dadiOH wrote:
wrote:
BTW, you said going to war to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan with 3000 Americans dead and the wreckage of the WTC
still smoking was not justified. This is the third time I'm asking
now. What exactly would YOU have done?
Personally, I think concentrating on the task at hand - nailing Osama
bin Laden - would have been a good idea instead of diluting that
effort with Iraq. Wait, "diluting" is too weak..."abandoning" is
more accurate.
Bush had a chance to be an honest-to-gawd hero. He blew it.
It was NEVER the goal of the Bush administration to capture or kill Osama
ben Laden.
The single goal of the administration was to prevent another terrorist
attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To do this, strategies
were developed to disrupt or remove terrorist access to financing, training,
communication, safe harbors, recruitment, equipment, and travel.
These strategies have proven successful.
In the decade leading up to 9-11, we experienced about one or two attacks
per year on U.S. interests: the 1992 WTC attack, the U.S.S. Cole, embassy
bombings, ambassadorial kidnappings, etc. Nothing since 9-11.
This is not to say that the capture of OBL - or his death - would not have
been met with glee and a discreet "huzzah" or two, but, past the first week
after 9-11, killing OBL was not a goal of the Bush administration. In fact,
even if it were shown that OBL was dead, the efforts put in place would not
be scaled back.
The difference between the Bush administration doctrine and your inclination
can be found in the lessons of history.
In the past, seldom has the elimination of an enemy leader proved an end to
a conflict. Perhaps killing Hitler would have ended WW2, but our
assassination of Yamamoto had no particular effect against the Japanese.