Arguably? If anyone argues against that they're wrong. Bin Laden accomplished his objectives and beyond.
The US objectives weren't to deny Bin Laden his though, they were to kill Bin Laden (and topple Sadam, for some reason). Both of which we also accomplished.
The half hearted nation building was a facade and led to the quagmire and chaos that ensued.
> The US objectives weren't to deny Bin Laden his though, they were to kill Bin Laden (and topple Sadam, for some reason).
That's true, the Cheney admin didn't want to waste a crisis and they thought they'd bring a new century of American dominance[1]. It's kind of sad they didn't dare to do nation-building, unlike the Marshall Plan, although it was probably politically indefensible. (Wait until Americans hear that Iraq has universal healthcare.) I must admit I've read more than I care about the topic, like "Imperial Life in the Emerald City"[2] or Sarah Chayes' chapter about Afghanistan in her book about corruption, discussed in length in this article[3].
Don't forget the massive domestic government spending on defense projects and general war materiel. Wars are expensive, and the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, etc. made BANK off of it.
Arguably? If anyone argues against that they're wrong. Bin Laden accomplished his objectives and beyond.
The US objectives weren't to deny Bin Laden his though, they were to kill Bin Laden (and topple Sadam, for some reason). Both of which we also accomplished.
The half hearted nation building was a facade and led to the quagmire and chaos that ensued.