Posted on 08/29/2021 7:46:11 AM PDT by Onthebrink
To avenge some 3000 Americans killed on 9/11, Washington caused a hundred or two hundred times as many deaths. To respond to an assault on two American cities, the U.S. plunged two nations into years, even decades of war. In the end, there were more jihadists fighting allied regimes and terrorists at work targeting civilians than at the start. What kept America safe was not endless war, which struck one hornet’s nest after another, but targeted counter-terrorism efforts at home and abroad.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
On to the next operation.
The GWOT continues in Mozambique and various other parts of Africa (and Syria etc) despite no big headlines just now.
In the wreckage, the national security state remains. More domestic damage to come from its misapplication.
If they keep electing Democrats to political offices, then the answer is NO.
No. As long as there are profits to be made by the war profiteers.
There’s no way to know if W showing weakness after 9/11 would’ve turned out better. I very much doubt it. The problem in Afghanistan is the exit strategy was blundered
> If they keep electing Democrats to political offices, then the answer is NO. <
Republican George W. Bush got us into this latest mess. So while I think you’re on the right track, it might be better to say “If they keep electing Deep Staters to political offices... “
Trump, of course, is not a a Deep Stater. He tried to set things right. So he had to go.
If you are inclined to take military or philosophical advice from these clowns, you well and truly have lost the scent.
W really didn't have much choice but to strike back after the attacks.
Dumbya had no interest in getting Bin Laden. From Day One it was always about Nation Building, and getting Bin Laden wouldn’t have been constructive towards that end.
Remember when Bush refused to take out terrorists attending a funeral. That is why we lost this war - too many presidents not willing to win.
Bush was only interested in Nation Building.
The problem wasn't going in in 2002 and wiping out Al-Qaeda HQ. It was staying there to turn the Afghans into little Americans.
W had no interest in getting Bin Laden, or else he would have gotten him.
> W really didn’t have much choice but to strike back after the attacks. <
I absolutely agree with that. But then W went off on some sort of nation-building project. Anyone who knew anything about Afghanistan could have told him that wouldn’t work.
But it gets worse. W then decided to invade Iraq. That would be like FDR deciding to invade the Soviet Union a year after Pearl Harbor.
So I’d place 95% of the blame for Afghanistan on Bush. Biden gets the remaining 5%. Obama and Trump were just bit players in the tragedy.
The war isn’t over yet. The so called “Forever War” didn’t start in Afghanistan in 2001, it started in Arabia in 630 AD.
We lost a campaign in that war. There will be more.
> W had no interest in getting Bin Laden, or else he would have gotten him. <
I read an article about that a couple of years ago. The author said that W set up insanely stupid rules of engagement in this matter. Bottom line: W wanted Afghani soldiers to kill Bin Laden. It would make for better optics.
American soldiers would locate Bin Laden. Then Afghani troops would be sent forward. But the Afghans weren’t particularly motivated to kill Bin Laden. So Bin Laden escapes. A few days later the Americans would locate him again.
Rinse and repeat until Bin Laden slips into Pakistan.
Iraq was a time bomb. If W did not invade when he did, Saddam dies of natural causes, I predict his sons Uday would seize power. He would do something to force the Americans to intervene in Iraq.
Iraq was the best buffer against Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.