Sept. 11, 2001
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, May 13, 2023 22:40
VIEWED: 8201
PAGE 7 of 11
Quote:
The problem was, was Tora Bora was a very, very difficult place to access. It was an area that was far away, it was high, it was cold. It would have been very difficult and it would have been risky to put soldiers in. There likely would have been significant casualties
I recall one official , forget who, who claimed that a Daisy Cutter had taken out a large group of bad guys, traveling at night, very quickly. This was during a period of high radio / mobile phone activity, which led our forces to believe OBL was on the move. When the Daisy Cutter was used to take out this one group, the one official was dead certain OBL was among those traveling,and that no one survived. He was certain of it. He wasn't speaking in an official capacity, this was an informal interview, not a press briefing.
That, as they say, is war.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd go with the guy directing the fight, nto "some official" who wasn't there.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap,
And yet, if you're going to attack a country, send in tens of thousands of men, remove a government and install your own - why not an extra few hundred as needed ? There was exceptional intelligence about bin Laden's location, he WAS public enemy #1, and there was actual international support.
In fact, why not turn him over to the ICC in the first place before going to war ?
When you think about it - the whole thing makes no sense if the US's goals were to obtain justice and increase its security.
What are the reasons for NOT turning bin Laden over to the ICC ? One is that you don't have proof he did what you said he did, and you know if you turn him over to the Court the prosecution would fall through. Another reason is that you are looking for an excuse to place troops in the country, topple the government, and get an oil pipeline. Yet another reason is that you have already agreed with the family who are your friends (and whom you spirit out of the country) to finger bin Laden but not put him at risk of actual capture and prosecution. All of these fit the facts extremely well.
Remember, when Afghanistan offered to turn bin Laden over to the ICC the US responded 'no' in a matter of hours, with the (lame) excuse that they didn't want to get involved in negotiations involving details of the actual transfer. It's exactly what happened in Iraq - what do you do when the country you're trying to invade actually responds reasonably ? Why, you attack, of course.
And just like Iraq, not only do the pre-attack facts smell bad, so do the post-attack ones. The US spent roughly 18 months sifting through boxcars of 'evidence' looking for 'proof' it was bin Laden and / or al Qaeda what done it. The first thing one should have noticed was the obvious contradiction - if they had 'proof' at the start that it was bin Laden - enough to go for 'dead or alive', attack a sovereign country, and remove its government - why did they then need to find it in Afghanistan ? (BTW the mistake they made - which they were sure to not repeat in Iraq - was having the UN and other forces also looking for and incidentally witnessing said finds of 'proof'. There were many false claims the US government made about 'proof' which evaporated quietly, never to be mentioned again.) And if the proof was good enough to start a war, why not turn it over to the ICC ? There's also that little matter of backing off and allowing him to escape. (And allowing him to later take 'credit' for 9/11 in late 2004 - by then US troops were enmeshed in Iraq.)
And, then the US left Afghanistan prematurely - which is before capturing bin Laden as Bush swore to do - but after setting up a compliant mayor of Kabul who duly signed treaties in 2002 with Pakistan and Turkmenistan to put in a US pipeline:
"Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries."
And then it was off to Iraq ...
... with bin Laden on the loose, and a fresh new pipeline agreement in place.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem I have with this is that if they had sent in those 700 rangers and they had taken heavy casualties without getting Bin Laden you would be on this board complaining about the waste of US life. In fact you would probably have "known from the start" that this move wouldnt have got him.
So if they DO something and it doesnt work Rue and Sig say they are idiots for trying. If they don't do anything Rue and Sig say they are idiots for NOT trying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is the part I keep coming back to 'The problem was, was Tora Bora was a very, very difficult place to access. It was an area that was far away, it was high, it was cold. It would have been very difficult and it would have been risky to put soldiers in. There likely would have been significant casualties. The fact is is no one, whether they're in the CIA or the military gets ahead taking risks. It would have been a risky endeavor.'
Personally, if they had taken the risk; sustained heavy casualties, and failed to take OSB, I would have chalked it up to the fates of war. However, given the risks, I understand why the choice made was made. In this case I would not look any further than two folks looked at the situation and came to a different conclusion; it's very hard to say it was 'wrong' to not go in here. I will acknowledge Fletch's point, I'm not confident the bulk of the US population would have accepted a loss under the circumstance if it did not result in a successful capture of OSB.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You ask why didn't we turn OBL over to the ICC before going to war? Well, for one reason, we need to HAVE him in custody in order to pass him over to the ICC, and another thing is, the ICC (International Criminal Court ) didn't even come into full effect until July 1,2002. Which poses a HUGE obstacle when the crime and the ensuing war took place in 2001.
Kinda defeats the whole foundation of your post, and your claims that we could have had OBL and that we just didn't want to bother w/ some technical legal issues. ( Which, of course we didn't, but that's another issue )
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Are you saying it was OK to let him go when he was within reach ?
You should ask Clinton...or perhaps ask General Ewell why he did not push through the town and take the hill, Jackson would never have stopped with the Yankees on the run and ground like that just sitting there. Such is war.
I think the term your looking for is 'Armchair General'. 'Monday Morning Quarterback' works too.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In fact, why not turn him over to the ICC in the first place before going to war ?
I assume you mean the International Criminal Court and not the Internation Chamber of Commerce.
First of all this is a question you need to direct to the Taliban. They were given an ultimatum to surrender Osama and the other Al Queda leaders. Had they taken the option then likely there would have been no outright invasion. Likely they could have surrendered bin Ladden to the ICC and met the spirit if not the letter of our demand.
Second, the United States of America is not a party to the ICC's treaty and are thus not bound by its jurisdiction. If you recall President Clinton decided in 1998 not to sign the treaty because he was afraid of making US soldiers subject to foriegn jurisdiction. President Bush, likewise, has not signed the treaty and its unlikely that it would be ratified by the Senate if either of them had sought to do so.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap, dude ...
"for one reason, we need to HAVE him in custody in order to pass him over to the ICC'
No problem. Afghanistan agreed to take Usama into custody if he could be turned over to the ICC and not the US.
"and another thing is, the ICC (International Criminal Court ) didn't even come into full effect until July 1,2002"
But the ICC was fully ready to accept custody of accused criminals, for example Slobodan Milosevic, on June 28, 2001. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/28/serbia88.htm
Do you have anything else to say ???
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10639901/
... The Afghans were less than reliable and this is why I was calling for ground forces. And I called for, you know, 600-to-800 rangers to be inserted in there, and had 600-to-800 rangers been inserted, we probably would have ended the thing.
So willing to accept conjecture as dogma when it fits your preconceived notions.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME