Unforgivable

[777 fixer]

Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says


BTW, I find it questionable. Who is correct? We will never know.

"American military leaders" can only use what is given to them. They do not determine how many troops are deployed and where. That's up to the elected leadership. How does anyone really know he was "unquestionably" within our reach? How many more US troops would have been needed to capture or kill him?

In 2003 there were around 150000 US soldiers in Iraq. Yet it took almost eight months to capture Saddam Hussein. Unlike OBL Saddam could not just cross the border into the neighboring country. The Iranians would have strung him up from the nearest tree. In addition Saddam could not go into areas controlled by the Shia or Kurds, for the same reason.

There are some people who try and go after Bill Clinton for not getting OBL. Say you did get lucky and killed him back in 2000. Al Qaeda would not have gone away, someone would have taken over for him and 9-11 would still have happened.

 

[Garfield1966]

I thought he said all war was going to end in 2009 when he was elected into office.

That was one of the main reasons why so many people supported him during the campaigns as they were believing he was going to bring all the troops home.

if the war was to continue would it not have been benefical to have someone who actually has a military background?

but that is just how I see it.

You mean a military back ground like Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan? Just asking.

 

[delldude]

You mean a military back ground like Bush, Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan? Just asking.

Don't forget Barry..................................

if the war was to continue would it not have been benefical to have someone who actually has a military background?

Being as Obama is turning our once great nation into a third world banana republic, that would be a good idea.......most of them have military dictators....I mean rulers.

 

[Garfield1966]

I would prefer to have a leader who actually read a history book once in a while. Perhaps they would have realized that nation building (something he said in 2000 that he would not do) would not work in an area that has been fighting for centuries.

As I have said numerous times before, it seems military experience seems to only play a factor when your guys has it and the other guy does not. Had military experience actually mattered to people, Kerry would have been elected instead of Bush, Carter could have beat Reagan, Bush I would have beat Clinton. SO it would appear that military experience does not amount to a hill of beans when it comes to leading a nation.

I wonder how many world leaders have served verses not? I think it would make for a interesting theoretical study.

 

[tech2101]

I thought he said all war was going to end in 2009 when he was elected into office.

Please provide your source for this information.

If you have a quote where he says "all war will end in 2009," that will work. 🙄

 

[delldude]

Please provide your source for this information.

If you have a quote where he says "all war will end in 2009," that will work. 🙄

Keyword 2101...........'thought'..........no source req'd.

 

[tech2101]

Keyword 2101...........'thought'..........no source req'd.

Key word "he said" is usually followed up with a quote.

However, you are correct Dude.

 

[delldude]

Key word "he said" is usually followed up with a quote.

However, you are correct Dude.

He said She said...................... 😱

Thanks Pal...........

 

[Seatacus]

"American military leaders" can only use what is given to them. They do not determine how many troops are deployed and where. That's up to the elected leadership.

Has it always been that way? I am surprised but what do I know. I just thought that guys like Eisenhauer, Pershing, Nimitz, Grant were given the job to do and then took their men and did it.

 

[Garfield1966]

I think there is a misunderstanding.

POTUS declares the theater and the goal (from what I understand) and the military leaders take the troops they are given and the goals and try to achieve it by means of their choosing.

Nimitz et al did not decide to go to to war with Japan. That decision is made by the POTUS and Congress. Nimitz just has to get the job done.

 

[Seatacus]

I think there is a misunderstanding.

POTUS declares the theater and the goal (from what I understand) and the military leaders take the troops they are given and the goals and try to achieve it by means of their choosing.

Nimitz et al did not decide to go to to war with Japan. That decision is made by the POTUS and Congress. Nimitz just has to get the job done.

I think that is the point I am trying to make, and that is the congress and prez choose the war and the "military leaders" deploy the troops where they see fit to acheive the goal and not where elected officials believe they should be deployed.

 

[joanne]

Bringing "this" back to elementary logic,

1. An Attack, orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, is carried out on 9/11/2001.

2. Mr. OBL is residing in the country of Afghanistan.

3. The US Military, at the direction of President Bush, goes after OBL in Afghanistan(a counter attack).

4. US Military has him/Al Qaeda boxed in, and with every passing week/month becoming less and less effective.

5. President Bush, heavily influenced by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, unloosen-the-vice on OBL and the Afghan mission, and divert precious resources from the Afghan theater to go on a New Objective in Iraq. (This decision is Greatly opposed by US Sec of State, and former Army General Colin Powell)

6. My 19 year old US Marine son, calls me(at home) to see if the news at home is reporting (to be true) the strong rumor that his unit is hearing(in Afghanistan), that President Bush is Diverting resources.

7. I answer YES.

8. He replies.."this makes No sense", and that the men from 95% of the Officers and 100% of the enlisted guys are bewildered/confused and starting to get upset. Being Ordered to do more-with-less, they "soldier on".

9. In the late spring of 2003 I get the "Knock at the Door" from 2 nice sympathetic Marines ! ! !

I don't think I've left anything out (Mr) 'delldude' .

 

[KCFlyer]

I think that is the point I am trying to make, and that is the congress and prez choose the war and the "military leaders" deploy the troops where they see fit to acheive the goal and not where elected officials believe they should be deployed.

Yeah, but the war that congress and the prez "chose" was in Iraq...and the president AND his advisors did not heed the "military leaders" recommendations that they would need at LEAST 100,000 more troops than they were planning on sending. I don't know of any military leaders deciding in late 2002 that perhaps the hunt for OBL would be better served by deploying troops into Iraq.

 

[777 fixer]

I think that is the point I am trying to make, and that is the congress and prez choose the war and the "military leaders" deploy the troops where they see fit to acheive the goal and not where elected officials believe they should be deployed.

The Generals and Admirals can only use what's given to them. When forces are deployed it's up to them to employ them on the tactical level. Although you never know when an arm chair general, i.e. LBJ, McNamma, Rumsefld, might decide he knows better. As LBJ once said about Vietnam, "Those boys can't bomb an out house without my say so".

When comes right down to it it's up to the civilian leadership to decide how many troops are sent. In the run up to the Iraq War then Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki said more soldiers were needed to secure Iraq. His advice was ignored and we all know the end result.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

I find it interesting that we disregarded the decade long Soviet adventure in Afghanistan as we debate troop surges and the like.

The fact is that the old Soviet Union, unbound by "Exclusion Zones" and a "Hearts and Minds" philosophy could not subdue the country by brute force but we're going to?