U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

[SWJED]

8 July NY Times - U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08intel.html?hp) by Mark Mazzetti.

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning...

[goesh]

There is no earthly telling what all our great grandkids will learn once the declassification process runs its course. What a catch that would have been.

[Pragmatic Thinker]

Please tell me this isn't shocking people? We continually observe borders that our adversaries do not and this isn't limited to our current conflicts. We suffer from some sort of phobia about image tarnishing and public fallout from possible failure in regards to missions that aren't fully rehearsed and prepped for...read Richard Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts" and his observations from his time in Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005. The special forces troops on the ground were continually constrained from timely action due to "higher headquarters" requirements to provide CONOPs and getting approvals from hundreds of miles away. We still suffer from the memories of Desert One and the bad day in '93 in Mogadishu, Somalia...despite our mantras and claims by the President we're not attacking foes "...anywhere, anytime..." nor do we "..make no distinctions between the terrorists and those who harbor them...". Not too mention, history tells us that Vietnam was run from D.C. and Saigon, I would argue that this war is also run from D.C. and Bagram and Baghdad and Balad. Our special forces continually suffer from too much oversight and staff requirements from higher to effectively do their missions.

As far as allies go, I am still wondering why we even sided with the Pakistanis in the first place? Musharraf aborted CIA attempts in October 1999 to capture Osama Bin Laden in Tarnak Farms according to numerous open source articles. Musharraf refused to honor the deal between the CIA and the Pak government (that was formulated under then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who was overthrown in a coup led by Musharraf that same month) that would have provided Pakistani commandos to assist in such a raid to capture Osama Bin Laden should he be detected by CIA Predator drones (which he was). This was prior to the strike capability of the Predator, I believe had that mission gone off we would have seen UBL hauled to the Hague to stand trial for the '93 WTC attack, the '98 Tanzania-Kenya bombings, and possibly avoided the Oct '00 bombing of the USS Cole.

This article is a sad commentary on how we fight wars and in some form or another I hope to someday find out why we sided with Pakistan in the first place. Plus, I won't even comment on how this alliance flys in the face of the so-called "spreading democracy" doctrine once touted by this administration.

[Pragmatic Thinker]

All,

Apologies for the tone of my previous reply...this is a topic near and dear to my heart with which I find no easy answers and my emotions tend to get the better of me. Without going into much detail in this forum it is needless to say that I am a believer in Special Forces and our other SOF capabilities, and that the United States has by far the best SOF capabilty of any country on this planet. However, I also recognize that a horse will never run if it is left in the stable all its life. Enough said... -- PR

[Tom Odom]

All,

Apologies for the tone of my previous reply...this is a topic near and dear to my heart with which I find no easy answers and my emotions tend to get the better of me. Without going into much detail in this forum it is needless to say that I am a believer in Special Forces and our other SOF capabilities, and that the United States has by far the best SOF capabilty of any country on this planet. However, I also recognize that a horse will never run if it is left in the stable all its life. Enough said... -- PR

PR

I read nothing that offended and I know that most of us if not all us have endured similar frustrations at sometime in our careers...

Best

Tom

[RTK]

All,

Apologies for the tone of my previous reply...this is a topic near and dear to my heart with which I find no easy answers and my emotions tend to get the better of me. Without going into much detail in this forum it is needless to say that I am a believer in Special Forces and our other SOF capabilities, and that the United States has by far the best SOF capabilty of any country on this planet. However, I also recognize that a horse will never run if it is left in the stable all its life. Enough said... -- PR

No apologies needed. Charlie Mike.

[Armchairguy]

Here's a link to a story on the hunt for OBL that was kind of interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430170/site/newsweek/page/0/

[SWJED]

Here's a link to a story on the hunt for OBL that was kind of interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430170/site/newsweek/page/0/

Next step is telling us why you find it "kind of interesting" - I'm prodding you along into full-fledged Councildom;)

[davidbfpo]

I am constantly amazed by some American news reporting, yes the Newsweek article is interesting and some aspects have appeared before, e.g. smarter PR. Is all the material in the public domain? I think not. So why does Newsweek publish this? Sensationalism, settling bureaucratic scores and rivalry between parts of government?

Looks to me as if the USA, or parts of it, are setting up a legend similar to "we were stabbed in the back", or in this case "we had in our sights, but had no bullets".

Strange.

davidbfpo

[Ken White]

parts of government?"

Mostly.

[bourbon]

I have respected Evan Thomas, who wrote the article, since I read his book The Very Best Men ten years ago. And I consider Christopher Dickey, Mark Hosenball, Michael Hirsh, and Michael Isikoff, who all reported the story, to be some of the better journalists out there. True, there is not a lot of new information in the article, but in aggregate it made me sick to my stomach. I read it yesterday afternoon and am still angry.

[Ken White]

Here's a link. Scroll down to "Quotes." Notice the top one, the last phrase is telling, I think....

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Thomas)

My observation has been that all you name subscribe to the same ethos. If one could call it that...

See also my comment #10, above.

[Old Eagle]

Unfortunately, in spite of the line up of pretty reputable journalists in the research, the article smacks of typical MSM marketing. You write what sells, you lead with what grabs folks attention enough to buy your mag. The job of newspapers is to sell newspapers, the job of politicians is to get elected.

The underlying thesis of the piece is that higher ranking military officers are overly conservative and risk averse. Unexamined were the likely consequenses of 1) launching scarse U.S. forces into the mouth of an inferno without proper support, extraction plans, etc, -- imagine how that story would read 2) launching major attacks at every shadow that may or may not be UBL. or 3) launching attacks that needlessly (emphasis) kill innocent civilians, incite political consequences that lose the strategic war at the expense of the tactical victory.

I was also intrigued to learn that Stan McChrystal was only a major when he commanded JSOC. Makes me automatically wonder what else is of questionable "fact" (see Ken's point above).

[Armchairguy]

Next step is telling us why you find it "kind of interesting" - I'm prodding you along into full-fledged Councildom;)

It's kind of interesting for me first because unlike many here I've not heard a lot of this, and can't vouch one way or another for the truth of it. It seems to point to a pretty large amount of incompetence. The idea of zero defect warfare is a lesson in the stupidity of micromanagement. If they feel the guys they sent need to be managed to that degree then they have failed by choosing the wrong guys, or they have failed by choosing the right guys and not trusting their judgement. Going after every tall person in Afghanistan, or dropping a bomb on the basis of rumors isn't the way you want to go either, but I'd hope there was a practical medium.