A soldier's viewpoint

TW asks the question which goes to the heart of the entire situation. When do we go after bin Laden? I might also add, why don't we? Why have we allowed ourselves to become immersed in the quagmire which is Iraq for no damn good reason?

The letter I started this thread with is intelligent, well written, and asks some very hard questions. 404error responded with a letter which is aimed at achieving an "I'm for our boys, God Bless America" response with no facts or logic to back it up.

I'm for our boys who are being killed senselessly; I believe in the Constitution which is being violated on every level in this war. I join with TW in asking the question "when do we go after bin Laden?" How can ANYONE possibly support a president who has engaged this country in the wrong war against the wrong enemy?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I whole heartedly agree Bin Laden is the target we should have kept our eye on, instead of being distracted with Iraq.
Now, the question is WHERE do we go to find him? Do we invade every country in the middle east until we find him? Maybe we should look in Rumsfeld's freezer.

[lookout123]

number of times tw refers to lookout in condescending manner - 5
number of times tw provides documentation of Franks anger - 0

There were, and are, a large number of flag rank officers that disliked Franks for the fact that he is the quintessential purple-suiter. he is a devout disciple of joint ops, not cooperative ops. as the commander of CENTCOM he stepped on lots of toes by reminding single service commanders that it was his way or the highway and rumsfeld backed him on it. the joint chiefs and many on their staff have produced leaks for political reasons in the past and Franks is notorious for his hatred of leaks. again, rumsfeld backed him over the service chiefs. this transfer of power from title X commanders to a unified command left no shortage of bitter officers, many of the same names that have popped up as experts to point out the flaws in the war planning.

CENTCOM plans for Afghanistan were for limited troop numbers right from the very beginning. Franks and many in the military have moved from the school of thought where an invading force needs a 3-1 ratio for entrenched defenders. instead they favor PGM's and a small invasion force.
that being said, phase I of Afghanistan's operations began on 10/7/01 with TLAM strikes, as well as heavy and tactical bombers.
phase II involved insertion of SOF personnel, nearly simultaneously. due to mechanical failures, equipment limitations, and weather situations the SOF were not inserted until 10/19/04 - 10 days behind plan.

the plan was for SOF, primarily, to lead and assist the leaders of the northern alliance and the rebels in the south against the taliban and then insert standard US personnel for cleanup action at a later date. that is exactly what happened in preparation for operation Anaconda in March of '02. you may not like the plan, but that was the plan.

Nov27th, Franks was told again, and not out of the blue to update warplan 1003 - the plan for an invasion of Iraq that had been on the books since 1998. a plan that Franks thought was ridiculously out of date as it called only for a massive coalition and a frontal assault. Franks hadn't liked the plan when he assumed command of CENTCOM and he had told Rumsfeld in March of 2001 that the approach to Iraq needed to be changed. from march of 01 Franks had Iraq on his desk for a strategy change - it was acknowledged that the no-fly zone policy was inadequate to the situation. In Nov, Franks was told to develop a commander's concept on how best to affect regime change. Franks was getting what he wanted - a crack at the master plan. I have found no examples of Franks displaying anything other than his usual gruff attitude when told to step up planning in November.

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles

He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent.

source documents?

Look at the numbers - the dates. World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked 11 September. By Wednesday before Thanksgiving, Tommy Franks is being ordered to plan the attack on Iraq - when we have not even yet invaded Afghanistan.

the invasion began on 10/19/01, after 12 days of airstrikes. Franks was told to update 1003 on 11/27.

tw, there were generals who stepped up to say that going to Iraq was a mistake, there were more that said we weren't using the "right" number of troops, or the right order of battle. many of them either had some political knife to sharpen, a book to publish, or a desire to be on the talkshow circuits. some of them had legitimate concerns they were expressing. Tommy Franks and his CENTCOM staff were not among them.

i am not bush's biggest fan and am certainly not a fan of rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and feith (who Franks labeled "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet). i believe that there were and are better ways to fight the war. i believe OBL should have been caught or killed already. i also believe zarquawi is an equal or greater threat at this point.

do i believe that the attacks were avoidable? yes, if we had not gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. Do i believe that there were better ways to handle and prevent these attacks? yes. Do i believe an increase in attacks leading up to the elections was inevitable? absolutely, there is a lot riding on the upcoming elections. it would be foolish for those who do not want to see some form of representative government in the middle east not to attack.

i choose to look beyond the mantra that it is all George, Jr's fault and look at the reality of the situation. it is a very ugly situation over there. whether we should have gone or not is no longer the central point - what do we do now is the most crucial question.

and each person will approach the question with their own personal philosophy and come to an answer that they feel is right. some will rant and namecall, others will simply cast their vote. you decide, remember?

[Undertoad]

Kerry says bin Laden's in Afghanistan so that's where he must be.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Kerry says bin Laden's in Afghanistan so that's where he must be.

Pssst, UT, everyone knows Osami is in the Federal Witness Protection Program and is currently working at The North Pole Amusement Park outside Colorado Springs as an elf! (adjusts tinfoil hat firmly around her ears)

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i am not bush's biggest fan and am certainly not a fan of rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and feith (who Franks labeled "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet). i believe that there were and are better ways to fight the war. i believe OBL should have been caught or killed already. i also believe zarquawi is an equal or greater threat at this point.

do i believe that the attacks were avoidable? yes, if we had not gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. Do i believe that there were better ways to handle and prevent these attacks? yes. Do i believe an increase in attacks leading up to the elections was inevitable? absolutely, there is a lot riding on the upcoming elections. it would be foolish for those who do not want to see some form of representative government in the middle east not to attack.

Again you promote the George Jr mantra. You mix Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. How is it that a war justified by virtually every nation in the world is same as the war condemned by most every nation? Only those who would promote George Jr propaganda or are completely misinformed would imply an Afghanistan war and an illegal invasion of Iraq are same. My god sir. Some Arab nations would have even sent troops into Afghanistan if we had asked. Name one that even thought Saddam was a threat to anyone? You cannot. Saddam was a threat to no one. bin Laden was even a threat to every secular Arab government. We should be talking about George Jr's impeachment for illegally invading a sovereign nation without any justification.

The enemy was in Afghanistan. The enemy attacked America in 11 Sept 2001. US support to Afghan war lords began about second week in October. American troops (15th and 26th Marine Expeditionary) finally began serious operations about Thanksgiving 2001 - after administration demands for plans to attack Iraq. Operation Anaconda did not happen until well into 2002. But before Marines started occupying Afghanistan and long before the 10th Mountain Division arrived, on November 21, George Jr's administration was always asking for invasion plans of Iraq. So when did Saddam attack America? Clearly he must have if you put Afghanistan and Iraq wars in the same sentence.

Lookout123 - where does the invasion of Afghanistan - with approval of virtually the entire world - have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq - that was not justified according to most of the world including Canada, Mexico, and the UN Secretary General? Where do you find any logic in associating and justifiying wars in Iraq and Afghanstan as one in the same?

Lets see. In a previous post, I listed 14 successful, thwarted, or possible attacks by bin Laden on the US. Name one attack by Saddam during those last ten years. By mixing Saddam with bin Laden, you intentionally confuse the issue. Its called propaganda. A technique often used to mask the truth or to promote outright lies. Do you feel personally spoken of in a "condescending manner" because I exposed your propaganda?

Iran and Afghanistan wars have almost nothing in common. In the meantime, to quote Bob Woodward, "Franks was incredulous". He should have been. He was about to and had not yet occupied Afghan territory when the George Jr administration was already calling for plans to attack Iraq. An attack on a nation not even involved in 11 September and that was not even a threat to the US.

On about March 2002, America stopped military attempts to capture bin Laden. In less than one year, American troops had invaded Iraq. Some years later, and we still don't go looking for bin Laden? So yes. Your logic is publically condemned until you start answering some simple questions like when are we going after the real terrrorists? The fact that George Jr has no such plans should be enough to demand his immediate removal from government. Somehow you still post unjustified support for George Jr who still claims terrorists were also in Iraq. Nonsense.

Some officers also did not like Swartzkopf. So what? Where is that or their opinion of Franks at all relevant? It is not. No matter how you spin it, the administration was demanding plans for an Iraq invasion before we had even started occupying Afghan terrritory. That is fact. An Iraqi invasion that would let bin Laden go free. Yes, Franks was incredulous even if you refuse to admit it. And he should have been as every Cellar dweller should be. Bin Laden - not Saddam - was the threat to America. Even Zarquawi is only a minor player (nothing more than a serial killer in a country now chock full of criminals) - once we eliminate the White House hype.

An idea that Zarquawi is as dangerous as bin Laden is more White House propaganda. When did Zarquawi conspire to take out 10 Pacific airliners, kill hundreds outside an American embassy, or kill thousands in an American city. Get real. Zarquawi is only a major threat when the president is promoting hype to justify his illegal war. You are representing the George Jr logic which is why your positions are exposed and not based upon facts. Gen Franks was angry on 21 November and he should have been.

Lookout123 should be publically condeming George Jr for getting us into a quagmire when there was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. Please feel free to prove that Franks was not angry.

[alphageek31337]

"Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL"...quote from a memo sent out by Dick Cheney, at 2:40 pm on September 11, 2001

Source

Political-Military Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq, dated Jan 31 2001, sent to Paul O'Neill. The plan is still classified (though it's easy to find, just google for "Blank fucking sheet of paper").

The neo-cons have been wanting to go into Iraq to serve their own political agenda since just after they managed to heist the oval office. There is no Iraqi threat, never was. 9/11 is just an excuse, and the fact that most Americans can't tell one Arab from the next makes it easy. In the words of a comedian whose name I can't remember right now, "My government isn't doing a good enough job of bullshitting me."

[glatt]

At a speech in W.Va. yesterday, former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Bremer, said essentially the same thing that John Kerry is saying. He said that the Iraq war was handled wrong by not sending enough troops in, and after we "won", we should have guarded more than just the oil refineries. Bremer said that by allowing the widespread looting and other lawlessness in the early stages of the occupation, we allowed the climate of lawlessness that exists today.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

also

In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the issue within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "The single most important change -- the one thing that would have improved the situation -- would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind

Bremer remains a staunch Bush supporter, but I think it's pretty telling when Bush's people break ranks like this and make comments about the administration's failure to plan for the next step after winning the war in Iraq. You've been hearing from the Democrats that Bush invaded Iraq with no exit strategy or plan for winning the peace. Now you are hearing it from some Republicans too.

[lookout123]

i don't dispute that there were better ways to fight the war. i am a believer in maneuver warfare combined with overwhelming force, not in place of overwhelming force.

my dispute in this thread has been tw's assertion that Franks was outraged at the idea of going to Iraq. Franks supported the idea and the plans that we used were of his own design. my personal belief is that Franks as well as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith are addicted to the school of thought that technology is the key to all. I believe that was the mistake that was made in the invasion. Appropriate use of boots on the ground would have changed the course of events that lead us to where we are.

there was no need to send 500,000 troops in similar fashion to Desert Shield/Storm, but i believe the number should have been in the mid-200's.

but that is a debate on how a war is fought. tw asserts that Franks and the military leadership were enraged at the idea of going into Iraq. unfortunately, he doesn't provide any proof of this outside of a short quote from Woodward's book.

[lookout123]

Please feel free to prove that Franks was not angry.

hmm, tw steps in and claims repeatedly that Franks was furious at being told to dust off 1003. I've seen no evidence that this is true and yet tw's response is to say that i must prove he wasn't angry.

i wonder if that would work in court?

Prosecutor: John Johnson diddles little boys!
Defendent: I do not.
Prosecutor: Prove it! I rest my case your honor.

how about this - if you allege something, provide some support. i think that is fair.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bremer said that by allowing the widespread looting and other lawlessness in the early stages of the occupation, we allowed the climate of lawlessness that exists today.

That makes sense. The people in Iraq lived in a repressed state for a very long time. The powers that were, would torture and kill people they even thought might step out of line. It became the national sport.
If you pen up an animal for a long time and then throw open the gate, chances are they won’t bolt. Cautious, timid, afraid to make a sudden move.
The Iraqis have discovered they can raise hell, almost with impunity so it would take a major slap down to control them now. I think our window of opportunity has been blown to shreds.
Because they don’t understand that we’re technologically superior, they’re kicking our ass.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lookout123

hmm, tw steps in and claims repeatedly that Franks was furious at being told to dust off 1003. I've seen no evidence that this is true and yet tw's response is to say that i must prove he wasn't angry.

The expression "mini-explosion" in Woodward's book does not prove that Frank's was incredulous? He was ordered to plan an attack on Iraq when he had not yet even invaded Afghanistan - this sentence in direct contradiction what Lookout123 posted previously. Of course Frank's was angry. Anyone in his position would have been, considering that the Afghan war was only just starting and was far from success. bin Laden was not captured or killed. Lookout123 says a "mini-explosion" could not happen because, "I've seen no evidence that this is true". That is his proof? Lookout123 has been accused previously of having opinions without sufficient information. Just because Lookout123 did not hear of this means it did not happen? That proves Gen Franks did not have a mini-explosion?

That "Franks was not angry" position is to avoid the more serious questions. Reasoning by Lookout123 is same as those who preceded him to support Nixon. He is our president; therefore he must be right to invade Cambodia. He must be right to even censor the news and letter going to the troops. Lookout123 endorses people who have no problem with boldface lying. Today's new lie - it was just an honest mistake about those aluminum tubes; but those lies are justified; the ends always justified the means. What happened to the word - credibility.

Saddam was a threat to no one. Iran's adjacent neighbors said same even before 11 September. George Jr supporters even forget that little fact to endorse a lying president. What happens if George Jr must decide to launch nuclear weapons? Will he be as responsible as Kennedy; use the doctrine of containment? Or will he use the principles of Tojo and Hitler - a preemptive strike only because they *might* be a threat. A future and possible threat always justifies unilateral war. Is a potential threat also sufficient to launch nuclear weapons? So we just lie a little. After all, a nuclear bomb is just another bomb. Does anyone remember the definition of the word 'integrity'?

Once the US said we would never execute a "first strike". Already, Lookout123 endorses principles of "first strike". He supports George Jr and those who say "first strike" is good. It is called preemption.

We are talking about White House credibility: people who literally encouraged war with China over a silly spy plane. People who have no problem with preemtive strikes on India, Russia, and Germany - if necessary (doctrine upon which the Project for a New American Century was created). Lookout123 endorses these neocons? Even Republicans such as Richard Lugar and Billy Kristol (Weekly Standard) have declared this administration as incompentant in Iraq. What will they do when we have a real crisis? These leaders could not even authorize fighter planes to go 'weapons free' - to protect US buildings when America was under attack. The leader even sat in a FL schoolroom for seven minutes and never even asked one question. We are talking about basic management competance that also considers outright lying as acceptable.

To avoid all this, Lookout123 argues whether Franks got angry.

Even Pat Buchanan says their fundamental concept - preemption - is a perversion of conservative principles. Same conservative principals that kept us out of WWIII on multiple occasions. Fundamental questions about management competance in George Jr administration. Questions that Lookout123 will avoid answering - instead denying that Gen Franks had a "mini-explosion". Questions will be reposted so that Lookout123 can provide answers; demonstrate that Lugar and Kristol are wrong; to justify his endorsement of George Jr. To demonstrate that the president is competant even though he even subverted the Oslo Accords andoutrightly lied about the WMDs. Do you really think this president is investigating who outted a CIA agent? What is one more lie? Ahh, but we return to other questions that Lookout123 side stepped.

[tw]

To avoid these questions, Lookout123 argues that Franks did not have a mini-explosion even though we know any honest general in his position would have done same. Why does he waste time defending this nonsense? To avoid hard questions. Same questions that Lookout123 characterizes as condescending - so that he need not answer them. A sample of posts Lookout123 avoids so that he can support a mental midget president. Ignore what you cannot disupte? He hopes all other readers will forget these were even posted:

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense. Military analysts even demanded to see the only evidence George Jr had that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. The only evidence were speculations about aluminum tubes. Today we know that technical analysts by the dozens were correct - those tubes were only for making rockets - to duplicate an Italian rocket called Medusa. Even the company (Zippe?) who made centrifuges that George Jr claimed Saddam was duplicating said those aluminum tubes were wrong - completely wrong - for uranium processing.

[Too] many sources - especially the video of him sitting in the FL classroom - say this president does not make his own decisions. He is told what to think.
...
He just sat [there] in that FL classroom for seven minutes. He did not even ask if anyone was in charge. I ask others repeatedly what they would have done if Andy Card said to them, "A second plane has just hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Everyone - yes everyone - says they would have gotten up and left the classroom immediately. George Jr never even asked one question for seven minutes. Seven minutes when fighter pilots still had no authorization to fire - to protect America. Why?

If we had intelligent leadership, then the army and police would never have been disbanned. Today's American deaths and the resulting double or tripling of insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr ...

So lookout123 - do you deny this insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr? Or do you assume this was inevitable. Any leader with even basic knowledge - or who had even seen the end of the movie Patton - knew disbanning of military and police was wrong.

Please tell us that George Jr did not make Iraq ripe for insurgency. Please explain where he made an intelligent decision to disban the military and police?

Again you promote the George Jr mantra. You mix Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. How is it that a war justified by virtually every nation in the world is same as the war condemned by most every nation? Only those who would promote George Jr propaganda or are completely misinformed would imply an Afghanistan war and an illegal invasion of Iraq are same.

Lookout123 - where does the invasion of Afghanistan - with approval of virtually the entire world - have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq - that was not justified according to most of the world including Canada, Mexico, and the UN Secretary General? Where do you find any logic in associating and justifiying wars in Iraq and Afghanstan as one in the same?

In a previous post, I listed 14 successful, thwarted, or possible attacks by bin Laden on the US. Name one attack by Saddam during those last ten years. By mixing Saddam with bin Laden, you intentionally confuse the issue. Its called propaganda. A technique often used to mask the truth or to promote outright lies. Do you feel personally spoken of in a "condescending manner" because I exposed your propaganda?

An idea that [Zarqawi] is as dangerous as bin Laden is more White House propaganda. When did [Zarqawi] conspire to take out 10 Pacific airliners, kill hundreds outside an American embassy, or kill thousands in an American city. Get real. [Zarqawi] is only a major threat when the president is promoting hype to justify his illegal war. You are representing the George Jr logic which is why your positions are exposed and not based upon facts.

The last and most major question that George Jr supporters must ignore.

When will we go after bin Laden?

Not if - when. Not al Qaeda - bin Laden. Why those "Not..." clauses? Because George Jr supporters would have us believe we are looking for terrorists in Iraq. Lookout123 - when will we finally go get bin Laden? A supporter of George Jr clearly must know this answer because, after all, George Jr is constantly talking about waging a war on terrorism. Good. When does it start? When do we go after bin Laden?

We are talking here about supporting the troops. When the public blindly follows a lying president, then the troops suffer first and most. It was called Vietnam and Nixon. Support for the troops means we must demand competant leaders and never reelect lying leaders. Again lessons well taught by history. Blunt hard questions are asked here. To relect this president, George Jr supporters must avoid answering these questions. Still waiting for a George Jr supporter to answer these questions.

Maybe if we don't answer, he will stop asking, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Or was the invasion of Iraq just another honest mistake?

[Undertoad]

Righty essayist Bill Whittle has convinced me bin Laden is dead. It's too long for this thread, I'll start another.

[lookout123]

well, those were some nice posts tw. you've used your wonderfully effective method of puking a variety of information on to the screen without stepping back to think about where the whole Lookout vs TW pissing contest started. you made claims of multiple sources as proof of Tommy Franks great anger over being instructed to update 1003 and prepare for a possible invasion of Iraq.

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles

He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent.

i simply asked for your sources because these statements are not compatible with the reading that i have done. i readily admit that i have not read every news story or book written - that is why i asked for your sources.
in reviewing what i have read, Franks' own book as well as numerous news stories, i still don't see any support for your statements. over the last couple of days i have searched the net for references to this. the only anger related to Franks that pops up frequently is the anger over the possible War Crimes charges that he was faced with.

in response you post a one sentence quote from Woodward's book as your "proof" of Franks great anger. no mention of the news articles that were originally mentioned, no quotes from Franks or other highlevel players to support your claims. you instead found it easier to target me and claim that my questioning you was due to a blind following of bush and an unwillingness to accept well known facts. when i went back and again asked you to answer the questions related to our original posts you again went on the attack and attempted to cloud the issue with a number of questions i was supposed to answer. all i asked for in the beginning were sources for your claims of Franks' anger - you have tried to divert the discussion in a number of different directions.

i have to ask why? is it because you don't have sources for those claims? is it that i don't deserve access to the knowledge that you hold? or is just easier to go on the attack than to answer a question? you may very well be correct in your claims but i've got no documentation to tell me that.

i also sought to correct your statement that Franks was ordered to prepare an Iraq invasion plan before we had invaded Afghanistan. i provided an accurate chronology based on news stories and Franks' writings.
you still make the claim that Franks was ordered to plan for an Iraq invasion before we went to afghanistan. what sources are you using? i would really like to know.