Replies

I think this story may very well be true. I'm with rjp2005 there might have been some reason why they couldn't take the shot without the Americans' go-ahead.

I'm surprised that there is no "shoot on sight" order. But, then I've understood the War on Terror less and less as time goes by.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it seems that maybe the objectives were too broad, defining this effort as a war (yes, I know 9/11 was horrific), and then setting the objective of establishing functioning democratic governments.

Perhaps a narrower objective would have been better, defining it as retaliatory action against Afghanistan for harboring Al-Queda (massive destructive bombing) and then concentrating all resources on getting bin Laden.

Second, all this talk about enemy combatants and POWs, etc. (Getting away from the torture issue, for a minute.)In a sense this elevates them, certainly in the eyes of their supporters. Like, here's Osama, he is at war with the United States, great warrior going up against the mightiest nation on Earth. Instead, we could have treated him like a criminal, captured him, presented him to the Mayor of New York (not the President!). The Mayor could then look at the Police Chief and say "Book em" and the Chief could then read him his rights.