wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:51:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:13:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:41:59 -0400, wrote:


I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the
area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora
Bora.

we failed in TB because scum bag bush refused to send in US troops
when we had osama cornered. the 'new republic' had an excellent
article earlier this year on this exact event

I don't think BL was going to stay put for the month or two it would
take to safely deploy a division. We saw what happens when you don't
do the groundwork in Somalia.
This started as a quiet hit on Bin Laden but by the time he got to
Tora Bora that was not going to work. Bush didn't want another war.

Come on. We had him in a corner. We just needed to finish the job, but
instead we handed off the responsibility to paid thugs who let him go.

Bush didn't want another war? Are you sure? After all, he was
"listening"
to
his generals (until they contradicted Rumsfeld anyway).

You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in
force. The original plan was a covert hit squad.

Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to
have
boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military.

The rhetorical you.
We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains
than a little hit team.



You simply can not move a mass army as fast as they had to if they
were going to get Osama by brute force. It has been almost 10 years
and we still don't have that much power in that area.
When we started chasing OBL we had local support but he was moving
into an area that would rather shoot us than help us. It is still true
today and we still do not really have any operational control there
with 140,000 people on the ground.
There are still 100 al queda there that we can't catch.

We have about 95K in Afg. and about the same number in Iraq.

That is the number after we finish the surge, that has taken months to
get going and we were already there in force . How long do you think
it would have taken to deploy the army you think Bush should have used
at a moment's notice? Do you think OBL would have waited patiently for
them?

We had the opportunity to finish him at Tora Bora. Rumsfeld decided to
outsource it. It failed.

I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in
great numbers.

You act like we can instantly drop a division into an area nobody
actually knows much about, with no real way to support them and expect
more than half of them to survive.

We could have if we had prepared properly. Rumsfeld/Bush prevented that by
firing any general who even talked about it.

If you want to say we wasted a lot of our "covert" resources in Iraq,
no argument but from where we were, we did about all we could do.

Sure. With the forces that we had. Which were inadequate.

I do believe a small covert force, working with the locals was the
only way we would get OBL.

Now perhaps.

We had a hard enough time finding Saddam and it was in a totally
conqured country.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in
great numbers.

We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count
Granada.
It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that
long
They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass
kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely
harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and
ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not
much flat ground to create drop zone.


We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We
started bombing in October.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in
great numbers.

We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count
Granada.
It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that
long
They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass
kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely
harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and
ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not
much flat ground to create drop zone.


We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war.
We
started bombing in October.


We did not have any time. Where are you getting that? They didn't
start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We
started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well
there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months
later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan. There was no way we
could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way
around the world before he could run 6 miiles.We dod bounce the rubble
for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been
able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could
do.
Right now we should be trying to bribe as many of these tribal leaders
with stuff they want and ratchet back the combat mission. We have
reached the point of diminishing returns. They are spending
$300,000,000 a month there according to NBC Sunday morning and that is
ridiculous. You can buy those guys a lot of goats for $300,000,000.
What are we going to do if the next attack comes from Somalia or
Yemen? Dump $300,000,000 a month in there too?
Just to put this in perspective, that $300,000,000 would buy health
care for 300,000 families. (at the Obama care max of $1,000 a month)

We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the
invasion that way. He didn't.

Honestly, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the Afg. war. Either
Petraeus turns it around or we should get the heck out, and keep a health
supply of drones and special forces available.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:31:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that
war.
We
started bombing in October.


We did not have any time. Where are you getting that? They didn't
start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We
started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well
there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months
later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan. There was no way we
could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way
around the world before he could run 6 miiles.We dod bounce the rubble
for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been
able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could
do.
Right now we should be trying to bribe as many of these tribal leaders
with stuff they want and ratchet back the combat mission. We have
reached the point of diminishing returns. They are spending
$300,000,000 a month there according to NBC Sunday morning and that is
ridiculous. You can buy those guys a lot of goats for $300,000,000.
What are we going to do if the next attack comes from Somalia or
Yemen? Dump $300,000,000 a month in there too?
Just to put this in perspective, that $300,000,000 would buy health
care for 300,000 families. (at the Obama care max of $1,000 a month)

We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the
invasion that way. He didn't.

They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons
both here and in Kabul.

WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were
go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval.

The plan was for a surgical strike that just took out Bin Laden. It
almost worked. When it didn't we should have pulled back and come up
with another plan. If we had just let him relax a bit he might have
popped up some place where we could get him. In that regard, you have
to look at how Mossad dealt with Black September. That was working
great until they shot an innocent waiter.

It didn't work because Rumsfeld did let his military actually take the lead
and get it done. He micromanaged everything and fired all those who had a
different opinion to the point where nobody would offer one.

We are not the Mossad.


Honestly, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the Afg. war.
Either
Petraeus turns it around or we should get the heck out, and keep a health
supply of drones and special forces available.

The light will come on for you. You are still young.

I've never been happy about killing people, even bad guys. It's the butt end
of the legal system... when nothing else works.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the
invasion that way. He didn't.

They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons
both here and in Kabul.

WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics
were
go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval.

There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the
country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of
this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is
now.

To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again.
That was what we were trying to avoid.

Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is
countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done.

You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. Not sure about Jim's
contention. I didn't see it.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the
invasion that way. He didn't.

They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons
both here and in Kabul.

WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics
were
go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval.

There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the
country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of
this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is
now.

To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again.
That was what we were trying to avoid.

Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is
countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done.

You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it.


I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it.

"Something like 90% approval"

That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about
anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need
invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the
right number of troops.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:38:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the
invasion that way. He didn't.

They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons
both here and in Kabul.

WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The
politics
were
go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval.

There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the
country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of
this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is
now.

To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again.
That was what we were trying to avoid.

Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is
countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done.

You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it.


I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it.

"Something like 90% approval"

That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about
anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need
invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the
right number of troops.


He didn't have 15 UN resolutions and the precedent of a 10 year air
war to back up an invasion of Afghanistan.

BTW I doubt Bush ever had a 90% approval rating


?? Why would he need that for Afg.? We were attacked and that country was
harboring the attackers.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in
great numbers.
We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count
Granada.
It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that
long
They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass
kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely
harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and
ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not
much flat ground to create drop zone.

We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We
started bombing in October.


We did not have any time. Where are you getting that?

It's all over the place. BL didn't leave until mid-December.

They didn't
start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We
started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well
there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months
later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan.

6 miles by air.
Maybe 30-40 via slow, arduous, snow-covered mountain paths.
And he was only squeezed into Pakistan by the incompetence of
Franks/Rumsfeld.

There was no way we
could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way
around the world before he could run 6 miiles.

Pure bull****. See cite below. Plenty analysis of Tora Bora everywhere.

We dod bounce the rubble
for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been
able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could
do.

Apologist tripe.
Don't try to change written history.
Tora Bora had undergone air bombardment for a month before Bin Laden
escaped on December 16th.
Bin Laden was there and could have been killed/captured.
Tommy Franks screwed the pooch.
For what reason isn't known. I suspect he was just gun shy.
At that time I think the only American casualty was that CIA agent
killed in the prison breakout.
Franks didn't want our troops killed, and we would have suffered
substantial casualties, no telling how many.
Lousy General. Paying criminals to do his job while he sat in Tampa.
And he denied those 4,000 Marines the honor of killing Bin Laden.
Any one of them had more courage than Franks, and knew what was expected
of them. Franks was unsuitable for command.
If Bush says we'll get Bin Laden dead or alive, he god damned better
make sure his general gets the job done.
Rumsfeld and his entire crew was weak compared to Gates and his.
But there's no changing history. 4000 Marines were there, plenty to get
the job done, but not put to use.
And with the slightest foresight a general should possess, there should
have been many more troops at the ready, and Bin Laden surrounded by
American troops before being chased to Pakistan by ineffective aerial
bombing and the criminal Afghani thugs hired by Franks.
The primary mission in Afghanistan was to kill Bin Laden.
The CIA located Bin Laden, then Centcom screwed everything up from there.
Rumsfeld was probably pulling Frank's strings.
One of the worse Secretarys of Defense. Kicked out far too late.
Utter command failure.
Both Rumsfeld and Franks went out with a whimper, and neither is missed
by anybody as far as I know.
Like GWB. Disgraced.
Not killing Bin Laden at Tora Bora was a huge mistake, and is still
costing us big time. By not sacrificing as needed at Tora Bora, AQ
leadership and morale lived on.
Wonder how many GI's died in Iraq because of that.
Many more than would have been lost at Tora Bora I'd wager.
You and GWB might forget who was behind 9/11 but a lot of us don't.
Bin Laden is just one more GWB mess for Obama to clean up.
Your excuses are bull**** revisionism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/ma...gewanted=print
"One of them was Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of some 4,000
marines who had arrived in the Afghan theater by now. Mattis, along with
another officer with whom I spoke, was convinced that with these numbers
he could have surrounded and sealed off bin Laden's lair, as well as
deployed troops to the most sensitive portions of the largely
unpatrolled border with Pakistan. He argued strongly that he should be
permitted to proceed to the Tora Bora caves. The general was turned
down. An American intelligence official told me that the Bush
administration later concluded that the refusal of Centcom to dispatch
the marines - along with their failure to commit U.S. ground forces to
Afghanistan generally - was the gravest error of the war."


Jim - Anti-revisionist.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy
in
great numbers.
We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count
Granada.
It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that
long
They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass
kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely
harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and
ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not
much flat ground to create drop zone.

We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that
war. We started bombing in October.


We did not have any time. Where are you getting that?

It's all over the place. BL didn't leave until mid-December.

They didn't
start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We
started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well
there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months
later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan.

6 miles by air.
Maybe 30-40 via slow, arduous, snow-covered mountain paths.
And he was only squeezed into Pakistan by the incompetence of
Franks/Rumsfeld.

There was no way we
could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way
around the world before he could run 6 miiles.

Pure bull****. See cite below. Plenty analysis of Tora Bora everywhere.

We dod bounce the rubble
for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been
able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could
do.

Apologist tripe.
Don't try to change written history.
Tora Bora had undergone air bombardment for a month before Bin Laden
escaped on December 16th.
Bin Laden was there and could have been killed/captured.
Tommy Franks screwed the pooch.
For what reason isn't known. I suspect he was just gun shy.
At that time I think the only American casualty was that CIA agent
killed in the prison breakout.
Franks didn't want our troops killed, and we would have suffered
substantial casualties, no telling how many.
Lousy General. Paying criminals to do his job while he sat in Tampa.
And he denied those 4,000 Marines the honor of killing Bin Laden.
Any one of them had more courage than Franks, and knew what was expected
of them. Franks was unsuitable for command.
If Bush says we'll get Bin Laden dead or alive, he god damned better
make sure his general gets the job done.
Rumsfeld and his entire crew was weak compared to Gates and his.
But there's no changing history. 4000 Marines were there, plenty to get
the job done, but not put to use.
And with the slightest foresight a general should possess, there should
have been many more troops at the ready, and Bin Laden surrounded by
American troops before being chased to Pakistan by ineffective aerial
bombing and the criminal Afghani thugs hired by Franks.
The primary mission in Afghanistan was to kill Bin Laden.
The CIA located Bin Laden, then Centcom screwed everything up from there.
Rumsfeld was probably pulling Frank's strings.
One of the worse Secretarys of Defense. Kicked out far too late.
Utter command failure.
Both Rumsfeld and Franks went out with a whimper, and neither is missed
by anybody as far as I know.
Like GWB. Disgraced.
Not killing Bin Laden at Tora Bora was a huge mistake, and is still
costing us big time. By not sacrificing as needed at Tora Bora, AQ
leadership and morale lived on.
Wonder how many GI's died in Iraq because of that.
Many more than would have been lost at Tora Bora I'd wager.
You and GWB might forget who was behind 9/11 but a lot of us don't.
Bin Laden is just one more GWB mess for Obama to clean up.
Your excuses are bull**** revisionism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/ma...gewanted=print
"One of them was Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of some 4,000
marines who had arrived in the Afghan theater by now. Mattis, along with
another officer with whom I spoke, was convinced that with these numbers
he could have surrounded and sealed off bin Laden's lair, as well as
deployed troops to the most sensitive portions of the largely
unpatrolled border with Pakistan. He argued strongly that he should be
permitted to proceed to the Tora Bora caves. The general was turned
down. An American intelligence official told me that the Bush
administration later concluded that the refusal of Centcom to dispatch
the marines - along with their failure to commit U.S. ground forces to
Afghanistan generally - was the gravest error of the war."


Jim - Anti-revisionist.

Thank you.