Before Abbottabad: hunting AQ leaders (merged thread)
I wanted to poll the SWC for input on a thought I've had for a while, and it centers on our vilification of Al Qaeda and, in particular, one Osama Bin Laden.
Has our inability to produce verification that we have captured/killed OBL, actually worked against us in terms of actually bolstering the confidence of current and potential terrorist actors around the world?
Or put another way, could we have avoided a Catch-22 by simply saying that we would seek to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice, without using by-name references? Do we face a credibility gap because we haven't produced OBL's remains, and are terrorists out there confident that if OBL can remain aloof in the hinterlands of Afghanistan/Pakistan, then they stand a chance as well?
I ask these questions from the perspective of future IO, as I wonder if we would be better served reducing the rhetoric. I read a lot from folks (military included) who believe that Afghanistan should have always been the main effort, and since that chapter has not closed, their attitudes about Iraq will always remain lukewarm.
Manhunting:Finding Persons of National Interest
LawVol the US Marshal's can and do serve international warrants, 4th Amendment would not be a problem due to the demonstrated danger to society at large (fleeing felon law). Also one of the authors was a...gulp..Air Force Officer...there is hope after all, and to top it off it is a Navy published paper.
Here is a link to a paper on how I think it should have been done. This is basic police work. In this case the main consultants were the US Marshal Service,British Security Service and plain old detectives.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...arks_jun05.pdf
PS Goesh and Stan some good huntin stuff in here for real:wry:
U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05
8 July NY Times - U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05 by Mark Mazzetti.
Quote:
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...
What is the shock behind this one?
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.
Apologies for previous reply
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
Article from msnbc newsweek
Here's a link to a story on the hunt for OBL that was kind of interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430170...wsweek/page/0/
Good link and nice find...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Armchairguy
Next step is telling us why you find it "kind of interesting" - I'm prodding you along into full-fledged Councildom;)
"...settling bureaucratic scores and rivalry between
parts of government?"
Mostly.