The only problem is that hard-over partisans don't allow facts or reality to color their opinions. While General Franks' op-ed confirms for many what they already knew, those who believe the opposite will not be swayed.

Politics is hell.

In the same vein of who said what about who, a couple of days ago Brent Scowcroft said this about President Bush regarding Sharon and Israel:

"Sharon just has him [Bush] wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft said. "I think the president is mesmerized." Scowcroft added, "When there is a suicide attack (followed by a reprisal) Sharon calls the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the president says, 'Yes, you are...'"

Also, he said that the U.S. administration's recent cooperation with the U.N. and NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq is a desperate move to "rescue a failing venture,"

This was reported in the Financial Times.

Brent Scowcroft is not and has not been responsible for any aspect of Bush's foreign policy that is being criticized by John Kerry.

Poor analogy.

Franks makes sense. He doesn't convince me to switch my support away from Kerry, but I'm glad I read his piece anyway.

If they want to base their vote on Iraq or the war on terror, the near-mythical undecided voters need to pay attention to material like this op-ed and also to blogs and other reports from soldiers and commanders who are on the ground in Iraq.

--|PW|--

I tried, and I was busted. Rats!

I've always hated that argument about Tora Bora. Even if we were to accept that the wrong tactics were used, it wouldn't be Bush's fault. The underlying implication of the argument is that Bush specifically ordered bin Laden not to be caught. That's the only way the accusation has any meaning at all, because Presidents just don't micromanage battlefield tactics. Definitely a case of Kerry playing on the simplemindedness of the electorate.

" "When there is a suicide attack (followed by a reprisal) Sharon calls the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the president says, 'Yes, you are...'" "
How is that being wrapped around a finger? How many decades has Israel been dealing with suicide bombers? Or terrorists striking at symbolic targets (1972 rings a bell).
I don't agree with all that Israel is doing, but if your only response to (in your view) oppression, is violent nihilism, then you've lost my sympathy.

I honestly think there is a fundamental disconnect between the liberals and conservative on this issue. I think the liberals are either wacked out "no war ever" types or they view the WOT as a WOOsama. Most conservatives who favor Bush, view the WOT as just that a WOT-all terror, and more appropriately Islamic fanatacism, the kind that makes people strap on bombs and blow up people on buses, or fly ariplanes into buildings. The former, think the war ends, when OBL is captured, the latter think the war ends, when the face of the Middle East is such that terrorism is not considered a heroic option.

I think Kerry has more than proven his belief is in the WOOsama-and that won't get us anywhere, in regards to the guys who want to blow themselves up and take a few innocent people with them.

"How is that being wrapped around a finger?"

Ask Scowcroft, not me - Robert.

"but if your only response to (in your view) oppression, is violent nihilism, then you've lost my sympathy"

Jesus Robert, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't say these things, Scowcroft did! Did you bother to read the post?

Just Me: Personally, I believe we could have done more to fight terror if we had only gone into Afghanistan (for now), and waited until Iraq was more ripe. Not waiting made us more vulnerable to attack. We have yet to secure our borders and ports, and now we have every fanatic in the world wanting to dig our eyes out (because of Iraq). We should have secured the U.S. first, then did some cleanup -- it's a way better war strategy. We left the back door of the house open, and went blazing out the front.

I'm a left-leaning person, but I believe that war has a purpose. In the wrong hands it can be a disaster. I think Bush used it at the wrong time, that's all.

Walter,
When Kerry criticizes the Tora Bora endeavor, his point is that by invading Iraq, we diverted attention and forces from what we were doing in Afghanistan. Now obviously Gen. Franks says he is wrong in this assertion, that it diverted nothing from the mission in Afghanistan. That may very well be true, but Kerry's claim that Bush is responsible for invading Iraq does not suggest that he micromanages battlefield tactics. I'm not defending Kerry's accusations, they sound pretty groundless to me, just your interpretation.

On the Franks piece, it's interesting that he says "the war on terrorism has a global focus." Global focus is an oxymoron. We can have a global reach, a global range, and focus on specific targets and networks, but how the hell does one have a global focus? Anyway I think Kerry does himself a disservice by focusing on OBL. He sees the WOT as being multi-fronted and global, but for some reason in the campaign he insists on focusing on OBL, the same way Bush focuses on SH.

A.S. I didn't put the message on you, I was just commenting on Scowcroft. Jeez.

As for waiting for Iraq to be "more ripe", I'd rather attack an enemy when he's weak than strong; it tends to save our soldiers' lives. Plus 12 years of screwing aroung with UN resolutions is enough ripeness for me.

I think all of the arguments miss perspective. Let's assume, for a moment, that it's October 2001 and we predict that we'll get change in regime in both Afganistan and Iraq and lose less than 1,200 lives in the process. Also, let's predict Libya's surrender of nuclear ambition. Also, let's predict no further attacks at home.

True evaluation of what has happened has to be done in consideration of what conditions are, or were, at the time actions were taken. We don't live in a vacuum.

Global focus is an oxymoron.

This is an incorrect statement - his meaning is clear, and you're nitpicking the man's words to buttress an argument.

They're his words Bill,

Franks:
"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."

I don't understand this. It seems to see terrorism as some monolithic thing that stretches across the globe and we must fight it on every front. He says you can't distinguish between Iraq and Afghanistan. This all seems to simplistic to me. Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. Some fronts in the WOT are more important, and I imagine they are all pretty unique. Terrorism is not monolithic; I think it is unwise to see terrorism the way Just Me does, as simply "Islamic fanatacism". When you reduce everything to consisting of simply: The World, Terrorism, and US, I think you miss some things.

And as for nitpicking words, I don't see you jump on people for doing it to the Democrats very often. Plus, what argument am I buttressing?

Dave: I think it's clear that some of us are more concerned about securing our homefront before we secure locations abroad. There's no way to prove who's right or wrong. We can't rewind history and try something else. Now we all need to make a decision -- was what we did right or wrong? Was it timely, or was it knee-jerk? You don't know and neither do I. But for me, I lean towards safety at home first, then safety abroad. And we have not secured our home yet, so I think Iraq came too early.

I realize we don't live in a vacuum. I realize that we need to address problem areas of the world before it's too late. But I don't believe we were even getting close to "too late". I believe we had time. I don't believe we had decades, but we definately had years. And in those years we could have maintained a certain level of respect with our allies.

Many people (in Bush's camp) don't care that we pissed off most of the free world. In my opinion (and the opinion of many economists, businessmen, scholars, etc.) we cannot afford to disregard the rest of the world. It's really bad foreign policy, period.

To be honest Mantis, your response is so muddled that I don't have the energy to dissect it. Suffice it to say, you are making a semantical argument - Franks is making the point that the WOT is bigger than John Kerry's (new) focus on Afghanistan and Osama.

The simple-minded approach is yours and John Kerry's - the WOT is a struggle that's beyond a focus on "the people who knocked down the towers" - it's an ideological struggle against states that sponsor terror, Islamic extremism and the broken apects of a civilization that foster it.

It's the absolute opposite of simplistic; it's very, very, very complex.

Note to other commenters - I don't have time to dismantle this argument and show Mantis the light today (re: Iraq's role as a regional lynchpin against Democracy and for terror, the terrorists networks operating in Iraq, the nexus between WMD and Islamists and what that means to US survival in the 21st Century, "2 Minutes to Midnight," or the fact that "Al Qaeda" is inaccurately defined as an "organization" with a clear command and operations structure) - if anyone else can help him out, I'd appreciate it.

I'm out.

I was working at CENTCOM for OEF and OIF and left not long after the initial Baghdad blitzkrieg.

Some of the decisions which were made by the President himself in the 24 hour run-up to operations, along with Franks' willingness to trust the CINC, saved a serious number of lives. Because of their actions, all command and control was effectively disabled - leaving Iraqi units pretty much fumbling around the desert with no early warning support or direction.

That kind of agile decisionmaking is what secured my vote for Bush.

By pointing out that it is more complex than Franks says in his op-ed I am simplifying the WOT? I understand Franks' point that the WOT is bigger than Kerry's focus on Afghanistan and OBL (and said as much, as well as saying I disagree with Kerry's assessment, and I think his focus on OBL is misguided). In case you haven't noticed I don't agree with Kerry on this, I think he's oversimplifying things. But I also think Franks is in this piece. There is no need to enlighten me on terrorists in Iraq, WMD and Islamists, the doomsday clock, or that Al Qaeda is not an organization (not really sure what all this was about). In any case my point was that the WOT is very complex (and I didn't really see that complexity in Franks' piece), and your rebuttal was that it is very complex. Strange. I know it's easier for you to assume that I'm a rabid Kerry supporter here to spew talking points, but to tell you the truth, I'm not a democrat, I am a tepid Kerry supporter at best, and I don't know their talking points (nor do I care). So feel free to lump all opinions you see as not in line enough with yours into a pile and call it "liberal" or whatever, but your condescending prickishness does little to help your argument.
By the way being lectured on making semantic arguments here is funny.

Just Me:

I think you're right and there is a fundamental disconnect, but it goes both ways. The anti-war left focuses far too much on what we do wrong, no doubt about it, but at the same time, the right essentially ignores it. What you call the "no war ever" left thinks that the only reason terrorists do what they do is colonial oppression / hegemony / cultural imperialism, etc. The hawkish right tends to dismiss any possibility that our behavior might be a contributing factor in the decision to carry out a terrorist act or campaign of terrorism, blaming all terrorism anywhere on purely evil fundamentalist motivations.

For example, in Chechnya: while everyone was busy rightly condemning the murders in Beslan, there was no mention of the fact that Russia has essentially turned Grozny, along with many other towns and villages in Chechnya, into a wasteland, in the process committing countless war crimes, etc. I won't go into details because I realize they have no particular effect, but the point is, even if the people who murdered the schoolkids in Beslan were lead by fundamentalists, part of their motivation was avenging the destruction of their homeland by the Russian invaders. Not to mention that this conflict goes back hundreds of years, during which Stalin forcibly evicted around a million Chechens to Siberia. I think the main difference then was that ordinary citizens had no access to explosives, advanced weaponry, or any other equipment that allows small non-government paramilitary forces to carry out acts of terrorism. No matter how much you want to condemn Chechen terrorism, and probably string up the individual terrorists by their balls (which was my first impulse), you just can't ignore what Russia has done.

The point is, even if we recognize Islamic fundamentalism as a problem, or even "the main problem", we have to look at the rest of the picture as well. I get the impression that most WOT hawks are not willing to look in the mirror at all, preferring to fight what amounts to a straw man that has been nicely constructed for them by the anti-war left's vocal and sometimes less-than-practical opposition.

One last point about your "WOOsama" argument: what if it really is mostly a matter of taking out Osama, or more generally, the most visible examples of people who have been able to defy the U.S.? If there are no figureheads, no spokesmen for the cause who can do anything but fulminate in mosques, then what happens? Honestly, it amazes me to say this, but I think in at least this way, Israel's strategy has really worked. When the Israelis first started taking out the Hamas leadership, ordinary Palestinians got really pissed off for a while. But look what's been happening in the last few months: people are started to recognize that those guys were full of shit now that they're all either dead or in hiding.

Demagoguery is powerful, no matter how insane the premise might be, and I really think that without the constant daily call to arms, a lot of civilians have started to wonder whether there might not be a better way to go about getting themselves out from under the Israeli thumb. I still say Israel uses excessive collective punishment (though nowhere near as bad as Russia), that it should not be colonizing the West Bank, and that an awful lot of innocent Palestinians have suffered and died needlessly, but I think what Hamas has mostly managed to demonstrate to the Palestinian population is that it's even worse for them than the Israelis.

So I guess what I'm saying is, maybe if we eliminate the most visible members of the top leadership of al-Qaeda, even if the different cells remain active and physically able to carry out attacks, it will give public opinion a chance to recognize how much of a threat al-Qaeda poses to them, and how fundamentally (no pun intended) inimical the Islamist ideology is to their personal well-being. The public figures, celebrities if you will, of the terrorist groups provide a rationalization for what is, I think, a natural sense of anger and frustration at being totally powerless to resist the West, even in the absence of any real desire to do so violently.

That's not pop psychology or a "sensitive war on terror" (what a stupid, stupid statement that was); it's a recognition of the basic realities of human nature. Power relationships will always exist, and there will always be those who play the "underdog" role to the hilt in order to gain advantage, but there's a big difference between that and crashing planes into buildings. In other words, maybe it really is just a matter of eliminating a few crazies who know how to whip up crowds. As far as I see it, that can usually be done without a full-scale invasion, and really is at the most basic level a law enforcement or special forces operation.

Bill has made the point with me previously that he sees Islamism as far more extensive and threatening, and views the Iraq invasion as essentially part of a last-ditch effort to prevent the destruction of an American city with nuclear weapons (I’m oversimplifying for the sake of brevity –too late!- but I think that’s the gist of it). The point is well made and has had an effect on my how I see the right-wing arguments in favor of the war, but I just don’t think we’re in that dire of a situation yet. The situation is bad, but there are too many factors working against the Islamists to think that they have any real hope of success. On that point, as I said, Bush has it right: we need to let the murdering filth know that they’re not going to win.

At the same time, we have to do so in a way that doesn’t give thousands of other non-terrorist people a very good reason to hate us with the burning fire of a thousand suns, and does give them a good reason to believe that their best interests and our best interests don’t have to be diametrically opposed. Bush will only do the first part, and I think that will mostly lead to desperate, which in the long term (and maybe even the short term) will actually increase the probability that emotion will overwhelm logic to a sufficient degree that it makes someone forget about the fact that nuking one of our cities means that any colonialist oppression, hegemonic exploitation, and cultural imperialism they’ve experienced so far will seem like, to borrow a line from “Rounders”, a Swedish massage.

It is laughable for Kerry to criticize a mountain campaign involving thousands of troops when John Kerry’s war experience includes unsuccessfully commanding five men on a boat for three months. His Navy performance was so poor, not one of his superior officers supports his campaign.

Kerry did not bother to gather the facts from Tommy Franks, but made up a story about Tora Bora to fit his political ambitions (as in Xmas in Cambodia and the magic CIA hat). In Iraq, Kerry says that Americans shoulder too much of the fighting, but in Afghanistan, Kerry says America “out sources” the fighting. Which is it John?

I am also still waiting for the “brutal Afghan winter” all the in-the-know experts were predicting to destroy the American Army.

I don't agree with Kerry on this, I think he's oversimplifying things. But I also think Franks is in this piece.

It's an op-ed in the NYT, not a book on strategy, Mantis, and your fixation on a strict interpretation of a very simple turn of phrase that has a clear implication is annoying to me.

Of course there are different fronts that have different relative merits and require different methodology - but Franks doesn't have the time or space to give it the painfully detailed treatment that you are demanding - he is just specifically rebutting John kerry's ridiculous soundbite that advocates a hyper-specific focus and plays Monday morning quarterback with the effort in Afghanistan.

He's using somewhat general language in a one column op-ed to make a point, but it's leagues more specific than the language that he's criticizing.

And if you have a problem with this site, or my tone when I think that you are using Derrida-speak, there's no reason for you to comment here, is there?

I present selective material to make an overall partisan argument with my web site - but I do not use painfully selective argumentation during the posts themselves.

There is a difference.

Mantis,

Generals are always going to give a simplified, vanilla breakdown of the operational picture. As a General, Franks was constantly bombarded with classified information, logistic information, and bundles of other data that if leaked, could compromise our military's effectiveness. To the casual observer, Franks' article reads like a brochure. To those with intel and operations experience, it's just being cognizant of operations security.

Franks wrote this as a counter to Kerry's assertions; I'm sure he has valuable insight to our operations and the complexities of the GWOT, but I believe that while bullets are flyin and people are dyin, he does not consider it constructive to get elbow-deep into the matter.

Many items military folks say in public forums may not be classified, but military members are always instructed to "keep it vague" to avoid inferences. If we can make deductions, so can "they."

Damn, Walter. Bill, you need to put a "more" capability in the comments.

"By the way being lectured on making semantic arguments here is funny."

I don't have the strength to get involved in the rest of what Mantis said, but I do agree with him on this point. People in this forum excel at semantic argument. They are masters of deconstructing a sentence into its base parts, and then using those parts as weapons against their enemies. I don't think Derrida was completely wrong, but I don't lend much creed to his philosophy. Not enough to pull single words or thoughts out of context. That's kinda dishonest.

Bill, just so you know, I wasn't talking about your exchange specifically. I was actually too lazy to see what Mantis was talking about. I was just thinking about semantic argument, Derrida, and this forum as I drifted off to sleep lastnight (sad life, eh?).

Last paragraph: "desperate" = "desperation"

EVERYONE excels at semantic argumentation - it makes up 90% of political discourse.

You, me, sciszor, ThadO - everyone.

It annoys me when it boils down to a single turn of phrase.

90% of political discourse

Link please.

kidding

"EVERYONE excels at semantic argumentation - it makes up 90% of political discourse."

Bill, I really didn't mean to exclude anyone (myself included). There's a fine line between honesty and dishonesty when one is arguing semantics. Sometimes, certain people push over the line to prove a point.

I was getting beat over the head last night by people who were pushing over the line, and then trying accuse me of doing the same -- this is hypocritical. I think this is the essence of what Mantis was trying to say?

Mantis:

Bill's just trying to say that by "global focus", even though those two terms are technically contradicatory in the abstract, the meaning of the phrase is clear: that the WOT has to be viewed from a macro perspective. Kerry's arguments a very micro and possibly even myopic in nature. In other words, saying "Saddam didn't knock down the towers" is not enough to exonerate him from involvement in terrorist activity in and of itself.

Still, I think that logical fallacy on Kerry's part obscures his broader point, which is that even if it can be demonstrated that Saddam was involved in terrorism in some peripheral way, he was clearly not any kind of central figure in the al-Qaeda campaign. There are lots of arguments beyond this point, but I'd end up going in circles, and I mostly wanted to put in my two cents on the semantic issue.

As for "When Kerry criticizes the Tora Bora endeavor, his point is that by invading Iraq, we diverted attention and forces from what we were doing in Afghanistan", I just realized what you meant as I was writing a different response. You're saying that at the time of Tora Bora, because attention in the Bush admin was already starting to turn to Iraq, there weren't enough troops available to properly carry out the operation without assistance from the local fighters. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and if that's what Kerry means, he hasn't done a good job of explaining it so far. The impression I had was that he's been blaming Bush for a battlefield decision that in reality probably never reached his desk, which is just plain political opportunism (hardly unique to him, I know, but on this specific issue, it strikes me as very disingenuous if that's the case). Other than that, though, I agree in a general sense with the point about distracting from Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai is for all intents and purposes the President of Kabul, and the fact that a 19-year-old girl voted does not change the simple reality that he has little or no real control in most of the country.

"As for waiting for Iraq to be "more ripe", I'd rather attack an enemy when he's weak than strong; it tends to save our soldiers' lives. Plus 12 years of screwing aroung with UN resolutions is enough ripeness for me."

I agree.

Walter I have to go be the "soccer mom" so I don't have time to read your response right now, much less respond. I will try later, unless somebody else comes along and puts the words in my mouth for me.

In an interesting article published today in the NY Times Bruce Bartlett makes some pretty dramatic claims. If Bush does get re-elected, it will be interesting to see how many more people on the right speak out. It seems like there's a lot of infighting amongst the Republicans.

Excerpt:

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that "if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3." The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

Walter, I think you're underestimating where we _would_have_been_ without pressing past Afghanistan.

It isn't just the _Iraqi_ groups getting nukes that are of interest - which comes right back to the "world focus" oxymoron. Pakistan pre-911 was to all appearances preparing for war with India over Kashmir. After being given an ultimatum or three they were reluctantly and ineptly along for the ride. But most of the _serious_ progress came after it was clear we were going to press on past Afghanistan into Iraq. Musharaf is still a dictator, but there's been several purges of both his intelligence services and his military.

I honestly don't think either Pakistan or Libya would be where they are now if we had taken the typical American response - flatten somewhere with cruise missiles.

Pakistan _has_ nukes. North Korea _has_ missiles. Libya _had_ both the plans and the hardware.

Everytime the focus become "The War in Iraq" it is as if everything outside Iraq's borders didn't happen. Then it's all about justification etc.

But that doesn't tell me how to keep Pakistan from going to war, or _Libya_ from going nuclear. Invading Morocco wasn't on a straight line to victory either.

AS,
One could say the same about the Democrats. That problem, is on going argument with the Human race. It basically is the war of Change vs. Tradition. There is no winning. It only leads to arguments based off of peoples beliefs. Everyone has to prioritize between the two. One always takes presidence.

Actually, Bill, the reason I comment here is because I'm interested in becoming more knowledgable on some things, and I've found that a lot of intelligent discussion goes on here. I found very little use for most of the leftie blogs because they mostly just pat each other on the back and occasionally scream "Troll!". I'm not trying to impress anyone or set anyone straight, I come to sites like this because there are often knowledgable people who have different viewpoints than I and the threads I read and post on are often enlightening. However, not being a logician, I often don't live up to your standards of argumentation. However, of course, it's your site and you run it how you see fit.
Sorry if I was unclear, I don't think you use selective argumentation in your posts, just a lot of visitors (it's the same on the other side). Anyway, I thank Sciszor and Walter for setting me straight on the Franks piece, although I still don't think "global focus" is a good term to use. Call me a nitpicker.

Ok, sorry if I got testy. Stressful day.

Mantis:

That's more or less exactly the reason that I visit and comment on Bill's site so often even though I'm decidedly in the minority. Good response to Bill's "testiness". Don't worry, you'll get used to it ;).

Oh, and Go Sawx!!!

"but how the hell does one have a global focus?"

It's a mindset. That is his whole point on the issue. kerry argues that Bin Laden and Afghanistan should be the entire focuss of our 1.5 million men in the armed forces. That's not narrow mainde, It's just plain dumb and stupid. Exactly the way it's dumb and stupid to ask why we aren't invading N. Korea, or Saudi, or Iran instead of Iraq. Well duh...

I would argeu that we not only need a global focus but a focus on ancient Islam without paying much heed to 21st century borders. That is the mind set of the enemy and the trade routes as well as tribal alliances on that old map are highly relevant to the logistical array of our forces as well the obstruction of enemy logistics. These characters are using courriers and CD's to transport communications and God knows wht else. What relevance do national borders or State immigration procedures have to their M.O.? Not as much as we would like...

That would be a taste my paradigm of "global" focuss.

No worries, Bill. I have no doubt my own ignorance can be infuriating at times, though I do work to remedy it. However, just to put a fly in the ointment, I finally had some time to sit and look around, and found some interesting things.

USA Today: WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.

The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.

Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive."

There's more in Guardian:

"Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military: they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and believed that they were closing in on bin Laden.

Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of them recalls. "

and a wire story from Sept. Compared to Franks's Op-Ed which said:

"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."

Now this 5th Special Forces group seems like it would be extremely useful in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder does anyone know how many were diverted to Iraq? Was it the whole group or just some and would it have made a difference in Afghanistan?

"No matter how much you want to condemn Chechen terrorism, and probably string up the individual terrorists by their balls (which was my first impulse), you just can't ignore what Russia has done."

You assume a lot about my opinion of the Chechen situation, why not ask me what I think rather than telling me what you think I think?

On to Osama-I don't think just eliminating Osama is going to stop terrorism. Getting rid of Osama is a good way to probably stop some terrorism, but I think the real way to stop it, is with democracy, and stability.

I strongly suspect that Iraq was the next step in the war on terror, because it was the easiest. I also think the administration views Iraq as a way to get change in Iran.

" In other words, maybe it really is just a matter of eliminating a few crazies who know how to whip up crowds."

Just eliminating the crazies isn't going to stop it-eliminating (or more appropriately changing the face) of the countries that sponsor and protect them is the way. Why doesn't this type of terrorist work well in the US (we get them-think aboriton clinic bombers, eco terrorists etc)? Because these types of crazies are marginalized-and they are not protected from prosecution by the general public. Even those who have sympathy for their causes, do not condone or cheer what they do. The WOT is not just about getting Osama, it is about making the world a hostile place to not only Osama, but the future Osama's.

Franks is trying to make Bush look good, but has to indulge in some internal contradictions and falsehoods to do so:

Franks: "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."

And so, in the course of a single paragraph, "We don't know whether he was there" morphs into "We know he wasn't there"...

Franks: "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."

And so, in the course of a single paragraph, "We did not outsource military action" morphs into "We did outsource some, and here is why"...

Franks: "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."

The fact that the US military provided aircover does not take away from Kerry's point that not US troops but Afghan warlords, who had only recently been fighting on the other side, were given the task of actually "getting" OBL.

Franks: "Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq."

Simply not true: the comparison of actual troop levels notwithstanding, both attention and (valuable and highly specialized) were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq.

"In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm)

"As the hunt for Saddam Hussein grows more urgent and the guerrilla war in Iraq shows little sign of abating, the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis, according to intelligence officials who have been involved in the redeployment.
.
The recent moves, involving both analysts in Washington and specially trained field operatives, follow the transfer of hundreds of elite commandos from Afghanistan duty to service in Iraq, Pentagon officials said." (http://www.iht.com/articles/106783.html)

Franks: "They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices."

And yet here we have a general who is being dishonest, inconsistent, and providing partisan spin. Isn't there some kind of law against a member of the military campaigning for any political party?

Clancy -

Once again, you are "spinning" with the painfully ultra-fine parsing of turns of phrase that have a relatively clear connotation. Consider - if Franks does not consider working with Afghanis while never giving up command control "outsourcing," then there is no contradiction. This also assumes that using American Divisions was an obvious, alternate option. Check out Woodward's "Bush at War." I'll also try to dig up an analysis written by a Special Ops guy of the rationale for the operation.

Of course, in your world, John Kerry's lame tee-hee soundbite may still hold. Dunno.

Franks points are clear, but by your refusal to absorb and give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt in intent in a short NYT op-ed, you're being a bit unfair.

As for the diversion of resources, you actually make a point - overall, both actions could be fought at the same time and winning Afghanistan was not a job that required most of the large resources used in Iraq - That being said, some specialized elements that could have had utility in Afghanistan were moved to Iraq.

But ...

Because some special operations troops were moved doesn't mean that there was an inappropriate allocation of resources. Perhaps the needs in Afghanistan were relatively saturated. Perhaps the high value targets had diminished to a point where Afghanistan had much less use for a concentration of these forces. A larger and somewhat off topic philosophical point certainly speaks to the relative merit you put on chasing down the remnants of the Taliban vs. Iraq itself.

And consider - he was the general in charge making these decisions, the man that was given carte blanche within strategic goals. And if he gave an answer that you liked, you'd be running around in the streets naked with a bullhorn and a copy of the NYT. As it is, he's supporting George Bush, and trust me - it's not so much because he agrees with him on tax policy.

So I'll be forced to take his assessment over yours - especially because your source is the IHT, and Franks sources are ... well, he is a source, isn't he?

Bill,

I wouldn't call this "ultra-fine parsing" by any means (unlike some of the discussion further upthread) - these are pretty blunt contradictions that one trips over while reading the piece: Franks says we didn't know exactly where OBL was at the time, then states with certainty that he was not in one of the places where some intelligence sources said he was at the time; he says we didn't "outsource" military action, then details ways in which we did, and provides justifications for doing so.

Franks certainly is in a position to make these points with authority, and I believe him when he provides most of these details. It is when they become internally contradictory that I have to try to identify those parts that rely on his subjective judgement, which appears to be influenced by his political preferences. He easily can explain the justifications for using local non-US military in Afghanistan without the up-front claim that it didn't happen; he easily can explain that we didn't exactly know where OBL was without pretending that it was not possible to catch him. Those are interpretations he tacks on to his arguments to spin this into a particular direction.

(Incidentally, yes, using the word "outsourcing" was a partisan jab on Kerry's part, but it did get the point across. I'm not particularly hung up on it either in terms of its humor or its cleverness, if there is any. I just found it a convenient short-hand for what was happening.)

Franks makes another partisan point right out of the Bush campaign's talking points by implying in the final paragraph that Kerry would withdraw from Iraq without having accomplished our objectives there. This is the same misinterpretation that Bush (and I assume Cheney) have been pushing in stump speeches: Kerry said we could start withdrawing troops after our objectives there had been accomplished. Bush has twisted this into a so-called "strategy of defeat" in his speeches.

"So I'll be forced to take his assessment over yours - especially because your source is the IHT, and Franks sources are ... well, he is a source, isn't he?"

I quoted the IHT and USA Today, but it's not as if they made this up out of whole cloth; they too have sources, which are detailed clearly in the articles.

Franks says we didn't know exactly where OBL was at the time, then states with certainty that he was not in one of the places where some intelligence sources said he was at the time;

Based on the exact excerpt in your previous comment, this is ultra-fine parsing of "within our grasp." I read that as we didn't know where he was to have him cornered, which in no way contradicts the dependent clause of his argument - that we didn't know where he was.

I will also not concede the outsourcing point. Special Forces doctrine is based around using local power in conjunction with air support, and i believe that any knowledgable read of the situation in Afghanistan and the logistics of moving troops into the country and setting them up for the kill would dictate that Franks' negative read on "outsourcing" is 100% correct. Once again, read "Bush at War."

Franks makes another partisan point right out of the Bush campaign's talking points by implying in the final paragraph that Kerry would withdraw from Iraq without having accomplished our objectives there. This is the same misinterpretation that Bush (and I assume Cheney) have been pushing in stump speeches: Kerry said

This is a certainly a partisan extrapolation. But ...

1. Kerry has "said" many things, including that we should have gone into Iraq earlier after 9-11. Now he says, wrong war, wrong way, wrong time, and that Bush "took his eye off the ball." How can any intelligent person possibly believe a damn thing Kerry's "said" in a debate or stump speech? All politicians prevaricate and lie - of course Bush does it too - but they don't usually inexplicably make totally diametric statements - 3 or 4 times - on an issue as serious as war.

The fact is, you have no idea what Kerry will do. Neither do I, but I have a guess. So does Franks. I'll give you this - perhaps he overstates his mandate and weakens his credibility by filling in the blanks ...

2. Considering the fact that Kerry's unreliable when he speaks, it's certainly fair to draw the conclusion that Kerry will run, draw down troops, and return to a defensive military posture in the WOT, based on his history.

After all, from Vietnam to his record on Defense during the Reagan area to his vote against defense hardware in the 90's to his opposition to the first Gulf War, Kerry's stance on national security has been very clear.

His stump speeches, however, mean nothing at this point. It's possible that he could have even convinced me at some point - but he lost me right around when Howard Dean made his semi-successful run.

Kerry may run, he may stay. I wouldn't bet on seeing any course of action through that carries negative political ramifications, though.

Bill, I appreciate your frank discussion on these subjects, and I'm happy enough to agree to disagree with you on some of these points.

I don't know what Kerry would do in Iraq if he were to become president, mostly because neither he nor anyone else will know what condition Iraq will be in at that point. Will the country be preparing for elections, or will the elections have been postponed/cancelled due to turmoil?

Let's not forget that we are also left wondering what Bush would do about Iraq if he were re-elected. After all, he too is a Man Without A Plan, and it was his administration's past misjudgements and miscalculations under his leadership that have resulted in Iraq's present state. Not so long ago, his administration believed that we would be able to reduce troop levels in Iraq to 30,000. At this point, the unfortunate truth is that there aren't many viable positive options left in Iraq.

As for stump speeches - you don't think Bush's stump speeches are worth the paper they're written on, do you?

As for stump speeches - you don't think Bush's stump speeches are worth the paper they're written on, do you?

Depends which parts of which ones. On national security, his position is somewhat reliable. Somewhat.

I can smell BS, and while Bush spreads around enough of it every day, one can detect elements of belief. Kerry is an enigma about everything except his ambition.