Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see that you know very little about being on the offensive in an area like Tora Bora. Anyone who knows anything military, not political, knows that the numbers of troops that would have been lost in fighting where the enemy knows the lay of every bit of the land and has the advantage of determining what the fields of fire will be has a severe advantage. Try reading up on how many troops were lost trying to dig the Japanese out of the caves on some Pacific islands and they were allowed to use flame throwers like we can't use since the use of napalm in Vietnam.
Seriously, take some time to study some military planning problems.
We were suppose to be going after Bin Laden and not taking a side trip to Iraq.
I call you on your characterization of Dr. Maddow supposedly "howling", and this is the only part of my post you choose to pull out of context and respond to?
Not to mention, you're just simply wrong. We were successfully fighting, advancing and beating AQ in those mountains until some here-to-fore unnamed "official" refused the request of former Delta Force Commander "Dalton Fury", to assault bin Laden's position from the rear, as was his next request to drop GATOR mines in the passages leading out of Tora Bora, which is exactly how bin Laden was able to escape!
Stop pretending you know more about military operations than the Special Ops guy who was actually in there fighting. For exactly the reasons I've outlined, no, he did not. Holy crap, I cannot believe you are invoking the "but Clinton" argument! And with false information, no less!
"So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden."
FactCheck.org: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html - broken link)
So with all the false and idiotic claims by rightwingers who cannot find a single credible way to defend George W. Bush's actions in his war of aggression, is it any wonder that a brilliant political commentator such as Rachel Maddow (who, ftr, is a Rhodes Scholar who earned a Doctorate degree from Oxford University), would call out the current president for basically giving a pass to the perpetrator of the entire debacle?
No.
And she wasn't "howling".
Can you provide a link to the info you squealed at me about Tora Bora. Right now I am having to take the word of someone who knows so little about military operations in that kind of territory.
You know, I saw that and I began to think to myself...at least Maddow has a mind of her own and isn't a party hack like Limbaugh and Hannity (especially hannity) A liberal who actually criticized her own president--on her side. I'd love to see some right wing hosts try that.
I try to watch all of the cable people just to
keep myself fair and balanced
Rachel's voice sometimes gets that snarly tone to
it when she thinks her point is not getting across I really do think she could use a few cocktails
to mellow her out before going on the air
I did happen to catch this and I'm pretty sure
she's just doing what she's instructed to do
JUST LIKE OBAMA
Ya think the cocktails would fix that? I'm thinking she just needs a man and doesn't know it.
Can you provide a link to the info you squealed at me about Tora Bora. Right now I am having to take the word of someone who knows so little about military operations in that kind of territory.
Sure.
"Despite what in retrospect may have seemed a comedy of errors, the events of 10 December proved to be the decisive ones of the operation at Tora Bora.
"The decision to augment COBRA 25A with two TF 11 personnel proved very beneficial. Having observed and recorded the events unfolding at the AQ strongpoint, to include Ali’s retreat and the SOF evasion, the TF 11 soldiers successfully identified AQ mortar positions and heavy machine guns. Upon the departure of friendly personnel the night of 10 December, these two soldiers, along with the COBRA 25A JTAC, called air strikes for 17 continual hours on 10-11 December, knocking out principal AQ positions. The decisive point in the battle for Tora Bora, the actions on 10-11 December, caused AQ elements to retreat to alternate positions and enabled the Afghan militia to capture key terrain in the vicinity of UBL’s potential location the following day.
. . .
"Despite the challenges, each day the various TF 11 observation posts would also move forward to call for more accurate fire and support the movement of Ali’s forces. Each night, as the enemy forces would light their campfires to keep warm, the teams used their thermal imagers and optics to bring in bombs and fire missions from a variety of aircraft, including AC-130 gunships.
. . .
"The noose around AQ tightened consistently through 17 December, and the enemy pocket shrank accordingly. By 17 December, Ali declared victory. The general consensus remained that the surviving AQ forces had either fled to Pakistan or melted into the local population. TF 11 forces departed the battlefield on 19 December, but without knowing whether they had killed UBL and destroyed AQ in Afghanistan."
So, how were AQ and bin Laden able to flee into Pakistan?
"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the marine corps and the army, was kept on the sidelines,” the report says.
“Instead, the US command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack Bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes.”
. . .
“Requests were also turned down for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan."
I see that you know very little about being on the offensive in an area like Tora Bora. Anyone who knows anything military, not political, knows that the numbers of troops that would have been lost in fighting where the enemy knows the lay of every bit of the land and has the advantage of determining what the fields of fire will be has a severe advantage.
Wow, the defender has an advantage in closed terrain? There's an invaluable insight. Here's an idea: Don't commit to battle if you're not willing to take the casualties needed to reach the objective. Half-hearted efforts are way worse than nothing. Or in the words of my old battalion commander (and probably echoed through history back to some Roman centurion): "You never p.ss on an enemy. Either kick his ass or don't attack."
Quote:
Try reading up on how many troops were lost trying to dig the Japanese out of the caves on some Pacific islands and they were allowed to use flame throwers like we can't use since the use of napalm in Vietnam.
So avoid using WWII tactics. Modern infantry can paint targets for PGM, have body armor, much improved close air support, better communications and - probably the biggest technological edge over a low-tech insurgency - much better night-vision and thermal imaging gear. The Taliban had no armor, very bad anti-armor weaponry, pathetic air defenses, no artillery worth mentioning.
In a pitched battle, it should have been a rout. But for unfathomable reasons, the US commanders - with every conceivable advantage on their side as regards maneuver, supply and intelligence (in the military sense, that is) - failed to get an anvil in place before letting the hammer drop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
