My brother the Solider

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would agree considering we have less than 30K troops on the ground in Afghanistan

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course, you guys know the proper number of troops for this sort of mission much better than the generals in charge of the troops... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm ....

Seeing as how the man responsible for the largest mass-murder of Americans in our history is still free four years later ...

Are you arguing that this administration's policies and attempts to capture Public Enemy #1 have been anything other than woefully inadequate? The proof is in the pudding.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm ....

Seeing as how the man responsible for the largest mass-murder of Americans in our history is still free four years later ...

Are you arguing that this administration's policies and attempts to capture Public Enemy #1 have been anything other than woefully inadequate? The proof is in the pudding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could people stop saying this? It's really not a very intelligent point.

So, Osama is still free. In a bombed-out cave somewhere in Afghanistan, smuggling tapes to Al Jazeera every 3 months.

I'm inferring that President Roybert would immediately dispatch 100,000 US troops to march up and down the Afghani mountains until he was found and brought to justice.

Have you actually stopped and considered what this would accomplish? The answer is: surprisingly little. Over and over again, the administration has tried to pound it into people's heads that the war on terror is a WAR, not a law enforcement operation. Capturing or killing Osama would do almost nothing to safeguard Americans or our allies. Al Qaeda would continue to pose a threat. In fact, given the highly distributed nature of AQ's command structure, it's probable that there would be almost no change in its operational ability if Osama were dead. He would just be another martyr for terrorist recruiting posters.

The strategy the Bush administration and others have pursued is the superior approach of targeting other top- and mid-level leaders, an area in which it has registered fantastic success. Since the AQ leaders who are actually doing things are not in permanent hiding, they are ironically easier to find. So, Bush's woefully inadequate policy actually accomplishes more while using less manpower. The downside is that people lack vengeance and a visible symbol, a small price to pay. On a personal level, he has to accept these small-minded attacks, but he's a selfless American, so he's willing to suffer.

4 years after the beginning of WWII, Hitler was still alive and well and free, and played a vastly more important role in the Nazi war machine than Osama. No one chided Churchill for failing to bring him to justice.

[BCPVP]

Good post. For the "contextually" challenged here, I'll post the relevant part of the transcript in which Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him...":

" Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom. "

I imagine this will be the first time some here (perhaps many?) have ever read the entire dialogue that the infamous "not concerned about him" quote came from. It is an excellent example of how words can be twisted to mean different things.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm ....

Seeing as how the man responsible for the largest mass-murder of Americans in our history is still free four years later ...

Are you arguing that this administration's policies and attempts to capture Public Enemy #1 have been anything other than woefully inadequate? The proof is in the pudding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could people stop saying this? It's really not a very intelligent point.

So, Osama is still free. In a bombed-out cave somewhere in Afghanistan, smuggling tapes to Al Jazeera every 3 months.

I'm inferring that President Roybert would immediately dispatch 100,000 US troops to march up and down the Afghani mountains until he was found and brought to justice.

Have you actually stopped and considered what this would accomplish? The answer is: surprisingly little. Over and over again, the administration has tried to pound it into people's heads that the war on terror is a WAR, not a law enforcement operation. Capturing or killing Osama would do almost nothing to safeguard Americans or our allies. Al Qaeda would continue to pose a threat. In fact, given the highly distributed nature of AQ's command structure, it's probable that there would be almost no change in its operational ability if Osama were dead. He would just be another martyr for terrorist recruiting posters.

The strategy the Bush administration and others have pursued is the superior approach of targeting other top- and mid-level leaders, an area in which it has registered fantastic success. Since the AQ leaders who are actually doing things are not in permanent hiding, they are ironically easier to find. So, Bush's woefully inadequate policy actually accomplishes more while using less manpower. The downside is that people lack vengeance and a visible symbol, a small price to pay. On a personal level, he has to accept these small-minded attacks, but he's a selfless American, so he's willing to suffer.

4 years after the beginning of WWII, Hitler was still alive and well and free, and played a vastly more important role in the Nazi war machine than Osama. No one chided Churchill for failing to bring him to justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many things about your post that I find so utterly ridiculous it is hard to decide where to start.

First of all, your damn right. I would send troops en masse to find bin Laden (and Ayman Al Zawahiri, KSM and all the others), and bring them to justice. Call me crazy, but my sense of justice kind of kicks in when 3000 of my countrymen get murdered.

Secondly, you say that a dead bin Laden would only be a martyr to put on terrorist recruiting posters? What the [censored] is he now? He's the guy who not only killed 3000 americans, he GOT AWAY WITH IT. What better recruiting tool could the terrorists ask for?

As far as Bush 'accepting these small-minded attacks' from people seeking 'vengeance and a symbol', he set that bar himself with this quote, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out west, that I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" Thank God he's so mentally tough to withstand such abuse from a side whose point of view he clearly condones (I assume he still does anyway; we all know how resolute he is).

Finally, I find your WWII analogy senseless. Are you implying that Churchill would not have killed/captured Hitler if given the chance? Hitler led a massive army with unbelievable infrastructure and insolation. bin Laden, to steal your own phrase, is, "In a bombed-out cave somewhere in Afghanistan, smuggling tapes to Al Jazeera every 3 months." Given the proper levels of manpower, we can find and capture bin Laden, whereas Churchill, a leader whose nation was under constant attack, would've had to forego his own country's safety to mount an all-out assault against a heavily fortified foe in order to capture Hitler. On this basis alone, your analogy is nonsense. We don't have bin Laden because, quite simply, Bush wasn't willing to exhaust the resources needed to get the job done. Churchill was willing but unable.

On September 11th, myself and everyone I know wanted to find bin Laden and all those responsible for those unbelievably heinous and cowardly attacks and bring them to justice. I still do and I make no apologies.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot compare the ex-Iraqi military to the American military

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't. I compared the reasons for which they fought.

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq decided that it needed to invade Kuwait. It was not the place for the soldiers to decide if the invasion was right or wrong.

My understanding is that this is a basic military principle. I am surprised that it's even subject to discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first place, "Iraq" didn't decide to invade Kuwait, Saddam Hussein and his hand-picked government did.

But you must also think that the Germans who resisted and refused to fight for Hitler were wrong for doing so? You are the only person I've ever heard of who agrees with this.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris, your post is really offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm amazed at this because the only reason it's offensive is tha people have been brainwashed into thinking that military service is inherently honorable and worthy of glorification. It's so ridiculous that poor Niss had to paint himself into a corner and claim that Iraqi soldiers who voluntarily helped Saddam invade Kuwait were acting mroe honorably than those who refused. It's nuts.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit I have some respect for someone who stands up for their principles enough to spend a year in prison, but I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who believes in their principles enough to go to Iraq and risk death for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah? What if the Taliban had invaded Iraq? You would have more respect for Taliban soldiers who participated than those who refused? Do you have more respect for those who willingly fought for Germany during WWII than those who conscientiously resisted? Why on earth . . . ?

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, it's not acceptable, from your point of view, for the US, the most powerful form of democracy to decide that democracy is the best form of government for Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first place, the U.S. hasn't decided that "democracy" is the best form of government for Iraq; that's just the label they've slapped on it. A U.S.-appointed viceroy (Bremer) dictating tarrif and trade laws and decreeing that any future Iraqi government will be bound by them is not democratic and Iraqis have no "democracy." The very idea of a foreign power deciding the form of government of another country is inherently undemocratic, and suggests that you don't understand what this word means.

[ QUOTE ]
you have to recognize that this young man is taking on a huge commitment and huge risks motivated purely by love of his country and a belief that his actions will make our lives and the lives of others safer and more free.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't be serious. Nobody volunteers for military service "purely" for love of country. In fact, in my six years in the U.S. military (which I enjoyed), I never met anyone who claimed that this was even a significant factor in their decision. They needed a job, they wanted the training, they wanted to go to school, they needed to get out of town.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether he's correct or not in this case, you have no right to denigrate his sacrifice.

[/ QUOTE ]
I and everyone else not only has the right but a moral obligation to denigrate anyone who knowingly and willingly participates in military aggression. That might exclude the vast majority of those in uniform, but at the very least we should think less of them for participating than those who, for whatever reason, refuse.

[BCPVP]

Roybert, you've yet to show that more people are needed to look for bin Ladin, or that an easter egg hunt through the Afghan mountains would be the best use of our military resources.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, you say that a dead bin Laden would only be a martyr to put on terrorist recruiting posters? What the [censored] is he now? He's the guy who not only killed 3000 americans, he GOT AWAY WITH IT. What better recruiting tool could the terrorists ask for?

[/ QUOTE ]
Woah, isn't one of the tenets of this type of Islam that it is glorious to die killing infidels? Well, Osama hasn't done that, now has he? He's on the run, sleeping in caves dodging bombs and Predator drones. Hardly the heroic ending you would want to portray for recruits.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the proper levels of manpower, we can find and capture bin Laden

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain to me you know more manpower is all that is necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have bin Laden because, quite simply, Bush wasn't willing to exhaust the resources needed to get the job done.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why Osama, and not people like Zarqawi (who is probably far more engaged in operational attacks than bin Ladin), is more worthy of these resources. Hopefully this answer will tie into your explanation of how you know that all it takes is more resources.

Sometimes you need to use an axe and sometimes you need to use a scalpel. So if you want to get a sliver out of someone's body, I'd go with the scalpel.

[ QUOTE ]
But you must also think that the Germans who resisted and refused to fight for Hitler were wrong for doing so? You are the only person I've ever heard of who agrees with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep comparing apples and the Holocaust. Let me know when you find a cite about the genocide practiced by the Iraqis on the Kuwaitis.

PS, German soldiers who simply fought in the battles against the Allies were not charged with war crimes. Care to take a guess why?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chris, your post is really offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm amazed at this because the only reason it's offensive is tha people have been brainwashed into thinking that military service is inherently honorable and worthy of glorification. It's so ridiculous that poor Niss had to paint himself into a corner and claim that Iraqi soldiers who voluntarily helped Saddam invade Kuwait were acting mroe honorably than those who refused. It's nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You, sir, do not get it. You just don't get it. I hope that, one day, there isn't a war that you believe needs to be fought, and that soldiers in your army, which I presume to be the American army, do not make independent judgments as to whether they should or should not obey the directives of their commanders. Your posts demonstrate a complete, fundamental misunderstanding of how a military operates, and can operate (and I am not holding myself out to be an expert in this area, mind you). I thought that this basic principle -- that soldiers cannot be allowed to disregard the orders of their commanders except when being directed to commit a war crime -- was common knowledge, at least to people who purport to be educated enough to engage in conversations on this board, but I guess I was wrong.

This discussion is stupid. You do not know what you are talking about, and the more you repeat it does not make it any more accurate, pragmatic, or reasonable. I will not engage your inanity any further. Keep babbling about your utopian principles of the military. Give us a call in the real world when you want to re-join us.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah? What if the Taliban had invaded Iraq? You would have more respect for Taliban soldiers who participated than those who refused? Do you have more respect for those who willingly fought for Germany during WWII than those who conscientiously resisted? Why on earth . . . ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are comparing the Taliban to the American military? And you are using this comparison to support your argument?

If this were the world of scholarly journals, they would say that your hypothesis does not withstand peer-review. In other words, your point is ridiculous. Again.

I guess I lied. I did have one more post.