Bin Laden's Plan is Working

In 2004, Osama Bin Laden tipped his hand and explained his battle attack:
-----------------------------
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."


"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.


He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."


"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
---------------------------------------------------

So here we are, 7+ years later. Bin Laden's dead, but his plan sure looks like it was a good one. Couple trillion dollars taken from our treasury or added to our debt. An economy crippled and tensions on the rise. Like Russia, we're trying to find some way to redefine victory and get the heck out.

Food for thought as eyes turn toward Iran.

Yep I heard that before. They sure opened that can of worms when they attacked us. All the money that was spent on TSA (overboard I think) and other measures. It's a heavy burden we have to bare from now until the end of time. Terrorists will never go away.

[QUOTE=jcb;476602]In 2004, Osama Bin Laden tipped his hand and explained his battle attack:
-----------------------------
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."


"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.


He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."


"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
---------------------------------------------------

So here we are, 7+ years later. Bin Laden's dead, but his plan sure looks like it was a good one. Couple trillion dollars taken from our treasury or added to our debt. An economy crippled and tensions on the rise. Like Russia, we're trying to find some way to redefine victory and get the heck out.

Food for thought as eyes turn toward Iran.[/QUOTE]

Osama will never know how it turns out. We have two choices we can sit on our hands and lose all our freedom that are left after Obama is done or we can fight this terrible enemy. As Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death or are we so soft we are willing to give up or freedom?

[QUOTE=roadrunner;476683]Osama will never know how it turns out. We have two choices we can sit on our hands and lose all our freedom that are left after Obama is done or we can fight this terrible enemy. As Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death or are we so soft we are willing to give up or freedom?[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone's proposing not to fight the enemy. The question is, what is the smart way to fight him? The way we are going is the way of the Soviet Union, spending our way into oblivion until we can't hold ourselves together.

Some other thoughts:

Russia was not a free enterprise economic system. Russia also had to spend significant bucks at the same time because Reagan was building up US capability with modernized equipment, and it cost the Russians tons of money to try to keep pace in Europe. The Wall came down Nov 89, Soviets left Afghaistan in Feb 89. Between December 25, 1979, and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though [B][U]there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time)[/U][/B]: 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. That was the total served there, with rotations over 10 years. By contrast, the Soviets [B][U]had 570,000 troops at any one time, [/U][/B]in four Eastern European nations--East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia from the end of WWII (1945) till the wall came down in 1989. I take that as 44 years. 44 years times 570,000 troops is 25 million manyears of effort in Europe, vs Afghanistan at 10 years and 104,000 troops which is only 1.04 million.

Afghanistan didn't bankrupt Russia, they were doing it on a shoe string anyway. I think its more likely the US broke Russia than the ragheads.

I agree, Afghanistan didn't bankrupt the Soviet Union. My point was that our war spending is doing to us what the Soviet Union's war spending did to them. Breaking the USSR was Reagan's greatest achievement, I think.

[QUOTE=jcb;476987]I agree, Afghanistan didn't bankrupt the Soviet Union. My point was that our war spending is doing to us what the Soviet Union's war spending did to them. Breaking the USSR was Reagan's greatest achievement, I think.[/QUOTE]
For which I think he gets just a [I]little[/I] too much credit. Yes, he applied pressure from without that had a lot to do with it, but there was also crumbling going on from within. Bob mentioned their Afghanistan effort was run on a shoestring. Why do you think that was? Because they HAD to. And you can say that Afghanistan itself didn't bankrupt the USSR, but it did drain a lot of resources they really couldn't afford, and for little or no benefit. That and and a number of other factors, PLUS the pressure applied by Ronald Reagan (and let's not forget Maggie Thatcher), caused the Soviet Union's collapse. But to hear some Republicans talk, Ronald Reagan held it in his fist and crushed it single-handedly!

But getting back to your original point that you started the thread about, I agree 100%. Much of what Al Qaeda is doing is a war of attrition, whittling away at our economy.

Hey history is written by the victors! :)

Yeah, probably too much credit.

[QUOTE=jcb;477013]Hey history is written by the victors! :)

Yeah, probably too much credit.[/QUOTE]

I DOUBT too much credit.......Before Reagan, I believe the U.S.S.R was pretty good.....the military spending that Quadrupled under Reagan caused the U.S.S.R to "try" to keep up. That spending caused them to tumble. PERIOD.

BUT I have read some other information that leads me to believe most western economists on both sides of the argument though USSR was better off than they actually were. They were a pretty closed society, so knowing really how much their economy generated was tough to put a finger on.

Kind of like determining Hussein and WMD......Lots, and LOTS of folks thought he still had them.

Later,

Geo

Well, it did happen on his watch, and had things unfolded differently, he would have shouldered a lot of the blame. So the fact that he gets what I think is a little more credit than he really deserves for it does not bother me; it's only natural. And I do see some adoration of The Gipper as really over the top. so I have kind of a knee-jerk reaction of, "Oh God, here we go again!" to any praise of him.