The Tough Guys

Obviously, I have no idea who in the US would benefit politically from a worsening situation in Pakistan. Unlike others, I won't even pretend to know. A different question is who deserves to benefit. That'd be whoever has the most sensible ideas about Pakistan. Who's that? Well, it seems to me that we desperately need to break away from the "trouble abroad, let's turn to hawkier hawks!" mode of organizing our politics. After all, there was a strategic choice undertaken by the United States of America during the year 2002 to refocus our attention away from Central Asia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan area and toward the Persian Gulf. That was, of course, the "tough," "strong," "serious" thing to do.

Then throughout 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 it's been the case that the "tough," "strong," "serious" thing to do is to maintain a massive strategic focus on Iraq in particular and the Persian Gulf in general. Vast quantities of troops, money, and attention lavished on the Gulf was Central Asia languishes. Only cowardly cowards like Brian Katulis though it was more import to focuson Pakistan. But of course when things go wrong in Pakistan, everyone's stomach lurches in a way that doesn't happen with problems in Iraq. In Pakistan, after all, you've got real nukes and more radicals -- trouble there is big-time trouble. But, presumably, there'll be a lull in the situation at that point. Maybe during that lull people can try to remember that these things are all linked together and that choosing toughseriousness is what led US policy in the region to fall into such a state of drift in the first place.

Comments

Well, we mustn't forget that extremely prescient op-ed by Kagan and O'Hanlon a month or two ago suggesting that America's military should consider occupying 200M Pakistan and seizing their nukes.

I'm sure all the Pentagon generals are really, really thrilled at that prospect...

Posted by RKU | December 27, 2007 3:07 PM

Who in the U.S. benefits? Dick Cheney. 2 reasons:
1)It makes Condi look bad. 2)More fear is the basis of Cheney's power.

Posted by Garuda | December 27, 2007 3:11 PM

Assuming it is an original word I haven't simply missed reading elsewhere, Atrios must be jealous as hell over not coining "toughseriousness."

Posted by jhupp | December 27, 2007 3:12 PM

Benazir Bhutto just got assasinated on her way from a rally of supporters.

Posted by Nyx | December 27, 2007 3:35 PM

Benazir Bhutto just got assassinated on her way from a rally of supporters.

Posted by Nyx | December 27, 2007 3:36 PM

all, there was a strategic choice undertaken by the United States of America during the year 2002 to refocus our attention away from Central Asia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan area and toward the Persian Gulf.

Uh, no. WTF is Matthew talking about?

First of all, Afghanistan and Pakistan are separate countries. Our focus on Afghanistan has increased since 2002. We have more troops there now than we had in 2002. And I don't know what Matthew means by our focus on Pakistan has decreased. By what measure?

Maybe Matthew's Reality-Based opinion should be more based in reality.

Only cowardly cowards like Brian Katulis though it was more import to focuson Pakistan.

And then we have this straw man. Everyone thinks it is important to "focus on Pakistan". But nobody on the Left Wing tells us what a "focus" on Pakistan entails other than what we are already doing. Katulis certainly doesn't. Indeed, we've been "focusing" on Pakistan a great deal lately, including engaging in a great amount of diplomacy to get to the position where we were expecting, prior to today, a pretty good election.

Really, this is a patheticly bad post. Ignoring the facts, and using a straw man argument. Let's hope Matthew's book is better than this.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2007 4:00 PM

Al:

Really, this is a patheticly bad post. Ignoring the facts, and using a straw man argument.

There are few things funnier on our little blue earth than this.

ADDED FUNNINESS: Al included an Yglesias-like spelling mistake.

Posted by 23456 | December 27, 2007 4:16 PM

Al,

It's not true to say that "nobody on the Left Wing tells us what a "focus" on Pakistan entails other than what we are already doing". Brian Katulis has, in fact, outlined proposals for reforming our policy towards Pakistan, namely become less focused on bolstering Musharraf, and placing more conditionalities on aid. You may not like these proposals, but they certainly represent a change in direction.

Posted by Peter H | December 27, 2007 4:23 PM

This is a very interesting, rather different post about what is going on than what has been written so far. I myself have written something related to the repercussions of the event and what individuals must do to ensure personal safety. The article may be found here:

http://destogate.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/bhutto-assassinated-the-aftermath-and-precautionary-measures/

Posted by Tabish Bhimani | December 27, 2007 4:31 PM

Still following our policy of fomenting civil unrest in the Muslim world, (in the guise of spreading democracy but in actuality aiming to install Shah-of-Iran-like pro-Israel/US puppet governments), we set up poor Bhutto to return to challenge Musharraf and even encouraged her to criticize Musharraf's state of emergency decree which was obviously necessary. Indeed, barely surviving the initial attack when she arrived, it's surprising she lasted this long. Musharraf's government may be riddled with Islamists, but it could be a lot worse. A far better plan would be to change our Israel-Lobby-dominated foreign policy which simply swells the ranks of anti-US terrorists.

Posted by Eleanor Lambertson | December 27, 2007 4:32 PM

Well, the problem for the US is:

1) It supports Musharraf.

2) Musharaff - and the military behind him - are the most likely suspects behind the assassination.

3) You know the opposition parties believe this even if it might not necessarily be true (although I assume it is true.)

Therefore, as Barnett Rubin says over at TPM, "US policy is in tatters."

This business of supporting any asshole dictator in order to counter our supposed "enemies" is the primary problem with US policy.

Instead, we should be changing our policies so we don't make such enemies, and engaging the enemies we do make.

BTW, for the right wing morons, "engaging" does not mean "surrendering to."

In order to deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, there really is absolutely no need to "support" ANY foreign government. Both are problems for the governments in which they reside. To the degree that they are a problem for the US, we should be concentrating on our own actions and not those of those governments.

The whole notion of invading Afghanistan to "get" bin Laden - a notion Matt still supports - was STUPID. All it did was drive the problem next door and contribute to the destabilization of a SECOND country.

The subsequent notion of spending billions per year to an unstable government run by a dictator who is completely unable to deal with the situation in this second country was even more stupid.

And the ultimate stupidity was invading Iraq - which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all.

And now the first reaction to the news of an assassination of yet another corrupt former ruler in the second country is to once again raise the notion of militarily destabilizing that country even further.

Note this piece:

US to expand mily [military] presence in Pakistan
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2007/27/index1.php

Money quote:

"EARLY next year, US special forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counter-terrorism units, according to American defence officials involved with the planning, reports Washington Post.These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the US military and for US-Pakistan relations."

That's right, folks. We're going to send US Special Forces into Pakistan and get THEM blown up.

Apparently not enough of them are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The likely increase in destabilization in Pakistan will be considerable.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 27, 2007 4:46 PM

Peter H.:

Al,

It's not true to say that "nobody on the Left Wing tells us what a "focus" on Pakistan entails other than what we are already doing".

Where you go off the rails here is believing Al has any interest in what's true.

There's a reason he's one of the internet's most celebrated trolls.

Posted by 23456 | December 27, 2007 4:55 PM

Qui bono?

Of course it is the fear-mongers in this country who will benefit from trouble in Pakistan. Please don't help them spread groundless fear, as this item does. What happens to Pakistani politicians, of any stripe, is almost entirely irrelevant to the real interests, including security, of the American people.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 27, 2007 5:04 PM

Peter H,

I understand that Katulis has proposed we threaten to cut off aid to Pakistan if Musharraf doesn't do what we want. What I don't see is how threatening to cut off aid constitutes an increase in our "focus". If anything, cutting off our aid would constitute a decrease in focus, which is the opposite of what Matthew says we should do.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2007 5:20 PM

The whole notion of invading Afghanistan to "get" bin Laden - a notion Matt still supports - was STUPID. All it did was drive the problem next door and contribute to the destabilization of a SECOND country.

Well, no. It was only stupid because we failed to get bin Laden, which we could have done if we'd really cared about it. If we'd done that, made a salutary example of him, financed Afghanistan's reconstruction, and stayed the hell out of Iraq, we'd have a lot less by way of trouble in that part of the world.

Posted by rea | December 27, 2007 5:28 PM

What I don't see is how threatening to cut off aid constitutes an increase in our "focus".

Most of our "aid" to Pakistan has simply gone into the pockets of Musharraf and his closest supporters. There's no need to keep bribing these people if they won't stay bought.

Posted by rea | December 27, 2007 5:36 PM

which we could have done if we'd really cared about it

I love these counterfactuals. We could have gotten OBL if we really cared. Yup. And we could make a unicorn if we really cared too.

Posted by Al | December 27, 2007 5:41 PM

1. I rather expected that someone would blame the assassination of Ms. Bhutto on Israel and that that someone would be Mr. Don Williams. It appears that Ms. Eleanor Lambertson beat him to it. Is there any turmoil anywhere in the world that the Israel bashers don't blame on Israel?

2. I am not as worried about the events in Pakistan as others here are because I rather suspect that India will not stand idly by while Islamic terrorists take over Pakistan and get their shithooks on Pakistans' nuclear arsenal. This is in contrast to the incompetents running the US and Israel who stood idly by while Hamas took over the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, there are no nuclear arms (yet) in that god forsaken piece of real estate.

Posted by SLC | December 27, 2007 5:43 PM

I love these counterfactuals. We could have gotten OBL if we really cared. Yup. And we could make a unicorn if we really cared too.

Right on! Al is completely right here, and his point generalizes on so many issues.

For instance, some people say we could have good quality health insurance for all Americans if we really cared. Yup. And we could fly to the stars on moonbeams too!

Some people say we could be perfectly fine without torturing anyone at all if we really cared. Yup. And we could live at the North Pole with Santa Claus with the elves making presents for us all day long!

Thank goodness American conservatism has such sober, honest spokespeople as Al to tell us how it is.

Posted by 23456 | December 27, 2007 6:06 PM

"Well, no. It was only stupid because we failed to get bin Laden, which we could have done if we'd really cared about it."

Getting bin Laden would have done nothing to eliminate Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is an organization with "Number Two's" like any other group.

"If we'd done that, made a salutary example of him,"

Which would have had zero effect on anti-US sentiment - indeed, probably would have increased it.

"financed Afghanistan's reconstruction"

If you mean, "financed without any US military presence", you might be right. But having overthrown the Taliban was precisely the problem. It moved the problem next door to Pakistan - where it was already a problem - and made it worse. So the mere fact of the invasion was itself STUPID regardless of the motivation - which was my point.

"and stayed the hell out of Iraq"

This part, of course, you get right.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 27, 2007 6:11 PM

Bin Laden who? I'm sorry, I just don't spend that much time thinking about him, to be honest.

Posted by handy | December 27, 2007 6:18 PM

rea - Well, no. It was only stupid because we failed to get bin Laden, which we could have done if we'd really cared about it.

Rea, you exhibit that unique disease of the Left that equates the Lefty "caring" about things as in and of itself creating solutions...and all other problems like catching bin Laden, curing Cancer, running America 100% on exciting, CO2-free, non-nuclear renewable alternate energy - would be fixed if only others CARED AS MUCH AS LEFTIES DO

Posted by Chris Ford | December 27, 2007 6:37 PM

"...there was a strategic choice undertaken by the United States of America during the year 2002 to refocus our attention away from Central Asia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan area and toward the Persian Gulf."

OMG! Ur blaming Hillaries for Butto's death!!!1 Yglesias attax!!

Posted by CNN, etc. | December 27, 2007 6:37 PM

Obviously, I have no idea who in the US would benefit politically from a worsening situation in Pakistan...whoever has the most sensible ideas about Pakistan. Who's that? Well, it seems to me that we desperately need to break away from the "trouble abroad, let's turn to hawkier hawks!"

The candidates who should benefit from the situation in Pakistan should not benefit simply by virtue of "hawkishness" or "dovishness."

The beneficiaries should likely be those who have:
(a) the most knowledge about geopolitics: Biden, Dodd, McCain *
or
(b) a clearly-defined foreign policy strategy: Kucinich, Paul, Rudy**.

The candidates who should likely be hurt by this: Edwards, Clinton, Fred, Romney, Huckabee.

Obama's probably a wash, since he's been pointing at the instability of Pakistan for some time, but still has neither foreign policy experience nor a clearly-defined strategy.

*I would include Richardson, but his frequent stupidities have me wondering if he is nothing but another George Tenet--a backslapper who slapped enough backs to get him put in charge of things well over his head.

**Not to in any way condone neo "conservatism."

For instance, some people say we could have good quality health insurance for all Americans if we really cared. Yup. And we could fly to the stars on moonbeams too!

Mr. Digits might think this is clever, but he makes a mockery of himself with these comments. I'd advise him to google "care bear stare" and "politics" when he gets the chance.

Posted by Shinyk | December 27, 2007 6:40 PM

you exhibit that unique disease of the Left that equates the Lefty "caring" about things as in and of itself creating solutions

Care Bear Stare disease!

Posted by Shinyk | December 27, 2007 6:46 PM

"2. I am not as worried about the events in Pakistan as others here are because I rather suspect that India will not stand idly by while Islamic terrorists take over Pakistan and get their shithooks on Pakistans' nuclear arsenal. This is in contrast to the incompetents running the US and Israel who stood idly by while Hamas took over the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, there are no nuclear arms (yet) in that god forsaken piece of real estate.

Posted by SLC | December 27, 2007 5:43 PM"

What is India supposed to do exactly? Invade Pakistan and take it over? That would be suicide. The reason Indira Gandhi didn't take over Pakistan in 1971 (as Nixon and Kissinger feared she would) was that India would be hurt by trying to manage Pakistan (it has already been fighting a counterinsurgency for years in Kashmir. Fighting an extended one in Pakistan would be suicide). The tools and the trust just aren't there. If they were, do you think India would have sat around while the elder Bhutto and Zia were in charge?

Posted by Reality Man | December 27, 2007 9:05 PM

I love these counterfactuals. We could have gotten OBL if we really cared. Yup.

Rea, you exhibit that unique disease of the Left that equates the Lefty "caring" about things as in and of itself creating solutions

Well, you guys just paid no attention to the course of events, which is not surprising because it reflected so poorly on the judgment of the adminstration whose toadies you are.

We had bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership cadre surrounded at Tora Bora.

We wouldn't commit US forces to seal off his escape route--we were too busy preparing to invade Iraq. We relied instead on local militia to do the job for us, and not surprisingly, we failed.

If this is mushy liberalism, then a lot of guys like Caesar, Napoleon, Grant and Patton were mushy liberals--hard to imagine any of them failing to do his utmost to prevent bin Laden from escaping when his was within our grasp.

This was a tactical and strategic blunder of the first order, making us look helpless, futile, and incompetent in front of the whole world. But you people don't care about that sort of thing, do you?

Posted by rea | December 27, 2007 10:04 PM

Rea, I agree with your premise but your examples weren't exactly right.

Caesar-Let the Egyptian locals kill Pompey for him and they successfully did so. On the other hand, he killed all the Egyptian leaders afterwards because it turned out he didn't actually want Pompey dead. (It should also be noted that when Crassus went all gung-ho against the Syrians he was captured and they poured gold down his throat to signify that he was a rich greedy Roman infidel.)

Napoleon-He went after the baddies and ended up getting ambushed on his way back from an empty Moscow. That didn't really work.

Grant-Okay, Grant's go-getterism worked. The people of Atlanta still haven't forgiven him, though.

Patton-A success story of this strategy. As you can see, it's had mixed results.

Posted by Abe | December 28, 2007 1:34 AM

Q: Did I mix up Grant and Sherman? I seriously need to reference this stuff before I post it.

Posted by Abe | December 28, 2007 1:36 AM

SLC is an ignorant, old, idiot who doesn't like Muslims, he's gonna take a dirt nap in next decade or so and everyone is going to be well shut of him.

India just barely keeps itself together, around half the provinces are in a state of permanent insurrection, largely around religious lines and not necessarily Muslim ones. That hardly even matters as even a small scale nuclear exchange (which would be guaranteed by SLC at the helm) would in the best case scenario destroy both India and Pakistan for the next few decades.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 28, 2007 2:08 AM

Useful recap of the situation at "The Nation" here:

Another Death in Rawalpindi
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/huq

Money quote:

"It should escape no one's attention that Musharaff has relied so far on the openly pro-Taliban religious party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), particularly in the troubled province of Balochistan. News reports have consistently and plausibly identified Balochistan as the hiding place for high-level Al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, who can rely on sympathetic tribal and religious leaders. Musharraf depends for his political survival on political factions that are at minimum sympathetic to America's core enemy, and at worst are abetting the terrorist leadership's continued evasion of detection and arrest. In the muck of Pakistan's domestic politics, the friend of our friend may well be our enemy. Ironically, the Bush Administration has been backing a military leader who, even as he claimed to rein in religious militants, depends on them for his electoral success."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 28, 2007 3:15 AM

Getting bin Laden would have done nothing to eliminate Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is an organization with "Number Two's" like any other group.

i was not aware that the reason for getting bin laden was to do something to eliminate al quaida. i thought it was TO GET THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. there is a huge difference there and i don't think anyone assumed that the apprehension of bin laden would result in the end of al quaida or terrorism. again, the idea was to catch the person responsible for 9/11.

Posted by english teacher | December 28, 2007 3:24 AM

US aid should have been focussed on helping Pakistanis, not the Musharraf government. Doing so effectively would require focus on Pakistan, because it is much more complicated than just handing funds to the Govt of Pakistan and hoping that these are used correctly. It is difficult enough to do in a country which you occupy and where you make the law (Iraq) - even harder with a sovereign power; but it is doable.

The goal is to offer a viable alternative to extremism.

---
As to the Indian p.o.v. here is one (from forum.bharat-rakshak.com)

"There are two types of Pakistanis; secular and fundamentalist. Secular Pakistanis hate Hindus, Indians and Sikhs only. Fundamentalist Pakistanis hate America, Israel, Jews, Christians, Russians, etc. in addition to the Hindus, Sikhs and Indians".

Benazir fell into the secular category. Which is fine if you are a Westerner since you don't have to worry from the likes of her exporting terrorism to their soil (of course B-52s and Cluster bombs also help in ensuring that). They are right to be sad to see her go this way. They are right to be afraid of the nukes falling into the Jihadi hands. They love the likes of Benazir and Gola[Musharraf].

However, for India it does not make an iota of a difference if Bhutto, Gola, Badmash or Hamid Gul is in power. They will all hate India and Indians. For Indians it does not make a difference if the Jihadis get control of the nuclear assets or a secular Pakistani has that control. They will always be pointed towards India and might be ready to use it if our approach gets too soft. As [several] have pointed out, she[Benazir] was responsible for the surge in terrorism in Kashmir. She might have been singing a different tune when out of power but make no mistake that she would be doing exactly the same thing (terrorism against India) that others have been using when in power.

All in all her death is a blessing for India. Pakistan cannot portray its "soft secular democratic face" anymore. In fact, from an Indian perspective it might not be a bad idea if the Islamists seize power. For us it won't make a difference but let those who propped up the Terrorist State get a taste of their own medicine."

Posted by Arun | December 28, 2007 3:26 AM

"i was not aware that the reason for getting bin laden was to do something to eliminate al quaida. i thought it was TO GET THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. there is a huge difference there and i don't think anyone assumed that the apprehension of bin laden would result in the end of al quaida or terrorism. again, the idea was to catch the person responsible for 9/11.

Posted by english teacher | December 28, 2007 3:24 AM"

Very true. In addition, it wasn't just OBL that escaped into Pakistan, but a large portion of the leadership as well. Bin Laden has pointed to three goals he hoped would be accomplished by 9/11 1) unify the umma to rise up against the US 2) show the US was a paper tiger (this is the lesson he drew from Somalia and Lebanon) and 3) get the US embroiled in the Middle East. He failed on 1 but succeeded in 3 (we probably wouldn't have seen an Iraq invasion be so popular domestically if not for 9/11). By escaping, he showed number 2 to be true as well. He was the first person to help orchestrate an attack on the US mainland that killed thousands of people since the War of 1812 (Pearl Harbor took place when Hawaii wasn't a state). The most technologically advanced military in history couldn't get at one guy in a cave.

Posted by Reality Man | December 28, 2007 3:45 AM

I repeat, getting bin Laden would have done nothing to destroy Al Qaeda. At best, it would have been a propaganda victory, especially if he'd been killed in the process and couldn't be brought to trial.

And without destroying Al Qaeda, nothing would have changed except a different guy would be issuing videotapes periodically.

If all you want is bin Laden, I'll repeat my standing offer: a billion in advance, bin Laden in ninety days (assuming he's still alive.) How much did Afghanistan cost so far - and no bin Laden?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 28, 2007 6:04 AM

no, at best it would have meant catching the person repsonsible for 9/11.

Posted by english teacher | December 28, 2007 6:47 AM

Ed Marshall

I have some news for Mr. Marshall. India is a rising power in Asia and eventually will rival China on the world stage. The Indian armed forces will have little difficulty invading Pakistan and disarming its' nuclear weapons program, especially given the fact that the turmoil in Pakistan will greatly reduce the effectiveness of that nations' armed forces. Mr. Marshall apparently has been mesmerized by the incompetence of the Governments of Israel and the US. India, knowing its security is on the line, will not dither around like Israel did in Lebanon.

Posted by SLC | December 28, 2007 7:55 AM

Man, the right is composed of military idiots, as this thread amply demonstrates. They ought never, never, never be trusted with the national security of a country larger than Andorra or San Marino (give them Monaco and they'd probably provoke a war with France).

Posted by rea | December 28, 2007 8:30 AM

"The Indian armed forces will have little difficulty invading Pakistan and disarming its' nuclear weapons program, especially given the fact that the turmoil in Pakistan will greatly reduce the effectiveness of that nations' armed forces."

Please stop being an idiot, if possible.

Posted by Jennifer | December 28, 2007 8:48 AM

The Indian armed forces will have little difficulty invading Pakistan and disarming its' nuclear weapons program, especially given the fact that the turmoil in Pakistan will greatly reduce the effectiveness of that nations' armed forces.

Wow. I knew SLC was a strange, bitter, hate-filled old man, but I had no idea how strange, bitter, hate-filled and old. It's very entertaining to see him giving up on America and Israel due to their failure to kill enough Muslims to slake his bloodlust, and pinning his hopes on India. Maybe if this doesn't work out he'll get excited about Denmark. There must be somebody out there who'll execute the mass slaughter of which he dreams.

Posted by 23456 | December 28, 2007 8:59 AM

Strange.

SLC forgot to also include include his periodic demand that Matt immediately ban all the nasty, hate-filled people from commenting on his blogsite...

Posted by RKU | December 28, 2007 9:39 AM

We had bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership cadre surrounded at Tora Bora.

No, we didn't.

We wouldn't commit US forces to seal off his escape route--we were too busy preparing to invade Iraq.

I'd always love to hear how the lefties think we would have gotten these additional US forces to Tora Bora. After all, we didn't have any large air bases in Afghanistan at the time. It took 6 months for us to get forces into place to invade Iraq, and even then we didn't have sufficient forces for the invasion. The left apparently thinks we could have magically teleported all those forces into Tora Bora.

But that's always the left's thinking about military matters - it's all magic.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2007 9:47 AM

SLC,

The Indian armed forces will have little difficulty invading Pakistan and disarming its' nuclear weapons program, especially given the fact that the turmoil in Pakistan will greatly reduce the effectiveness of that nations' armed forces. Mr. Marshall apparently has been mesmerized by the incompetence of the Governments of Israel and the US.

Dude, what are you smoking? The Israeli and US militaries are FAR, FAR, FAR more competent than the Indian military - the difference is like the difference between the size of a proton and the size of an electron (for mister honorary Ph.D in particle physics). The Indians can't pacify Kashmir, which is a much easier nut to crack than the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. You expect them to handle Pakistan?

Posted by Sajid | December 28, 2007 9:50 AM

Al: "I'd always love to hear how the lefties think we would have gotten these additional US forces to Tora Bora."

In other words, Al, you're telling us we didn't have the forces and resources necessary to do the job in Afghanistan AS WELL AS Iraq.

Nice supporting your hero, Al.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 28, 2007 11:03 PM