Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The response to 9/11 by this administration was very very very one dimension thinking. It was "cold war" mentality brought onto the field of play in a "new war" way. And it sucks.

There was no reason whatsoever to go into AFland and make that country "our dependent"...just as there was no reason in terms of the war on Islamic extremism using terror tactics to go into Iraq.

There was no reason to do either as they were executed. Having said that...the reality is that the fight in Afland makes no difference if we lose in Iraq.

What is amazing to me is how stunningly "one dimension" this administration and its thinkers are in terms of global politics and global action. It is only slightly more amazing then how stupid the far left is...(the far left is as stupid with Bush as the far right was with Clinton)....

Oh well..

Robert

Posted by at April 4, 2007 12:46 PM

Robert, it is your position that there was no reason to destroy the Taliban, the one national government that was openly and actively supporting Al Qaeda?

Posted by Rick C at April 4, 2007 01:40 PM

There was no reason whatsoever to go into AFland and make that country "our dependent"

Except, possibly, to remove the Al Quaeda power structure, destroy their training camps and rid their country of the terrorist-sponsoring, woman-subjugating Taliban. Portions of this mission still exist today, which is why we're still there.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 4, 2007 01:46 PM

Robert, if you think we should not have gone into AFland as you call it, you have temporarily lost your bearings. Did you really mean that?

Posted by Offside at April 4, 2007 01:58 PM

Robert, it is your position that there was no reason to destroy the Taliban, the one national government that was openly and actively supporting Al Qaeda?

Posted by Rick C at April 4, 2007 01:40 PM

the Taliban were ZERO threat to the US...there was no reason to engage them, they had nothing to do with 9/11 and had nothing to do with any future threats against the US.

They were a residual of OBL and his "merry gang" (sorry kind of a line I use to describe wierd people) of islamic extremist...and the Taliban would have been nothing without his and his organizations continued support...and the only reason that they remain a viable force is that we have allowed OBL and his organization to remain in tact.

We had a reason to destroy THE BASE and we should have done that. We have been sidetracked by at best long term and rather badly done efforts of nation building.

We have almost performed as badly as The Crown performed in dealing with The Revolution forces in what was the English colonies of North America.

The Crown started to look on the entire affair as a "combat" movement, not a political one. Hence it never sought out and elminated the political leaders nor addressed the political problems that were causing the "rebels" to gather support. The British would have easily stopped the rebels by eliminating from the scene, various key leaders of the REvolution in its infancy. Instead they concentrated on really badly done battles which they won, but which had little good effect on the entire problem.

We should have post 9/11 made it an urgent priority to Kill OBL and delete his political organization. That was more important then taking down a fourth rate government which had no capacity to engage the US.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 4, 2007 02:10 PM

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 4, 2007 01:46 PM

Stephen. COld warframe. Only the first goal had any importance and we have failed at it.

OBL is alive and functioning with a "power structure" and to the Arab street it looks as if he has survived the onslaught of the worlds most powerful military.

Robert

Posted by at April 4, 2007 02:12 PM

Afghanistan was very straight forward. The government there directly supported the group that killed more than 3000 people in the US. I can see how people could disagree on the invasion of Iraq. But there's no excuse for this kind of yapping about Afghanistan.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 4, 2007 02:16 PM

Posted by Offside at April 4, 2007 01:58 PM..

we should have killed OBL...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 4, 2007 02:18 PM

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 4, 2007 02:16 PM
...

the purpose Karl was not to take down fourth rate governments which have little or no threat to the US, but to eliminate groups which are direclty theatening the US and the concept of nation states...not to mention the concept of the advancement of civilization.

There was all the reason in the world to take down THE BASE but the Taliban? No.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 4, 2007 02:23 PM

Fully agree with Karl. This is just yapping.

The Taliban was the living implementation of the kind of state OBL desired for the Moslem masses. The recipe brought to full fruition by Chef Omar, so to speak.

Robert, you've lost it today.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 02:38 PM

I think Krauthammer analogy is too abstract. Using what he said, I think a Martian would say, "Afghanistan... it's certainly the easy win". It all depends on what the Martian values, and from what's stated, the important value could be simply land.

The key is strategic importance, but a truly neutral observer would not look for the strategic value. That's not neutrality. In addition, the "backward with no resources" also hits at the "desperate need of external assistance" the same way those who denounce either battlefield suggest the US should be helping in Africa.

Posted by Leland at April 4, 2007 03:03 PM

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 4, 2007 02:38 PM

who cares...? The Taliban government had no method of threatening the US...and to some extent served a purpose to illustrate what the fight was about.

When I deal with problems I try not to be distracted by symptoms and try to engage the main cause of it...

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 03:09 PM

One more attempt here. Robert, what group is responsible for the 9/11 attacks that killed 3000 people in the US? Al Qaeda. What government not only openly provided Al Qaeda with a headquarters and protection (support far in excess of any other country including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), but actually paid them good money for Al Qaeda troops? The Taliban.

When the Taliban fell from power, we knocked out the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda. Any attempt to destroy "THE BASE" requires dealing with those who support it. The Taliban was successfully dealt with.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 4, 2007 03:40 PM

Number of nuclear armed states RIGHT NOW bordering Afganistan:
2
Number of nuclear armed states bordering Iraq (for at least the next decade):
0

You cannot decouple the fate of Afganistan and Pakistan. Defeat in Afganistan will result in nuclear war within five years. It is not clear what "defeat" would mean in the case of Iraq, since the requirements for victory are so vaguely defined. A pro-Iranian government will be running the show whatever the result.

Posted by Duncan Young at April 4, 2007 03:42 PM

The Taliban did not merely support Al Qaeda; Al Qaeda was officially part of the Taliban's Ministry of defence.

During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he had helped finance the Taliban.

Osama married off one of his sons to Taliban leader Mullah Omar's daughter to formalize the connection between them. This is in a land where blood ties are *everything*.

They're two arms of the same organization.

Posted by Roger Strong at April 4, 2007 04:05 PM

Oler's position makes no sense and in fact it skids very deeply into Rosie land in it's poverty of thought. There is no sensisble way to deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and leave the Taliban untouched. The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a country to use as a base of operations.

I think we've relatively well these past almost six years. There has been no further attacks on the American homeland and we've established fragile but viable governments in two countries that hitherto have been enemies. And the cost as been less than two or three days fighting in many major WWII battles.

Yet Oler's friends in Congress want to surrender to the terrorists. Go figure.

Posted by MarkWhittington at April 4, 2007 04:20 PM

What a ridiculous statement...kind of right wing fantasy land.

The Taliban government is like the government we have in place there now...it controlled Kabul and some ancillary areas, Afland for the most part is very very tribal and it always will be.

What we needed to do in Afland was to establish based of operation in neighboring countries, and in the country proper that were concerend with sending our special ops folks (Think "the Unit) into the areas of government and the country to disrupt and eventually "tag" OBL.

The trick when hunting someone is never to destroy their "areas of operation" until you are about ready to nail them because if you destroy those areas then what happens is that they find "new ones" that you dont understand and that you might not have access to.

That is precisly what we did do in Afland. We pulled down the organization that OBL felt comfortable operating in and his answer, after bribing forces to escape because we didnt put in enough troops of our own to bag him....was to move into Paky land...where we have no access.

If we are "doing thing" in Paky land to find him, they are PRECISLY Of the SMALL UNIT special ops type of systems that we needed to use in Afland, where we didnt really care what the government in power thought about what we were doing.

In Paky land we have to be very very careful because our buddy ("The General Fellow"...remember when Bush brilliantly called him that HAH) is about one heartbeat away from being on a slab with then total carnage.

If our "buddy" is negated then we are done in Afland anyway MARK...go look and see how we are forced to supply that area of ops anyway.

The right wing thinks with a cold war mentality when they have about as much "uniform" time as the far left of the Dem party does as well.

Afland was a tar baby that we bought into...and did so stupidly.

We have to succeed in both places now that we are there, but that does not negate the fact that going was as stupid as saying that a coup in a Democracy was a "stabilizing" event...LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 04:43 PM

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 4, 2007 03:40 PM

NO....none of that is accurate or related to the problem.

Knocking out the Taliban has done little to cripple OBL...almost nothing.

If anything it has probably strengthened OBL...he is the only guy who can say that The President of the US wanted him "Dead or Alive" and well he is still standing.

Ponder that for a moment and you will figure out the meaning of the words "Big Bad John".

There is not a recruiting video that THE BASE does which doesnt have Bush saying "OBL Dead or Alive" and then mentions that "by the Grace of Allah the magnificient OBL still lives"....Sorry I cant type the Arabic...although I can say it!

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 04:47 PM

Opps...

should be "Allah the mercifull"

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 04:47 PM

Mark.

I can of course understand why you are bitter...it must sting to have run the cheering section for a group of people who are losing the pr battle to an idiot like John Murtha....

Bravo Zulu.

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 05:16 PM

Y'know, at least Brian has a somewhat level head compared to Robert.

Robert says: The Taliban government had no method of threatening the US

Training terrorists to attack US interests is not a threat?

Posted by Mac at April 4, 2007 05:16 PM

Training terrorists to attack US interests is not a threat?

Posted by Mac at April 4, 2007 05:16 PM

not a significant one nor one that was worth attaching ourselves to a tar baby from which there is no extraction only defeat...

The VAST bulk of the training of the 9/11 folks took place in places like California, Maryland, Florida and well lots of internal places.

The events in Afland that "were" problems could have been negated with much less "brass" and much more "woodwind" (to quote a person from history) had a lot more thought been used as to "what" we were attempting to do in Afland.

FOR INSTANCE...it would have been much more disruptive to have had a large scale training "place" where we could have simply "bullodzed the ground" or sent semi large special ops people in to simply "delete" those people...leaving their corpses behind as a kind of friendly reminder.

What we have done in Afland and Iraq is gone in with a wrecking ball...when the house had termites...that needed fumigation.

We had large scale cold war solutions to problems which required more tactical and strategic smarts then people like Dick Cheney and Donnie the Rummy had.

It is not an original illustration with me, but the guy who wrote Imperial Hubris and it is a good one. What we did was pull a weed...in the process we scattered the seeds everywhere...

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 05:32 PM

Seems like Al Qaeda was "harboring" the Taliban
militarily as much as the Taliban were "harboring"
AQ geographically...

Without taking sides on the question of whether it
was a "proper" war, Bush's demand that the Taliban
"cough up Al Qaeda" struck me as an example of the
strategy of making "expected-to-be-unacceptable"
demands to establish a formal pretext for an
act of aggression that one already intends to
perform... I'm sure that he was as aware that the
Taliban couldn't "cough up AQ" without
eviscerating themselves as he was that Iraq
would never agree to "turn over your President
and his sons."

Whatever one may think of Bush's judgment in
selecting wars to start, at least the man
is consistent in his style of how he goes about
starting them!

-dw

Posted by dave w at April 4, 2007 06:28 PM

I think the Martian would ask why we went and wrecked Iraq if it was so sophisticated and technologically advanced. It would further ask why we waste our time and energy on a bunch of bumpass, ignorant, illiterate, self-destructive savages. Why do not do something more creative and cost-effective with our time and energy.

I am sure Rand and some others here would reply that the islamists are diametrically opposed to our culture, values and civilization and are out to destroy us. Furthermore, we are educating them to the superiority of our own values and culture. The martian would respond that they are a bunch of bumpass, ignorant, illiterate, self-destructive savages. He would ask if we really believe that they can do any real harm to us? He would ask if we truly believe that we can ever change them. Rand and the others would insist yes, despite the fact that there is not one scintilla of evidence to indicate that this is so.

Posted by Jardinero1 at April 4, 2007 07:32 PM

Y'know, Jardinero, you make me nostalgic. I've heard almost exactly the same thing ca. 1962 on a back porch in east Texas. IIRC your name then was "Billy Bob" and you were drinking Pearl.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at April 4, 2007 08:44 PM

Really Jardinero?
British schools are limiting lessons about the Holocaust so they don't offend Muslims. France can't contain those "youths" burning cars almost nightly. Many immigrant neighborhoods in Europe practice Shari'a and the government looks the other way. Read Mark Steyn's book, "America Alone" and you'll come away with a different perspective.

Dave W, you write as if those were elected governments that had some legitimacy. FDR didn't tell the Emperor of Japan, "Hand over those war -crazed military leaders or else." Japan attacked and we responded. President Bush didn't need to ask, he gave them a chance and when they didn't take it, he acted. You also ignore 10 years of Iraq ignoring UN resolutions and thumbing its nose at the world without consequence to its leaders. These psychopaths thought the West would do nothing because up until 9/11 nobody seemed willing to do anything. Some of you here seem willing to accept mass murder and subjugation as long as it's not you. That's reprehensible.

Posted by Bill Maron at April 4, 2007 08:47 PM

Rand, you've got the lunatics in full-Rosie mode here. I can't believe the "arguments" they're attempting to employ.

To try to separate OBL from the Taliban is the height of idiocy. It's not even worth responding to. There's no historical accuracy in the claim whatsoever. And the racism embedded in Jardinero's claims is numbing in its ugly vapidity.

Keep up the good work, Rand. Maybe we'll have the pleasure of witnessing their heads exploding. One can only hope....

Posted by nukemhill at April 4, 2007 09:10 PM

Posted by Bill Maron at April 4, 2007 08:47 PM

I have no problem with the US invading and "taking over" a country if 1) it is in the US national interest and 2) HONEST REASONS FOR DOING IT ARE STATED.

It was clear from the get go to anyone with half a brain that we didnt have even "good" evidence that Iraq had WMD THAT COULD THREATEN THE US.

But yet that charge was repeatdly made...

That was not honest and was without honor.

That is why this administration is the incredible shrinking man right now.

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 4, 2007 09:42 PM

I agree with Karl Hallowell's first post and also with Robert Strong on Afghanistan.

Concerning the article Leland puts it well, I read it what must have been a few days ago and although I have a good impression of Krauthammer this article seemed weak and/or poorly written.

A few things I've just got to say:
- accusing Rumsfeld of being trapped in a cold war mentality just falls completely flat, it's also interesting to note that some of the suggested alternatives is pretty much what was done (by him)
- let's not completely forget about the Northern Alliance and the current status of the areas they represented (lots of parallels to the Kurds in Iraq)
- even if it's true that the government in many ways is limited to Kabul, so what? For the first time in a long while there's actually an Afghan parliament (based on what they had before the taliban and communists). Tough **** that we don't like everybody who's represented there and that all the problems didn't just disappear like magic smoke (it's the same in every democratic system, even the well-established ones)

I have had enough friends, aquaintances, co-workers, and even a few really good teachers that all were both muslim as well as non-white to know that neither means they can't/don't love responsible non-infringing freedom and democratic ideals. Most of them are saddened by the current state of affairs in their countries of origin or original descent.

Statements to the effect of "muslims are not fit for democracy" and/or "democracy is not fit for muslims" would offend every one of them except one very young hothead I had as a student.

Ok let's throw out the big one ^_^ (and no this is not intended as a conspiracy theory, only a possibility that makes some sense).

Has it occured to anyone else here that the US might know and have known the precise location of OBL for quite a while?

If you knew that would you capture or kill him right now? I wouldn't. I would pretend we couldn't find him and continue to use extensive (both remote and not) surveillance of him, his movements, his actions, his conversations, and anything at all in order to gain the maximum possible intelligence on whoever is the new nr.2, nr.3 and so on (while they are being inconspiciously removed now and then) as well as the changing structure, strategies, tactics, past and future plans and so on.

I believe the US armed forces as well as the US intelligence agencies would be more than capable of this, although most participants would be kept unaware of what was really going on. It might even have been the plan from the very beginning (very Rumsfeldian), not only predating but being the cause for the "dead or alive" statement.

This is pure speculation as well as wishful thinking... but what would you do?

Robert G.Oler:
One of the many honest reasons for going to war with Iraq was that the UN as well as the US and the rest of the world at large was unable to ascertain the existence OR destruction of WMD materials (specifically chemical and biological agents) that were documented by the UN as having been in existence the last time they actually could check. The UN admitted this, Hans Blix admitted this, every single european intelligence agency that put out an opinon on the matter admitted this as well as the the US of course.

You want proof? Go to the UN and read the archives of the public UN Security Council meetings predating the US invasion discussing Iraq (if memory serves me it should suffice to read the ones that were held in the half year prior to the actual invasion, perhaps a bit more).

These public UN SC meetings were all transmitted with minimal interruptions or commentary by among others the BBC World tv news broadcast and I'm pretty sure the UN has video recordings as well.

I watched them, you don't seem to have (and no, a lot of the procedings and statements weren't accurately depicted by "news" summaries).

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 4, 2007 10:25 PM

The key is strategic importance, but a truly neutral observer would not look for the strategic value. That's not neutrality.

Leland, that's a very interesting side-issue. In essence, would the Martian feel, if he truly took the most dispassionate perspective, that the Afghan and Iraq wars are the best possible use we could make of 3000 young lives and half a trillion dollars? Even I think the obvious answer to that question is hell no, but then my preferred alternative on-the-cheap solution -- Curtis LeMay's "nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark" -- would have been unthinkable in our modern pantysuitwaisted era in which the Speaker of the House, on wresting power from her opponents, says we ought to celebrate the fact that our government is now in the hands of children (I quote from memory).

But, um, it is likely the Martian would look for the strategic value to the US -- because he was asked to. Just because it's not stratetic value for Mars doesn't mean he's clueless. A marriage counselor with nothing at stake can certainly point out to a husband where his interests lie, even if the marriage counselor's interests don't lie there, and even if the husbands interests are despicable.

And, sure, the Martian would answer as Pickled Cabbagehammer suggests. CK is just pointing out that, if you step back and look at the situation with a little more perspective, it becomes obvious that those who argue the important war is in Afghanistan because, once upon a time, Osama bin Laden lived there are either clueless or shameless.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 4, 2007 11:02 PM

I didn't think that Bob was this clueless, well I suspected it; but I had no proof. The experience of the British in the vast territory that is the
North Western Frontier, indicate it would not have been that easy to capture Bin Laden. Some
would say we wrong to rely on the local tribesman
of the Northern Alliance to rout out Bin Laden.
But then again; who really knew the territory.
Not the CIA's Trodpint & Jawbreaker teams; they
had rarely ventured far from the Afghan/Tashkent
/Uzbek border. Where Robert, might have a point,
is if we had continued in the NorthWest Frontier
provinces of Bannu, Waziristan et al; for that is the true sorce of the jihad; among the ISI and
elements of the Sind dominated Pakistani army. The same forces who now repudiate the Iraq war, and to a lesser extent, the Afghan campaign; would have done the same if we had encountered
significant resistance; triggering the demise
of Musharraf.dispersal of tactical nuclear
weapons; from sites like Kahuta.

History suggest the campaign would not go so well. The ferocity of the ghazi; the 19th century jihadi tribesman referred by Kipling in so much of his poetry and prose.The First Afghan War, with the retreat from Kabul; with only the testimony of Dr. Bryden, the battles of Buner, the Black Mountain expedition, The Tirah, Malakand & the Mad Mahdi (where Churchill got his start); The Second Afghan War, typified by the battle of Maiwand (immortalized as the place where Dr. Watson was wounded by a jezail)The Third Afghan War in Waziristan, which featured Arthur Harris' first carpet bombing; The hunt
against the Fakir of Waziristan, the closest
analogy to the hunt for Bin Laden; which failed
after 25 years; with the Fakir dying in bed; far from his pursuers.

Posted by narciso at April 5, 2007 06:17 AM

But, um, it is likely the Martian would look for the strategic value to the US -- because he was asked to. Just because it's not stratetic value for Mars doesn't mean he's clueless. A marriage counselor with nothing at stake can certainly point out to a husband where his interests lie, even if the marriage counselor's interests don't lie there, and even if the husbands interests are despicable.

Concur. If you explained the situation, then I would expect the Martian to say, "Iraq's a danger, do something about it".

But there in lies the real problem the US is having in Iraq. President Bush, for too long now, has assumed the American people still get it. They obviously no longer do. He should be explaining once a quarter (better once a month) what is going on and how things are getting better. The once a year SOTU speech isn't enough.

My problem with Krauthammer's article is that it continues the assumption that people will see the obvious. Nice thought, but it is not happening.

Posted by Leland at April 5, 2007 07:21 AM

This is logically false...

"The Taliban government had no method of threatening the US"

...as a handful of guys with boxcutters certainly proved. Obviously, you can fill in the blank for Taliban government. The frontlines in this kind of war is spies and infiltration with no political boundaries.

The fifth column in this country requires that traditional war be quick and decisive. Anything drawn out, no matter how right, is going to be seen as wrong by the majority.

I'm glad we stayed long enough to get Saddam and his sons, but we probably didn't need to even do that. Destroying his ability to affectively put down his own people would be enough.

90% of our troop losses have been through IED's. We shouldn't provide them with those target opportunities, let them attack a fortified position instead and we'll still get the [no foul term does justice!]

We are somewhat bogged down [but not as the media suggests] especially considering that we could have destabalized ALL those countries that support terrorists during the last five years.

Yes, I'd like to slap the beehive, then kill every single bee that comes buzzing out! Anywhere!

I believe we could do that and still preserve our civil liberties... it just requires that we make citizenship and sedition mean something!

I remember 9-11 and I'm still mad. I'm not going to stop being mad until we completely deal with it.

Posted by ken anthony at April 5, 2007 09:16 AM

"...What we needed to do in Afland was to establish based of operation in neighboring countries..."

Um...which ones exactly?

IRAN? That's amusing...
CHINA? That's just ridiculous...

Turkmenistan and Tajikistan turned us down if I remember correctly. Uzbekistan allowed a base...for awhile.

That leaves Pakistan who also said no. So WHAT EXACTLY is YOUR PLAN STAN???

Cold-war thinking (if that's what it is) is better than not thinking.

Posted by CJ at April 5, 2007 10:07 AM

CJ says: Cold-war thinking (if that's what it is) is better than not thinking.

Cold-War thinking is basically ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away until a strongly conservative man is elected that handles the problem.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 10:52 AM

Robert spews forth: The VAST bulk of the training of the 9/11 folks took place in places like California, Maryland, Florida and well lots of internal places.

So what? If even one tenth of one percent of the training or support occurred from within the Taliban's walls (which it did) then they got what they deserved.

I asked earlier...Training terrorists to attack US interests is not a threat?

You replied: not a significant one.

How many Americans have to die before it becomes significant? How many more of our buildings need to be destroyed before it becomes significant? If anyone can plot, supply, and then successfully carry out an attack that kills Americans, we should respond with force. 9/11 was NOT a terrorist attack, it was an ACT OF WAR committed by terrorists.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 11:03 AM

My problem with Krauthammer's article is that it continues the assumption that people will see the obvious.

Alas, a common failing among otherwise intelligent and sensible people.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 5, 2007 12:27 PM

How many Americans have to die before it becomes significant? How many more of our buildings need to be destroyed before it becomes significant?

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 11:03 AM

hyperbole.

And not so good one at that.

Event chains are very important things. The "thing" was is looking for to disrupt an event chain is something that is signficant to the outcome and materially affects it.

It is materially unimportant if the 9/11 hijackers did one tenth of their training in Pakistan, Afland, Chad, Tim buck to...if that training can be replicated with the same results elsewhere.

Disrupting the training in Afland means very little when that training can be carried on as well or perhaps better in Pakistan for instance.

Aside from the obvious security failures on 9/11...had the training been disrupted in the US where it was unique training to the event that really could only have been accomplished in the US...then that would have been effective in disrupting the event chain.

Robert

Posted by Robert G.Oler at April 5, 2007 04:35 PM

Robert says: It is materially unimportant if the 9/11 hijackers did one tenth of their training in Pakistan

But earlier he said: The Taliban government had no method of threatening the US

NO method he said, yet we've proven that the Taliban helped finance terrorists and helped train them. NO method to threaten the US means no towers fell. NO method to threaten the US means no on our shores died. They had means, opportunity, and the will. They attacked us, we punished them. And we shall keep on punishing them in the hopes that others will learn from their pain. In another thread, someone said we have to respect the terrorists. Well, dang it, they need to learn to respect us too.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 08:25 PM

Bob: "the Taliban were ZERO threat to the US"

Other than providing sanctuary for the planners of an attack that killed 3000 Americans?

Does anyone require any more proof that Bob is suffering from severe BDS?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 5, 2007 11:32 PM

"we should have killed OBL...

Robert"

Yeah it's so simple, maybe we should have sent you in with your F14.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 5, 2007 11:33 PM

we should have killed OBL...

Wait a minute, Robert. In another thread where I suggested that rather than "talk" to our enemies we should generally try to defeat them, you dismissed this as right-wing raving. Yet here you are advocating not merely defeating a man and his organization, but murdering him extrajudicially.

That's an odd contrast. What's up with that? Why don't you demand that we "talk" to OBL and "make peace" with him? Are you a part-time right-wing lunatic?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 6, 2007 01:30 AM

Yeah it's so simple, maybe we should have sent you in with your F14.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 5, 2007 11:33 PM

Cecil.

It actually is pretty simple (or was anyway) and what they should have done is sent the correct weapon system for the job...that was boots on the ground near and around Tora Bora.

OBL WAS a one or two man act in THE BASE. He isnt now because it has distributed and formed some "command structure" that "probably" can survive him. But that was not the case right after 9/11.

There are many reasons NOT finding and killing OBL has been a complete disaster not the least of which is that The Administration at one time was saying it was going to do JUST THAT...not doing it haas been rather fatal.

Things are simple at some point. The US Revolution doesnt continue if the Brits capture George Washington or some members of the "formenting" group early in the fight...by year two or three serious people who are capable replacements have stepped up.

This administration has showed a bungling approach on several fronts in the "war on terror" not only in its military thinking but in its political thought.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 6, 2007 03:52 PM

Other than providing sanctuary for the planners of an attack that killed 3000 Americans?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 5, 2007 11:32 PM

Cecil...dont play poker, when you go personal I know you are done !

IF the sanctuary were not found in Afland then it would have been found in Paky land or a few other places. Denying sanctuary in Afland was not a real show stopper.

Dont go personal, you will last longer! (and not as easily be identified as an ideology driven person)!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 6, 2007 03:55 PM

Post a comment