2007-04-09 08:45:26 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think we had a better chance of getting Bin Laden by attacking where he was (Afghanistan) than by attacking where he was not (Iraq).
2007-04-09 08:59:30 · answer #1 · answered by The Teacher 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No one knows, or will know. we can guess.
maybe we would have been facing a nuclear Iran AND Iraq. No one thinks Saddam had ever given up his nuclear ambitions, and without constant scrutiny and cat-and-mouse we would have probably resumed development.
Again, it's impossible to say with any certainty.
And there was a fair amount of criticism of the Afghanistan operation as well, although of course not nearly as much as with respect to Iraq.
PS I think one reason we did not send more troops for bin Laden is that it would be counterproductive. It would probably inflame his supporters and help to topple the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are hanging by a thread. And Pakistan has nukes - wouldn't want them to fall into the wrong hands. I assume we are using special forces to search.
2007-04-09 15:50:54 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know the answer but more resources,troops and money could have been utilized in the hunt for bin Laden. So if the US hadn't invaded Iraq , I'd say there would of been a better chance of capturing him.
2007-04-09 15:52:35 · answer #3 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO
It is overly obvious to the point of absurdity. That the Bush administration has protected the Saudi Prince Osama.
If the Christian Science Monitor can find him and Press from all over the world. Why can't the CIA.
I'm not blaming Bush. This pattern of protecting Royalty in a time of War is as old as warfare it's self. If Bush was forthright and told the American people that protecting Osama was a time honored act of Knightly Chivalry. I would respect that more than his Magical Mystery Tour style of playing Global Whack-A-Mole
Go Team Red Go
2007-04-09 15:55:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The short answer is, I don't know. The longer answer is, while I think the U.S. would be doing allot better in allot of ways, (especially international credibility), it seems much easier to destabilize than to stabilize ones own country, let alone anyone else's. As far as Bin Laden, we may or may not have caught him by now. My question would be, who's pulling his strings? I don't see anyone else (in the federal government anyway) asking that one.
2007-04-09 15:57:41 · answer #5 · answered by socrates 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
180,000 troops in Iraq. They found Saddam.
Transfer those 180,000 troops to Afghanistan. Could they have gotten Bin Laden? If they could find Saddam, they could have found Bin Laden.
2007-04-09 15:50:54 · answer #6 · answered by Bjorkmeister 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you are referring to the division of US forces, may have caused our military to be less effective? I don't know for sure,
but to the best of my knowledge, I don't think so.
Our new AC carriers our so powerful that I think two to aether can engage The combined forces of all the countries in the Middle East (minus Israel of course).
But based on my experience in the region, my perception
is that, control after invasion is a very very difficult task.
Also as I mentioned above, fighting an army for our forces is a cinch, but our military is not nurtured to fight alley to alley and house to house. And indeed that is the point of our shortcoming. I hope we get our forces out of the region, and bring them home. On present course, I do not see a light at the end of tunnel.
Regards.
2007-04-09 16:54:31 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Who can say, for certain?
I know, from research, that the leadership, not just in the Oval Office, but in the Senate and House had already intended on attacking Iraq, before 9/11 happened. 9/11 was just another shove in the direction of legitimizing their claims, and thus made doing both wars much easier.
2007-04-09 16:04:59 · answer #8 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Possibly, not sure about bin ladens though, even if we caught him probably he would be set free so as not to anger bush's business partner the saudis.
2007-04-09 15:51:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Again, there's really no way to know that. I personally believe we'd have had a better shot if we'd engaged more of our resources on the hunt for bin Laden than the hunt for a dictator who hadn't threatened us for ten years, but I guess that's just me.
There's really no way to know.
2007-04-09 15:48:13 · answer #10 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋