Can you say October (or September) surprise?

[Alaska Darin]

Let's fight the war on terrorism, but let's fight it against the people who were responsible for 9/11 instead of diverting resources from that war to topple Saddam to accomplish a goal of the neocons that is unrelated to 9/11. 

 

Since we allowed unreliable proxies to go after OBL in the mountains of Tora Bora, we have taken our eye off the ball.  If we had devoted as much of our resources to going after Al Qaeda as we have on Iraq and Saddam, I have to believe that we would have been much farther ahead in the real War on Terrorism.

 

I really hope that we get OBL and all of his inner circle.  In a few days, it will have been 3 years since 9/11.  That is far too long to allow these people to escape what they have coming to them.

18931[/snapback]

Please detail which forces in Iraq would be useful in the mountains of Afghanistan. Since you have the opinion, there must be some substance to base it on.

[Peter]

Please detail which forces in Iraq would be useful in the mountains of Afghanistan.  Since you have the opinion, there must be some substance to base it on.

18996[/snapback]

 

 

Of course there is. Thanks for the softball.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

 

Example 4

 

 

Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have and will spend on Iraq that could be spent on destroying Al Qaeda and making the homeland (ports, airplanes, borders etc.) safer. Or, how about the 150,000 troops sent over to Iraq. I wish we had at least 10% of that number during the past (almost) three years in Afganistan and/or Pakistan with the mission of destorying OBL and his minions.

[Alaska Darin]

Of course there is.  Thanks for the softball.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

 

Example 4

Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have and will spend on Iraq that could be spent on destroying Al Qaeda and making the homeland (ports, airplanes, borders etc.) safer.  Or, how about the 150,000 troops sent over to Iraq.  I wish we had at least 10% of that number during the past (almost) three years in Afganistan and/or Pakistan with the mission of destorying OBL and his minions.

19061[/snapback]

Not one of those links actually answered the question I asked. I don't care what some pundit who is playing "he said she said" games says. What forces that were used in Iraq would be useful in Afghanistan? Be specific.

 

Your answer of adding 10% of the 150,000 in Iraq show just how little you know or understand about force structure.

 

I like how the answer is more money. We spend $400,000,000,000 a year on the Armed Forces. More than the next 11 countries in the world combined. Security and money don't know each other very well.

[IDBillzFan]

Of course there is.  Thanks for the softball.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

 

Example 4

Not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars that we have and will spend on Iraq that could be spent on destroying Al Qaeda and making the homeland (ports, airplanes, borders etc.) safer.  Or, how about the 150,000 troops sent over to Iraq.  I wish we had at least 10% of that number during the past (almost) three years in Afganistan and/or Pakistan with the mission of destorying OBL and his minions.

19061[/snapback]

 

Daddy always said, "if they THINK it's a softball, they'll swing at it like it's a softball."

 

Look, finding articles talking about a stretch on the military is like going to a Lilith Fair and finding someone with short hair. I think he's kinda asking from where you would specifically take troops and where you would specifically use them.

 

It did look like a softball, though...for a sec or two. .

[swede316]

The 10th Mountain Division is ill equiped for Bagdad...but Afganistan...That's their territory...SEALS/Green Berets...Both have Platoons dedicated for each type of war....Unless you know what you are talking about...Don't spout off.

[DC Tom]

The 10th Mountain Division is ill equiped for Bagdad...

19402[/snapback]

 

I have no idea how you're figuring that. They're one of the best equipped divisions for that environment in the entire Army. I suggest that next time, unless you know what you are talking about...don't spout off.

[Peter]

Not one of those links actually answered the question I asked.  I don't care what some pundit who is playing "he said she said" games says.  What forces that were used in Iraq would be useful in Afghanistan?  Be specific.

 

Your answer of adding 10% of the 150,000 in Iraq show just how little you know or understand about force structure.

 

I like how the answer is more money.  We spend $400,000,000,000 a year on the Armed Forces.  More than the next 11 countries in the world combined.  Security and money don't know each other very well.

19369[/snapback]

 

Tommy Franks answered your question when he spoke with Sen. Bob Graham.

 

Resources were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq

 

It is pretty simple stuff. Look at the resources (men and money) we have spent on Iraq and look at the resources we have spent on Afghanistan etc. It is obvious that this Administration thought that it was more important to get Saddam and the book of cards than OBL and the rest of Al Qaeda etc. Also, our resources are stretched way too thin in Iraq and around the world -- just ask the reserve guys and others that are over there for much longer than they thought.

 

If you don't believe that Saddam and Iraq were higher priorities for this administration than OBL, Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan, you are terribly naive or you are choosing to ignore reality. Follow the money . . . .

 

Ask yourself this. If we had devoted as much (or even a fraction) of our resources (men, equipment, money, etc.) on going after OBL and Al Qaeda as we have on Iraq, would we be farther along in eradicating OBL, Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda, Mullah Omar, and the Taliban?

 

You and others apparently agree with this administration's view that Saddam and Iraq were higher priorities. That is fine except that these goals had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

[ExiledInIllinois]

If they were going to make political hay out of it, wouldn't it just be easier to capture him now and sit on the announcement until October?

18340[/snapback]

 

No... That is too much of a risk... It could run the risk of being exposed.

 

I think it is like a well orchestrated "screen pass". Wait to the very last second so the blockers can get in place.

 

Trick here is to maximize the political advantage without making it look obvious.

 

For any conspiracy to work today, communication and knowledge has to be de-centralized.

 

Kinda like:

 

"GWB, we are going to get OBL soon... "

 

When it happens:

 

"Oh, looky here, we just got OBL!"

 

Two words:

 

Plausible denial.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Well Peter  If you knew where Osama was and could monitor all his activites would you capture him? ,or keep track of what he was doing or just kill him? Our present administration never made the claim that Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11,dont know where you got that from, and I dont think you know either.

18489[/snapback]

 

Hay Boom?

 

Do/did you sell cars for a livin'? If not? I think the sales profession is calling.

 

All I can say my fellow Americans... We bought this one, and the "as is warranty."

 

 

Caveat emptor!

 

[DC Tom]

No... That is too much of a risk... It could run the risk of being exposed.

 

I think it is like a well orchestrated "screen pass".  Wait to the very last second so the blockers can get in place.

 

Trick here is to maximize the political advantage without making it look obvious.

 

For any conspiracy to work today, communication and knowledge has to be de-centralized.

 

Kinda like:

 

"GWB, we are going to get OBL soon...    "

 

When it happens:

 

"Oh, looky here, we just got OBL!"

 

Two words:

 

Plausible denial.

19631[/snapback]

 

Of course, that way you run the risk of not having anything whatsoever with which to make political hay...

 

And, of course, by your theory, if the capture of bin Laden can't be kept secret, as a practical matter purposely holding off on the capture of bin Laden can't either.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Of course, that way you run the risk of not having anything whatsoever with which to make political hay...

 

And, of course, by your theory, if the capture of bin Laden can't be kept secret, as a practical matter purposely holding off on the capture of bin Laden can't either.

19646[/snapback]

 

Exactly, that is the risk you take.

 

On another note... Now that we have unlimited access in that area (Afghanistan), is it not conceivable that the world's preeminent superpower (US), can't keep its finger on the wings of the bug? Have we gotten that good yet?

[DC Tom]

On another note... Now that we have unlimited access in that area (Afghanistan), is it not conceivable that the world's preeminent superpower (US), can't keep its finger on the wings of the bug?  Have we gotten that good yet?

19658[/snapback]

 

"Wings of the bug"? The meaning should be pretty self-evident, but nevertheless I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

But even so...who says we have unlimited access to that area? From what I hear, it sounds pretty damned limited, particularly along the Pakistani border, where efforts seem to be continually focused.

 

For that matter, where's this assumption coming from that the hunt is even in Afghanistan now? Bin Laden loses his geographical base of operations...so he just sits on his ass in a cave in Tora Bora for three years pouting over it and picking ticks out of his beard, waiting for the "understrengthed US military" to capture him? Please...that's a woefully disingenious theory...

[SilverNRed]

"Wings of the bug"?  The meaning should be pretty self-evident, but nevertheless I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

But even so...who says we have unlimited access to that area?  From what I hear, it sounds pretty damned limited, particularly along the Pakistani border, where efforts seem to be continually focused.

 

For that matter, where's this assumption coming from that the hunt is even in Afghanistan now?  Bin Laden loses his geographical base of operations...so he just sits on his ass in a cave in Tora Bora for three years pouting over it and picking ticks out of his beard, waiting for the "understrengthed US military" to capture him?  Please...that's a woefully disingenious theory...

19683[/snapback]

 

I thought all the latest stuff was that he was in Northern Pakistan, a region that the Pakistani government really doesn't control. We can't send our troops in there because it would create all sorts of problems for Pakistan's government.

 

Anyways, AQ can't offer any proof of life.

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Wings of the bug"?  The meaning should be pretty self-evident, but nevertheless I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

But even so...who says we have unlimited access to that area?  From what I hear, it sounds pretty damned limited, particularly along the Pakistani border, where efforts seem to be continually focused.

 

For that matter, where's this assumption coming from that the hunt is even in Afghanistan now?  Bin Laden loses his geographical base of operations...so he just sits on his ass in a cave in Tora Bora for three years pouting over it and picking ticks out of his beard, waiting for the "understrengthed US military" to capture him?  Please...that's a woefully disingenious theory...

19683[/snapback]

 

I meant that you would think that we would have the capability to pin him down and watch what is going on.

 

You explained it pretty well in your second part.

[Alaska Darin]

Tommy Franks answered your question when he spoke with Sen. Bob Graham.

 

Resources were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq

 

It is pretty simple stuff.  Look at the resources (men and money) we have spent on Iraq and look at the resources we have spent on Afghanistan etc.  It is obvious that this Administration thought that it was more important to get Saddam and the book of cards than OBL and the rest of Al Qaeda etc.  Also, our resources are stretched way too thin in Iraq and around the world -- just ask the reserve guys and others that are over there for much longer than they thought.

 

If you don't believe that Saddam and Iraq were  higher priorities for this administration than OBL, Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan, you are terribly naive or you are choosing to ignore reality. Follow the money . . . .

 

Ask yourself this. If we had devoted as much (or even a fraction) of our resources (men, equipment, money, etc.) on going after OBL and Al Qaeda as we have on Iraq, would we be farther along in eradicating OBL, Zayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda, Mullah Omar, and the Taliban?

 

You and others apparently agree with this administration's view that Saddam and Iraq were higher priorities.  That is fine except that these goals had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

19615[/snapback]

1st, the war is on TERRORISM. Not Al Qaeda. There is a subtle difference. Apparently Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization on the planet. If President Bush is right in his "vision" of the Middle East, 15-20 years from now we may be very glad we invaded Iraq.

 

2nd: Our forces are stretched thin because the makeup of the military is wrong. PERIOD. I have been pointing that out to the deaf ears on this board and during the last few years of my service. It's not an easy thing to tear down an established empire and rebuild it to actually do the job it's supposed to do. Thankfully, Donald Rumsfelt actually understands it and has been fighting the DOD since his appointment. It absolutely stuns me that people will say our forces are stretched thin because of two relatively minor skirmishes but won't ask correct follow up questions.

 

3rd: War is not like it is on television. You can't roll tanks, artillary, and infantry into every place on this planet and expect success. The right people are currently running around in the mountains and there are enough of them (think logistics here). As usual, intelligence is the problem. Once again, the question has to be "why?" If your answer is because we started a war in Iraq, you're wrong AGAIN. We're spending more than enough money on intelligence to be able to fight a war in a country the size of California and clean up Afghanistan. Resource recruitment has always been a problem in that part of the world. President Clinton made it infinately worse with his Executive Order.

 

You are never going to find a General who doesn't ask for the "sun and moon" when it comes to leading troops into battle. Likewise, in this day and age you aren't going to find a politician from the opposite side of the aisle who isn't going to play "he said, she said" in an attempt to make their party look better.

 

Iraq costs more because it's a different kind of war (and Iraq is about 20 times more evolved than Afghanistan). If Afghanistan had something worth protecting, there'd probably be more folks on the ground there standing around smoking cigarettes. Thankfully the international community stepped up to the plate because they all agreed that Afghanistan was a just war, like the libs always say. [/sarcasm]

[Peter]

1st, the war is on TERRORISM.  Not Al Qaeda.  There is a subtle difference.  Apparently Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization on the planet.  If President Bush is right in his "vision" of the Middle East, 15-20 years from now we may be very glad we invaded Iraq. 

 

2nd:  Our forces are stretched thin because the makeup of the military is wrong.  PERIOD.  I have been pointing that out to the deaf ears on this board and during the last few years of my service.  It's not an easy thing to tear down an established empire and rebuild it to actually do the job it's supposed to do.  Thankfully, Donald Rumsfelt actually understands it and has been fighting the DOD since his appointment.  It absolutely stuns me that people will say our forces are stretched thin because of two relatively minor skirmishes but won't ask correct follow up questions.

 

3rd:  War is not like it is on television.  You can't roll tanks, artillary, and infantry into every place on this planet and expect success.  The right people are currently running around in the mountains and there are enough of them (think logistics here).  As usual, intelligence is the problem.  Once again, the question has to be "why?"  If your answer is because we started a war in Iraq, you're wrong AGAIN.  We're spending more than enough money on intelligence to be able to fight a war in a country the size of California and clean up Afghanistan.  Resource recruitment has always been a problem in that part of the world.  President Clinton made it infinately worse with his Executive Order.

 

You are never going to find a General who doesn't ask for the "sun and moon" when it comes to leading troops into battle.  Likewise, in this day and age you aren't going to find a politician from the opposite side of the aisle who isn't going to play "he said, she said" in an attempt to make their party look better.

 

Iraq costs more because it's a different kind of war (and Iraq is about 20 times more evolved than Afghanistan).  If Afghanistan had something worth protecting, there'd probably be more folks on the ground there standing around smoking cigarettes.  Thankfully the international community stepped up to the plate because they all agreed that Afghanistan was a just war, like the libs always say. [/sarcasm]

19722[/snapback]

 

 

We apparently disagree on priorities. I also do not think that Getting Saddam and invading Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 -- rather 9/11 was a pretext. The neocons had Saddam and Iraq in their crosshairs long before 9/11.

 

Further, if Rumsfeld had listened to the professional military and used more troops in Iraq, I believe that we would have had a much easier time winning the peace after the "major combat" had ceased. That is one of the reasons why this war should have waited if the Pentagon leadership was not able or willing to put enough boots on the ground as the professional military wanted.

 

There is no question in my mind that Iraq was a distraction to the the real war on terror and has probably bread more terrorists than it has killed. Saddam was a thug and the world is a better place without him. Yet, OBL and Al Qaeda are and were much greater threats to us. Saddam, on the other hand, posed no threat to us -- even according to Colin Powell prior to 9/11. It was an optional war that nothing to do with 9/11 and very little to do with WMD.

 

Getting rid of Saddam is good, but at what cost. Because we had a real coalition after the first Gulf war, we paid less than 10% of the cost. Because we went about this optional war all wrong, we are stuck paying the hundreds of billions of dollars that this will cost.

[Alaska Darin]

We apparently disagree on priorities.  I also do not think that Getting Saddam and invading Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 -- rather 9/11 was a pretext.  The neocons had Saddam and Iraq in their crosshairs long before 9/11.

 

Further, if Rumsfeld had listened to the professional military and used more troops in Iraq, I believe that we would have had a much easier time winning the peace after the "major combat" had ceased.  That is one of the reasons why this war should have waited if the Pentagon leadership was not able or willing to put enough boots on the ground as the professional military wanted.   

 

There is no question in my mind that Iraq was a distraction to the the real war on terror and has probably bread more terrorists than it has killed.  Saddam was a thug and the world is a better place without him.  Yet, OBL and Al Qaeda are and were much greater threats to us.  Saddam, on the other hand, posed no threat to us -- even according to Colin Powell prior to 9/11.  It was an optional war that nothing to do with 9/11 and very little to do with WMD. 

 

Getting rid of Saddam is good, but at what cost.  Because we had a real coalition after the first Gulf war, we paid less than 10% of the  cost.  Because we went about this optional war all wrong, we are stuck paying the hundreds of billions of dollars that this will cost.

19808[/snapback]

As I stated earlier, no one knows what the outcome of Iraq will be. The answer to that question is 15-20 years (or longer) down the road. If it works out the way the President sees it, it will be worth the cost (despite my opposition to the war).

 

The problem in Iraq was never the number of troops - it was the qualifications. Having a whole lot of people standing around doing nothing is a recipe for disaster on 2 fronts. One, bored military people tend to do bad things (think Abu Ghraib). Two, many more targets for the opposition to target with their terrorist activities.

 

The Russians just found out how important it is to nip little problems in the bud. You can call Iraq optional, but like all things - there are costs to both sides of the issue. No one knows what they'd be if we continued down the path of ignoring the problem and hoping the international community would solve it.

[stuckincincy]

Perhaps the October Surprise will be the commencement of saddam hussein's trial.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Let's fight the war on terrorism, but let's fight it against the people who were responsible for 9/11 instead of diverting resources from that war to topple Saddam to accomplish a goal of the neocons that is unrelated to 9/11. 

 

Since we allowed unreliable proxies to go after OBL in the mountains of Tora Bora, we have taken our eye off the ball.  If we had devoted as much of our resources to going after Al Qaeda as we have on Iraq and Saddam, I have to believe that we would have been much farther ahead in the real War on Terrorism.

 

I really hope that we get OBL and all of his inner circle.  In a few days, it will have been 3 years since 9/11.  That is far too long to allow these people to escape what they have coming to them.

18931[/snapback]

 

I have brought up those same exact points on numerous occasions, but to no avail. I honestly think he had every intention of invading BEFORE he was elected President. What a waste of resources.

[Peter]

I have brought up those same exact points on numerous occasions, but to no avail. I honestly think he had every intention of invading BEFORE he was elected President. What a waste of resources.

20408[/snapback]

 

Yep.