John Kerry's lies about Tora Bora exposed

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

From the "Paper of Liberal Record"

[RkFast]

Franks is spinning.

 

Tora Bora will go down as one of the biggest military blunders of all time. And he can talk all he wants about "global focus". The fact that bin Laden is still breathing is an infamnia...an utter failure and disgrace.

 

We almost lost our entire government on 9/11..or the White House itself. And all we could do was a "measured response" relying on foreign fighters? Disgraceful.

[DC Tom]

Franks is spinning.

 

Tora Bora will go down as one of the biggest military blunders of all time. And he can talk all he wants about "global focus". The fact that bin Laden is still breathing is an infamnia...an utter failure and disgrace.

 

We almost lost our entire government on 9/11..or the White House itself. And all we could do was a "measured response" relying on foreign fighters? Disgraceful.

75954[/snapback]

 

"Foreign fighters"...from a old, old tribal culture of militarism that has produced some of the finest fighters in history, and with 25 years experience fighting in that very region.

 

Yeah...real bad decision there.

[Rich in Ohio]

Franks is spinning.

 

Tora Bora will go down as one of the biggest military blunders of all time. And he can talk all he wants about "global focus". The fact that bin Laden is still breathing is an infamnia...an utter failure and disgrace.

 

We almost lost our entire government on 9/11..or the White House itself. And all we could do was a "measured response" relying on foreign fighters? Disgraceful.

75954[/snapback]

 

 

Give me one example of where Franks has spun before. He g=has a very strong track record, and the only reason he is coming out now is because this has gone on just a bit too far.

[HoyaBill]

"Foreign fighters"...from a old, old tribal culture of militarism that has produced some of the finest fighters in history, and with 25 years experience fighting in that very region.

 

Yeah...real bad decision there.

75973[/snapback]

 

 

I see where you're coming from, Tom, but don't you think the Afghan fighters were probably less motivated to continue the fight into Tora Bora than American troops would have been? The Northern Alliance troops where not exactly pro-American, so much as they were anxious to extend their own influence in Afghanistan. Any other troops loyal to a warlord where exactly such - loyal to their warlord.

 

I guess my question is, do you think Franks, or the White House, or whomever made the decisions to rely so heavily on the warlord's troops, overestimate the Afghans desire to capture bin Laden? Likewise, do we currently overestimate Musharraf's desire to stir up trouble in the tribal regions of Pakistan?

 

I think, as a corollary, politicians rely too much on their own intial reactions in these situations. You can imagine DoD civilians sitting around the situation room saying: "The Afghans know the region, are well trained in low-intensity warfare, and the American Public won't be in an uproar if they are killed. Send them in." It makes sense, but only if they properly judged there motivation.

[ubhockey]

Franks is spinning.

 

Tora Bora will go down as one of the biggest military blunders of all time. And he can talk all he wants about "global focus". The fact that bin Laden is still breathing is an infamnia...an utter failure and disgrace.

 

We almost lost our entire government on 9/11..or the White House itself. And all we could do was a "measured response" relying on foreign fighters? Disgraceful.

75954[/snapback]

 

Even if Kerry is right, which he isn't, I guess the Aghan fighters didn't have 25 million reasons to capture OBL. Bottom line is OBL -- if he is still alive -- can't surface, and if he can't surface, he can't lead the terrorists because the second his head pops out, he's a goner.

[RkFast]

"Foreign fighters"...from a old, old tribal culture of militarism that has produced some of the finest fighters in history, and with 25 years experience fighting in that very region.

 

Yeah...real bad decision there.

 

And whom we met five minutes before we "hired them" and would take a c-note from bin Ladens hands to let him walk the other way?

 

YES.....bad decision.

 

The worst attack on our history that could have taken out the entire U.S. goverment if not for some bad timing and some brave souls on a light over PA. You dont hire out ANYONE to nail those responsible for such an act, IMO. If I were Franks, I would have been suggesting the use of bunker busters equipped with tactical nukes to turn Tora Bora into an anthill the second I heard bin Laden was there. But thats me.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And whom we met five minutes before we "hired them" and would take a c-note from bin Ladens hands to let him walk the other way?

 

YES.....bad decision.

 

The worst attack on our history that could have taken out the entire U.S. goverment if not for some bad timing and some brave souls on a light over PA. You dont hire out ANYONE to nail those responsible for such an act, IMO. If I were Franks, I would have been suggesting the use of bunker busters equipped with tactical nukes to turn Tora Bora into an anthill the second I heard bin Laden was there. But thats me.

76017[/snapback]

 

Yes, well, suppose Bin Laden WASN'T there?

 

The point of this article is that there is was and never will be ANY proof that Bin Laden was there, so kerry's accusations are blatant falsehoods.

[gmac17]

If Bin Laden is still alive, why hasn't a single audio or video tape been released in well over a year (two years possibly).

 

I don't get it.

[DC Tom]

I see where you're coming from, Tom, but don't you think the Afghan fighters were probably less motivated to continue the fight into Tora Bora than American troops would have been?  The Northern Alliance troops where not exactly pro-American, so much as they were anxious to extend their own influence in Afghanistan.  Any other troops loyal to a warlord where exactly such - loyal to their warlord. 

 

I guess my question is, do you think Franks, or the White House, or whomever made the decisions to rely so heavily on the warlord's troops, overestimate the Afghans desire to capture bin Laden?  Likewise, do we currently overestimate Musharraf's desire to stir up trouble in the tribal regions of Pakistan?

 

Reasonable argument...but when I read it, it seems to me you're missing the simple fact that the "Northern Alliance" and the Taliban had been at each other's throats for almost ten years before that (I should say at least ten years...in that form, Northern Alliance vs. Taliban, it's more like seven, but the ethnic, Tadjik (NA) vs. Pashtun (Taliban) tribal warfare goes back a lot farther.) Hell, even when all the tribes were "unified" against the Soviets, internecine warfare between the tribes was as common as not. And just for kicks, throw in the old Sunni vs. Shi'ia conflict. Afghanistan is hardly a unified nation.

 

And even aside from that...the "Northern Alliance" isn't some grassroots uprising against the Taliban. They're the legitimate coalition government that was originally submarined and kicked out of Kabul by the Taliban upstarts (as accurate a representation of their point of view I can possibly express.) They don't agree with the Taliban's interpretation or implementation of Sharia law, they don't agree with the Taliban's overall vision of Islam, they don't agree with the Taliban's isolationism, and they don't agree with having an uneducated, illiterate southern Pashtun peasant being declared the leader of all Islam and heir to Mohammed. That's a lot of raw hatred motivating them to kill every Taliban member they see...and I'd submit the premise that by the time they were holed up in Tora Bora, there was very little if any distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban.

 

So in short...yes, I'd trust the non-Pashtun Afghan tribes to do a very good job in Tora Bora. They have the training, experience, and motivation to do so...even more so than US troops after 9/11.

 

As for Pakistan...different situation. Part of the reason (probably the biggest part) the Taliban was so successful in overrunning the country was Pakistani support through the military and intelligence organizations. (Pakistan and the Taliban have a long history of cooperation. Getting overt and concrete Pakistani support for our invasion of Afghinstan was a minor diplomatic miracle, as far as I'm concerned.) Combine that with Musharraf's very tenuous grasp of his power in the face of fundamentalist opposition, both internal and external...Musharraf has a very fine line to walk, as to maintain his power he has to rely on US help, but not rely too much lest he piss off both the isolationist tribes in the greater Hindu Kush region and the fundamentalist-sympathetic elements of his own government. AND the US has to let him be essentially two-faced on the issues, because the biggest nightmare scenario for the War on Terrorism is to have a nuclear power fall to Islamic fundamentalists with terrorists ties. Musharraf could be as brutal and murderous as Hitler or Stalin...and we'd still support him, because you really don't want the alternative.

 

I don't doubt that Musharraf would like nothing more than to wipe out all the Taliban/al Qaeda presence in northern Pakistan...he's just hardly in a position to do so, with every force that could do the job riddled with conflicting loyalties. I trust Musharraf to do his best (since it's in his direct self-interest to do so; it's literally his life on the line). But his "best" simply can't be very good, given his situation.

 

I think, as a corollary, politicians rely too much on their own intial reactions in these situations.  You can imagine DoD civilians sitting around the situation room saying: "The Afghans know the region, are well trained in low-intensity warfare, and the American Public won't be in an uproar if they are killed.  Send them in."  It makes sense, but only if they properly judged there motivation.

76006[/snapback]

 

I think their analysis might have been a little more detailed (mine was, and it's hardly a collection of original thoughts on my part.) And you forgot the part about the role of Special Forces typically being coordination with indigenous troops (e.g. the Hmong in Vietnam, which was very successful until the US government !@#$ed them over. Or any SAS operation the Brits ever ran), and the relative difficulty a large US force would have operating in the area (how are you supposed to supply a division in combat on a landlocked mountain plateau? The Afghan tribes pretty much supply themselves.) Relying on the highly motivated local tribes was the smart, and ultimately most effective, decision.

[DC Tom]

And whom we met five minutes before we "hired them" and would take a c-note from bin Ladens hands to let him walk the other way?

76017[/snapback]

 

Where in the hell do you get this from? You think the Afghan tribesmen were motivated by portraits of Benjamin Franklin? Go learn something about the region, the culture, and the Afghan civil war before you start spouting arrant nonsense.

[HoyaBill]

Thanks, Tom. Obviously the Powers that Be had a much deeper analysis of the situation than the one liner I provided, but there have been plenty of reports suggesting dissenting views never made it past the deputies. A lot of those reports are unconfirmed, or anonymous sources, but I submit as evidence to the jury: "where's there's smoke..."

 

Anyway, point taken about the varied history of the various tribal, ethnic and guerrilla groups in Afghanistan - I appreciate your POV. That said, I still think bin Laden's appeal to Muslims is underestimated - even tied though he was to the Taleban (while his support for the Taleban was 'controversial,' how many of the Afghan fighters - veterans of the Soviet conflict as you rightfully pointed out - still supported his call for a defense of Islam from the 'colonialist? I would guess many). If it weren't the case that the Afghans tolerate, if not support bin Laden, presumably the money (in the billions now, no?) on the table would be sufficient for some warlord to go into the mountains now and take him out, don't you think?

[jimshiz]

Even if bin Laden is caught, that will NOT mean the end to the "War on Terror"!

[HoyaBill]

Even if bin Laden is caught, that will NOT mean the end to the "War on Terror"!

76077[/snapback]

 

Was that addressed to me? I agree - and I doubt I ever implied otherwise. If anything, when he's killed (killed, not caught) there will be an immediate series of retaliations, but it's neccesary, and as someone who knows people in the Trade Centers who were killed, I'd like him dead.