US Could Have Caught Bin Laden

2009-11-29 05:11:25

#1

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

Al-Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden was 'within grasp' of US

US forces had Osama Bin Laden "within their grasp" in Afghanistan in late 2001, a US Senate report says.
It says calls for US reinforcements were rejected, allowing the al-Qaeda leader to "walk unmolested" into Pakistan's unregulated tribal areas.
It says the failure to kill or capture Bin Laden had far-reaching consequences and laid the foundation for the protracted Afghan insurgency.

The report comes as President Barack Obama prepares to announce a long-awaited decision on sending troop reinforcements to Afghanistan.

It is highly critical of officials in former President George W Bush's administration and military commanders at the time.
It says that while the "vast array of American military power... was kept on the sidelines", US commanders "chose to rely on air strikes and untrained Afghan militias" to pursue Bin Laden in the mountainous complex of caves and tunnels known as Tora Bora.

"On or around 16 December [2001], two days after writing his will, Bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still thought to be hiding, the report says.
The then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed concern at the time that a large US troop presence in the area could provoke a backlash and he said the evidence about Bin Laden's location was not conclusive.

The report says the "failure to finish the job" laid the foundation for "today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan".
It acknowledges that removing Bin Laden "would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat".
But it adds that "the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide".

The report rebuffs claims by Bush administration officials at the time that intelligence about Bin Laden's location was inconclusive.
"The review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama Bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora,".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8384897.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/p … report.pdf

So what gives? Incompetence or did they want Bin Laden hanging around to keep the 'war of terror' going?
Or do you believe Rumsfeld, he let Bin Laden go to avoid upsetting the region, although how that squares with then invading Iraq I don't understand.

Seems they made waaaaaay too many schoolboy errors, failing to catch Bin Laden, failing to find WMDs, not planning for post invasion Iraq, not securing military stockpiles, disbanding the Iraqi army.
Either Rumsfeld and his entire team were total numbskulls or there was something else going on.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2009-11-29 05:18:11

#2

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6666|NT, like Mick Dundee

Probably worried about media backlash for using any sort of real military force.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-11-29 05:19:43

#3

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6717

Flecco wrote:
Probably worried about media backlash for using any sort of real military force.

And political for crossing into the Pakistani border.

That's why you have "unauthorized" SF teams to go in, and were told not to go in if you catch my drift.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-11-29 05:26:50

#4

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6666|NT, like Mick Dundee

I thought that plausible deniability crap was just fictitious rubbish for the tabloids and air-port thrillers.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-11-29 06:36:35

#5

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6524|...

war == $$$

2009-11-29 07:37:07

#6

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6708|67.222.138.85

article wrote:
It says that while the "vast array of American military power... was kept on the sidelines", US commanders "chose to rely on air strikes and untrained Afghan militias" to pursue Bin Laden in the mountainous complex of caves and tunnels known as Tora Bora.

=

minimizing U.S. casualties

2009-11-29 07:39:20

#7

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6717

jsnipy wrote:
war == $$$

No, ending a war makes a lot of money, especially with Afghanistan's geostratigic area. Pipelines.

2009-11-29 07:41:45

#8

Amra: look; even concrete needs to be laid; +26|5313|Up your #4+@?

In retrospect I don't think bushy was intelligent enough to have some long range plan of american dominance.

It was just schoolboy incompetence. If dick was really in charge we would be in iran right now.

2009-11-29 07:48:22

#9

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
article wrote:
It says that while the "vast array of American military power... was kept on the sidelines", US commanders "chose to rely on air strikes and untrained Afghan militias" to pursue Bin Laden in the mountainous complex of caves and tunnels known as Tora Bora.
=

minimizing U.S. casualties

Correct. I assume that whenever I read an article bitching about the lack of troops on the ground and how we should've gone in with more troops that the person saying the words is in the pocket of a Defense contractor. They absolutely hated Rumsfeld because they lost billions of dollars in profits by him trying to fight the war on the cheap.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-11-29 07:50:33

#10

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6717

Amra wrote:
In retrospect I don't think bushy was intelligent enough to have some long range plan of american dominance.

It was just schoolboy incompetence. If dick was really in charge we would be in iran right now.

PNAC.

2009-11-29 08:24:58

#11

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6708|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
article wrote:
It says that while the "vast array of American military power... was kept on the sidelines", US commanders "chose to rely on air strikes and untrained Afghan militias" to pursue Bin Laden in the mountainous complex of caves and tunnels known as Tora Bora.
=

minimizing U.S. casualties
Correct. I assume that whenever I read an article bitching about the lack of troops on the ground and how we should've gone in with more troops that the person saying the words is in the pocket of a Defense contractor. They absolutely hated Rumsfeld because they lost billions of dollars in profits by him trying to fight the war on the cheap.

Of course the flip side of that is that we would have been much more effective strategically had Rummy not tried to wage a "politically correct war" (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

2009-11-29 08:30:52

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course the flip side of that is that we would have been much more effective strategically had Rummy not tried to wage a "politically correct war" (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

I don't see it that way. He was testing out a new doctrine and strategy and it would've worked if the people back home hadn't listened to the defense contractors and let them turn it into a conventional war.

The idea of using SF troops to train up the locals and then have them do the fighting with the help of US air power was solid. You have to have the locals do the bulk of the fighting because it raises their morale and gives them self reliance. Otherwise, you can never leave. The Afghani government is now completely dependent on US soldiers to prop it up. If we leave they will get steamrolled because their defense forces have taken a back seat for years now. If they had been doing the fighting and defending of their own government for the past five years we COULD pull out with very little in the way of repercussions. If you teach a man to fish, he will never go hungry. If you do the fishing for him, he will starve as soon as you decide to stop.

Edit - We made the exact same mistake in Vietnam. Instead of just supporting the South Vietnamese Army we did the fighting for them. Once it became politically impossible to stay we basically said "Good luck!" and left them to their fate. If we had trained them and provided them with weapons and told them to defend themselves it wouldn't necessarily have changed the outcome, but it would've been the correct decision.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-29 08:37:07)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-11-29 08:57:37

#13

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5544|Toronto

JohnG@lt wrote:
If you teach a man to fish, he will never go hungry. If you do the fishing for him, he will starve as soon as you decide to stop.

I think the bulk of this argument can be reduced to this statement, which I will counter with:

If you light a man a fire he is warm for a night. If you light a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life.

Guided development does not work.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2009-11-29 09:03:58

#14

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6224|Escea

Flecco wrote:
I thought that plausible deniability crap was just fictitious rubbish for the tabloids and air-port thrillers.

SOG SAD

2009-11-29 09:04:15

#15

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Pochsy wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
If you teach a man to fish, he will never go hungry. If you do the fishing for him, he will starve as soon as you decide to stop.
I think the bulk of this argument can be reduced to this statement, which I will counter with:

If you light a man a fire he is warm for a night. If you light a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life.

Guided development does not work.

I wasn't suggesting that we teach them the art form of chugging down dollar menu cheeseburgers or anything else of the sort. The Taliban needed to be out of the way so we could hunt down Bin Laden and AQ. To that end, all we needed to do was provide the new government with the tools and knowledge to succeed against their enemies. Ideology and everything else didn't really matter, their immediate threat was of a military nature.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-11-29 09:11:02

#16

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6708|67.222.138.85

This is the third fucking time I have typed this out on my netbook GODDAMN.

You act like Rumsfeld was a strategic visionary or something. He wasn't. He was a politician that was concerned only with keeping his nose as clean as possible throughout the ordeal.

Special Forces were on the ground months before the war in Afghanistan. They were doing their job well, and everyone knew it. That doesn't change the fact that no matter how many special forces you have on the ground, no matter how much air support they can get once there are carriers around, the most they can do is start a revolt and hit strategic targets. They aren't going to be able to deal with every threat. You still need troops in US uniforms on the ground.

The US military isn't made for the kind of streamlined (read: small) war that Rumsfeld wanted, but he was going to wage it anyways against the council of military brass. He was trying to force a square peg into a round hole, and we paid for it.

The goal of Afghanistan was not and is not independence. It's security. The way to get security is an overwhelming US presence. We failed that at the start, the opposition saw the chinks in our armor, and it roused even more recruiting for them. Now even when we do have a significantly larger presence, it isn't nearly enough.

Get in early with as many as possible, propaganda the balls off the locals, recruit them, train them, then leave. The only way to make sure the revolution goes in your favor still requires you to be there en masse.

2009-11-29 09:16:26

#17

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|5863

America is not interested in catching Osama Bin Laden. They have had a few opportunities but somehow the most advanced military in the world cannot catch a man who lives in a cave.
America needs a boogy man. That boogy man is Osama Bin Laden. They need someone so they continue their inhumane quest for world domination.

2009-11-29 09:18:01

#18

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6501|so randum

rammunition wrote:
America is not interested in catching Osama Bin Laden. They have had a few opportunities but somehow the most advanced military in the world cannot catch a man who lives in a cave.
America needs a boogy man. That boogy man is Osama Bin Laden. They need someone so they continue their inhumane quest for world domination.

ban pls

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-11-29 09:18:26

#19

Amra: look; even concrete needs to be laid; +26|5313|Up your #4+@?

rammunition wrote:
America is not interested in catching Osama Bin Laden. They have had a few opportunities but somehow the most advanced military in the world cannot catch a man who lives in a cave.
America needs a boogy man. That boogy man is Osama Bin Laden. They need someone so they continue their inhumane quest for world domination.

Seems a sad day when I am forced to type QFE to something you post.

2009-11-29 09:20:05

#20

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

FatherTed wrote:
rammunition wrote:
America is not interested in catching Osama Bin Laden. They have had a few opportunities but somehow the most advanced military in the world cannot catch a man who lives in a cave.
America needs a boogy man. That boogy man is Osama Bin Laden. They need someone so they continue their inhumane quest for world domination.
ban pls

x2

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-11-29 09:20:39

#21

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5544|Toronto

JohnG@lt wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that we teach them the art form of chugging down dollar menu cheeseburgers or anything else of the sort. The Taliban needed to be out of the way so we could hunt down Bin Laden and AQ. To that end, all we needed to do was provide the new government with the tools and knowledge to succeed against their enemies. Ideology and everything else didn't really matter, their immediate threat was of a military nature.

Right, I do see your point- and I agree with everything but the last two sentences on providing governments knowledge and the unimportance of ideology. I do believe the US is unjust in going to the middle-east, but it happened, so let them get their ambiguous enemy and fight their war.

I do not, however, believe that any sustained attempt at developmental politics (which is what you describe) is justified or a worthwhile attempt. You are completely right in stating that the movement must come from the bottom, the people, and sustain itself through legitimacy on these terms. The moment an outside actor (America) attempt to facilitate any form of development the process is de-legitimized, and thus futile.

This is why I state we should 'light the man on fire' and see how long he stays warm under the protection of the US. It won't be long- there will be catastrophe once they inevitably withdraw. It is best to treat this as a war, not a aid-attempt. Do what you will and destroy who you must- but realize you can only benefit your own cause through the justice you have come to define as such, not square all angles fair for all parties involved.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2009-11-29 09:27:04

#22

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Pochsy wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that we teach them the art form of chugging down dollar menu cheeseburgers or anything else of the sort. The Taliban needed to be out of the way so we could hunt down Bin Laden and AQ. To that end, all we needed to do was provide the new government with the tools and knowledge to succeed against their enemies. Ideology and everything else didn't really matter, their immediate threat was of a military nature.
Right, I do see your point- and I agree with everything but the last two sentences on providing governments knowledge and the unimportance of ideology. I do believe the US is unjust in going to the middle-east, but it happened, so let them get their ambiguous enemy and fight their war.

I do not, however, believe that any sustained attempt at developmental politics (which is what you describe) is justified or a worthwhile attempt. You are completely right in stating that the movement must come from the bottom, the people, and sustain itself through legitimacy on these terms. The moment an outside actor (America) attempt to facilitate any form of development the process is de-legitimized, and thus futile.

This is why I state we should 'light the man on fire' and see how long he stays warm under the protection of the US. It won't be long- there will be catastrophe once they inevitably withdraw. It is best to treat this as a war, not a aid-attempt. Do what you will and destroy who you must- but realize you can only benefit your own cause through the justice you have come to define as such, not square all angles fair for all parties involved.

So you're suggesting we should've gone in with overwhelming force, accomplished our goal of hunting down AQ and then pulled out? What you're suggesting would create a power vacuum and would inevitably lead to either civil war, or one of their neighbors annexing the country 'for the benefit of the people'.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-11-29 09:44:58

#23

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6224|Escea

rammunition wrote:
America is not interested in catching Osama Bin Laden. They have had a few opportunities but somehow the most advanced military in the world cannot catch a man who lives in a cave.
America needs a boogy man. That boogy man is Osama Bin Laden. They need someone so they continue their inhumane quest for world domination.

Newsflash: US special forces weren't the only ones looking for him at the time.

2009-11-29 10:31:21

#24

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5475|Ventura, California

Wait...people still talk about this guy?

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2009-11-29 11:00:13

#25

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6592

The larger issue on the ground in Afghanistan when we 'missed' Osama is being completely ignored.
The SF groups working in Afghanistan worked very hard at building a working relationship with the local tribes.
Local Afghani group, and their ruling warlords, are fiercely independent and generally muslim.

The US Special Operations people on the ground had the cooperation of the local Afghani mountain tribes precisely because they were not the big, loud, noisy Big Army. As long as the SF groups were bringing in the airstrikes, but otherwise keeping their ground presence unseen - the tribal Afghanis were happy. The Afghani warlords cooperated with the SF, because the thought of a large conventional army of 'infidels' crawling around their mountains would've been impossible to sell to their people.

The SF groups enlisted the aid of the local Afghanis to help find Osama, to learn 'who's who' in the region, and to differentiate between good-guy and bad-guy.

To say it one more time, in case it got missed:
The SF guys were mostly welcome amongst the Afghani mountain people precisely because they were NOT thousands of regular army troops stomping about, they had warfighting capabilities the Afghanis did not (SF skillset, precision airstrikes, global communications, night vision, .. and did we mention AC-130's & B-52's on tap 24/7?), and they kept mostly out of sight in deference to Afghani sensitivities to foreign troops.

As far as catching Bin Laden, yes they screwed up.
They let the Afghanis lead the capture of Bin Laden..
.. at night, when the Afghanis were afraid to take any actions, and tended to wander off the battlefield to find a warm fire to sleep next to.
.. during Ramadan, when they're borderline malnourished and definitely combat ineffective.

Hindsight is 20/20.
The SF groups there were much much more experienced in assault & capture operations than the tribals. They probably could've gone in and grabbed Shiek Osama. Major detail: the Afghanis were adamant that they capture Osama. Afghanis were fine with fighting Osama, fine with working with a few Americans (but not too many).. but they couldn't bear the thought of such an illustrious muslim as Osama being captured by Americans. They're funny like that, apparently.

And, to be fair, they had Osama boxed in for quite a while. Weeks, in fact. Constant bombardment by aircraft, encircled by hostile forces, always watched by satellites, all communications intercepted. Osama Bin Laden was to the point where he was making radio announcements, apologizing to his followers for failing them.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-11-29 11:16:52)

BF2S Forums US Could Have Caught Bin Laden

Flecco wrote:

article wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

article wrote:

Amra wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

article wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

rammunition wrote:

rammunition wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

rammunition wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Board footer