I'm not arguing that point. The U.S. would of course want to get those responsible. The very fact that when Bin Laden was located and eliminated by a very small force is evidence that an all out boots on the ground campaign was unnecessary. The fact that he was in another country is more evidence. The fact that much of the top leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been eliminated by drone and air strikes , much of it again in another country is more evidence. The fact that very little of lasting value has been accomplished in the war zone is more evidence. The fact that this piece of God forsaken real estate will be back in the hands of the Taliban in a few years is more evidence that the war, that type of war, was a strategic mistake.

Maybe we should have consulted with the Russians first.

Or the British before them :03:

I'd say that without that ground campaign the small force raid would never have occurred. First to eject bin laden from his Tora Bora stronghold and then as a base from which to mount the raid.

That's a good point August, but where there is a will there is a way. Once they knew where he was there was probably more than one option to eliminate him. Also the U.S. military was still operating out of bases in Pakistan at the time, May 2011.

Initially there was little ground activity involved by reguzlar US armed forces. The campaign that discplaed Al Quaeda and Mullah Omar from Afghanbistan and into Pakistan, was for the most an air-based camoaign with special forces on the ground for intel, training the Mujaheddin, and target ID. AQ and MO then evaded into Pakistan and took support by the Pakistani secret servicew ISI, until the day Bin Laden was killed.

I personally would have left any idea of nation building in Afghanistan out of the effort, but would have shifted the centre of the war from Afghanistan to the place sin Pakiustan where AQ and the Taliban were finding shelter. And again, I would have focussed on using air-borne and not so much ground resources. With drone warfare unfolding more and more over the past ten years, that would have been the weapon of choice, together with ELINT, HUMINT, special forces.

I would have never considered to try changing Afghanistan into something different. What has been done, will get lost over the next couple of years. The little progress here and there, will get lost. The place is not worth the life of a single Westernb soldier.

And the big bad enemy in the region is Pakistan anyway.

Of course, a shifting of focus and resources form Afghanistan would not have happened with me, too. Because there would not hjave been an Iraq war - maybe later for very good reasons emerging in the years since 2003 which may have become significant. But that is speculation. For the lies given to the public, and for the (planned) profit interests of American companies associated with Cheney, Bush, Carlyle group and Halliburton and so on - no invasion would have happened.

Israel is trying since long time to close ties and military relations with India. Last time I read ab out it they are doing fine. America should follow that example. That would be a move against China, and Pakistan, and Northkorea. Skip Pakistan from the buddy list.

American relations with certain gulf states also need serious reconsidering. One tgries to dance with friends and enemies at the same time, and one tries to dance on the parties of Israel's enemies and it's more neutral diplomatic partners at the same time. The American egg-dance in the ME is unique, absurd, hilarious and one of the biggest jokes in modern history. I really believe Washington has no clue at all about the whole region, and never had. The latest visit of McCain and the other senator in Egypt, and some of their "comments" quoted in the press, really had me laughing loud, and I mean that, don't type that just as a phrase: I was laughing loud. Not to forget Obama'S fantastic Cairo speech to the Islamic world. :har: Oh my!

They believed to know where he was several times. And every time they were wrong or he escaped. Tora Bora bombardment just being the most famous example for trying to kill Bin Laden.

I have no doubt that there never was an order to catch him, but to find and kill him. Nothing was more unpleasant than the image of Bin Laden's lawyer playing the fiddle of the legal system up and down and back and forth.

If they would have been able to hit him earlier, I have no doubt they would have done it.

The order as I recall was either to capture or kill bin laden, depending on which one was most feasible at the time.

A Special Forces assault into Tora Bora or any defended area would have been extremely risky with a very low chance of success, so it made sense to bomb the crap out of it and hope to bury him. A secret and relatively undefended hideout over the border in Pakistan on the other hand dictates a commando raid that can get in and out quickly.

That's why it happened the way it did.

I do not complain about Tora Bora, so you must not defend it.

On the order to capture him dead or alive, you may believe what they tell you it it makes you feel like being in the "right" team that way. I say that the theatre scene they play on stage for the public, and the real commands (that maybe even never are given in wording or writing but nevertheless are clear in what they mean and intend), are two very different things. In this case, and in so many others as well. Bin Laden was never to be captured alive, never. The mission was hunt, find, kill. And again, I do not complain about that.

Well that's just your opinion Sky, you have no proof that this was indeed US policy. Not beliefs or feelings, just fact.

You onl yhave headlines from papers saying "our glorious and honest authorities have ruled/said/claimed that..."

Believing that is naivety.

Your country could not have had any interest in making a years-long law-show with Bin Laden. Just look how hilarious it has become with all the implications around Guantanamo. There also was a strong message to be sent to the bad boys in the world: another reason to assume there never was the inention to get Bin Laden alive, but to hit him. Then, a member of the specail forces participating in the raid released a book some months ago in which he revealed what he claims is his knowledge of the operation: he said: there never was the intention to catch him, but to kill him.

Stop to blindly trust so submissively in your leaders just because they claim something for the cameras and are higher in the hierarchy than you are. America is not any less a misinformed and manipulated place and people, like Germany or Europe. You are being manipulated and lied to the same like we are. A president is no saint. He is the highest rankling manipulator in charge. Paper is patient, ink does never complain. Check for where the interests of actors lead you - that means so much more than what they claim in the media what they want. Have you still nothing learned from Vietnam Watergate, Bush and Iraq, and the many more less popular revelations about how the game is run? Lie and know you are being lied to, betray and know that you get betrayed - that is the real name of the political game.

The chances are there may well have been an order to kill rather than capture and then have to put up with the ensuing legal circus on the world stage but I doubt we'll ever find out the truth.

The fact remains, Bin Laden is gone for good and with him gone there is a lot of justice and closure for those he was instrumental in killing....good riddance to bad rubbish!!

Oh and I should believe you Skybird? What makes you an authority?

You should not believe anything, anyone. You should consider to add 1 and 1 together yourself instead of just taking the calculation result of somebody else for granted.

Especially if that somebody can only count from now to the next election.

Well I have added 1 and 1 together, with my superior knowledge of both my country and it's military and the result I get is that you are talking out of your 4th point of contact.

You will repeat history, since you refuse to learn from it.