|
Let's see, despite having the largest military budget by factors
over most of the world, we aren't exactly omnipotent. Before
9/11 happened, we couldn't even get overflight rights from Pakistan
(the security police supported / still support the Taliban)... so
sending in troops was a bit problematic. Missiles and bombers are
easier, which is why Clinton choose to try to get Bin Laden with
a few cruise missles...
Of course, there is a story there too. Apparently, Clinton ordered
that the entire cruise missile launch be carried out by US submarines
which would launch the attack and give maybe 10 to 15 minutes flight
time warning to Bin Laden (Pakistani ISI sees the missiles on radar,
places call, maybe gets to someone, they evacuate... good bet that
this doesn't happen quickly enough). Unfortunately, some Navy idiot,
acting on his own, sends in missile cruisers as well as subs... giving
the ISI hours and hours of advance warning... they were tipped by
Bin Laden to warn him of US surface ships coming close to shore...
and so the missiles landed on empty training camps. And now Ann
Coulter gets to smirk about "lobbing a few missiles around" as the
ineffectual response to terror provided by democrats.
Putting on tin foil hat... I've suspected that the Pentagon gave
away our intentions ON PURPOSE because they didn't believe in that
type of response and wanted it to fail and for Clinton/Gore to get
the blame.
Anyway, W. didn't really want to invade Afghanistan and get Bin Laden.
Not at all, and not even after 9/11. The effort that we mounted
to attack Bin Laden was a joke when compared to what we did in Iraq.
We mostly ran bombing runs and some air support, but most of the
fighting was done by Northern Alliance fighters. Even to this day
this is true. I mean, why attack a small country and install a
former Unocal contractor (like, say, Karzai) so that a pipeline
(two, one for natural gas, one for oil) can be built over
the next 5 years and some little bit of slightly cheaper oil
will be on the market... when the alternative is to use the same
pretext (9/11) and invade a country that already HAS oil wells and
proven reserves and pipelines and ports and so on... not to mention
installing a standing military within 100 miles of the largest oil
reserves known on the planet (a majority of the Saudi, Kuwaiti
and Iraqi oil fields are actually quite close together).
So we haven't really made the effort in Afghanistan. Karzai rules
only in Kabul... and the Taliban are still around, along with
what's left of the Northern Alliance.
But to answer you question directly, the Taliban decided that we
would not fight an effective war there and remove them... and that
Bin Laden was worth the risk... we had to fight the Taliban because
we were going to make a show of getting Bin Laden (I still think
he is the October surprise)... and only 9/11 made this possible
in that Pakistan became much more cooperative. Of course, we've
completely (almost completely) mucked it up. Afghanistan is
still nowhere near like it was before the Russians and the Taliban.
Islamic fundamentalists are still running amok and killing girls
that try to go to school or to work as doctors and such. Opium
is again the king cash crop and Bin Laden, as far as we've been
told, is still hiding out in some mountain retreat or another.
Sorry for the long answer. You really need to buy a number of
books that are available now (perhaps someone else will chime in
with a complete list). Start with House of Bush/House of Saud.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
