The outsourcing myth

The WSJ's news judgment for what editorials from the print edition it allows on its free Opinion Journal site is occasionally suspect because some WSJ op-eds are too noteworthy and important to hold for subscribers only.

Case in point, today's edit by Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong (3 star variety) on the outsourcing Tora Bora myth. Here's his debunking in a nutshell:

We strategized Tora Bora in essentially the same way we strategized the rest of the Afghanistan war: by using a combination of our elite Special Forces and CIA Agents, embedded with native Afghan troops. We chose this approach in waging the Afghan war for many reasons: it minimized the number of U.S. troops put in harm's way; it drew on the strengths of the native Afghans who had been fighting in that terrain for years and who were adept at traversing the mountainous terrain on horseback; and it helped avoid the same mistake the Soviets made in Afghanistan. They had opted for a large troop presence and ended up with thousands of their troops killed.

The fact that we took Afghanistan in a matter of weeks -- a feat which tens of thousands of Soviet troops were unable to accomplish in a matter of years -- proves that our strategy was exactly the right approach for Afghanistan. This was essentially the same strategy we employed at Tora Bora. Thus, to say that we "outsourced" the job when we relied primarily on American Special Forces and American CIA agents is absurd.

Also notable, and not publicly available, is Gen. Tommy Franks' salute to the President. Here is the general's assessment:

President Bush's leadership has come under attack by Sen. Kerry, who accuses the president of "incompetence" in pursuing the war on terror. With the release of the latest Osama bin Laden tape, Sen. Kerry has once again attempted to capitalize on Americans' most urgent security concerns. The notion that we "outsourced" our mission at Tora Bora is completely wrong. The Afghan forces at Tora Bora were working in concert with the best fighting forces America has to offer. In addition, the Afghan troops had a long history of opposing the Taliban and fighting for freedom in their own country.

This past week we also saw Sen. Kerry pounce on news stories about the Al Qaqaa facility in Iraq. Those stories first said 380 tons of high explosives were missing, presumed taken after our soldiers were on the scene. Now it turns out the story is more complicated. We don't know how many munitions were stored there when the war began. And we don't know when the munitions that are gone were taken. What we do know is that our forces have seized or destroyed more than 400,000 tons of munitions and explosives -- weapons that Saddam Hussein controlled. If Sen. Kerry's view had prevailed, we wouldn't be arguing about 380 tons of munitions; Saddam would still be in control of all 400,000 -- and potentially much more.

* * *
I don't know Sen. Kerry's plan for victory. But I do know that his criticism of the military conduct of our global war on terrorism disrespects our troops. I also know that he cannot lead troops to victory in a war when he's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't support the cause. And he cannot attract more international support for this cause when he denigrates the allies who are helping us.

President Bush understands that destroying terrorism requires a consistent, committed effort on a global scale. And he knows we need the help of other nations committed to freedom. Since Sept. 11, 2001, he has built the largest coalition in history. And the mission determined the coalition; the coalition did not determine the mission. With the help of these allies, we have made remarkable progress in the last three years: 50 million people are free, two regimes that sponsored terror are gone, and America is safer. But much remains to be done. As voters consider their choice, they must think about how America will continue to confront challenges to our freedom. Winning the war against terrorism demands responsible, unwavering leadership. George W. Bush is a leader.