T Nation

Why Not Bin-Laden First?

With all this talk about the Iraq war why didn’t the U.S. govt. send enough troops to Afghanistan in the first place to capture Bin-Laden then go after Sadaam? I thought Bin-Laden was public enemy number one and as such he would have been a priority.

Because significantly increasing the amount of drops in Afghanistan wont help find bin laden. They might help stabilize the country a bit more, but finding him is much more an intelligence operation and those are best left to smaller groups rather than having a huge army of foot soldiers pissing off the populace

Biltritewave was right to some degree. Bin Laden is a prority as far as hunting those responsible for 9/11 as well as other attacks goes. What we are doing is not only going after the terrorists directly, we are also going after those that supported (and continue to support) terror. Finding Bin Laden is not about a lot of boots on the ground, but about a few highly trained soldiers (Rangers, SEALs, Delta, Green Berets, just to name a few) that are guided by intel based on interrogations, tips, and surveillance. You would be surprised by how a few men can compensate for many. RLTW

rangertab75