WASHINGTON – Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says. The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says. Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now. More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks. "Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism." The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora." On or about Dec. 16, 2001, bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says. Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalize on air strikes and track down their prey. "The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines," the report said. At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_go_co/us_tora_bora_bin_laden Discuss.
He's better off "alive" for the fight against terror... would you rather appease your public or would you want more access for the fight against people like him? National Security comes first......
I think CB is saying the government is keeping bin Laden's image alive to justify the wars related to terrorism. If he were really dead, many Americans would be more inclined to take our toys and go home.
I am no expert but this seems to be monday morning QBing to me. If we sent a few Force Recon units instead of SF guys and still not caught him, then the critics would say we were not understanding of the situation. I guess in hindsight sending everything you have available might have been the right move but I don't think at the time it was so obvious.
I would hazard to say that if Bush would have done his job, Obama wouldn't have to be dealing with Afghanistan right now. just a thought
this is a pretty good timeline of what happened... http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1101pakistanaid&scale=2#a1101pakistanaid of note wrt the thread topic... Late November 2001: CIA Advises Bush and Cheney That Allies Won’t Help Trap Bin Laden, but No Action Is Taken Early December 2001: CIA Again Warns Bush ‘Back Door Is Open’ for Bin Laden to Escape Tora Bora November 2001: Pakistan Promises to Seal Off Tora Bora Region in Exchange for US Aid Mid-December 2001: Videotape Shows Bin Laden Heading into Pakistan
so the whole war was to catch him, hes the reason for 9/11....then we had him locked, and rumsfeld backed off...? and then i remember in the news i had not heard sadaam's name anywhere related to 9/11...but it said war was success we got hussein...where did it transfer to him, he was obviously a war criminal and this and that, but the agenda was bin laden and alquaeda....this just has sketchy motives written all over it, its just sad
Not sure what you mean by sketchy here, anyways. At worst it sounds like just complete incompetence, but this still sounds like Monday morning QBing to me, as judging from what I read, it sounds like we wanted men to go and wipe out the Taliban in the south, which sounds perfectly legit.
A longer article on the report, from CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/29/bin.laden.2001/index.html I'm glad that this report was put together, even though it seems a bit self-serving by the Democrats. As popularity has waned, the country has become split on Afghanistan. The public needs to be reminded why Afghanistan has always been important, and that it is going to be done better this time under new leadership. We've learned from the mistakes and those who made the mistakes are gone. Patience is required. This report serves all those objectives. In the CNN article, the ranking Republican Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee responds to the report by admitting there were many failures and that we shouldn't focus on the past, as the Democrats like to do with Bush. Obviously looking at the past is the only way to focus on the present, with regards to what needs to be done now. This report is brilliant in that it serves as the foundation for Obama's troop escalation. As a moderate liberal, I believe that this escalation needs to be done. And I'm more confident that it'll be done properly. Not simply because there is a Democrat President, but also because Gates is far more competent than Rumsfeld. And I feel more comfortable that an obviously intelligent President is more willing to challenge generals and work a plan together, rather than let the generals run the show completely. A politician is needed to influence the war plan when fear stops being as persuasive to the American public, and when our allies are worried to send their troops.
so any analysis of past events is "monday monring qb'ing"? yall must have a real disdain for history as a discipline/scholarly persuit...monday morning qb'ing is probably the main thing historians do. whats that quote...those who ignore history are bound to repeat it...something like that? i would argue that complete incompetence is the best case scenario - the worst case is that the civilian leadership/pentagon intentionally stifled the whole thing and facilitated obl's escape into pakistan. as is usually the case w/ the bush administration, it is either total incompetence or total criminality. i recently watched the frontline documentary 'bush's war' - this tora bora stuff really highlights a central theme of that movie, which was the animosity b/t the cia and the white house/pentagon. their unwillingness to work together really did alot of damage to the war efforts. bureaucratic pettiness at its worst.
Yes, they mishandled it and basically lost the war then. I'm not saying they would have captured him but laying back when the enemy is on the run and you have a good idea where they are is dumb and dumberer...regardless of what excuses they came up with to explain it away. They were not prepared to go into mountains or whatever it was. I attribute it to poor planning and poor execution. Now, our whole reason for staying in Afghanistan is to end Al Qaeda...something that should have been done the first time around. Now, they're in some mountain hideouts along the border and we got noone going in there due to them likely being on the Pakistan side. If you are not willing to swarm the mountains and flush them out...as difficult as it may be, then when will ever be the endgame of this war? We already know a big part of their strategy for winning the war is them just withdrawing from fights they cannot win and melting away only to regroup later. And, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it or them. Yea...build up a failure of an Afghanistan state with a corrupt government and homegrown Afghan troops that will probably run away when we leave. I'd rather just remove our troops and fight this ongoing war based on intelligence, missile strikes, and drone attacks. That country is not worth our troops' lives.
I agree with CaseyH about the Monday-morning quarterbacking. That's not to say that it isn't a worthwhile historical exercise. But, this report looks like a political vehicle to justify a troop surge and to shift the blame (once again) to Bush for not taking care of it earlier. As history, I can't trust the report because it is not disinterested. For gaining wisdom, this whole episode is worth looking at; for setting policy going forward, it's not relevant.
I'm going to agree with this as well. This isn't a Pentagon report, it's a report being released by Senate Democrats. Of course John Kerry is going to say it's Bush's fault that Bin Laden hasn't been captured. I wonder what a report by a Republican senator might say about Bin Laden and Clinton...
fair point - wrt the troop surge the stuff i was talking about isnt really relevant. the mistakes of the previous administration should have nothing to do w/ whether or not we increase troop levels now. but from a historical perspective its important to be aware of how we got where we are. and those who supported bush especially need to be aware of this stuff before they criticize what current or future administrations do.
