Tora Bora (572 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.94 on 13 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Donne Fan (View user info) at 2004-10-19 10:57:12 EDT
War of Words
By TOMMY FRANKS
Published: October 19, 2004
President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.
On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.
First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.
Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.
Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.
As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.
We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq.
Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.
Tommy Franks, a retired general and former commander in chief of the Central Command, is the author of "American Soldier." He is a member of Veterans for Bush.
I greatly enjoyed reading this today. I guess that is why I read the New York Times and not just Drudge. I have often wondered why there has not been a more effective rebuttal to the charge that we let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. Based on the information I had I thought it was a false charge but I also assumed that Bush did not respond because people who are not idiots realize that strategic decisions at that level of conducting war are not done by the commander in chief. In any case it is nice to see that Kerry was lying about that.
User Reviews
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-10-19 15:22:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Iraq was only providing medical treatment to Zarqawi, a sworn member of Al Qaida who went to Iraq for medical care after he was injured attacking our troops in Afghanistan"
Wow, that is one huge motive for war there.
I sure hope they didn't they didn't bake him cookies !?!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:16:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry but this line made me laugh out loud, "by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May"
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:11:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry to nitpick Domenad, but the Zarqawi treatment story is now in doubt, although few news organisations have retracted it.
Already said on the first version of this post, but I've read Franks was not happy about having to invade Iraq while holding down Afghanistan. But I suppose he keeps his criticisms private.
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (user info) at 2004-10-19 12:04:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
at least i did my own work on my political post http://www.ubersite.com/m/48914
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:58:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by tidalfae (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:37:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Obviously Iraq was planning on committing terrorist acts with all those weapons of mass destruction that they had. Good thing we stopped that. We wouldnt want them to kill people or anything. It's so much better when we do it for them.
----------------
No, Iraq was only funding Hamas, which was strapping bombs onto 12 year old kids to blow themselves up with. Iraq was only providing medical treatment to Zarqawi, a sworn member of Al Qaida who went to Iraq for medical care after he was injured attacking our troops in Afghanistan. Iraq only put out an assassination order on a sitting US president. Right. No linkage to terrorism.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:57:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:55:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I had heard that Gen. Franks put out a rebuttal, but I hadn't tracked it down. Thanks for posting it. But I really don't think too many people are going to read this, because frankly, many of them aren't looking for the truth any more. They are looking for someone to bolster their point of view, truth be damned.
Those will be the people who dismiss Franks as a card-carrying member of the "military-industrial complex," or whatever.
Still, keep up the good fight.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:44:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Better, and just as true. I always enjoy your calm appraisal, versus the hysterical bantering I normally hear (from both sides).
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:39:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
tidal where does this mention iraq? Oh did you just decide that given that this points out a kerry lie you should bring up iraq? Clever
Watch this video of Edwards
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100
Submitted by tidalfae (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:37:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Obviously Iraq was planning on committing terrorist acts with all those weapons of mass destruction that they had. Good thing we stopped that. We wouldnt want them to kill people or anything. It's so much better when we do it for them.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:30:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If Bin Laden isn't already dead, he is definately suffering.
It was military genious using the Afghans to fight for us: it gave them the morale boost of accomplishing something -AND- kept our casualties down. Pretty soon Iraqis will be doing the same thing. The only difference is that we have to hold tight until they get trained up. We already had the Afghans trained to fight the Russians.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-19 11:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
DlE!
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-10-19 11:01:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Domenad, sorry I was reposting without the top part and went back and read what you said. I loved this article so much I posted it without even rereading or adding my own thoughts. I do agree that it will be discounted by most, but the key is not most, it is the few. By the few I mean those who have been confused because they believed Kerry despite having an overall unfavorable opinion of him. When this is exposed as another lie, it will help develop the certitude that Bush is a better option (many of those voting for him are going to do so with some reservation) and will seal the reelection of the President.
By the way, if the Libertarians ever fielded a viable candidate, say as the bankruptcy of social security by the baby boomers who will be running both parties and paying themselves by robbing my generation which is 1/3 smaller than it would have been without their abortive choices looms closer (worst sentence ever) I will vote for them.