Quote:
Originally Posted by ana21  We certainly did take control of Afghanistan very quickly then, for the most part, we left to invade Iraq. Now Afghanistan is falling apart again and we're faced with increasing our presence there and essentially fighting that war all over again. |
Which is precisely why we need to remain in Iraq until we can know the same thing won't happen there. Can I ask if you know who all advocated decreasing the number of troops in Afghanistan the first time around?
Quote:
|
Interesting about OBL -- does your theory answer why, if we know where he is, we don't go get him?
|
It does. I believe that we know exactly where he is and are monitoring his communications. I believe that had we gone in and gotten him immediately that we would have had a much more difficult time locating all the randomly-placed terrorist cells around the world with whom he had contact, but that by keeping him alive, we allow him to have channels of communication that we can intercept, and that once we're confident that we've located as many of his 'outside' groups/contacts that we possibly can, we'll take him and them out simultaneously.
He's the hub of the wheel and as long as we know where that hub is, we can follow the spokes.
I'm not so blinded by Bush as to think it might not happen just before the election to give McCain an edge.