walksalone Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 Operation Overlord is - without question - the most audacious, dangerous and complicated plan concocted over the last 500 years, and maybe even longer. The amount of preparation, the timing and coordination that went into that entirely dwarfs the Bin Laden raid. To this day, I think it's still the largest military plan ever created. Not too mention, how difficult it must have been to keep all that under wraps for over year. Link to comment
knapplc Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden. Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden. Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call. Sorry Knapplc, no it didn't. If Osama wasn't there it would have been a raid we never heard about. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The ETO hinged on that entire invasion being successful. Just a minor point . . . but I think only the English, Canadian, and US contribution in the ETO hinged on the invasion being successful. The Russians would have defeated Germany by themselves if Overlord had failed but it would have taken much longer. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden. Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call. I agree so far as going into Pakistan without approval from the Pakistanis. I think that was the main difference in this raid. The decision was made (and correctly I think) that the Pakistan government might tip Osama off about the raid. If the raid had failed and Bin Laden was not in the compound . . . the Pakistanis would have been absolutely furious. It was much harder for them to act indignant and rattle their sabers when it was revealed that Bin Laden was living comfortably and within sight of the Pakistani West Point. In that way it was audacious. Failure . . . and the US-Pakistan relationship would have been even more strained. It might have even been irretrievably broken. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden. It was a no-brainer. Why is it everytime Obama takes a breathe of air there is somebody claiming how much audacity it took? It's easy to chalk this one up to old crazy uncle Joe but it's always somebody all over BO's jock. Seems like this administration has an inferiority complex when it comes to making the simplest decisions. They remind me of George Costanza making sure Elaine knew it was him who bought her sandwich. Like it was the greatest act ever. You can't begin to compare this to something like landing on Omaha beach. Doesn't even belong in the same discussion. 1 Link to comment
husker_99 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden. Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call. I agree so far as going into Pakistan without approval from the Pakistanis. I think that was the main difference in this raid. The decision was made (and correctly I think) that the Pakistan government might tip Osama off about the raid. If the raid had failed and Bin Laden was not in the compound . . . the Pakistanis would have been absolutely furious. It was much harder for them to act indignant and rattle their sabers when it was revealed that Bin Laden was living comfortably and within sight of the Pakistani West Point. In that way it was audacious. Failure . . . and the US-Pakistan relationship would have been even more strained. It might have even been irretrievably broken. I don't believe this. Pakistan doesn't even have complete control over all their land. I don't think they would've tipped off Osama because they are desperately trying to get rid of Taliban influence in their country. Pakistan may have been pissed but I doubt our relationship with them would be completely broken. IIRC they were also trying to hunt down Osama but a lot of that country is like the Wild Wet over there were outlaws can pretty much get away with anything. One of the main reasons why we didn't catch Osama earlier was due to the fact that the tribal leaders were sympathetic to Osama and wouldn't give him up. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I don't believe this. Pakistan doesn't even have complete control over all their land. I don't think they would've tipped off Osama because they are desperately trying to get rid of Taliban influence in their country. Pakistan may have been pissed but I doubt our relationship with them would be completely broken. IIRC they were also trying to hunt down Osama but a lot of that country is like the Wild Wet over there were outlaws can pretty much get away with anything. One of the main reasons why we didn't catch Osama earlier was due to the fact that the tribal leaders were sympathetic to Osama and wouldn't give him up. I think that Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (not the same thing) is quite a bit more complex than that. Link to comment
Muck Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 And the obligatory blame Bush misdirect. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I don't believe this. Pakistan doesn't even have complete control over all their land. I don't think they would've tipped off Osama because they are desperately trying to get rid of Taliban influence in their country. Pakistan may have been pissed but I doubt our relationship with them would be completely broken. IIRC they were also trying to hunt down Osama but a lot of that country is like the Wild Wet over there were outlaws can pretty much get away with anything. One of the main reasons why we didn't catch Osama earlier was due to the fact that the tribal leaders were sympathetic to Osama and wouldn't give him up. I think that Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban and Al-Quaida (not the same thing) is quite a bit more complex than that. And yet you made such a simple assumption. What makes you think that the Pakistani government would have helped Osama? Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I don't believe this. Pakistan doesn't even have complete control over all their land. I don't think they would've tipped off Osama because they are desperately trying to get rid of Taliban influence in their country. Pakistan may have been pissed but I doubt our relationship with them would be completely broken. IIRC they were also trying to hunt down Osama but a lot of that country is like the Wild Wet over there were outlaws can pretty much get away with anything. One of the main reasons why we didn't catch Osama earlier was due to the fact that the tribal leaders were sympathetic to Osama and wouldn't give him up. What makes you think that the Pakistani government would have helped Osama? That's pretty much a fallacy right there. The taliban and al-queda may or may not have members in the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but they certainly both have closet supporters and/or sympathizers. We can not trust anyone in the those two governments to maintain operational secrecy when it comes to fighting terrorists. So by and large we keep them in the dark, that keeps our armed forces safer than they would be otherwise, and I'm completely fine with it. The Pakistani government would have helped bin laden because he was hiding in plain sight in their country. They knew he was there all along and did they pass that information along to Washington? There's absolutely no evidence that I'm aware of that they did. To think that no one in the Pakistani government didn't know laden was there is ludicrous. They knew and said nothing. So yes, I'm 100% fine with the USA acting unilaterally and entering a "soverign" nation to take out one of the most wanted criminals in the history of the world. Link to comment
Muck Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 And yet you made such a simple assumption. What makes you think that the Pakistani government would have helped Osama? Don't think of the Pakistani government as a single unified entity. Think of it more as a number of different factions with very different beliefs & agendas. Some of those factions *cough* ISI *cough* had a history of assisting Osama Bin Laden. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 And yet you made such a simple assumption. What simple assumption? That was Leon Panetta and the CIA's assumption: http://www.frumforum.com/cia-feared-pakistan-would-tip-off-osama Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 And yet you made such a simple assumption. What makes you think that the Pakistani government would have helped Osama? Don't think of the Pakistani government as a single unified entity. Think of it more as a number of different factions with very different beliefs & agendas. Some of those factions *cough* ISI *cough* had a history of assisting Osama Bin Laden. Bingo. Link to comment
Recommended Posts