Bin Laden: before Abbottabad (merged thread) [Archive]

SWJED

11-20-2005, 07:25 AM

Moderator at work

I have merged six thread here, to create a Bin Laden thread or collection that covers him before the Abbottabad raid and his demise. In a moment a post-Abbottabad thread will be created. The thread was renamed too (ends).

20 Nov. London Daily Telegraph - Messages of Bin Laden Published (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20051119-114945-8042r.htm).

Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1844670457/smallwarsjour-20/103-4813759-1703817?%5Fencoding=UTF8&camp=1789&link%5Fcode=xm2) is billed as the first accurate compendium of the terrorist leader's words, threats and ruminations from 1994 to 2004.

Its editors have rooted out many statements they identified as forgeries and retranslated to correct "horrendous" errors.

Bin Laden's terms for America's surrender appeared after the September 2001 suicide attacks and include demands that amount to the abandonment of much of Western life.

Sarajevo071

09-07-2007, 12:23 AM

Groups: Bin Laden plans video on 9/11
by Lee Keath, Associated Press

Osama bin Laden will release a new video in the coming days ahead of the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in what would be the first new images of the terror mastermind in nearly three years, al-Qaida's media arm announced Thursday.

Analysts noted that al-Qaida tends to mark the Sept. 11 anniversary with a slew of messages, and the Department of Homeland Security said it had no credible information warning of an imminent threat to the United States.

Still, bin Laden's appearance would be significant. The al-Qaida leader has not appeared in new video footage since October 2004, and he has not put out a new audiotape in more than a year, his longest period without a message.
...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_video

goesh

09-07-2007, 03:30 PM

I believe Binny is dead and twice burned on the Pakisani frontier, i.e. cremated and the remains burned again, by his body guards to forever prevent Western forensics from being able to prove his early demise. He clearly had sepsis from the last known video. However if AQ can cobble togther and cut and paste and copy and put one on the air, it will bolster US resolve to stay the course in Iraq. After all, even the Democrats acknowledge the vicious terrorism being enacted on Iraqi civilians by AQ and common sense mandates that they be killed where found. I do think it will take another 5-7 years before Iraqi forces can take full control of security for their nation, of course that is just a civilian's opinion. It could take 6-8 years.

Sarajevo071

09-07-2007, 03:54 PM

Except of the "small" fact that AQ WAS in Afghanistan (only in ONE part while other part belonged to Northern Alliance) and that AQ was NEVER in Iraq (like Bush & Co. lied)... AQ and terrorism, and now we can see HUGE Iranian influence, came in Iraq "thanks" to US.

I believe Democrats did acknowledge the vicious anti-human campaign against Iraq and civilians even decade before this latest war in Iraq, and human cost of sanctions. One should not forget that and ignore effects and feelings of people who lived thru that and lost loves one during that decade.

Bin Laden, alive or dead, not matter that much anymore. Symbolically, yes, but strategically... He did his thing for AQ and Salafi Jihadi. They, Salafi Jihadi/Wahabi do not have celebrities or icons. Most of them would love to see OBL martyred. I am not so concerned if he is alive or not but rather what this message can mean.

Stan

09-07-2007, 04:18 PM

Naively assuming OBL is still kickin’ (we haven’t seen him for 3 years) and using Slapout’s criminal behavior schematic, this simply doesn’t jive.

Would he risk all, nearly three years later to make a video with yet another recently dyed beard (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20629354/) ?

Perhaps he needs to motivate his support elements, as the war is not going well for them. His appearance will no doubt grant the POTUS unequivocal congressional support well into next year.

The American public will be outraged and the stakes and bounty on his head will only grow.

I may need a witch doctor or at least an anthropologist to explain this one :confused:

RTK

09-07-2007, 04:24 PM

goesh

09-07-2007, 04:58 PM

That purported picture/video of Binny could darn well be anyone. When I now just saw it the first thing that popped into my mind is an old bum of a neighbor that lives down the road a piece from me. Wrap a turbin on Old Bill, that's what everyone calls him this neighbor down the road and you have Bin Laden. Folks in these parts have said that for several years now but old Bill is a real loner and has a bad reputation and is always packing a shotgun and nobody has felt like telling him that to his face. This isn't very sophisiticated IMO. They've doctored someone up to look like Binny and are trying to pass it off as the real deal.

pcmfr

09-07-2007, 08:43 PM

I'm pretty sure the video is authentic. But given that smart people still believe it's not, leads me to question why our own IO guys, or some smart kid with editing software haven't produced videos of UBL eating a pulled pork sandwich in the company of hooter's waitresses, while announcing that he's throwing in the towel on this whole global jihad thing and converting into a Methodist. Joking aside, I am now beginning to believe that the continued sanctuary of AQ senior leadership and their media branch in FATA is much more a problem than we initially belived.

bourbon

09-07-2007, 08:51 PM

The transcript of UBL's video is available for download, via MSNBC, in PDF here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070907_bin_laden_transcript.pdf

slapout9

09-07-2007, 10:39 PM

Posted by Sarajevo:
Bin Laden, alive or dead, not matter that much anymore. Symbolically, yes, but strategically... He did his thing for AQ and Salafi Jihadi. They, Salafi Jihadi/Wahabi do not have celebrities or icons. Most of them would love to see OBL martyred. I am not so concerned if he is alive or not but rather what this message can mean.

I think this is a pretty good analysis. We need to be figuring out what the message is? Is he sending signals to strike while General Patraeous(cain't spell,sorry General) is giving his briefing? Is it something else? Is it just propaganda? The answers to those questions are what is important for us to figure out.

PS my gut tells me he is alive!

Sarajevo071

09-07-2007, 11:33 PM

Did you read that MSNBC transcript?! If you didn't you should. Seams message is completely toward U.S. and Americans.

Tacitus

09-07-2007, 11:43 PM

Frankly, I don't know where this willingness to assert that Bin Laden is dead and his latest manifesto is a fake comes from.

If I was king (perish the thought), I'd assume he was alive and up to something until he was in custody/killed/captured.

And like your average man on the street, I cringe when I hear talk about how capturing him doesn't matter. It sounds too much like a rationalization for not "bringing him to justice, or justice to him".

Sarajevo071

09-07-2007, 11:46 PM

Bush Jr. said he is not concern with him anymore. Remember?

Uboat509

09-08-2007, 12:03 AM

Tacitus

09-08-2007, 12:38 AM

Oh, I understand the point that it is more than Bin Laden, the man, that is the problem. I can grasp this logic. It is the ideology he articulates that is the problem. Specifically, it is the Wahhabism branch of Sunni Islam that is arguably the ultimate source. This Wahhabism which is spreading to Muslim lands draws financial support, ideology and even recruits from its entrenched heartland in ....Mesopotamia, of course. Well, actually no, it comes out of Saudi Arabia.

Call me crazy or a dreamer, but the man is responsible for the deaths of around 3,000 American citizens and billions of dollars of damage. To me, at least, he matters a little bit more than the deputy commander of Al Qaeda in Ramadi or Baquba.

FDR requested Sec. of the Navy Knox "to get Yamamoto." The U.S. navy seemed to take the attack on Pearl Harbor personal, and killed the author of it. Anyone interested in how we dealt with this man can read all about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Yamamoto#Death

Ken White

09-08-2007, 12:39 AM

Frankly, I don't know where this willingness to assert that Bin Laden is dead and his latest manifesto is a fake comes from.

that comes from the fact that he does seem to be wearing the samw clothes for weeks on end. Not to mention that it is to thier advantage for him to be "alive.' ours, too to a lesser extent. Big Martyrs attract more little martyrs.

If I was king (perish the thought), I'd assume he was alive and up to something until he was in custody/killed/captured.

You'd probably be right but you'd also know tha if he goes, Zawahiri who's the real driving force would take charge. If Zawahiri is killed, then someone else will and so on, ad infinitum. Thus better to preserve the fiction and leave him alone.

And like your average man on the street, I cringe when I hear talk about how capturing him doesn't matter. It sounds too much like a rationalization for not "bringing him to justice, or justice to him".

Hunh. Interesting. I used to hang out around Bristol -- well, Kingsport, actually -- many years ago and the folks up there must've changed in the last forty years. Most of them then would have more concerned with vengnance than justice.

Be that as it may, where would you "bring him to justice" and on what charge? A few guys come to him with an idea, he helps them get money to do what they wanted to do. He said a lot of stuff on videos and tape which may or may not be admissable but which in any event are just words. you might get a Conspiracy charge, little more, I suspect.

Rex Brynen

09-08-2007, 12:46 AM

..and there, I thought OBL was attending the APEC summit (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/06/1188783415499.html)....

slapout9

09-08-2007, 01:13 AM

Did you read that MSNBC transcript?! If you didn't you should. Seams message is completely toward U.S. and Americans.

Yes, I read it. One media report I saw said the meassge was a lot of incoherent thoughts. I didn't take it that way. It was a very well laid out piece of propaganda and I agree it was all pointed toward the US.

Sarajevo what is your view on the speech?

Tacitus

09-08-2007, 01:23 AM

I don't know his taylor or valet. I don't know why he favors a particular suit (or whatever they call this kind of garb). A trademark? A uniform? Maybe he just thinks he looks good in it. Why was Abe Lincoln always walking around in a black coat and top hat? What's up with that?

But I'll take it all back if y'all are offended. Assuming he's alive... YAWN. Big deal. He's just a cog in a wheel.

Actuallly, I don't want to bring him to justice. It was the President who said it was either bring him to justice, or justice to him.

It was in "Breaker Morant", a good flick for anybody out there who hasn't seen it, where Morant said "I believe it is customary in war to kill as many of the enemy as possible." I guess that pretty much sums up how me, and folks in Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City feel about Bin Laden. They definitely want to "bring justice to him."

Ken White

09-08-2007, 01:39 AM

The clothing bit was directed at the fact that they've used the same pictures of him in at least two of the last three videos (haven't seen this one yet).

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not offended -- why would I be. He's more than a cog in a wheel but he is not irreplaceable, no one is. He does have symbolic value and we don't need a martyr. The more important point is that AQ is not a heirarchial organization, it's amorphous -- the old starfish; cut a ray off and it just generates another to replace it. His death or departure wouldn't make much difference to the organization other than symbolically.

Still there is that symbology. His continued breathing is really in both our interests. Even if it isn't satisfying.

Presidents say a lot of dumb things; if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to say "What the President really meant was..." :)

And I'm glad to hear the Tri-Cities area hasn't changed that much; Good for them. Bring justice to him is one thing; bringing him to justice would likely pose more problems than it would solve. Now, if he isn't dead and we can just find him. He's as hard to locate as Eric Rudolph was...

goesh

09-08-2007, 02:39 AM

He looks like a doctored sock puppet, his mystique fading like that of Che, yet never fully gone, slowly succumbing to a superior system of economics, justice, moral values, technology and military might. And yes, even better football. I swear to God, this video prop is my neighbor, Old Bill. I''m driving by his place later to see if there are any lights on. What's the wager on how long the prop's words lingered in the few, average, working Americans that tuned in? He should have maybe cursed Mexican truck drivers or gay rights activists or abortion clinics or the slump in the housing market or the Minn. Vikings and gleaned a couple more seconds of collective American attention.

Sarajevo071

09-08-2007, 03:24 AM

No. What he said was that Bin Laden is not our only threat nor is killing or capturing him going to end the war or cause our enemies to quit. There are quite a few people in the government who believe that we should just be focused on finding Bin Laden. We cannot afford to focus on Bin Laden and ignore everything else.

SFC W

Hm. I was referring on this:

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Sarajevo071

09-08-2007, 03:28 AM

Yes, I read it. One media report I saw said the meassge was a lot of incoherent thoughts. I didn't take it that way. It was a very well laid out piece of propaganda and I agree it was all pointed toward the US.

Sarajevo what is your view on the speech?

I think it is a great PR speech (how do you guys call that, IO?) and fact that he is calling Americans to the Islam (second time) can be significant. Or doesn't' need to be.

Sarajevo071

09-08-2007, 03:32 AM

He's more than a cog in a wheel but he is not irreplaceable, no one is. He does have symbolic value and we don't need a martyr. The more important point is that AQ is not a heirarchial organization, it's amorphous -- the old starfish; cut a ray off and it just generates another to replace it. His death or departure wouldn't make much difference to the organization other than symbolically.

Still there is that symbology. His continued breathing is really in both our interests. Even if it isn't satisfying.

Presidents say a lot of dumb things; if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to say "What the President really meant was..." :)

Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't bring end to the Iraqi Resistance like many in U.S. military and political circles was predicting.

That was my whole point.

Sarajevo071

09-08-2007, 04:18 AM

Yes, I read it. One media report I saw said the meassge was a lot of incoherent thoughts. I didn't take it that way. It was a very well laid out piece of propaganda and I agree it was all pointed toward the US.

Well, in mean time, Sheikh Abu Umar al-Hussaini al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi (Leader of the Islamic State of Iraq for those who are confused with his full name) came out with his own audio message!? :confused: Title: "And If you Cease (to attack), It will be better for you".

bourbon

09-08-2007, 06:26 AM

How widely held is UBL-global warming information operation of 2004 theory?
Stealing from the famous George Packer article to summarize it:

Just before the 2004 American elections, Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden's public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. "I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?" he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that "this wasn't a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy." Ron Suskind, in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush's strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance.
(Packer, 12/18/06)

If so, in his latest screed he hits on global warming again. He also points out the flaccid opposition re: Iraq by the Democrats. And possibly endorses (theoretically tainting from the US political discourse) contrarian, non-interventionist thinking:

And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war…

And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.

What gives? Am I reading this right or reading too much into it? Off-track or on target?

------------------
Packer, George, "Knowing The Enemy: Can social scientists redefine the "war on terror"?". The New Yorker, Vol. 82 No. 42. (December 18, 2006)

RTK

09-08-2007, 12:43 PM

Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't bring end to the Iraqi Resistance like many in U.S. military and political circles was predicting.

That was my whole point.

True, but I'd submit his demise was critical to the Anbar Awakening.

Ken White

09-08-2007, 03:10 PM

Killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't bring end to the Iraqi Resistance like many in U.S. military and political circles was predicting.

That was my whole point.

to in the excerpt you quoted seems to differ with us...

As for anyone in US military circles predicting anything significant occurring as a result of Zarqawi's death, I missed that. Politicians did do what you say but then, they're politicians. IMO, no one with any sense at all pays much attention to them.

Sarajevo071

09-08-2007, 08:46 PM

Politicians did do what you say but then, they're politicians. IMO, no one with any sense at all pays much attention to them.

I agree
:D:D:D!!

SWJED

09-08-2007, 10:18 PM

Regardless of what his "untimely but well deserved" death may have contributed to the overall grand scheme of things - it gave me a warm and fuzzy.

Sarajevo071

09-09-2007, 03:02 AM

Tacitus

09-09-2007, 11:47 AM

Okay, you and I agree and the guy I responded to in the excerpt you quoted seems to differ with us...

Heck, where did I ever write that getting Bin Laden would be the end of our troubles? Scroll back down and I plainly say that this Wahhabi Islam sect (which comes out of Saudi Arabia and not Mesopotomia, I might add) is the spiritual, financial, and ideological home of Al Qaeda. That doesn't mean me and 99% of the American public don't want him out of commission anyway. If you are fighting a war on terror, knocking out high profile terrorists might (just might) have a positive effect on the home front.

It is sort of like the debate over capital punishment. Opponents always say that executing criminals won't stop crime. Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve it. Putting Al Capone behind bars or six feet under wasn't going to end the crime problem in Chicago...doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort.

Bin Laden is wanted for what he did...NOT necessarily for what getting him may result in. I don't know how to put it any clearer than that. I don't think I am anywhere near along in this thinking. The fact that we appear to have no particular interest in him over any other Al Qaeda operative puzzles me. Wasn't 9/11 the reason why we got in this war, anyway?

Ken White

09-09-2007, 05:35 PM

I just agreed with Sarajevo that zapping Bin Laden might be satisfying in a sense but that it would accomplish little or nothing.

Agree that most, if not 99% probably do agree with you but would also suggest that any such spike in positive effects on the home front would be fleeting. Also and IMO that benefit would be outweighed by the disadvantages in the martyr effect. Those folks consistently beat us to a pulp in the information arena...

I agree that Bin Laden is wanted by many for what he did and not for what getting him may result in and that you certainly are not alone in thinking that. I suspect that the potential result is the principal reason for not making him an issue and that is seen by many as adequate reason to not worry about him. The interest in all the other AQ folks is simply due to the fact that it is, as I said, an amorphous collection of people any one of whom is capable of setting up an operation and obtaining the funding through the others to pull that operation off. Not to mention that Hezbollah is a far more dangerous entity. AQ is just one of many and it isn't nearly as effective as its very successful propaganda has many believing.

Nah, 9/11 was the reason we went to Afghanistan. Islamist International Terrorism and attempting to modify the attitudes in its birthplace were the reason for Iraq and the greater Long War, GWOT or whatever we're calling it this week. The 9/11 attack just provided a rationale and a window to counter 27 years of Islamist probing attacks and western cheek-turning (by four successive US Presidents from both parties among others) by saying we weren't going to take it anymore.

AmericanPride

07-02-2008, 04:11 PM

I doubt, if true, that his death will fundamentally progress the War on Terrorism. But it would be a small victory. I couldn't find further information anywhere else.

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/4672

bourbon

07-02-2008, 06:53 PM

I googled the Pillar quote and found the Time article it refers to (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819280,00.html).

Culpeper

10-07-2008, 03:57 AM

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4502669n

The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports.

Is this guy for real?

selil

10-07-2008, 04:19 AM

The 60 minutes spot was strange.

jmm99

10-07-2008, 04:57 AM

Here is the 4-page article (+ 27 pages of comments) underlying the spot.

Elite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt
Delta Force Commander Says The Best Plan To Kill The Al Qaeda Leader In 2001 Was Nixed
Oct. 5, 2008
....
In 2001, just 10 weeks after 9/11, he was a 37-year-old Army major leading a team of America's most elite commandos. Even now, 60 Minutes can't tell you his name or show you his face. 60 Minutes hired a theatrical make up artist to take this former Delta officer through a series of transformations to disguise him. He calls himself "Dalton Fury," and is the author of "Kill Bin Laden," a new book out this week.
.....
Fury says he'll donate his profits from the book to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

I have no way to determine whether this article is factual in whole, part or not at all. Others here may be better informed.

Ishmael Jones, The Human Factor, pp.238-239, blames the escape on CIA "HQs managers" taking over the operation after UBL's radio transmission was received.

Entropy

10-07-2008, 01:07 PM

DefenseTech did two minutes of research (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004456.html) and apparently found out who the guy is.

Jedburgh

10-07-2008, 01:14 PM

Despite the comic book pseudonym he adopted, the guy is the real deal.

Rank amateur

10-07-2008, 05:49 PM

Now that his bona fides have bee established, would anyone like to comment on what he said?

Uboat509

10-07-2008, 06:02 PM

This (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18708&highlight=dalton) is where the issue was discussed on PS.com. Most people in the community are pretty pissed about this. I don't have TV right now so I did not see the interview and I doubt that I will read the book. What I am wondering though is what the point is. I near as I can gather, he is pointing out what is basically a bad call that was made on the ground in Afghanistan during the Tora Bora operation. My question is why? Whether it was a good, bad or indifferent call, it is an old call. What is bringing it up now going to do other than bring about a big old round of finger pointing, and possibly some scape goating?

SFC W

Entropy

10-07-2008, 06:16 PM

Now that his bona fides have bee established, would anyone like to comment on what he said?

It sounds like old territory to me - much of the same was covered in other articles and books, although the request to mine the passes above Tora Bora was new to me. Given the realities of the time, it's not surprising that both of his requests (a blocking force or mining) were rejected.

What is bringing it up now going to do other than bring about a big old round of finger pointing, and possibly some scape goating?

The cynic in me suggests it might have something to do with the timing of his book being published.

selil

10-07-2008, 06:25 PM

I think the big point is that the guys on the ground did their job, that oversight and politics (to many cooks in the kitchen problem) screwed up the mission. I think from the interview the idea that the Afghanistan support really wasn't and that the missions are incredibly more difficult based on trying to make them (the locals) look good.

sullygoarmy

10-07-2008, 06:27 PM

Rank amateur

10-07-2008, 06:28 PM

Given the realities of the time, it's not surprising that both of his requests (a blocking force or mining) were rejected.

Could you please explain. Isn`t a blocking force one of the simplest and most basic ways to deploy troops.

The Muj couldn't be trusted

Isn`t that highly relevant given that our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day is to turn over security to the locals. Do you really think that its old news to the millions of Americans and millions of 60 Minutes viewers who our going to be voting in the next 30 days. (For example, I had no idea the local went home every night, and were sleeping peacefully in their beds, when our guys were very close to Bin Laden and knew exactly where he was and I think I`ve learned a thing or two from hanging around here that the average 60 minutes viewer might not know.)

sullygoarmy

10-07-2008, 06:43 PM

Back in 2001, we were buying loyality...plain and simple. There was no buring Afghan desire for love and home and country to help us out. We paid them...plain and simple. Things have changed for the better over the years but back in 2001 when this story is about, our "allies" were paid mercenaries we used to help us out since we did not have enough of our own forces in theater.

Having worked with, lived with, ate with and fought with Iraqi units twice, there always has to be some skepticism in the back of an advisors mind. I'm sure the Delta guys in this story either a) knew or b) had strong feeling their local indig forces may be playing both sides of the game.

Culpeper

10-07-2008, 08:49 PM

Could this be a situation where someone may have violated the need to know principle? I mean, this guy was in Delta. I'm not sure we were supposed to be finding out about this so soon. I was uncomfortable watching it.

bismark17

10-07-2008, 10:17 PM

His book has been in limbo for awhile while some OPSEC issues were clarified. The author's homepage goes into more detail.

From the little I know it appears that a "risk averse" culture kicked in by the Higher Ups. I don't understand why a Ranger Blt wasn't deployed as another support element. Hats off to those guys who went in knowing their "support" was dubious at best.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_officials_stopped_plans_to_kill_1006.html

I didn't see the original airing but have been following this on the author's homepage. Hopefully this is the original 60minutes piece without modification.

jmm99

10-08-2008, 01:32 AM

Here is the only "statement of facts" that I have:

(posted at PS by Team Sergeant - from 2 Feb 2008 Army Times at 2nd url below)

Fury said that, as required by the agreement he signed when he left the unit and retired, he sent Delta a copy of his manuscript for security review.

“They came up with a list of redactions of items they thought ought to be taken out,” he said. “I told them I would honor every one of those. However, they were never ever given to me.”

Delta’s higher headquarters apparently intervened, according to Fury. “It’s not Delta’s fault,” he said. “It’s their higher command – JSOC and SOCOM have the say. And they … collectively decided not to provide me with any detailed redactions after a year of trying through my attorney.”

“All I got back was responses [reminding me of] my commitment to the classified information agreement that I signed … [and] basically threatening to possibly take me to court over this.”

Fury said that after SOCOM “stifled it,” he sent the manuscript to the Defense Department’s Office of Security Review.

“OSR failed to respond in any timely manner at all, after numerous requests from my attorney.

“The comment that SOCOM made was that the sensitive information was so thoroughly woven into the manuscript that any attempt at detailed redaction would be literally impossible. They chose not to do it.”

“We did receive a manuscript from [the author] for security review,” said SOCOM spokesman Army Col. Hans Bush. “The manuscript did not pass security review because it was found to contain classified information. We notified [the author] through his lawyer last fall. To date this remains unresolved. “We are still willing to work with the author in the even he resubmits a manuscript that does not contain classified information.”

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18708&highlight=dalton
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/army_delta_book_080131w/

The Ishmael Jones book, and the CIA PRB's refusal to clear it, has been discussed here.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5832

The agency's PRB review process is well regulated and subject to judicial review - sometimes in favor of authors, sometimes not (as in Frank Snepp's case).

The Fury process has multiple commands involved; and, I have no idea (no legal research done or intended) of whether judicial review is available or not. Since the Army has regulations for most everything, I presume there is some legal guidance somewhere - but I arz a dummy in this legal area.

The Jones and Fury books were both rejected for the same reason stated - " sensitive information was so thoroughly woven into the manuscript that any attempt at detailed redaction would be literally impossible." Both books were then published despite the rejection.

So far, no legal action has been taken in either case. Note: I am not calling for legal action in either case - just sitting on the sidelines watching.

jkm_101_fso

10-08-2008, 04:42 PM

Great. A fellow AMU professor.

http://www.amu.apus.edu/Academics/Faculty/faculty-details.htm?facultyID=997

No doubt he is a hero and a stud but I agree with other posters. Where is the so what of his story? The Muj couldn't be trusted, liked Bin Laden and often had agreements with the Talibs...nothing new there.

CBS went to all that work to mask his identity and his picture is right there on the AMU website.

That terrain model they had on the 60 minutes interview was pretty kick A**.

bourbon

10-08-2008, 05:01 PM

The cynic in me suggests it might have something to do with the timing of his book being published.
Maybe, but subtlety doesn't really work in our nations discourse, in this case I reckon he would just come out and say it:

Ideological agendas cannot be pursued, and political and economic gains cannot be reaped, when you literally kill the pretext. With bullets and HE.

Steve Blair

10-08-2008, 05:51 PM

Great. A fellow AMU professor.

http://www.amu.apus.edu/Academics/Faculty/faculty-details.htm?facultyID=997

No doubt he is a hero and a stud but I agree with other posters. Where is the so what of his story? The Muj couldn't be trusted, liked Bin Laden and often had agreements with the Talibs...nothing new there.

Interesting....had him as an instructor not too long ago.

Ski

10-09-2008, 12:05 AM

His brother is a professor there as well.

I've had a class with one of them, can't remember which one.

Bodhi

10-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Steve Blair

10-09-2008, 02:58 PM

He instructed me as well for AMU's UW seminar a couple of years ago. Definitely a solid instructor; I learned a good deal from him, and he made the class really interesting. He also developed a great reading list for that course.

I took the same course and found it a bit spotty, although I did go in with a great deal of background knowledge.

Entropy

10-10-2008, 02:17 AM

Could you please explain. Isn`t a blocking force one of the simplest and most basic ways to deploy troops.

...I've been busy for a couple of days.

To answer your question, yes, in theory a blocking force is easy to deploy, but in practice I'll quote Ken: METT-TC applies. That blocking force has to be adequate to the task, able to deploy and operate along a stretch of 10k+feet series of peaks and saddles, in wintertime, with adequate supply and support. Assuming all that is available, there is the opportunity cost and risk which must be weighed against other missions for all the assets involved. Maybe the Rangers that were at Bagram could have done it (which was the only force available in a timely matter, IMO), but I don't know.

And even if the decisions had been different and the Rangers were in put in place, there's still no guarantee they would have got UBL.

Tom Odom

10-10-2008, 03:05 PM

Reading the book now for a SWJ review. I will save my comments for that purpose but so far it is interesting read.

Tom

Culpeper

10-16-2008, 02:46 AM

Reading the book now for a SWJ review. I will save my comments for that purpose but so far it is interesting read.

Tom

Could you let us know on this thread when you get the review online? Thanks.

Tom Odom

10-16-2008, 12:23 PM

Could you let us know on this thread when you get the review online? Thanks.

WILCO

finished the book just gathering post-read thoughts to write

best

Tom

ilots

10-16-2008, 03:10 PM

Back in 2001, we were buying loyality...plain and simple.
Renting; not buying. You don't buy Afghan loyalty, you only rent it.

davidbfpo

10-16-2008, 10:03 PM

Wayback in the days of Imperial (British) India and along the Afghan border the Brits recruited and paid a mainly local military, known as the South Waziristan Scouts for example to defend the frontier and police what is now the FATA. Yes, Pashtun loyalty maybe different from Afghan, but it was effective and occassionally bloody. The Scouts had a tiny cadre of British officers and some, technical NCOs.

I understand the current Pakistani para-military forces along the same frontier, usually referred to as the Frontier Corps, largely follow the Imperial mould and have more local officers.

If an Afghan soldier or dirt farmer can earn more fighting for the Taliban, is there any surprise he changes sides?

From a distant armchair.

davidbfpo

davidbfpo

10-19-2008, 06:55 PM

The link to Tom Odom's excellent review on SWJ Blog: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/book-review-kill-bin-laden/

Thanks Tom; your review combines experience and perspective.

davidbfpo

SWJED

10-19-2008, 08:49 PM

Ditto David's comments Tom.

SWJED

10-19-2008, 09:06 PM

WK4ib7PSHVc

Part 1

mHZ47WxD62M

Part 2

Entropy

10-20-2008, 05:02 AM

A third ditto on David's comments. I'll have to get this book to compliment the others I have - it sounds like it provides a new perspective on the hunt for UBL at Tora Bora.

Tom Odom

10-20-2008, 12:24 PM

Thanks guys but DF deserves the credit. I merely reviewed it.

It does offer a no BS view of what happened and I can see why highers would not be happy that it is out. DF is objective in laying out the facts and conditions as he faced them, especially conditions beyond his control. Factual accounts like his make flights of fancy analysis on what went wrong or what should have been done read like the fantasy most are.

Good book. Great soldier leading great soldiers.

Tom

Entropy

11-04-2008, 04:39 AM

Steve Coll's blog has a bit about Dalton's book at the end of an interesting post on Haqqani (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2008/11/inheriting-afgh.html):

I keep up with the Bin Laden news so you don’t have to; this includes reading the recently published book, “Kill Bin Laden,” authored by the pseudonymous Delta Force commander who was present at Tora Bora in December 2001. Despite all of the pseudonyms and uncertainties about source material, it seems to be a reliable account and it has some interesting bits in it about the battle and about Delta. Overall, however, it does not provide a fundamentally new picture of what happened at the battle. It tracks other accounts in key respects: Osama was there; on December 14th, he was under heavy bombardment and thought he would die; sometime after that, he escaped; the Afghan militias that the United States relied upon did not see the battle as we did and were unreliable, under-motivated partners; and our intelligence about Bin Laden’s movements and inner circle, then and later, was incredibly poor. Delta, at least, had virtually no human sources to work with, and it could not even be sure Bin Laden was alive or dead for long after the battle, never mind figure out where he might be hiding.

davidbfpo

01-01-2010, 06:12 PM

This article by Peter Bergen appeared 22nd December 2009, sub-titled 'How Osama bin Laden slipped from our grasp: The definitive account':http://www.tnr.com/article/the-battle-tora-bora?utm_source=TNR+Daily&utm_campaign=edb8bf56c3-TNR_Daily_122409&utm_medium=email

I am sure there were other threads on the battle, but this I think is the most recent and Dalton Fury does get a mention.

Pete

01-01-2010, 10:19 PM

Tom Ricks was writing about Tora Bora in his blog the other day. Click below to read it.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/23/glasser_vs_feaver_on_tora_bora_who_is_right

davidbfpo

01-09-2010, 09:54 PM

The BBC is due to broadcast a TV programme tomorrow, part of the excellent series 'The Conspiracy Files' entitled 'Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive?'. Link to a pre-broadcast article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8444069.stm

The series website and the programme will be available tomorrow evening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/default.stm

Opening lines:
Osama Bin Laden died eight years ago during the battle for Tora Bora in Afghanistan, either from a US bomb or from a serious kidney disease. Or so the conspiracy theory goes. The theory that has developed on the web since 9/11 is that US intelligence services are manufacturing the Bin Laden statements to create an evil bogeyman, to justify the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and back at home. So is the world's most wanted man still alive?

Ending lines:
former CIA agent, Art Keller, is more damning:
"I think those conspiracy theories that he is dead are pretty much laughable," he says. It's easier to explain things away with a conspiracy than to face up to the difficult reality. In this case, the difficult reality is that we're trying to operate in possibly the worst area in the world and track someone who's very crafty and elusive and putting considerable effort to stay off our radar."

I know Bin laden's name appears in many threads, notably the recent 'Kill Bin Laden' thread, but so many issues are involved here: politics, info warfare etc it deserves its own thread.