy" to protect; but the Staff Officers who do the heavy lifting, and who have to take the career hits, when it doesn't work out like it was supposed too; so I'm 100% secure in the knowledge that I outlined above!

You, listen to one NPR interview, and side with the guy who gave it, that's the extent of your knowledge, and experience!

And, the issue that you bring up with the NPR interview, is NOT even one I raised!

I never once, raised the issue "troop strengths" in Iraq, prior to, with the invasion.

Anyone with a brain, knows that everyone wanted more troops for the invasion of Iraq; but that was impossible for Two reasons:

a) Clinton had cut the Active Duty military by more than 55% from the Gulf War, and those types of numbers were actually Impossible for the Iraq invasion! Besides, I never raised the issue, and I've never criticized Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, or Franks for that, ever!

b) if you have any knowledge at all, you know, that SecDef attempted to send the 4th AD into Northern Iraq, from Turkey, but that move was blocked by Turkey, with backstabbing support by the French, Russians, etc.

So, the size of the Iraq invasion force was NOT able to be larger; but then again, as it turned out, it wasn't NEEDED; the forces we had in place, did a masterful job, on the march to Baghdad; one of the most masterful Battle Plans, and executions, in Military History!

But then again, I NEVER raised that issue!

So, Bumperstickerist, go back, and REREAD my post, and LISTEN to what I SAID!

Gen Tommy Franks REFUSED to deploy Artillery to AFGANISTAN, over the Objections of his Staff, and as a result, it wasn't there when it was needed at Tora Bora, because it was overcast, and CAS couldn't fly, and there was NO Firesupport, to him Bin Laden/Al Qaeda in, and he escaped into Pakistan as a result!

That is a FACT!

Number two: Franks, on over a DOZEN occasions, REFUSED to listen to his staff, REFUSED to talk to his Civil Affiars guys, and flat out told his Staff, we do NOT have to plan for a Post-WAR Iraq, that's the State Department's problem!

FACT!

So, if you can find, in all that, where I criticized Franks for Troop levels used during the Invasion of Iraq, I'll take it all back!

Bottomline, you have NO knowledge, NO experience, and NO clue of what you speak!

[topsecretk9]

but the fact comes across that Muslim terrorist groups operate around the world in a loose affiliation and take advantage of terror sponsoring states to finance, plan and train for their outrages and that by taking a law enforcment approach to combatting this, we are doomed to suffer more and worse attacks.

Which I think was item b to airbrush on the lefts fatwa put out on the great eared one.

[Dale in Atlanta]

PS: Bumperstickerist, before you get your panties in a wad, and I have to send you home with some Motrin, to handle your cramps; I have always been a supporter of this President, and this SecDef, and this invasion of Iraq (I was in Northern Iraq the FIRST time around, mind you..); as well as, of course, the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the GWOT in general.

What I have NOT been a supporter of, is President Bush's major failing, which is the same as his father's, which was unflinching loyalty towards people who have blatantly let him down, and failed to do their jobs!

And it's my firm believe, that History, if examined unbiasedly, in the future, will definitely fined the following people left this Administration DOWN, and thus, have let the American people down, when we should've had better, and those people are:

Colin Powell as SecState, to include his despicable actions with Armitage in the so-called "Plamegate" scandal...

George Tennet; how can I count the ways, that this man, betrayed his post; he always was a Clintonista, and always will be...

Paul Bremer; almost single handedly responsible for the current state of affairs in Iraq. Also a Clintonista, and always will be. In fact, 2 months after President Bush took office, he was carrying Richard Clarke's "water", and critizing Bush for not being serious about Terrorism!

He was doing this, by March of 2001! That's a fact! And Bush turned around, and gave him the most important job any American has had overseas, since MacArthur was in charge of Post-WWII Japan!

And Franks, of course, whose manage to get a complete "pass"!

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen, in my lifetime, a President so ill served, by the people he trusted, and appointed, to included Sec Snow; and the people he "inhereted", to include people like Richard Clarke.

I consider, frankly, the actions of some of these people, to be borderline Traitorous, in their conduct, during their work for the Administration, and afterwards!

Do don't misconstrue my remarks, as that I'm some type of "leftist", attacking Bush, the War in Iraq, etc., nothing could be further from the truth...

[sbw]

So much second-guessing. So much time frittered away held hostage to the past. The past has value only as a tool to plan for a better future. Like sighting down a film strip, one should look from the past, through the present, to the future -- asking what can I do today that will lead to a better future.

Too many people are digging through the past for weapons in the vain hope they will lead to power -- with precious little thought about what they'd do were they to get that power. How animal. How small.

[Pofarmer]

Dale

It's my understanding that Franks was TOLD that post war planning in Iraq was to be handled by State. His command was to handle the war, State was supposed to handle the peace, so yes, I think he does get a pass.

As to artillery at Tora Bora, how do you even know they could get it in place and use it? The whole point was to be light and fast, artillery slows you down, and the terrain and obstacles in Afghanistan are nearly impossible. Tora Bora was chosen for just those reasons. Could we have even gotten it there to use it?

[BumperStickerist]

Thanks Dale

I'll send my DD214 back, give up my zero-down mortgage and payback my VEAP benefits. If it's okay with you I'll still go to the VFW Hall. (enlisted, cryptologic linguist/analyst - TS-CW clearance, two tours overseas, NSA gig)

I'm not against Franks coming in for a critique for his decisions.

The Tora Bora stuff I'd read from awhile back during the immediate aftermath of Tora Boar, so it's not like I google-chimp'ed the NPR interview, I recalled it.

After reading your stinging rebuke ~ cough ~ I did google-chimp a review of 'Not a Good Day to Die' from Infantry Magazine, published by the US Army - the book and review are, generally, critical of decisions made by General Franks.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_1_95/ai_n16346583

The review gives a couple of reasons why Franks decided to not include artillery/ mortar in favor of air support. It doesn't appear that Franks just got drunk one night and decided against using mortarts and artillery - there appears to be some reasoning behind Frank's decision.

As to the issue of General Franks not heeding the advice of the staff officers .... I'd need to poll staff officers's subordinates to see if the staff officers accepted all the advice of the people under them before forming a judgement.

My recollection of my service is that I worked for at least staff intel officer who was a complete jackass - not with regard to the military stuff, reviews, duties assigned and such, but with regard to the intel itself.

btw the Franks interview also gives Franks's reaction to questions about Rumsfeld and Bush.

Not that that matters - you've got staff officers insights to work off of.

I'm off to watch the football game - have a good night.

[Jane]

PS: Bumperstickerist, before you get your panties in a wad, and I have to send you home with some Motrin, to handle your cramps; I have always been a supporter of this President

And a sexist one at that.

Your information is invaluable. Your opinion of women, less so.

[Aaron Adams]

The Case for Capturing Osama bin Laden

[lurker]

So...if they are talking about capturing OBL today, then why did they blow it ten times when Clinton was in the office?

[sam]

How do you capture somebody who is blown to smithereens, and whose DNA has been been vaporized?

And, to those who wonder why the so-called "OBL's" messages have become so vapid and meaningles, it is because they are the press releases from the DNC, not the old OBL.

[lurker]

Well, spamming sam, apparently, the democrats still think OBL is alive.

[lurker]

Geesch, this movie shows how widely the terrorist networks are and how big this terrorism really is. They have been one too many steps ahead of us.

The argument is when a country lacks the capability to defend itself with various facets, such as military, intelligence, finance, willpower, strength to stand up against terrorism, accept risk of casualties, etc., then we have a better chance.

As long as these leftwingers sing the Neville Chamberlain song, we're losers.

Anyone see The Jawa Report post captured from DKOS?

[Verner]

Well, just watched Path to 911. WOW.

[Sue]

Well, I don't know what all the hoopla was all about. I don't dislike Ms. Albright anymore now than I did before.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Jane: don't even try the "sexist" angle, doesn't work, don't care!

It's a military way of talking; Bumperstickerist knows that; if he was upset, he'd let me know!

I have a wife, and 3 daughters, and the rule the roost; I worked in the Military, for women, with women and commanded women, and never had one problem; in fact, just the opposite; the BEST boss I ever had, was a Woman Navy Officer; and some of the Best Intel Analysts I EVER worked with, were women, and one of the best Marines I ever had, work for me, was a women!

So nice try, but it don't work!

Bumperstickerist; been there done that: TS/SCI/Codeword/codeword/codeword/Special Programs, ad naseum; three overseas tours; six weeks in Iraq, tour in the Pentagon J2/DIA; work with NSA and CSG, CIA, etc., etc., DD214, Legion of Merit, Joint Service Commendation, Navy Commendation, Navy Achievement, ad naseum, ad naseum; been there done that!

It's not Frank's duty to tell State what to do; it WAS his duty, to make sure he FULLY Utilized ALL his assests, as any commander/CG is supposed to, and that includes his G-6 assets.

It's also his responsiblity to LISTEN to his staff officers, that's why the system is set up, co CG's and CO's HAVE Staffs! They are the duty experts, in their respective fields, and it's their duty to Advise him, and to also, dissent, within the framework of good Order and Discipline!
If CG-s and CO's were so infalliable, they wouldn't waste time, giving them Staffs, and they certainly wouldn't spent, YEARS, teaching All Officers, at every level of their Careers, from Capt - level schools, thru Maj-level schools, thru LtCol & Col-level schools, and finally into the General Officer Ranks, when they go to their schools--STAFF LEVEL PLANNING!

That's why, the United States Military, has spent the last 80 years, refining, and teaching the 21-step, comprehensive, STAFF LEVEL PLANNING Sequence!

Officer - 12 years experience; then some more years in the "civilian" sector, and I'll leave it at that!

Friends with the Artillery experts, that advised Franks personally, to take Artillery; problem was, Franks was an Artillery Officer himself!

Also, he was Army; he refused to listen to the Artillery experts, because they were Marines; the Marines not only could've gotten their special artillery there, they could've utilized it!

Anyway "sbw" is correct in a way, it just doesn't matter now, I guess, it's all water-under-the-bridge, and OBE!

What matters now, is who/what/where/how/when/why do we go from here?, I guess...

[Pofarmer]

Just watched it too. Wow. Really can't understand all the DNC's Hubub.

[CNJ]

Path to 9/11:

"Why is the women are always the smart ones?"

Two female cops(1 Philippines, 1 USA) prevented mass casualty attacks without firing any shot.

[Pofarmer]

"What matters now, is who/what/where/how/when/why do we go from here?, I guess.."

Somehow I think we'll disagree on that, too.

[Jane]

From the left: Is it possible that Disney included the untrue stuff about the
Clintion Admin's actions so that it would be possible for this thing
to be aired? I mean, if it was all Bush Bad what chance is there
that it would be aired?

Jane: don't even try the "sexist" angle, doesn't work, don't care!

Dale,

I'm not big on yelling isms; it's just not my style. But then the biggest insult you can think of involves comparing someone to a weak woman, it says bad thing about you. You might want to reconsider, particularly if your wife is reading.

[Sue]

Why is the women are always the smart ones?"

They must have missed Ms.Albright. ::grin::

However, I must admit, the majority of us are the smart ones.

[Jane]

I thought it was a "wow" too. Seems to me Clinton should be embarrassed by his protestations.

[Sue]

I certainly wondered what the big deal was. It might have used poetic license to create words, but the gist of it followed the 9/11 report, the articles I've read and interviews I've seen. It didn't make me think any less of the Clinton administration.

[Sue]

I hope Richard Clarke keeps his mouth shut. He came across as looking like a hero. Which bugged me, because I think he is a weasle.

[Syl]

Dale

The war was to depose saddam and take baghdad. Tommy Franks did that--it was not his responsibility for the POST war phase so he could blow off whomever he felt like.

Remember Mission Accomplished? That was because Tommy's part was, er, accomplished.

BTW, I watched the 'Path to 9/11' and was riveted. I have to admit I cried in the beginning--and I'm not a person who cries easily. But I was sobbing. I don't know why.

[Tom Maguire]

It's a military way of talking; Bumperstickerist knows that; if he was upset, he'd let me know!

Well, we're not in the Army here and the rest of us are letting you know.

Re this:

One thing I found interesting and I don't know if I have heard it elsewhere but before the US even started bombing Tora Bora, the CIA captured his radio transmission to his 'warriors' in the caves of Tora Bora. According to the History Channel, bin Laden left for Pakistan days before the bombings started.

The CSM Article linked above gets off to a tedious start but includes this:

Between two and four days later, somewhere between Nov. 28 to Nov. 30 - according to detailed interviews with Arabs and Afghans in eastern Afghanistan afterward - the world's most-wanted man escaped the world's most-powerful military machine, walking - with four of his loyalists - in the direction of Pakistan.

...

Bin Laden, according to several fighters and the Saudi financier, later phoned back to the enclave, urging his followers to keep fighting. He also reportedly told them he was sending his own son, Salah Uddin, to replace him. Bin Laden's talk with his followers in Tora Bora just a few days after his departure may explain why US intelligence officials said that they thought they heard his voice on Dec. 10, probably on a short-wave transmission.

However, the latest Dana Priest story has this:

Intelligence officials think that bin Laden is hiding in the northern reaches of the autonomous tribal region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This calculation is based largely on a lack of activity elsewhere and on other intelligence, including a videotape, obtained exclusively by the CIA and not previously reported, that shows bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. forces came close but failed to capture him.

[Sue]

And I really always click on your links. I promise. ::grin::

[clarice]

edwardjayepstein.com has a fascinating review of the early tapes of OBL--they are either out of the order in which they were reported to have occurred or some OBLs were ringers. It's a tricky site to navigate I'll try to pull up that portion and post it or you'll be stuck in a maze trying to find what I'm talking about.

[clarice]

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_photos.htm

He also has the best detail on the Atta in Prague story:http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:lxxlyO6H4DcJ:www.edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/prague.htm+edwardjayepstein&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2>Atta

[paulv]

Dale, how many assrts did US have on ground at ss\tart of Bora Bora, how hard would it be to move artillery in mountains of Afghanistan and how quick could OBL bug out while US was placing assets into Bora Bora.
How effective were gunships and laser bombing as artillery in Afghanistan? How much woulf the bad weather that made planes ineffective have hampered helicopter moving artillery. How many mountain troops did US have then

[clarice]

I can't easily find it, but I remember an illustration of the eleaborate lair Bin Laden had in Tors Bora. I think it was in the UK Times. Looking back on it, that was hilarious.Underground chambers, generators, etc etc...All a fantasy.

[lurker]

I felt myself getting madder and madder as the movie went on - showing how the terrorists were so many steps ahead of us and how creative they were.

[Terrye]

I just watched that movie, and maybe the years of incessant Bush bashing have left me sort of numb to political name calling and such, but I thought Clinton got off pretty damn easy.

[Cecil Turner]

How effective were gunships and laser bombing as artillery in Afghanistan? How much woulf the bad weather that made planes ineffective have hampered helicopter moving artillery.

I think this is closer to the real question, along with the logistic feasibility to move arty into the mountains. (Via helo from Amphib shipping or through/over Pakistan I presume--and those helos were already tasked.) Neither arty (which I doubt would make a significant difference in the outcome anyway) nor a sufficiently larger ground force looks feasible to me. Could be wrong, but I suspect those touting the larger force are missing the big picture.

[lurker]

OT:

Sound familiar?

Facing Down A Despot?

Clinton almost went alone.

[topsecretk9]

This how the left see 9-11, the braintrust at FireDogSwamp

To me, the most disturbing thing about 9/11 is that it has made us into a republic of fear. There was a time in the world when Americans were known for our courage, originality, and daring. That’s not true anymore. Now were are known for living behind the high walls of our nation of privilege and sending our poorest young men and women out to kill other poor people overseas.

Nice.

We are officially the biggest crybaby country on the planet.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Tom Maguire: I've heard/seen "stuff" that indicate Bin Laden left even before Tora Bora, and fled into Pakistan.

I've also seen/heard "stuff", that indicates he was there, until the bitter end, and that if we had had some more blocking forces, or Artillery (because planes were grounded by bad weather, and the lightweight 105mm Howitzers would've been Towed in...), he would've been trapped.

I've seen so much stuff, indicating BOTH sides, that I'm close to deciding that the only one who DOES know is Bin Laden himself, and I'm not sure he's going to give us the satisfaction of ever telling us the truth...

[topsecretk9]

Lurker...I am pissed that every other country involved was able to make decisions, not worried about "warrants" and "justice" and actually got useful life-saving information and were "allowed" to treat the terrorist as "terrorists"

[owl]

Just watched it too. Wow. Really can't understand all the DNC's Hubub.

Everyone stay tuned.....it is all about The Report Card. I caught ABC this morning and gagged so much I was unable to even read blogs today. They had Kean/Lehman vs Ben Veniste/Gorelick and the Veniste/Gorelick team wiped the floor. Kean just seems to want to point to anything that was not done, according to Kean. The only one that even put up a fight was Lehman. I will take that guy on my team.

Just like we got the faux Rockefeller/Levin report.....now we will be subjected to the 9/11 Report Card. Let me guess.....duh....ya think Bush gets an F?

Let me grade the 9/11 Commission with Gorelick.......F and lots of DNC bs. Just like that Senate Committee.....they got away with it because it had Hagel and Snowe. Name who you remember speaking up during the hearings for Pugs....Lehman and Gordon (2). That's it. Like what was Roberts to do with the likes of Hagel and Snowe siding with the Dems and putting out that crap....

[Dale in Atlanta]

PS: I watched most of it, back and forth between the Football game, and frankly, I can't see why, on earth, the Clintonistas were upset; it certainly wasn't worth the effort and hysteria they put into it! Probably just increased the ratings, that's all!

Rick Moran over at TWNH criticized Donnie Wahlberg's character as over the top in his criticism above his paygrade.

Trust me, IF that scene, had happened exactly as they portrayed it in the movie, I know DOZENS of Military and "Ops" guys who'd have done/said WAAAAAAAAAAY worse,and justifiably so.

When you've been on the "pointy tip of the spear.." so to speak, and a "politician" pulls the plug on your, for political reasons, and your butt is on the line, trust me, you go crazy.....

Jane, I'd love to introduce you to a couple of the women I served with, and let you decide if they are "weak" or not! So sorry, you keep trying, but it's not sticking....

[owl]

Ooops....got to ranting and lost my point. I always look for their hidden campaign and I think it is the 9/11 Report Card. I think we will see it in every form, on every channel and media.....forever....or the election....whichever comes first.

[reliapundit]

we should have nuked tora bora. that would've killed obl and ended the gwot in one fell swoop.

a nuke sends a powerful message: don't tread on me.

and before you go off and call me some wingnut, remember: fdr and truman ordered worse. and more often.

we are fighting a ruthless enemy with one hand behind our back.

why? are we afraid we might make them angry!? sheesh.

is it better to send our troops in harm's way with half their tools!?

what message do we send the enemy when we fail to use all the tools we have!?

is winning not worth it!?

would you rather lose!?

do want the war to last longer, and give the enemy more time?!

meanwhile assad and ahgmadinejad and nasrallah plot other attacks. as do their acolytes all over the world - on every continent.

what horrific attack must they pull off before you feel it would be more justified!?

why wait!?

we're squandering our advantage.

it's time for a few ultimatums:

to musharraf: clean out the tribal regions or we nuke them.

to all u.s. madrassas and mosques: stop teacing jihad or we close them and deport the deportables. stop ALL money transfers to thrid parties. allow only certtified person-to-person.

demand lebanon and the un forces disarm hizballah by a date certain. or b52 the entire nation to smithereens. as fdr and truman did.

demand russia dismantle all iranian nuke facilites by a date certain or destrioy them all with all necessary force.

assassinate assad.
assassinate nasrallah.
assassinate ahmadinejad.
assassinate khameni.

or/// just dick arond and let them all get stronger... and just wait for the next big one.

each attack by the obl against the usa has been mush bigger than the previous attack.

brace yourself.

[Dale in Atlanta]

I don't know if reliapundit is serious or not, but one other message came thru to me, from the "Docudrama", loud and clear!

The Clinton Administration was debating internally, about trying to avoid even one "innocent" civilian casualty, or one woman and child casualty, and were willing to let a mass-homicidal-murderer lose, to prevent that, at the EXACT same time, his group of murderers were setting off bombs, REGARDLESS of how many innocent civilians/women/children they were killing, or blowing out of the sky, or plotting to do (East Africa for example!)

Just for the record, I LIVED in the Middle East, on/off from the time I was 18! (that was 30 years ago!!, BTW) I speak Arabic; I've gone to university there, I've worked there, I've been there as a civilian, a student, a member of the military; I've eaten with them, prayed with them, worked with them, gone to school with them, partied with them, drank with them; hell, I've even slept with them!

I've been to Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Cyprus, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman...

One thing I can say for SURE, is that sure as hell don't respect Human life, not even their own; and what's worse, they view our "concern" for human life as our overwhelming weakness, and they mock us for it, and utilize it to the fullest extent!

I can't tell you how many times, I've had Arabs/Muslims, look me straight in the eyes (and this isn't/wasn't confined to Jihadis/fanatics, but also College Professors, students, businessmen, etc...) and say: "You Americans are weak, because you are too concerned for human life, and we will use it to break you....", or words very similar!

They despise us for that weakness, they are only too aware of it, and they mock us for it...

It's hard to win a war, any war, when the playing field isn't level, and we have an arm and a leg tied behind our back!

Our greatest challenge, as a country, a people, and a society, is convincing our OWN people, especially the Left, here and in Europe, that this is a "different" war, and it isn't going to be won, until we put a WWII type effort, and attitude, into to!

That's why, the despicable Bill Mahr's comments, about the 9/11 hijackers being "brave", were just so damn wrong.

No, BRAVE, is a 19 year old PFC in the Marines, who's married, with a pregnant wife at home, and earning about $1500 a month, if he's lucky, goes into combat against these murderers, despite the fact that he may not want to, and despite the fact that he wants to go home to wife & impending child, and when he goes into combat, he tries to do his duty, and keep himself and his buddies alive, and in the end, he gets it anyhow!

That's brave!

Brave is NOT being BRAINWASHED, by a bogus theology, that inculcates in you, that you'll go to Heaven, as soon as you blow up yourself and one/some of the infidels, and you get 72 Virgins to abuse, and 24 "Ghilmans" (prebubescent boys, who haven't started to shave yet ((Go to Wikipedia and look it up, if you don't believe me, I have to educate people all the time on the Middle East, Islam, and the Military..)), and all the food, wine, and all those other earthly delights you've been forbidden on this earth!

That's not BRAVE; that's Cowardice where I come from; it's not bravery to do something that IMPROVES your lot in life, or the Afterlife, that's Selfishness.

It's bravery, to do something Selfless, even when it means your own possible demise, like those PFC's and others.

It's not Brave, to do something for yourself, and kill other people in the process.

It's BRAVE, to do something for your country, for a better world, or for a better world for someone else, even though they may hate you for it, or for ideals, and honor, and integrity!

THAT'S Brave....okay, I'll get off my soapbox now...I just got frustrated from that angle, by watching it...

[PeterUK]

Cecil Turner,
It would not have just been the problem of inserting artillery and more troops,it would be extracting them afterwards.With the Tora Bora mountain range in front of them and the autonomous tribal lands behind them,any troops could have attacked from the rear.
The vulnerability of helicopters to elevated fire in mountain regions,their diminished operational capability at higher altitudes,here 13,000 feet,and the necessity of using troops who were acclimatised, all add risk factors.A Mogadishu in the Tora Bora would have been a disaster.

[Bob]

Good Morning all

Christopher Hitchens gives a sobering look at 9/11

The time for commemoration lies very far in the future. War memorials are erected when the war is won. At the moment, anyone who insists on the primacy of September 11, 2001, is very likely to be accused--not just overseas but in this country also--of making or at least of implying a "partisan" point. I debate with the "antiwar" types almost every day, either in print or on the air or on the podium, and I can tell you that they have been "war-weary" ever since the sun first set on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and on the noble debris of United Airlines 93. These clever critics are waiting, some of them gleefully, for the moment that is not far off: the moment when the number of American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will match or exceed the number of civilians of all nationalities who were slaughtered five years ago today. But to the bored, cynical neutrals, it also comes naturally to say that it is "the war" that has taken, and is taking, the lives of tens of thousands of other civilians. In other words, homicidal nihilism is produced only by the resistance to it! If these hacks were honest, and conceded the simple truth that it is the forces of the Taliban and of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that are conducting a Saturnalia of murder and destruction, they would have to hide their faces and admit that they were not "antiwar" at all.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008926>Read the whole piece in the WSJ

[Jane]

Jane, I'd love to introduce you to a couple of the women I served with, and let you decide if they are "weak" or not!

dale,

I have no doubt the women around you are strong. My criticism of what you said had nothing to do with the women around you, but rather this statement of yours:

PS: Bumperstickerist, before you get your panties in a wad, and I have to send you home with some Motrin, to handle your cramps;

I found it offensive. Why you feel the need to harp about your bona fides with women rather than say - "gee, yeah, bad analogy" is beyond me, but have at it.

[Jane]

After seeing part one, I think Hugh Hewitt is right. The left doesn't think we are really at war. It's not a big deal, blah blah blah, and this movie might convince a few people that the threat is real.

I really don't care about Clinton, Berger and Albright. They were stupid to call so much attention to themselves. They can bitch and moan and complain about whatever they want but none of it negates the fact that we are at war, and that's the point that needs to be driven home.

[PeterUK]

Michael Ledeen on the political wing of Jihad

[Verner]

Yeah Jane. We are at war. But there are many people, including Dana Priest's husband William Goodfellow, who didn't even want us to take out the Taliban in Afghanistan, and have been fighting tooth and nail against the Administration ever since. I think all of Priest's pieces need to come with a warning label.

As for Path to 911. I thought the scenes from Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were the most striking. They are literally living in the 7th century, kind of like little boys who go into the woods and play cowboys and indians--only the guns are real.

I also now have even greater respect for Massoud. We should all commission a lovely bronze statue of this great hero giving the one finger salute, and place it right at the entrance to Langley.

[lurker]

Three mistakes made by previous US adm:

1. Treatment of terrorists as criminals.
2. Too much emphasis on civil liberty laws (and made by SCOTUS a few months ago).
3. Lack of willingness to recognize risk of civilian casualties.

[lurker]

Why do you think the Ottoman Empire lasted 400 years? Why do you think how difficult it was to topple the Ottoman Empire?

I agree that Massoud deserve greater respect. He was a fighter through and through. So was "Kirk". Unfortunately, "Kirk" was bound to the weaknesses of our government and society.

[lurker]

And Jane, that Motrin / cramps comment was uncalled for, too.

[lurker]

And Jane, that Motrin / cramps comment was uncalled for, too.

[Florence Schmieg]

I remember that time well (Tora Bora time). We were being extra careful to let the Afghans have control of the war to the greatest extent possible so as not to appear to be an invading force. At that time (and actually still today in a way) we were told by those who felt they knew what the Afghan "sensibilities" were that we would lose all support from them if we took total control. It was the "truce" that the warlords called for "dialog" with the enemy that allowed time for Bin Laden to escape (if in fact he did). But of course, 20-20 hindsight is wonderful for Democrats who said not a word about wanting all these extra troops at the time. Sigh. It never changes.

[Sue]

I think some are forgetting the humiliating defeat of the Soviet Union using the very equipment that some are saying should have been used. Tommy Franks managed to do in short order what the Soviet Union tried for years to do. We had boots on the ground in Iraq and all the heavy artillery you could ask for and Saddam managed to slip out of Baghdad and hide for almost 9 months. 20/20 is a wonderful tool in the military. I wonder when they will develop it?

[maryrose]

I watched "Path to 9/11 and commented to my husband what a trmendous cultural difference there is between us and the 4th century tribal lifestyle of our enemies. The fact that they are obsessed with this conversion to Islam thing {with the 2 Fox News reporters} smacks of the Crusades or the Inquisition. It makes me feel as though any type of negotiation is poitless. Force seems to be what they understand best.
Dale in Atlanta:
Your post I found to be frightening in its intensity but I have to realize the value of human life just isn't the same for all peoples. I can't relate to the moral mindset of these afgan terrorists.

[Sue]

I too, had great respect for the leader of the Northern Alliance. I wish he had lived to see the end of the Taliban. (And don't anyone tell me they are coming back, I read the newspapers, I know that.)

[Pofarmer]

"I hope Richard Clarke keeps his mouth shut. He came across as looking like a hero. Which bugged me, because I think he is a weasle."

Definately a weasel.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Sue: the Soviet Union didn't get defeated in Afghanistan, because they tried to use Artillery!

They got defeated in Afghanistan, because they tried to stay completely inside their Armored Vehicles, and NOT put boots on the ground; because they tried to rely on fortified bases or strongpoints, where the Mujahadeen controlled the countryside, because they over-relied on Helicopters, which only fly so high above Sea Level, and not "ground level", and thus are almost useless at 15,000 feet in the mountains, because they couldn't use CAS effectively, because we supplied the Mujahdeen with Stingers; because we supplied the Mujahdeen with 120mm Mortars, that they had no counter-fire capability for, and because 95% of the country was against them!

We are not facing all those same obstacles, yet; but it had nothing to do, with the Soviets trying to use Artillery!

[Sue]

Far be it from me to argue military tactics with someone as knowledgeable as you are.

I will reiterate. Tommy Franks managed to do in short order what the Soviet Union couldn't do in a decade.

[cathyf]

we should have nuked tora bora. that would've killed obl and ended the gwot in one fell swoop.

a nuke sends a powerful message: don't tread on me.

Unfortunately, nukes are not the all-powerful weapon that lots of people think that they are. The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden caused WAY more devastation than the nukes at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. And caves in mountains are about the most perfect fallout shelters. That's why our military command centers meant to survive all-out nuclear war are in mountains.

The problem with a nuclear attack on Tora Bora is that it would have been like Clinton's cruise missile attack on empty tents -- it would have made us look weak and stupid.

And in this war, to put it in a way that fits on a bumper sticker, WEAKNESS IS PROVOCATION

[Dale in Atlanta]

Sue: that part has never been in debate, frankly!

It's like the invasion of Iraq; brilliant miliary maneuver, even considering they had the 4th AD blocked from taking part in the north!

Both, masterful military campaigns, that critics thought couldn't/wouldn't work, and they did!

Both used way less forces, and the force ratio types in each invasion did not match what "doctine" called for, and yet were both wildly successful, and both showed flexibility, and adaptability that was genius!

Unbiased, Military Historians, and myself as well, have NEVER disputed that, and never questioned that!

The only "what-if's", is not that they weren't successful, but given Hindsight, could either/or, been done better, or in a different way?

As far as Iraq goes; the ONLY argument that can be made, was that IF Turkey had not blocked the 4th ID, and they had been able to come into N. Iraq via Turkey, would they have been able to get to Baghdad quicker, stop some of the looting/chaos that the US took heat for later, like the National Museume, and would've more boots on the ground there, have meant the insurgency could've been contained more, etc.

I'm not sure we'll ever know the answer to that question(s); they would've been nice; but then again, I NEVER said that was Franks fault, and it clearly wasn't; Franks didn't block the troops, Turkey did, and he thus did the best he could, with what he had!

Vis a vis Aghanistan, I never questioned the overall plan, the overall success, etc.

I did, clearly state, that he should've/could've taken Artillery, specifically the Marines lightweight 105mm howitzers, that would've been useful in Tora Bora, and that he refused to do so, despite the pleadings/urgings of his staff, and in the end, they MAY have made a difference at Tora Bora; based upon my conversations with about TWO DOZEN officers who were on the ground there, and who had personal experience there, and who've all given me the same feedback, over the past 5 years!

That's all I said, and all I meant!

Considering it's not MY experience, not MY knowledge, and not MY opinion, but ones comeing from some very good tactical and stragetically minded Officers, who walked the ground, and fought the battle (unlike me..and all of you!), and it's something we don't normally hear in the day-to-day discussion concerning Afghanistan, I passed it along to you all, was was, unvarnished!

I never once critized, the overall Aghanistan campaign, nor the outcome.

However, having passed that along now, it seems suddenly, that everyone is an "expert" on Artillery, and battle in Afghanistan, and the Soviet campaigns, etc., and every thinks that because I criticized Franks, on this partricular issue, based upon very real feedback, from people there, I might add again, that that immediately makes me some type of leftist trying to denigrate the whole war, the GWOT, etc., etc.

C'mon people, READ what I said, Don't READ INTO it, anything that's not there!

Sue, that said, what the Soviets faced, when they entered Afghanistan in 1979, was not at all what we faced, in 2001!

When we went in, in 2001, we went into a country that had been devastated by 22 years of continuous, internicine war and civil war, a populate completely at war with itself and each other, a country that was literally in the Stoneage in many respects; with willing Allies (Northern Allicance); with bad guys that most of the populace was clearly fed up with (Al Qaeda, Taliban); and one with no allies, like we, the Pakistanis, and the Saudi "Arab-Afghans" were, to the Mujahdeen!

Two completely different scenarios, two completely different outcomes!

A little research will show you, that 200+ years, of coventional military doctrine, dating back to the height of the "Raj" in Indian Empire, showed that Afghanistan was IMPOSSIBLE to invade, successfully!

Alexander the Great was the last person to do that!

After that, EVERYONE failed, most spectacularly, the British/Indians and the Soviets!

What Franks accomplished there, was nothing short of miraculous; and I'll still pass along the criticisms on him, about the Artillery!

[BumperStickerist]

I get the sense that Dale's a fan of artillery ... and Motrin.

And, as Florence said, my recollection was that we were working a coalition angle at that moment - maybe you can speak to the logistics efforts needed to get the artillery in place, what kind of time would it have added to mission (if any) or the response time.

fwiw, for the general comment reading public, here's a topographic map of Tora Bora The closer the lines, the greater the change in elevation.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Bumperstickerist:

"I get the sense that Dale's a fan of artillery ... and Motrin."

Okay, I deserve that, Touche!

No, quite the opposite, I was never an Artillery "fan", and I wasn't an Artillery officer in the Corps; I was a Grunt, and later Intel!

Couldn't stand Arty, but it did save my butt a couple of times.

That said, you're pointing out of the logistical difficulites, and geographic contraints of Arty in that type of environment, are logical, and worthwhile.

Then again, as I said above, it wasn't MY feedback, but the feedback of Arty experts on the ground, who I knew, who did say it would've been useful, and they needed it.

That said, I'll do Tom, and the Board a favor, and drop the issue from this post on; I think we've run it into the ground, and now we're boring people.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Bumperstickerist:

"I get the sense that Dale's a fan of artillery ... and Motrin."

Okay, I deserve that, Touche!

No, quite the opposite, I was never an Artillery "fan", and I wasn't an Artillery officer in the Corps; I was a Grunt, and later Intel!

Couldn't stand Arty, but it did save my butt a couple of times.

That said, you're pointing out of the logistical difficulites, and geographic contraints of Arty in that type of environment, are logical, and worthwhile.

Then again, as I said above, it wasn't MY feedback, but the feedback of Arty experts on the ground, who I knew, who did say it would've been useful, and they needed it.

That said, I'll do Tom, and the Board a favor, and drop the issue from this post on; I think we've run it into the ground, and now we're boring people.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Rick Ballard]

It's OK to drop it but I sort of expected some mention of the quality of intelligence available to Franks as he made his planning decisions. If he was given information that led him to plan a birthday party, it is difficult to fault him for not having planned a formal sit down dinner for five hundred.

My understanding is that the troop numbers for the Taliban were seriously underestimated and that erroneous information concerning the number of civilians (on the very high side) was provided. The first Delta Force/SEAL teams in were rather surprised at what they found upon arrival, if my memory serves.

[PeterUK]

Also worth remembering,Pakistan did not want US troops of its soil,nor does Pakistan have control of the Tribal Regions which abut the Tora Bora mountain range.

[clarice]

Every now and then I go back in time to review what the punditocracy said about the problems we'd face if we invaded Afghanistan. Talk about an intelligence failure! To his credit, Mark Steyn hasn't forgotten and provides a thousand yucks in his review of the brilliance of the experts and media mavens.

I don't want to, but a side by side review of what the media and President's critics got wrong and what Franks did, should put the argument to rest.

[Extraneus]

Why would it have been better to kill bin Laden at Tora Bora and make a martyr-hero-legend out of him rather than, say, make him hide like an impotent rat for five years without being able to land another blow?

[maryrose]

I think all this talk about Osama Bin Laden is a waste of time. If we had him in the dock like Saddam the Left would just yawn and try to find something else to complain about. How much attention is the MSM giving to the fact that the trial of Saddam has re-comenced today. They don't care about bringing these terrorists to justice. They just want the big reins of power again.

[Extraneus]

Good point, maryrose. Btw, does anyone think the Democrats would rather have gotten bin Laden, or would even rather get him now, than be able to use him as a talking point? Is this perhaps one reason the "Is he dead?" stories never seem to get written?

[PeterUK]

Alexander of Macedonia,drew harsh criticism from experts today for his failure to have a post invasion peace plan for Persia and Asia Minor.Annoymous sources stated that insufficient Macedonian firefighters were the direct cause of the disasterous fire at the Palace of Darius the former King of Persia.
Darius is said to be on the run from Hoplite Special Forces,"Alexander could have prevented this by putting more sandals on the ground", said a former Spartan general.

[Jane]

I think all this talk about Osama Bin Laden is a waste of time.

I agree, as he seems to have been marginalized. But it does point out the differences between the left and the right on the war (as if we need them pointed out). Yesterday on FNS Howard Dean was yammering about how we abandoned the war on terror because we let bin Laden go.. A few minutes later on the panel Bill Kristol pointed out that if the democrats thing Afghanistan is the totality of the war on terror they simply don't get it.

Of course I think we knew that.

So does anyone know if the great lefty googlebomb ever occurred?

[clarice]

In Ellas, the popular publication ,Kosmos, hints that not only where there too few sandals on the ground, but that the conflagration grew out of hand as Alexander and his men were too engaged in an orgy. Alexander denies that he had sex with that(those) woman(women)/man (men), wagging his finger at the reporter who raised the rumor.

[PeterUK]

As former Hoplite General Shinsekos of Alexandria said in his memoires,"All this could have been avoided if Alexander had deppoyeda a brigade of Platonists as he had suggested".

[clarice]

You win again, PUK

[azredneck]

I think that Dale's comment's re: Iraq are more important. I'm currently reading Rick's FIASCO and was taking it with a large grain of salt--as I had a developing sense of dread. He also focuses on the lack of a post-war plan. Frank's non-concern is mentioned, but his real culprits are Pentagon planners, followed by Bremer and some truly horrendeous approaches by both the CGs and Bn commanders guaranteed NOT to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.
Most of us have been disgruntled by the latest report by the Senate Intellegence Committee, but like Afganistan, it's mostly water under the bridge. If Dale and Ricks are right--and I think they are--our problems are just beginning. Wait till Part 4, which focuses on post-war Iraq, with Levin the lead Dhim (that truly evil little toad, IMHO).
The planners and most especially Bremer have apparently placed us in a very untenable position which will require extraordinary efforts to repair. By the descriptions in the book, American actions more closely resembled Russian actions as they entered Berlin, rather than any American tradition.
I pray that both Dale and Ricks are wrong!

[Larry]

"Clinton had cut the Active Duty military by more than 55% from the Gulf War..."
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | September 10, 2006 at 05:53 PM

To be fair to Clinton, much as it pains me, the reduction in force was planned by the Bush 41 administration. (then) Lt. Gen. Henry Viccellio, Jr.,deputy chief of staff for Logistics and Engineering, in October '92 (the month before Clinton was elected) briefed us on it at our mutual 30th USAF Academy class reunion.

[Slartibartfast]

If you have Google Earth, you can go see what Tora Bora looks like from the air. It's a lot more obvious in Google Earth than the topo map. Type "34 4' N 70 2'E" in the "Fly To" box, and then back it up to about 18 miles eye altitude. Getting towed artillery moved around in there would be difficult, to understate.

Whoever advanced the "nuke 'em" argument ought to be embarrassed. An air burst would kill a lot of rocks, while a ground burst would have to be right on target. While, of course, dropping fallout all over Pakistan. Nukes do lots of damage against cities and exposed troops and equipment; much less so against Mother Nature. If we'd known exactly where he was, we could have used conventional weapons on him.

[Slartibartfast]

Larry's right. And the civilian side of the DoD had started ramping down a couple of years prior to Clinton's inauguration.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Larry/Slartibartfast: there is no doubt, that the downsizing of the US Military, was being anticipated, and planned for, the moment that the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed.

Dick Cheney was one of the architects, IF I remember correctly?

And after the "last hurrah" of the Gulf War, Bush Sr. all but forced the issue, in order to try and jumpstart the enconomy in time for him to win re-election!

It did work, to a certain degree, but the economic turnaround came to late, to be noticeable to the public at large, and did not benefit him at all, and he didn't get re-elected as we know.

That said, the drawdown that Bush Sr./Cheney/et.al had envisioned, was no where as deep, or as drastic, as was eventually forced on the Military, throughout the entire decade of the 90's, as Clinton forced more and more cuts on the Joint Chiefs than they had planned for, anticipated, or wanted!

Additionally, the cuts that they did want, and plan for, were speeded up, and introduced willy nilly, as opposed to being spread out, in some cases, over years, and even decades; were forced on them in a matter of months, in some cases.

I too remember getting a brief on some of the impending cuts, and we were amazed, and looked at our CG's, and basically said "Sir, who is going to carry out all our warfighting committments, because we will not have the personnel to do 50% of what we have to do, and the answer was "We're going to make greater use of the Reserves and National Guard"!

That was the answer; so now you know the genesis of all the Reserve and National Guard troops being used over in Iraq & Afghansistan, and how the left has blamed Bush for that all along, when in fact, these plans were put into motion under Clinton, so he could slash Active Duty personnel force levels by over 50%!

It got so bad, at several points, that some of the Joint Chiefs Service heads, were talking about resigning! Something that was unprecedented!

I know the several of the Marine Commandants, were definitely sending out "messages" to the White House, than any more cuts, and that they would resign.

Clinton didn't want that, because it would make him look politically "bad" with the Military, so they backed off the Marine Corps at least, but the Army and Navy took a real pounding!