Assume the whole thing is true, so what? Our Afghani allies were leaky, and their services could be purchased. They did not close the door, and with money and time, din Laden and other key people got away.
The article does not bother to describe the alternative. If we had used nothing but American and British troops for the operations in Afghanistan, bin Laden would have stayed trapped when he was trapped. But how many of our troops would have been required? 100,000? More than that?
And with nothing but our troops doing the fighting, how high would the casualties have been? 1,000? 2,000? Compare that to 2 casualties in fighting, and another 10 in plane crashes and other accidents.
Plus there are long-term political advantages of the Afghanis doing most of the ground fighting to get their own country back. Plus, as long as bin Laden is alive he either communicates, or he is irrelevant (except to Li'l Tommy Daschle). And if he communicates, he can be found.
The choice to let others do most of the ground fighting was a good one at the beginning. Looking back, it was still a good choice, even assuming this account of what happened at Tora Bora is entirely true.
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
New column up: "The Un-Music Man." You'll like this one a bunch.
I certainly agree with your comment and I think that is the way we need to continue.
Very clearly, Money talks in that part of the world and since we have more of it than anyone we should use in more imaginative ways!
I think we just got outbid!