Author Topic: Thought on the new Osama video (Read 2972 times)

rpm · « **Reply #45 on:** October 30, 2004, 03:53:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Afghanistan, despite being an unpopular place for correspondents to get face time, is still very much "going on" and has been since day one. So has the search for Osama. Nothing was shifted, nor did priorities change when the second front opened up.

Why is it that when something isn't on the nightly news, it isn't actually happeneing? In fact, Iraq and Afghanistan are only 2 countries that our troops are actively deployed to in force. There hasn't been much news out of the Balkans lately.

Now, it IS a shame that our Army was downsized by entire DIVISIONS between the years 1992 and 2000, but that's another story. More guys would be great. Maybe things would be taken care of by now, maybe not. Impossible to quantify.

VOR, at times I agree with your views, but this isn't one of them. Saddam was a static target, Osama is not. Iraq was'nt going anywhere and was fairly well contained already, where as OBL was constantly on the move. We would have had massive international support to finish the job.Instead Bush changed targets, lost allies and let OBL slip away.

Downsizing of the military was a logical move at the time. Our greatest threat had disappeared. The threat of a Soviet invasion of Europe was nil. Since the 1950's we had geared our military towards a European ground battle, but the military has to constantly adapt to the situation. Battleships were once the standard to judge military stregnth, but threats changed and they became obsolete. The same with Divisions designed to counter a Soviet tank invasion of West Germany.

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 30, 2004, 03:57:55 PM »

"We would have had massive international support to finish the job"

Massive international support to do what? Or how would have you gotten OBL ?

rpm · « **Reply #47 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:13:46 PM »

By massive international support, I'm refering to the nations that came out in support of the US after 9/11. The support we lost when Bush turned to Iraq.

I'm not in position to say how we should have captured Osama, but I believe Wes Clark is and he has repeatedly called Iraq a tactical mistake that allowed OBL to escape.

john9001 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:15:15 PM »

"We would have had massive international support to finish the job"

the US has NEVER had "massive international support" for anything.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #49 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:15:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

With regards to what you quoted, it was a reply to the same sad Bravo Sierra Kerry tripe I've been hearing for over a year. It is Bravo Sierra, and I'm getting tired of it.

...

I didn't read rpm's comment that way. And I doubt anyone here would debate the difficulties of operating in Afghanistan. The Russians got the crap kicked out of them there, afterall.

I think a lot of the perception of "taking the eye off the ball" hinges on two things. One is the media who for almost a year focused on nothing but Iraq - how much of this was at the White House's behest is a matter for debate - because obviously we still have troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. And the other is that Bush started a completely new war before finishing the first one - before capturing OBL. There was no closure. So a lot of people rightfully have been wondering for a year and a half: "Why did we start a war in Iraq when we didn't finish the one in Afghanistan - when we didn't capture OBL like Bush promised we would?"

If you want to call that pro-Kerry BS, then fine.

Kerry's claims that he can fix all this in his first six months (or whatever his verbiage) is pretty hard to swallow. On the other hand, where are all the WMD's that we sacrificed lives to locate - the ones we assured the UN were in Iraq? We each must pick the brand of BS we're comfortable swallowing the next 4 years.

VOR · « **Reply #50 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:16:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
We would have had massive international support to finish the job.Instead Bush changed targets, lost allies and let OBL slip away.

What about the time between the invasions? Agreed, we did have massive international support post 9/11, but mostly (not entirely) in the form of lip service. After the invasion of Iraq, we lost...lip service. By the time we crossed the Iraqi border, most of Al-Quaida and the Taliban had been squashed and scattered, mostly (but not entirely) thanks to our own initiative and resourses. The fact that OBL scurried away to hide among the goats is seen by some as a victory, others as a defeat..I see it as unfinished but not forgotten business. On this last point, I think you and I can agree. On the methods and big-picture target package, we can agree to disagree.

On the downsizing issue, yes you have a perfectly legit point. It seemed we were fresh out of bad guys worth our efforts. Well, with the advantage of hindsight, we can nitpick this decision to shreds and argue that those resourses would have better served us as a tax burden redivided into smaller, mobile and more flexible units to combat the kind of enemy we were introduced to in Somalia and were likely to meet again considering our new foreign policies. Even though it did happen on the last guy's watch (cough), we can't reasonably expect him to have predicted with crystal clarity which way the winds of war would shift over the next few years. Just a rant, nothing more. I just really wish we had those men and machines today.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #51 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:26:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
...

On the downsizing issue, yes you have a perfectly legit point. It seemed we were fresh out of bad guys worth our efforts. ....

Downsizing is another of those chicken-and-egg problems in a way. If we have strong support from the UN countries who also have standing armies, then we don't need as many troops ourselves as we can count on our allies to join in our actions. But when the entire world is PO'd at the US, well, we need a bigger army.

And our current foreign affairs problems aren't all W's fault. Chirac had his own agenda in Iraq.

rpm · « **Reply #52 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:30:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
What about the time between the invasions? Agreed, we did have massive international support post 9/11, but mostly (not entirely) in the form of lip service. After the invasion of Iraq, we lost...lip service.

VOR, we are close to agreeing here. Put aside our personal politics for a second and look at this. After we stopped the major actions in Afghanistan and started pointing at Iraq, our support dissappeared. If we had been chasing OBL into Iraq, I personally believe we would have carried quite a bit of that support with us. But, we were'nt doing that. We were after WMD, not OBL. We changed targets, we lost focus, we lost support. Can't we agree on this?

VOR · « **Reply #53 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:31:58 PM »

Good points, Dok. Personally, I'm not comfortable with being dependant upon other nations to meet our military needs when they arise. Having friends is great, don't get me wrong; I'm not a total isolationist, but I don't like the idea. Somebody, with their own agenda, may decide not to ride along when we find ourselves in need. What then?

VOR · « **Reply #54 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:42:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
VOR, we are close to agreeing here. Put aside our personal politics for a second and look at this. After we stopped the major actions in Afghanistan and started pointing at Iraq, our support dissappeared. If we had been chasing OBL into Iraq, I personally believe we would have carried quite a bit of that support with us. But, we were'nt doing that. We were after WMD, not OBL. We changed targets, we lost focus, we lost support. Can't we agree on this?

Ok RPM, I can agree that Iraq killed alot of international support. (Whether it was useful support is another argument for later maybe.) If OBL was known to be or believed to be hiding in Iraq, yes, we would have had a few more sidekicks than we did. (How the world would have reacted if he hadn't actually been there is another argument once again.)

What I don't agree on is the perception that we ceased major operations in Afghanistan and "shifted" priorities. The Taliban was crushed..ineffective as a whole, despite several of the roaches (including OBL) slipping away. More military might would not have solved the problem in this case. Remember: we had NO IDEA where Saddam was right up until the moment he was captured. Several cases of just missing him by a few hours, but no dice. It was not military might that unearthed Saddam and his sons, it was money. Good old US dollars. All 3 were betrayed to US forces thru rewarded tips thanks to the lack of love and support they had in their home nation. OBL is another story...he appears to be surrounded by fiercely loyal nutcases who are immune to the powers of the dollar. If not for this fact, I'm reasonably certain he would have been a long-gone issue.

So, yes, in a way we agree.

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:42:44 PM »

Quote

By massive international support, I'm referring to the nations that came out in support of the US after 9/11. The support we lost when Bush turned to Iraq.

Again, what could we have done with the massive international support? How long would it have lasted if we wanted to do something to capture OLB the international community didn’t support?

Quote

I'm not in position to say how we should have captured Osama, but I believe Wes Clark is and he has repeated called Iraq a tactical mistake that allowed OBL to escape.

But you are in the position to say what not to do. If I’m to take your option seriously, your going to have to convince me you’re an expert or someone with about average education on the subject. Other wise your talking out your, you know what.

What examples has Clark given to prove his point? How did it allow OBL to escape?

tikky · « **Reply #56 on:** October 30, 2004, 04:58:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
"We would have had massive international support to finish the job"

the US has NEVER had "massive international support" for anything.

WERE U BORN IN 1991???

All 100+ countries, even the Soviet Union supported the 1st Golf War...

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #57 on:** October 30, 2004, 05:17:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Good points, Dok. Personally, I'm not comfortable with being dependant upon other nations to meet our military needs when they arise. Having friends is great, don't get me wrong; I'm not a total isolationist, but I don't like the idea. Somebody, with their own agenda, may decide not to ride along when we find ourselves in need. What then?

I think one of the positive aspects of Bush's foreign policy problems is that it highlighted a problem most of probably knew existed - along the lines of what you mentioned. That many of our "friends" really weren't our friends at all. It was a rude wake-up call when countries we bailed out of two World Wars wouldn't stand beside us when we asked for their help.

But there's a line between the kind of action we are engaged in in Afghanistan, and an all out invasion of a well-armed country like Iraq. We definately need to be able to handle the former on our own, I don't know if the need for the manpower on the ground for the latter is the same - not with the air assets we have which can more or less cripple most nation's infrastructures within a matter of weeks.

Lizking · « **Reply #58 on:** October 30, 2004, 05:22:23 PM »

" And the other is that Bush started a completely new war before finishing the first one - before capturing OBL"

Actually, the Afghan war was about removing the Taliban and AQ's home base (Done, BTW). OBL is a target, certainly, but you do not go to war to kill one man.

VOR · « **Reply #59 on:** October 30, 2004, 05:38:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
But there's a line between the kind of action we are engaged in in Afghanistan, and an all out invasion of a well-armed country like Iraq. We definately need to be able to handle the former on our own, I don't know if the need for the manpower on the ground for the latter is the same - not with the air assets we have which can more or less cripple most nation's infrastructures within a matter of weeks.

It depends. A war can't be won from the air where real estate is involved. Eventually, if you want to do the job right, you'll have to switch from precision guided munitions to Bob and his rifle. Only Bob can look under a rock to see what's beneath. If, however, you just want to punch country X in the nose and be home in time for dinner...nothing beats the USAF and USN.