All this talk of "conquering" and "pacifying" is just plain bullshit. We upended a country that did not need either -- the people of Iraq just hoped to get rid of a nasty dictator with our help -- after our help of establishing Saddam as a dictator in the first place. Maybe Bush the younger, with all his fervent intent, was really going to amelieorate the betrayal and global greed of Bush the senior. Exhibit the initial welcoming response by the Iraqis to a "liberation" that then became to the Iraqi people an "occupation". Quickly.

Conquering and pacifying Afghanistan or Iran, for that matter, is as much a fool's errand. These are not stupid people. They will not be treated as such. They recognize the chilling effect this has had on our own country, America, the place of freedom. They know tyrants when they see them. We don't see them in our own back yard.

"...but his plans for that other war could mean trouble."

Doing anything or nothing in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region could mean trouble. Don't we all know by now the difficulties the British and Soviets faced trying to colonize Afghanistan? Does Obama want to colonize Afghanistan?

So, Pakistan is going to get mad at us if Obama is serious about tracking down Osama? (And Ayman al-Zawahiri.)

Are you suggesting that Obama wants war with Pakistan? The article isn't clear.

IN teh 80s we gave Afgahn fighters money and weapons to fight the Soviet Union. Then we left them high and dry with the Taiban who got our weapons. and I prefer we & NATO do the job instead of giving money and weapons to other nations.

Remember - not to trivialize th the task of routing the Taleban - Russia lost because of Charlie Wilson.

they kept "raising" the threat level it seemed almost nightly on the news -- there was tons of chatter ... the "Bin Laden" memo Condi pooh-poohed aside.

I've always speculated that Al-Qaeda hijacked 4 planes in hope that maybe ONE would get though ... boy they must have been suprised ...

I've wondered also if, after Bin Laden's near-miss date-with-destiny when Clinton missled Afghanistan and Sudan for the Embassy Bombings, Bin Laden had any expection of survival but rather to be incinerated in similar fashion within days of 09/11. He had no way of knowing he was not already targeted. *(wasn't he in on of his training camps on 09/11 with a crowd of friends?)

Then again, how surprised he must have been to escape Tora Bora ...

Personally, I have a hard time justifying any more combat deaths to capture or kill bin Laden. Keep him and the region undersurveillance, use those "law enforcement" tactics and he'll either be outed, out himself, or die on the lam. He's just one sentient creature ... The risk of revitalizing Al-Qaeda, alienating Pakistan, etc. by loud pursuit and violent efforts makes it risky as well as wasteful,

Albeit, it's five years late. Obama is telling the Pakistanis that we're going to be serious this time around. Maybe they'll start to realize that they are not going to be able to continue to take our money while harboring our enemies. The byproduct is that it shows that he's quite willing to fight the just fight. But, I don't think that is the primary aim.

This is the exactly the standard, and trap, that Conservatives and the White House have been using for the past seven years: Ignore the blatant blunders, lies and fantasies that come from George W. Bush, his surrogates and John McCain (but I repeat myself); while simultaneously demanding that anyone who points out the Bush disasters have an absolutely foolproof plan that is absolutely perfect in every way and meets the Conservative-set standards for acceptability. This is, of course, set as being in line with whatever the White House story of the day is.

For all of the nit picking that can, and will, be used to discredit any plans that Barak Obama may have, or develop, I will still prefer those to continuation of the NeoConservative “plans” that have led us to where we are today, and are guaranteed to be continued under a McCain Administration: Particularly in that critical Iraq-Pakistan border region.

I was not criticising your letter in any way but I may have read it too quickly because I thought you were referring to a book published in l999. I never check my letters as I'm an "off the top of my head" type of person, even though I sometimes try to verify. It was my impression that I'd written about Saddam H. being a secularist before your letter appeared on the screen but if I seemed to be telling you "what's what" I apologise. My husband is sitting next to me (it's l0:40 p.m) reading a "thriller", ignoring all politics but what's local. Mind you, he was doing a lot of anti-Bush ranting and raving for a while. That became very fashionable over here. In March 2003 I didn't know what to think about the invasion of Iraq although I was shocked.

I've tried to keep myself informed since then but it will probably take decades for something approximating the truth to emerge when future historians view all of this dispassionately although I've a feeling that history belongs to the victors, whoever they might be.

Thanks for the information.

Maureen-

The Ahmed Rashid book I quoted from is not "Taliban" which was published in 1999 and which I did refer to in my first post. (It also has only 299 pp)

What I quoted from is his most recent book for which I gave the full title. It was published in 2008, copyrighted in 2008, published by Viking, New York, www.vpbookclub.com - that from the dust jacket. I also gave the page numbers in my edition lest someone want to check it out themselves. I paraphrased some and shortened it, but I don't think I misprepresented what he wrote. Please look it up yourself if you're interested.

As for what you say about the American security establishment having missed numerous warning signs well before 9/11/01 - I'm well aware of that. Just a few days ago I printed out letters and memos that Coleen Rowley, an FBI agent in Minneapolis, wrote both before and after 9/11. In August 2001 she was trying to get the FBI's attention about Zacarias Moussaoui who was arousing suspicions at the flight school where he was enrolled. Needless to say her efforts were to naught. Pres. Bush also received a memo from the CIA on Aug 6, as he did every day - it's called the President's Daily Brief, I believe, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US."

(I have known this part of the story for several years.)

And of course there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. bin Laden was/is into a fundamentalist version of Islam, Saddam was a secularist. Anyone who paid attention knew this. I don't know why you assume I didn't know.

So I and millions of others agree with Obama that the US abandoned the hunt for bin Laden with undue haste. VP Cheney and Rumsfeld and others were already talking about Iraq on 9/11/01. They couldn't wait to get started.

What the right steps are to take vis a vis Afghanistan and Pakistan etc etc etc is not clear to me. That's why I quoted Rashid. At least he has vast vast knowledge and experience in the area. Cole knows about Iraq but he's not an expert on Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Colleen