The reason I said "sorry Larry" is because you've said we should have followed Reagan's and Clinton's lead. I have (and continue to) vociferously disagreed, and KSM seems to say the exact reason why I've said those responses were wrong - he says they took it exactly like I suggested they would have taken it, which lead to al Qaeda's confidence in attacking us.
Did I? If i did, that's not what I meant 'follow his lead'. What I KNOW I've said, any number of times, is that Reagan showed GREAT wisdom and restraint cutting our losses, tucking tail and leaving Beirut.
And I've said Dubbya's mistake was NOT in going to Iraq. It was in losing. Wars of liberation can NEVER be off the table for the US. Losing them MUST be.
As for A'stan, that was the height of my optimism; go in, obliterate the bad guys. LEAVE. We had most of the world behind us, the moral high ground and the time and place and men and material.
And then...Tora Bora.
The White House told Delta to stand down and let the locals, who'd be helping us, finish the job so, politically, it would look like whomever the moron in the WH who decided this wanted it to look. They threw away EVERYTHING we had. The Moral high ground. The righteousness. The opportunity. And bin Laden got away and so did a great moment.
I've been told by several people involved at a couple different layers (no one who was actually there) that the thought was, at the time "We just ####ed up". One even said it in those exact words.
Imagine December of 2001, bin Laden is dead. We're just. Righteous. Standing up to our values. And going home to rebuild.
Instead? We went into Iraq and ####ed up some more. Why? Inept leadership? Weak leadership? He meant to #### up both of them? I think it's a simple as money; going big army in both places means lots more money and medals for powerful people. Going in, doing the job and leaving is like a doctor curing you instead of treating you. Who wants that?
That a leader is known by whom he kills, first and foremost?
