How Bush blew it in Tora Bora

[conjur]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FJ27Ag02.html

THE ROVING EYE
How Bush blew it in Tora Bora

"And again, I don't know where he is. I - I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." - President George W Bush, March 13, 2002

"Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations." - President Bush, October 13

"Now my opponent is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001 and that our military passed up the chance to get him in Tora Bora. This is an unjustified criticism of our military commanders in the field." - President Bush, October 25

So where is the October surprise? The US presidential election is less than a week away, and still he refuses a great Hollywood-style entrance - or a Lazarus-like resurrection from his cave. The whole world is asking: where is Osama bin Laden?

Don't ask the Pakistanis. "No one knows where bin Laden is," Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan said last Sunday. So maybe we should ask the Pentagon. According to a number of leaks by Pentagon officials, bin Laden is hiding in South Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal areas, not far from the Toba Kakar mountain range in Baluchistan province. Khan seemed to be startled by this revelation: "We are getting in touch with them [the Pentagon] to clarify this matter." Don't ask the Pakistani military. Major General Shaukat Sultan has said they have been pursuing all of the Pentagon's leads, to no avail. So maybe we should ask Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. In a recent interview with NBC he referred to "some broad indications" to proclaim he was "reasonably sure" that bin Laden is alive and absolutely sure he would be captured or killed. But he "didn't know his location".

Musharraf also said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is working "very closely" with the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) in the hunt for bin Laden and al-Qaeda. So maybe the ISI knows something Musharraf doesn't. ISI officials in Karachi told Asia Times Online correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad "they have no clue" where both bin Laden and his No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, might be. But they reconfirmed they are in Afghanistan. Other sources in Peshawar, very close to the tribal areas, told this correspondent bin Laden has been "for months" on the Afghan side of the border, because the Pakistani tribal areas "are infested with FBI and ISI operatives".

According to Musharraf, "there's no pressure" on him by the White House and the Pentagon to find bin Laden. "What pressure? he asked in his NBC interview. "Their [al-Qaeda] leadership, a few high level, and others mid and low level have been arrested - then we have attacked them in the mountains. We have attacked three of their very big sanctuaries in the valleys in the South Waziristan agency in tribal areas - but they're on the run now. And they're in smaller groups. Maybe there are a few more concentrations, which we don't know. But they are on the run, as far as al-Qaeda is concerned, they're on their own, surely."

Trekking in Tora Bora
So bin Laden won't surface as an October surprise. He won't be captured and exhibited "Saddam-in-chains" style as another Bush hunting trophy. Funny, when we think that he should have surfaced as a November surprise - way back in 2001.

On November 17, 2001, as the Taliban regime was self-disintegrating, Osama bin Laden, his family and a convoy of 25 Toyota Land Cruisers left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan headed toward the mountains of Tora Bora. In late November, surrounded by his fiercest and most loyal Yemeni mujahideen in a cold Tora Bora cave, bin Laden delivered a stirring speech. One of his fighters, Abu Bakar, later captured by Afghan mujahideen, said bin Laden exhorted them to "hold your positions firm and be ready for martyrdom. I'll be visiting you again very soon."

A few days later, around what would probably have been November 30, bin Laden, along with four Yemeni mujahideen, left Tora Bora toward the village of Parachinar, in the Pakistani tribal areas. They walked undisturbed all the way - and then disappeared forever.

By the time the merciless American B-52 bombing raids were about to begin, bin Laden had already left Tora Bora - as a number of Afghan mujahideen confirmed to Asia Times Online at the time. They said they had seen him on the other side of the frontline in late November. Hazrat Ali, the warlord and then so-called minister of "law and order" in the Eastern Shura (traditional decision-making council) in Afghanistan, was outsourced by the Pentagon to go after bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Tora Bora. He bagged a handful of suitcases full of cash. He put on a show for the cameras. And significantly, he was barely in touch with the few Special Forces on the ground.

The crucial point is that while bin Laden was already in Pakistan, General Tommy Franks at US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, was being directed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to concentrate on toppling Saddam Hussein. According to Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, on "December 1, a Saturday, Rumsfeld sent through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a Top Secret planning order to Franks asking him to come up with the commander's estimate to build the base of a new Iraq war plan. In two pages the order said Rumsfeld wanted to know how Franks would conduct military operations to remove Saddam from power, eliminate the threat of any possible weapons of mass destruction, and choke off his suspected support of terrorism."

Also in early December, Pir Baksh Bardiwal, the man responsible for intelligence operations in eastern Afghanistan, was absolutely puzzled: why didn't the Pentagon block all the obvious exit trails from Tora Bora, when all of Hazrat Ali's mujahideen, paid by the US, knew them by heart? Only a few Arab al-Qaeda fighters were captured in Tora Bora - after bin Laden had left (later they were sent to Guantanamo, along with hundreds of Afghan bystanders). Most of the al-Qaeda fighters that remained in Tora Bora died in battle, as "martyrs", buried under the rubble caused by bunker-buster bombs. As far as the American military was concerned, Pir Baksh was adamant: "Al-Qaeda escaped right out from under their feet."

So it was a major Pentagon blunder. It was a major Rumsfeld-Franks blunder. It was a major White House blunder. And there were two reasons for it: 1) The Pentagon outsourced the war in eastern Afghanistan to the wrong warlords, who were collecting suitcases full of cash with one hand and spreading disinformation with the other. 2) The White House's and the Pentagon's attention were already directed toward toppling Saddam. This all amounts to Senator John Kerry being fundamentally correct when he charges on the campaign trail that Bush blew it in Tora Bora. This is not a "wild claim", as Bush puts it: it's a serious charge that debunks the whole myth of Bush as a strong and resolute commander-in-chief of the "war on terror".

Not working harder with Pakistan, not sending in US troops to the border areas, and diverting special forces into Iraq are all proof that the Bush administration is completely clueless and lack the capability to properly fight the war on terror.

 

[Engineer]

An article today - Knight Ridder reporters take on this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No matter how many ways it is spun, capturing bin Laden ultimately does nothing for the war on terror. If bin Laden is captured the war on terror does not instnatly end. It's a meaningless red herring. It can even be argued, and was, that capturing bin Laden is actually not a desirable thing to do and that pschologically it's more effective to let him run from cave to cave and hide like a scared little girl.

Besides that, we already have an active thread on Tora Bora and this post would have been as well suited for that thread as it would have as a new one.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No matter how many ways it is spun, capturing bin Laden ultimately does nothing for the war on terror. If bin Laden is captured the war on terror does not instnatly end. It's a meaningless red herring. It can even be argued, and was, that capturing bin Laden is actually not a desirable thing to do and that pschologically it's more effective to let him run from cave to cave and hide like a scared little girl.

What kind of mixed message does it send to terrorists knowing they can attack the US and kill 3,000 people and destroy two major skyscrapers and then be summarily ignored?

Besides that, we already have an active thread on Tora Bora and this post would have been as well suited for that thread as it would have as a new one.

The troll thread from Rip, Jr.?

 

[Tom]

I agree with the general idea that Bush should have concentrated more effort on terrorists, and less on Saddam, I don't necessarily agree on this Tora Bora issue and the fact we haven't caught Bin Laden. I think we have to have the cooperation of Paksitan, and so it could cause problems if we had huge military incursions into Pakistani territory. And we can't give unlimited support to Pakistan without the danger of increasing tensions between Pakistan and India. So it is a difficult issue.

I do think we should have put a lot more resources into getting Afghanistan on it's feet, economically, because that is the best way to develop a very strong ally in the region.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No matter how many ways it is spun, capturing bin Laden ultimately does nothing for the war on terror. If bin Laden is captured the war on terror does not instnatly end. It's a meaningless red herring. It can even be argued, and was, that capturing bin Laden is actually not a desirable thing to do and that pschologically it's more effective to let him run from cave to cave and hide like a scared little girl.

Besides that, we already have an active thread on Tora Bora and this post would have been as well suited for that thread as it would have as a new one.

Sorry on replying OT to this thread, but I can't help state the obvious--

I'm glad you made your first point.

No matter how many ways it is spun, capturing bin Laden ultimately does nothing for the war on terror.

You should (I hope) understand that this point it is equally valid for the war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq, ultimately does nothing for the war on terror.

The US could wipe-out Iraq from the map--and it will not stop Terrorism. Or anything close to it.

The point is so obvious--that it cannot be stressed enough--since it so clearly eludes so many in their Bush-induced hypnotic state.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No matter how many ways it is spun, capturing bin Laden ultimately does nothing for the war on terror. If bin Laden is captured the war on terror does not instnatly end. It's a meaningless red herring. It can even be argued, and was, that capturing bin Laden is actually not a desirable thing to do and that pschologically it's more effective to let him run from cave to cave and hide like a scared little girl.

So you don't care about justice or vengence any of that, eh? Or are you just making (poor) excuses?

 

[Uhtrinity]

IMHO getting Bin Laden won't neccesarly stop future attacks, but has a far greater symbolic value. Ignoring him or downplaying his importance after the death of 3000+ people is wrong. At least the death of 1000 troops would be more meanigful getting Bin Laden instead Saddam. One of the many reasons I will not vote Bush.

 

[StageLeft]

Probably right. I think Bush doesn't want BL captured. In fact, I firmly believe that Bush has OBL in a secret cabin at camp david and he goes there to visit and drink beer :roll: Capturing OBL within the past 6 months would have cinched this election. Bush will win anyway, but it wouldn't have been as close otherwise.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No matter how many ways it is spun, capturing bin Laden ultimately does nothing for the war on terror.

I think you're missing the point.


9/11/01

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice.

9/13/01

Civilized people around the world denounce the evildoers who devised and executed these terrible attacks. Justice demands that those who helped or harbored the terrorists be punished -- and punished severely. The enormity of their evil demands it. We will use all the resources of the United States and our cooperating friends and allies to pursue those responsible for this evil, until justice is done.

9/16/01

They know my intentions are to find those who did this, find those who encouraged them, find them who house them, find those who comfort them, and bring them to justice.
...
But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
What kind of mixed message does it send to terrorists knowing they can attack the US and kill 3,000 people and destroy two major skyscrapers and then be summarily ignored?

If bin Laden was being ignored he wouldn't be hiding in the first place. Additionally, how much of al Qaeda's leadership has already been captured or killed? There's no free pass or mixed messages being given by anyone.

The troll thread from Rip, Jr.?

If that's the measure of a troll, I have to question why your own thread makes you any less worthy of the same title.

Originally posted by: fjord
You should (I hope) understand that this point it is equally valid for the war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq, ultimately does nothing for the war on terror.

The US could wipe-out Iraq from the map--and it will not stop Terrorism. Or anything close to it.

The point is so obvious--that it cannot be stressed enough--since it so clearly eludes so many in their Bush-induced hypnotic state.

I disagree. Since I'm no fan of Bush, but no despiser either, it's easier to evaluate what he's done and what he's doing without allowing either hypnosis or hate to cloud my judgement. The war in Iraq will, hopefully and in the long run, do everything for terror.

First, let me say that you will never stop or eliminate terror. The WoT is designed to reduce it significantly. That said, we need two thing in the WoT: a short-term plan and a long-term plan.

The short-term plan should be designed to hunt down existing terrorists whereever they are. That plan has been implemented with some fairly decent results. While we haven't yet captured bin Laden, there's more to the metric than just OBL. Capturing bin Laden really gains us nothing in the big picture. Many of al Qaeda have been captured or killed and that what needs to be done - dismantle the organization from all directions.

The long-term plan has to strike at the root cause of terrorism, and that cause is fundamentalist Islam in positions of power. In order to get at that we must foment fundamental changes in Arab-Muslim culture that prevents adherents of the radical type of thinking in the first place. To do that we need a base of operations and we need a model country to demonstrate that Arab countries don't have to be ruld by iron-fisted tyrants. We need to show that the people can rule. Additionally, we need to provide them with some capitalsim and a bit more freedom, and improve their economic situation. There was never any need for Iraqis to be poor and starving with all the oil in Iraq. But they were, while the top brass were building dozens of palaces and summer homes and had megalomaniacal plans for ruling the entire ME. Changing those things and others will help reduce fundamentalism in the long run. It won't eradicate it, but it will reduce it. As a side benefit it will improve the life of the average Arab in the ME too. Of course, there will be those who will reply with "It's won't improve those who are already dead." No, it won't, but my statement deals with the long-term, not the short or immediate term.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
So you don't care about justice or vengence any of that, eh? Or are you just making (poor) excuses?

imo, vengeance is a poor excuse to execute anything for any reason. Makes for a great Hollywood movie but makes for poor policy, personal or political.

I'd like to see justice served but I don't think it's most important above all. imo, there may be better reasons not to capture OBL.

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think you're missing the point.

[snipped]

I've already made the point. OBL is not terrorism, he is only one man. Sure, he's an important one in the overall scheme of things, but he's just one. Capturing him doesn't allow us to close the book on terror by any means, and capturing him could potentially bring more problems from the OBL faithful. We are still doing just what Bush said he'd do, hunting down terrorists, and being in Iraq doesn't prevent that job from being performed at the same time.

I realize the desire for vengeance, justice, and closure that surrounds OBL. I just can't see focusing an eye on him as if he's all that matters. He's hiding right now, so keep an eye on everything and sooner or later he'll make a mistake, pop into view, and we'll have him.

 

[preslove]

Anyone who says that capturing Bin-laden is meaningless has no sense of justice. Go away you RBA's.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: preslove
Anyone who says that capturing Bin-laden is meaningless has no sense of justice. Go away you RBA's.

Justice or vengeance? Which is it you REALLY want?

And answer me this as well. What, in the scheme of the War on Terror, does capturing OBL gain us? Does al Qaeda close up shop because of this? I don't think so. Will the Islamofascists look and lay down their arms and raise their hands? Doubtful. Or could it piss them off completely that we had their glorious leader and symbol in our possession and cause them to lash out across the globe? A distinct possibility. Capturing OBL is a double-edged sword and that needs to be considered.

btw, and speaking of justice; simply dismissing the people you disagree with with a wave of the hand and an improperly ascribed slur does nothing to do justice to your claim.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: preslove
Anyone who says that capturing Bin-laden is meaningless has no sense of justice. Go away you RBA's.

Justice or vengeance? Which is it you REALLY want?

And answer me this as well. What, in the scheme of the War on Terror, does capturing OBL gain us? Does al Qaeda close up shop because of this? I don't think so. Will the Islamofascists look and lay down their arms and raise their hands? Doubtful. Or could it piss them off completely that we had their glorious leader and symbol in our possession and cause them to lash out across the globe? A distinct possibility. Capturing OBL is a double-edged sword and that needs to be considered.

btw, and speaking of justice; simply dismissing the people you disagree with with a wave of the hand and an improperly ascribed slur does nothing to do justice to your claim.

Why do we capture murderers? I don't know, to bring them to justice? To show concrete examples of law and order? Because if you don't then you invite more murderers to come along and kill, willy-nilly. "OBL" was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 American citizens, the federal government, which is charged in protecting its citizens from foreign attack and prosecuting those who succeed in attacking us owes the family members of those killed the capture and prosecution of OBL. The government owes the rest of us the same because it shows the world that we will fight the actual terrorists without any second guessing. This is JUSTICE, not revenge. Most islamic countries were ready to support us in Afghanistan because Islam is quite concerned with justice (Islamic courts have been in the hands of clerics since the first caliphate).

Attacking some unrelated figure, because they are an easier target does not help our cause one bit. It only inflamed the "islamofascists" and swung the moderate muslims towards OBL.

So again, go the hell away, you stupid troll.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: preslove
Why do we capture murderers? I don't know, to bring them to justice? To show concrete examples of law and order? Because if you don't then you invite more murderers to come along and kill, willy-nilly. "OBL" was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 American citizens, the federal government, which is charged in protecting its citizens from foreign attack and prosecuting those who succeed in attacking us owes the family members of those killed the capture and prosecution of OBL. The government owes the rest of us the same because it shows the world that we will fight the actual terrorists without any second guessing. This is JUSTICE, not revenge. Most islamic countries were ready to support us in Afghanistan because Islam is quite concerned with justice (Islamic courts have been in the hands of clerics since the first caliphate).

Attacking some unrelated figure, because they are an easier target does not help our cause one bit. It only inflamed the "islamofascists" and swung the moderate muslims towards OBL.

Way to avoid my questions and ignore the valid statement that it may not be in our best interest to capture bin Laden.

In response to your own assertions, we attempt to apprehend murderers, just as we are attempting to apprehend bin Laden. Sometimes it takes years to find someone hiding right here in the US. bin Laden in hiding in a country we can't even access without causing an incident. But go ahead and ignore those inconvenient little facts to build your strawman.

So again, go the hell away, you stupid troll.

Ah, the first resort of someone with no argument. Slap a label on them.

When you feel like answering my questions and discussing things sans the silly name-calling, feel free to participate. If not, don't waste my time again.

 

[her209]

Bush has done everything half-assed.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209
Bush has done everything half-assed.

From what I understand, Kerry's "plan" is to use his entire ass.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
From what I understand, Kerry's "plan" is to use his entire ass.

Really? I thought Kerry didn't have a plan.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
From what I understand, Kerry's "plan" is to use his entire ass.

Really? I thought Kerry didn't have a plan.

That would be an ASSumption.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That would be an ASSumption.

Simply ASStounding.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: preslove
Why do we capture murderers? I don't know, to bring them to justice? To show concrete examples of law and order? Because if you don't then you invite more murderers to come along and kill, willy-nilly. "OBL" was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 American citizens, the federal government, which is charged in protecting its citizens from foreign attack and prosecuting those who succeed in attacking us owes the family members of those killed the capture and prosecution of OBL. The government owes the rest of us the same because it shows the world that we will fight the actual terrorists without any second guessing. This is JUSTICE, not revenge. Most islamic countries were ready to support us in Afghanistan because Islam is quite concerned with justice (Islamic courts have been in the hands of clerics since the first caliphate).

Attacking some unrelated figure, because they are an easier target does not help our cause one bit. It only inflamed the "islamofascists" and swung the moderate muslims towards OBL.

Way to avoid my questions and ignore the valid statement that it may not be in our best interest to capture bin Laden.

In response to your own assertions, we attempt to apprehend murderers, just as we are attempting to apprehend bin Laden. Sometimes it takes years to find someone hiding right here in the US. bin Laden in hiding in a country we can't even access without causing an incident. But go ahead and ignore those inconvenient little facts to build your strawman.

A true war president could have found a way to put more than 10,000 US troops on the ground before Tora Bora. Justifiying the half-assed response by saying we couldn't risk angering Pakistan is absurd.

 

[wiin]

Posted by her209

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
From what I understand, Kerry's "plan" is to use his entire ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I thought Kerry didn't have a plan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hence, the ass.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: her209
Bush has done everything half-assed.

Well, he's outsourced decision making to neocons like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And we now see the results of that failure of judgment.

 

[GrGr]

The ulitmate red herring is the "War on Terror" itself. TLC argues that capturing the leading terrorist Osama Bin Ladin is not in the best interest of the US. So:

Who exactly are the enemies in the "War on Terror"?
What does it take to win it?
When will it be won?
Can the war be decisively won?
If capturing and putting terrorists on trial is not the way to win the war then what is?
Using the US Army's own definition of terrorism the US itself is guilty of terrorism. Does the "War on Terror" include US terrorism as well?
If you are using terrorism to combat terrorism who is then the terrorist?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
The ulitmate red herring is the "War on Terror" itself. TLC argues that capturing the leading terrorist Osama Bin Ladin is not in the best interest of the US. So:

I'm arguing that capturing OBL may not be in our best interests. Nor am I arguing that we should just leave him to his devices. We keep the pressure on him and keep him running like a crack-ho chasing a 50 dollar trick. It's obviously having a deleterious effect on OBL, as his latest video shows. If we capture him he can become all defiant in custody, just like Hussein did. By forcnig him to run and hide we are emasculating him in front of the entire world.

Who exactly are the enemies in the "War on Terror"?
What does it take to win it?
When will it be won?
Can the war be decisively won?
If capturing and putting terrorists on trial is not the way to win the war then what is?
Using the US Army's own definition of terrorism the US itself is guilty of terrorism. Does the "War on Terror" include US terrorism as well?
If you are using terrorism to combat terrorism who is then the terrorist?

The War on Terror can never be won. I despise that stupid moniker because it has no basis in factual definition. It's an Effort to Reduce Terrorism, but that phrase doesn't jingle so the other is used.

Nor is the US guilty of "terrorism" and that hyperbolic supposition is getting tiresome. The US does not purposefully target civilians to further their goals. Terrorists do. That's the difference. Knowing there will be "collateral damage" is not the same thing as sanctioning the destruction of civilians, as terrorists do. Not recognizing that difference is not semantics, it's wearing partisan blinders of the highest quality.