General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Today I learned everyone was against the Afghan war from the beginning [View all]Emrys
(7,230 posts)Now you're sounding as confused as those braggarts who assured us that "shock and awe" was all that was required in modern warfare in the Middle East and there was no need to commit feet on the ground in significant numbers for extended periods.
That was Rumsfeld's doctrine. It allowed bin Laden to escape when he wasn't killed in the initial strikes, just as porous borders became a treacherous bidirectional problem in Iraq later.
There were arguably grounds for seeking out, and killing if necessary, bin Laden (and his associates/allies, unless the idea is he was a one-man army).
That did not require invading and taking control over the whole of Afghanistan. The subsequent failure of nation-building had happened often enough in the past that it should have been utterly predictable, along with the dangers of becoming entrenched in yet another unwinnable ground war, which America should know all about.
But a different course of action wouldn't have served the PNAC's agenda. The "legitimate reasons" were a smokescreen for it.