NYT: Rumsfeld cancelled operation to capture Zawahiri in 2005
posted at 5:52 pm on July 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Ready for the punchline? It’s because it involved too many troops.
The officials acknowledge that they are not certain that Mr. Zawahri attended the 2005 meeting in North Waziristan, a mountainous province just miles from the Afghan border. But they said that the United States had communications intercepts that tipped them off to the meeting, and that intelligence officials had unusually high confidence that Mr. Zawahri was there…
Pentagon officials familiar with covert operations said that planners had to consider the political and human risks of launching a military campaign in a sovereign country, even in an area like Pakistan’s tribal lands where the government has only tenuous control…
Officials said that one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without General Musharraf’s permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said…
These political considerations have created resentment among some members of the military’s Special Operations forces.
“The Special Operations guys are tearing their hair out at the highest levels,” said a former Bush administration official with close ties to those troops. While they have not received good intelligence on the whereabouts of top Qaeda members recently, he said, they say they believe they have sometimes had useful information on lower-level figures.
“There is a degree of frustration that is off the charts, because they are looking at targets on a daily basis and can’t move against them,” he said.
The other punchline, I guess, is that if Bush had followed his own pro-democracy rhetoric and pushed Musharraf hard years ago to hold elections, we might have gotten a leader in Pakistan willing to move against these turds. As it is, we’ve got a five-day standoff at the mosque and an unmitigated disaster in the tribal areas.
Here’s some flashback video for you from last September. The Times can’t determine if Bush knew of Rumsfeld’s decision or not. Exit question: Why didn’t they just call in an airstrike on Zawahiri instead?
Update: Another peace dividend from Uncle Pervez:
An investigation published Friday by The News, a national daily, found that 88 seminaries belonging to various sects were giving religious education to more than 16,000 students in the capital. Moreover the number of students here attending religious schools belonging to the Deobandi sect, an anti-Western, pro-jihadi fundamentalist school of thought that inspired the Taliban, among other movements, has doubled in the last year alone…
“The reason for this big surge in the number of students is still not known to the government,” it said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
If this is true, then it shows that Bush+Co don’t understand this war much better than the Dems – which has been demonstrated in the unrealistically moral, overly restained way in which we invaded and tried to quiet Iraq.
It is a good sign that the NYT seems to be advocating marching US troops wherever US interests are threatened, which I agree with. Bush’s decision to bind tightly to Pakistan never struck me as smart, since the Pakistani nuclear arsenal (and complex) must eventually be destroyed.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2007 at 6:02 PM
It was a judgement call. You weigh the risk and reward, consider the consequences, and the cost, and make a decision.
From the tone of the post, it seems the author is too young to remember some guy named Nixon, and someplace named Cambodia.
rockhauler on July 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
ugh
Editor on July 7, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Yes, I am too young to remember that personally. I’m not too young to remember Bill Clinton letting Osama get away multiple times, though, decisions for which he’s been roundly and rightly pilloried by the right.
If Clinton’s defense secretary had pulled this, we’d be going apeshit. Especially since we’ve already gone ahead and hit targets in Pakistan multiple times since 9/11 when we have good reason to believe AQ leadership is on the scene.
Allahpundit on July 7, 2007 at 6:16 PM
We must stop looking at Iraq and Afghanistan as “wars” and look at them as mere battles in a broader war.
Mojave Mark on July 7, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Of course, since it’s in the NYT, it must be true…
rmgraha on July 7, 2007 at 6:18 PM
In one year and six months it will matter not what didn’t happen a year ago. The greatest capitulation in the history of the world is coming… and our new Islamonazi overlords will be greeted and accepted with great reverence!
SilverStar830 on July 7, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Not one named source?!?! My toilet paper has more use than that article. How often is the media going to continue making up articles out of whole cloth and how long are we going to let them?
Capitalist Infidel on July 7, 2007 at 6:19 PM
So that’s the answer? “I don’t want it to be true so it must not be true”? How is that different from Trutherism? They interviewed upwards of a dozen different people to verify the article.
Allahpundit on July 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM
I seem to remember someone asking the question:
“Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?”
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
You’re all Truthers. The end.
Allahpundit on July 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
That’s nice, insult your readers
Capitalist Infidel on July 7, 2007 at 6:22 PM
They SAID they interviewed upwards of a dozen different people.
Gregor on July 7, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Of all the reasons for inaction, the idea of “too many troops” is one of those I would find viable for a hit piece they were planning. Special Forces are taught and trained to formulate their own, best plan, and then execute that plan. Sometimes it means combat improvisation, or acting independently, in order to accomplish their mission. And this is fine, when you have twelve, or thirty, or fifty guys out there. But when you get into the “several hundred” size of troop movements they’re talking about, not only do you reduce the chance of speed and secrecy, you increase the odds of collateral damage, fratricide, and negative elements. So all things being equal, and without seeing exactly what the plan looked like, it doesn’t surprise me that this could have been scrapped from a purely tactical standpoint, let alone the political ramifications.
Spc Steve on July 7, 2007 at 6:27 PM
No f*cking way…
How the hell could they let that al-Qaida slimeball slide!?!
If this report is true, I don’t even know what the hell to say, I’m just flabbergasted by the sheer stupidity of Rumsfeld and any senior official who decided it was a good idea to let that bipedal cockroach Zawahiri evade capture or an airstrike.
There needs to be a clearing of house of the people who were involved if this is a real report. If it is, its as bad or worse than Clinton refusing Bin Laden, at least Clinton has the excuse that 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, what can excuse this?
God F*cking Dammit!
Bad Candy on July 7, 2007 at 6:27 PM
In other news, NYT is reporting FDR called off an operation to catch Adolf Hitler. He claimed that it was “far too sophisticated” and dangerous for the number of troops to enter East Prussia. Asked about why bombers couldn’t kill Hitler, FDR responded with a shrug and said the Army Air Force was working on it.
Bonus: NYT is also reporting that Woodrow Wilson called off an operation to catch Pancho Villa in Mexico 1916 and the Kaiser in 1917. He claimed the operations were “outside the U.S. scope”.
TheEJS on July 7, 2007 at 6:27 PM
The air here sure has taken on a new ‘aroma’ since the last open reg.
We made need a match.
Tru2my2 on July 7, 2007 at 6:30 PM
And I agree with Allah, just because its the NYT doesn’t mean you dismiss it out of hand. Questioning the NYT is reasonable I think, and wanting to wait for confirmation from another major news source before you go ballistic is fair. I think dismissing it outright is irresponsible.
Bad Candy on July 7, 2007 at 6:30 PM
By the way, would the other option have been this airstrike?…:
or…
TheEJS on July 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM
damn links…
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/30/zawahiri-was-target-of-pakistan-madrassa-airstrike/
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/18_killed_in_U.S._air_strike_on_village_in_Pakistan
TheEJS on July 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Every time I click on a link to the NYT and it asks me to register, I think, nah, it’s the NYT. I’ve been doing that for years.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 6:32 PM
It is way past the time to take off the gloves. Let the military do what they were trained to do.
CrimsonFisted on July 7, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Actually, it’s more like a truther to take a claim by someone as fact, simply because they SAY it’s true, or that they have “reputable sources” which are not verifiable. Like taking John Hawkins’s word about something because he said he talked to someone on the phone and was told it didn’t happen.
Usually, when a writer says … “according to sources”, it’s a good bet the next sentence is completely made up.
Gregor on July 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Quite frankly, I think the fact that Iran’s border has never been breached by us through Iraq, when we know what is coming out of Iran trying to kill us in Iraq (in addition to all of the other acts of war that Iran has perpetrated on us over the decades) is even worse than this Zawahiri story.
Eventually we will return to the true rules of a noble nation fighting a just war against a barbarous enemy – which were laid down by the Allies in WWII. I just hope that it doesn’t take another 9/11 here until Americans pick up some history books and learn about how real wars are fought. Cities are bombed. Civilians are killed. Ruthlessness reigns until the unconditional surrender, and not a moment before.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Special operations had a degree of frustration okay,
I understand.That will happen now and then,however
I believe that if the intelligence was that good,then
make a move.Problem, it,s in Pakistan and they couldn,t
get General Musharraf to okay it.
Now I have been waiting for the right time.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS NAVY SEALS WERE TASKED TO GET
A TERRORIST ON FREIGHTER COMING OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
Two teams on helicopters were on there way, the freighter
was shadowed by destoyer and submarine.
Bill Clinton asked if he was on freighter 100%.Intell said
that the terrorist was.CLINTON chicken out, the assault
helicopters were within view of the freighter,they recieved
an order to abort the mission.
BILL CLINTON REFUSED TO SIGN THE ORDER.
YA i can understand the special forces(DEGREE OF FRUSTRATION).
Don,t tell me how serious Bill Clinton, or Hillary,
or the DEMOCRATS are taking on the TERRORISTS.
This special operations(in international waters),
is proof.
canopfor on July 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM
A question Gregor, if other news sources confirm the story, will you accept it as truth?
I pretty much buy it, but I’ll wait and try to get confirmation from other sources to be sure. I think that’s reasonable.
Bad Candy on July 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Some of us remember the outright lies from the New York Times. How could anyone forget al Qaa Qaa (or something like that) Or how about the interview with the guy who was in this picture? Except it wasn’t him. Or how about the story of the Katrina survivor except that she wasn’t there. And later she was charged with fraud.
So, when we read a story from that “newspaper” and they name their sources this way “according to intelligence and military officials.” We say, could those be the same sources for Qaa Qaa? Or when they say this, “said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.” We wonder if that “intelligent” official was as truthful as that “Katrina survivor.”
While you can insult us and call us childish names we’ll remain vigilant when it comes to swallowing everything that liberal rag has to say.
Capitalist Infidel on July 7, 2007 at 6:42 PM
I’ll ask Infidel the same question I asked Gregor, if the story gets confirmed by other news sources, will you accept it as truth?
Bad Candy on July 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I’d say Allah’s punchline is pretty misleading.
If Musharraf doesn’t appove it, are you willing to start a war with Pakistan over this?
he hate me on July 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM
If it does then fine, but I dismiss everything out of hand when it comes to the New York Times for reasons I posted above. They are proven liars and make things up out of whole cloth quite frequently.
Capitalist Infidel on July 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Now maybe me but if Rumsfeld was going for any options, especially after Op Anaconda, where SF took heavy casualties in terms of 160th SOAR, SEALs, and Rangers, the airstrike against a fortified target with AA capabilities and mines would’ve looked good.
The question is before drinking the water from NYT is this 2005 ground op cancelled instead replaced with the 14 Jan 06 airstrike?
Now if you cannot “confirm” the NYT article by reading out of another paper that carriers the same articles, are you willing to accept that we still carried out a mission to kill him Candy?
TheEJS on July 7, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Allahpundit, I for one would not be at all surprised that this article is true, in spite of my lack of interest in registering at the NYT. I was planning to keep quiet about the topic of this thread because I’ve never been a Bush fan and have always felt that his restrictive ROE and failure to name the enemy would prevent any chance at a real victory. I was disappointed in Afghanistan when I heard that a lot of our bombers were coming back with their payloads, (because of restrictive ROE). I was disappointed when we outsourced our efforts to kill or capture bin Laden in Tora Bora. I’m disappointed with the news above.
It’s all been one big disappointment and I always knew it would be for the reasons given above. I always hoped that at some point Bush would realize it wasn’t working and would come around to my way of thinking, but it never happened.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I believe a story when I see actual evidence, such as documents, sworn testimony from participants, photos, or recordings. I don’t believe in taking the word of some writer with nothing to go on other than secret “sources” who may or may not even exist. There’s absolutely zero reason to believe such a claim based on the info given.
You write that you “pretty much buy it, but I’ll wait and try to get confirmation from other sources to be sure.”
This is the problem. You take a story written by a newspaper with an extensive history of “made-up” hit pieces, and you accept it as fact unless it’s proven wrong. That’s why they get away with it. It would be much more fitting to NOT BUY IT until it’s proven to be true.
Gregor on July 7, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I should of mentioned,there was a documentry,
either the Discovery or History channel.
canopfor on July 7, 2007 at 6:49 PM
You don’t always get that stuff, it has to be pretty highly classified. I’d be surprised if I saw documents from this era before I turn 75.
There are probably WWII era docs that still aren’t released.
My background is in history, and I can tell you rarely get all the sources you want.
Bad Candy on July 7, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I just consider the source…
’nuff said.
SilverStar830 on July 7, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Two points:
1. We did target Zawahiri with an airstrike that killed 18 or so people at some kind of dinner, I think, not long after the opportunity described here. Zawahiri wasn’t there. That was Jan. 14, 2006.
2. We could have pushed Zawahari to have elections and the result might have been a government that went after the jihadis. It could also have resulted in the sort of situation we have now in the Palestinian Authority, except with nuclear weapons.
km on July 7, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Just how many times did Allah have to retract an apology regarding Jamilgate after blindly accepting the AP’s claim that the story was “verified by reputable sources?”
So, this means what? That the public should accept all stories as fact unless proven false? Nada. I think recent history has proven this is not a good idea. All articles should be taken as FICTION unless backed up with evidence.
Gregor on July 7, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Wow, if this is true, what exactly is the difference between this kind of failure to act and a lot of things many of us on the right beat Clinton about about? Actually, it’s worse since it came after 9/11 and we were sure what AQ was capable of.
Damn. Just damn.
Drew on July 7, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Big freaken “IF“.
As pointed out, several times, there was an airstrike on 14 Jan 2006. This may have been the alternative to that ground operation the NYT is “reporting” on. If the airstrike on the 14th was the option that Rumsfeld went with instead of the ground op, well I’m just going to go out on a limb and say the ground op would’ve failed because Zawahiri wasn’t there.
TheEJS on July 7, 2007 at 7:06 PM
If this story is untrue (not that it really matters, since we are pussy-footing around this war, anyway, while the Dems want to just ignore it and pretend that there is no war) then I expect to hear Rumsfeld tell some reporter, “Oh … that’s just hogwash,” sometime in the next day or two.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2007 at 7:08 PM
For myself, the answer is and emphatic yes.
We went to war with Afghanistan because they wouldn’t hand over Al Qaeda, why should be allow Pakistan get away with the same? Besides, Pakistan wouldn’t have been dumb enough to start a war with us. They may have protested, but more likely they would have tried to keep it secret or downplayed its significance.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Let’s see how many “conservatives” in talk radio pick up on this story Monday. Way to go Team Bush…
V15J on July 7, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Of course Rummy let him get away.
If we caught/killed all the terrorists we wouldn’t have plausible cover to invade poor countries with brown inhabitants to rape their women and steal their oil.
/liberal
Save a SEAL, club a liberal!
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 7:16 PM
AP, in Pakistan, it is more likely any election would result in radicals winning substantially so let’s not get too carried away with thinking some pro-western, anti-radical leader(s) would get elected.
The ISI is filled with Taliban like ideologues. They put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. They are likely the people trying to kill musharraf as recently as what, yesterday? Even if by some miracle a pro-western, anti-radical leader was elected he’d probably be dead in short order.
The difference between those cases and this alleged case, are facts. We know the truth of the Clinton situations. We know they had eyes on the target and were prepared to strike and prevented from doing so. In one case, because a UAE Royal plane was nearby and in another, because of fear of collateral damage. In the 3rd case, when the Sudanese government offered to hand him over, the Clinton Admin declined because the Saudi’s would not take him and the US had no legal basis to arrest him.
In this case, all we have are unnamed sources and no confirmation, even today, that he was even there. Before you start calling people Truthers for being skeptical of a story in the NYT, why don’t you wait for the facts to come out? In the end, the story could wind up looking very different.
TheBigOldDog on July 7, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I don’t believe anyting the NYT prints anymore…too unreliable.
JustTruth101 on July 7, 2007 at 7:16 PM
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Uhh… Pakistan has nukes. That is a consideration that drastically changes how we deal with said country.
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Bingo, I still wonder why we just let that go. We know there never was a “Jamil Hussein.”
Capitalist Infidel on July 7, 2007 at 7:18 PM
“Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?”
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
With every passing day, this is becoming increasingly evident. There are no leaders left in Washington. The writing is on the wall and it doesn’t look good.
synycalwon on July 7, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Do you think that Musharraf would have nuked a couple hundred of our guys on Pakistani soil in order to prevent us from killing or capturing Zawahri, whom he would also be nuking?
Not a chance.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 7:26 PM
If Musharraf doesn’t appove it, are you willing to start a war with Pakistan over this?
he hate me on July 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM
For myself, the answer is and emphatic yes.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 7:26 PM
The point you were making was war with Pakistan, which, if it occured, would indoubtably invlove the detonation of said nukes. Very bad idea
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 7:39 PM
The fact that we (meaning the American leadership) would even consider that as a deciding factor shows what pussies we (again meaning the American leadership) have become. We will never win this war until we take the gloves off like we did in WW2.
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Oh that worked well in Palestine didn’t it?
Tim Burton on July 7, 2007 at 7:44 PM
If Musharref would have disapproved, then they neede to tell him he would be the first target, and see if he changed his mind.
I remember something about “You are either with us or with the terrorists.”
Mushy just missed being assassinated the other day by his own lunatics so we could have blamed his death on “the terrorists” and then hit at Zawahiri and Taliban supporters in Pakistan even harder.
Doesn’t anyone at the top want to win this battle for our Civilization’s survival?
Or are they still living in 9/10, if not 1938?
profitsbeard on July 7, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I am old enough to have a decent recollection of the Presidential campaign of 1964. Barry Goldwater’s position on Vietnam was basically “Look, we are committed to this war. Let’s get in there and do whatever it takes to win it, and then get the hell out. If we’re not gonna do that then we shouldn’t even be there.” Of course even then the left labeled him a wild-eyed war-monger and he lost big-time to the more “reasonable” sounding policy of LBJ. I distinctly remember that later during Nixon’s Presidency Goldwater, recognizing that the politicians didn’t have the will to win, was advocating getting out of there ASAP.
Politicians don’t win wars, soldiers win wars. Politicians either let the soldiers win or they prevent them from winning. IMO history will place Bush and Rummy both in the latter category.
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 8:02 PM
He who dares wins.
aengus on July 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM
VolMagic, I see your point. I did answer your question about starting a war with a “yes” answer, but by that I meant that we should have risked war with Pakistan in order to capture Al Qaeda. However, the possibility of a war erupting out of limited Special Forces ops targeting terrorists would be highly unlikely unless Islamists had control of the nukes.
What we need to be concerned about is that at some point in the future Pakistan is going to have missiles that are capable of reaching the U.S.A., and if we fail to prevent it, Iran will some day have the same. If we don’t take care of the Jihad problem now, before long our options are going to be so severely curtailed that all we’ll have to look forward to is death and mayhem, which we’ll be incapable of stopping for fear of causing an even greater scale of death and mayhem.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM
The worry that I assume would have been addressed was not so much Musharraf starting problems with the US, but with Musharraf falling after such a US operation. This, I believe, is the risk (punctuated by the Pakistani nuclear complex) of the action. If Musharraf fell, then the Pakistani nuclear arsenal would be in Islamist hands, almost surely.
I would still have taken the action, since I think that Musharraf is more endangered by the US showing weakness than by our incursions into Pakistan. Musharraf could have complained loudly and placated his country, as much as a muclim country can be placated.
And, in any event, Islamists will eventually take over Pakistan (it’s only a matter of time) and it’s generally best to have some event happen when one is expecting it, if it is inevitable, anyway.
Bush screwed up after 9/11, because the main coalition should have been the US, Israel, Russia, and India (with all of the regular US allies Britain, Australia, …). This idea of getting a coalition of the whole world (minus Israel only) was spastically retarded. It was a glimpse of Bush Sr. and a foretelling of the problems to come.
The Dems, of course, would have been 1,000,000 times worse.
progressoverpeace on July 7, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I’m with you, Infidel4life…….this administration is trying to fight a PC, feel good, group hug propaganda war with an enemy who’s much more accomplished at propaganda. They’ve forced the military to fight with little toy guns and cookie breaks. If you don’t target the enemy in fear of pissing off those who don’t support you, you are doomed to fail.
speed911 on July 7, 2007 at 8:17 PM
After reading the article I have to side with Rumsfeld but for very different reason. Here we have an elusive gorup of people who we have a hard time getting any hard intel on and all of a sudden we have all of this hard intel. Now going on the assumption tha Al Queda would not know whether we had planned an raid or not notice that the unnamed intel folks then go on to say that ever since it has been hard to get any good intel on the movements or activities of the Al Queda higher ups. So the elephant in the living room is did they turn on the chatter or whatever to lure us in and when that didn’t happen turn it back off?
Because the reporter wants to believe the premise fed him from some inside the intel community and it fits his preconceived beliefs he presents one side with no other explanation.
There are just too many in and out of the intel community still smarting from their inablility to detect the 9/11 attack ahead of time who now want so badly to prove that they really did know what they are doing that they are suffering from a bad case of diarreha of the mouth. Notice in the article those famous words. The operation is still classified.
/PS now the article requires registration to view it.
LakeRuins on July 7, 2007 at 8:17 PM
You’re frustrated now? Wait until 08. You won’t even get that if a Dem wins and, if a Rep wins, the media, the Left and the Dems will make sure he can fight it no better. In fact, he’ll even be more hamstrung because we’ll be that much further away from 9/11.
TheBigOldDog on July 7, 2007 at 8:22 PM
By “we” you aren’t referring to me. The decision to not go in based on the size of the force needed it is clear that this was a mission to capture Zawahiri not kill him. That makes me more upset than not capturing him. Drop a couple of JDAM’s and call it a day. Which goes to your exit question.
If we drop a few JDAM’s but what if we do not have the evidence to prove that we hit Zawahiri? The political fallout would be too great. We could not afford to outrage the locals at that time, Musharraf’s political position was too tenuous to risk it. Now after dispatching the Red Mosque maybe we will get the green light to cross into Pakistan at will.
We also might have another Iranian proxy (read Hamas, remember those elections?), with access to nukes. No thank you. Musharraf is there to stay, as far as foreign policy is concerned we like the evil we know. When we find a suitable replacement that can get elected, and is not a jihadi then elections aren’t a problem. Abbas is right, the tribal culture of the Middle East is too immature, they will elect jihadis to their own demise. A free election in a Middle Eastern country has yet to produce a stable government, at least by Western standards, surely not one capable of handling nukes. Musharrafs stays until…
Theworldisnotenough on July 7, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Not if the confirmation is sourced on the NYT.
heroyalwhyness on July 7, 2007 at 8:31 PM
I can see why Allah was getting agitated with this thread…
Bad Candy on July 7, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Bingo! And is exactly why SO would go nuts when they can see targets and be denied orders because the Sec. of Def. has to play dabble dabble I’m the big shot.
Which BTW for a long time now I’ve felt Rummy was a great peacetime Secretary of defense.
Speakup on July 7, 2007 at 8:41 PM
That’s a good point, and is why I’m hoping that George Bush will at least destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions before he leaves office. If he doesn’t and the Dems gain the WH, Iran will probably get nukes on their watch and then any relatively good options we have of defeating the Jihad will be over.
I hope that we are able to prevent Pakistan from developing long-range missiles as well, although that seems unlikely.
I don’t foresee that any of this is going to happen. I’m pessimistic and think that at some point long before we crush the Jihad, Pakistan is going to develop their long range nuclear missiles and Iran is going to get their nukes, and eventually long range missiles. Then what will our options be? Not good.
However, if we are able to develop a robust anti-missile defense that we have confidence in, maybe we have more time than it might appear.
FloatingRock on July 7, 2007 at 8:42 PM
The tribal culture of the Middle East is too immature, they will elect jihadis to their own demise.
Theworldisnotenough on July 7, 2007 at 8:23 PM
The liberal culture in America is too ignorant, they will elect Dems to their own demise.
There, fixed that. (pardon my lack of strike skills, newbie, where’s the tutorial?)
synycalwon on July 7, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Some of the decisions in WWII made by command resulted in thousands upon thousands of American deaths that were a tragedy.
Every American life needs to be protected. No excuses.
Hening on July 7, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Pithy and right on the money.
Tutorial? Yeah right, on the job training is how we all learned. Suck it up noob!
;-)
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Hindsight is always 20-20. Every American death is a tragedy.
Should we not make decisions because they might result in loss of life? Is that the way wars are won?
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I have heard something along these lines from sources who well could know what they’re talking about but the point is that Zawahri isn’t the enemy, only a small part of the enemy and actually the only part of the enemy that reminds the general public on a regular basis of why we’re fighting the GWOT. Did the terrorism stop when bin Laden went away? It wouldn’t stop if Zawahri was caught or killed either, but you know damned well that the anti war left would call it “job done” and demand all troops brought home immediately. When a special op gets too big and unwieldy it is going to fail. I’m not a big Rumsfeld fan for many reasons but honestly, if this is true, it was the right thing to do.
Buzzy on July 7, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I blame Bush for reacting to the political climate the yellow, traitorous democraps had already created… he should have pulled the trigger and faced the music.
Zorro on July 7, 2007 at 9:17 PM
I don’t get the outrage at Rumsfeld on this. It sounds like the right decision. We send hundreds of troops into an area that the home country can’t even control, into rough terrain where you just don’t sit helicopters down, all for one guy. How about a failed mission with 10 special forces guys held captive by the Taliban? Musharraf would have been not only angry at us but all of Pakistan would have been freaking and he wouldn’t have been able to help us if he wanted. We either would have had to invade to get our guys back or we would have watched them get beheaded one at a time for weeks or months. If we bombed we would have leveled a village, killed hundrs of civilians and Zawahiri may have showed up a week later back in Iraq.
Rumsfeld made the right decision and as far as the Special Forces guys wanting to take the fight to the enemy, no doubt. I wouldn’t put it past the NYT to make up quotes though.
peacenprosperity on July 7, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Across the top of the comments box is a line of buttons. IE; strong – emphasis – link – quote – strike – Close Tags
Suppose you want to highlite a word or words in your comment like ‘newbie’. Highlight that word and click on the ’strong’ button up top.
newbie
Same for the emphasis button.
emphasis
For a quote, copy the quote and paste in the comments box. Then highlight the quote and click the quote button.
strikeHighlight the words you want to line thru and click the strike button. After the last > inserted to make the strike, type the words you want to insert.To use the link button, copy the url of the item to be linked. Then highlight the word or words to be used for the link, click the link button and in the box that pops up, paste or type in the url for the item to be linked and close that box.
Here’s hoping this all works… :-)
News2Use on July 7, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I can’t fathom a reasonable reason NOT to call in the strike. Are they afraid of the media backlash if “women and children” are killed with or without Zawhiri?
SouthernGent on July 7, 2007 at 9:52 PM
W. T. F.
Savage on July 7, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Especially since we’ve already gone ahead and hit targets in Pakistan multiple times since 9/11…
Not with hundreds of our troops on Pakistani soil. This has been a sticking point since 2001, nothing new here. That’s why we’ve preferred remote strikes, hoping to have a fait accomplis before anybody can grouse too much.
geoff on July 7, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Rumsfeld is a great man!
Perfect? of coarse not.
TheSitRep on July 7, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Agreed on all points.
A minor quibble: if Rumsfeld had approved the mission and even if it turned out to be successful, I doubt that it would have prevented the up-tick in volunteer jihadi-ism, as exemplified in the last link in this post. (Example: when the Israelis took care of Yassin and Rantissi, it didn’t do much to stop the last[?] Intifada.)
baldilocks on July 7, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Please explain how not being perfect makes one great.
(Using proper spelling, of course.)
;-)
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM
You’re all Truthers. The end.
Allahpundit on July 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Really?
VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Bhutto was for the Taliban before she was against it. She’s also not as popular in Pakistan these days as Western media portray her to be.
Remember, free elections in Pakistan are inevitably followed by a military coup. I’d rather have Musharraf in perpetuity then a Bhutto term cut short by an extremist taking power through a coup.
RW Wacko on July 7, 2007 at 10:13 PM
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Name me a great man who was perfect. (except for Jesus of
coarsecourse)VolMagic on July 7, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Uh……not fair! Wait….how about….er……..um…..well…..
Ah! I got it now. Whoever invented beer!
infidel4life on July 7, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Thank you, much appreciated! :)
synycalwon on July 7, 2007 at 10:55 PM
OK this has gone beyond disgraceful. When will the gloves come off. We have the F***ing power to level countries but our “leaders” do not have the ba**s to take out our enemies because of political ramifications?
Bush has shown he is unable to secure our border, he is unable to secure the border in Iraq, he is unable to stop Iran from killing our soldiers, and now he is unable to kill our proven enemies.
I say the hell with it impeach the bastard. He does not undersatnd the war we wage. Whatever happened to “we will bear any burden” or “unconditional surrender” or speak “softly and carry a big stick”
Bush has shown beyond a doubt that liberalism does not work. That you can not fight a war in a PC mode. Level the damn place. I am tired of this crap. 6 damn years and what? the strongest, most powerful force in human history blocked by a couple of nutjobs?
Our government has failed. Bush has failed. The democrats want to surrender, the repubs don’t want to fight the fight needed and we have to sit and worry about a city going up in smoke while NERO fiddles.
Enough. Turn the dogs of war loose and DESTROY the ENEMY to the last man. No quarter no mercy.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Certainly I have doubts, too, about reports served up by the NYT, but reports of dithering by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are quite plausible. Consider the time the President wasted with the UN and NATO, and consider the care with which the President and the Secretary tried to minimize Iraqi casualties and show respect for Islamic holy sites. Really, on-again, off-again war-making by Secretary Rumsfeld seems quite in character for this administration.
I think their hesitancy descended largely from their being made afraid by journalists, lawyers, judges, academics, and a wide range of foreign opponents. Even much of the American Right seems too decent for the free-for-all of murder, robbery, deceit, and destruction that seems required in order to return Islam to its place at the feet of America’s free, unbelieving masters of technology. I’d like to see Americans with the required money, intellect, art, and contacts open their Rolodexes and, together, show themselves to be stronger, deeper, and more evil than their timid rulers: yes, stronger, deeper, more evil–and more beautiful, too.
Kralizec on July 8, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Rumsfield, Bush, Clinton, Lott, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, Graham, McCain, Gates, Obmama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Deminci, Vonichvich,Schumer these people are the problem.
They are not America, they are the scum, the floatsam, the debris that America has birthed from its flirtation with liberalism.
We must throw off those shackles and unlease our power. We must flex our muscle and make the world tremble. We must DECLARE OUR MIGHT TO THE WORLD AND LET NO MAN OR WOMAN FROM MEXICO TO INDIA QUESTION OUR WILL.
We must DESTROY our enemies to the last. We must salt the earth and rain fire upon their heads and make their great great great grandkids tremble to hear our name.
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Well said, Kralizec.
But I would just add that Bush had an opportunity, right after 9/11, to totally change the rules of the game. He passed this up, decided to say that killing civilians was the worst thing on Earth, instead of impressing on the rest of the Earth that killing AMERICANS was not going to be tolerated in any way.
progressoverpeace on July 8, 2007 at 12:36 AM
unseen-
I know the feeling watching our leaders pussyfooting the West to oblivion.
As G. Patton put it:
“Wars may be fought with weapons but they are won by men.”
&
“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week..”
&
“A pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood.”
I almost wish al-Qaeda had levelled D.C. during a State of the Union address three years ago, because such a shock might have brought forward men and women with the sense and strength to fight this War against Islamofascism for real. To win.
profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 12:46 AM
profitsbeard on July 8, 2007 at 12:46 AM
a Tom Clancy fan are we.
I pray that we are never ever attacked again on our homeland but if we are; the attacks with the lest amount of harm to our country would be in this order
Washington
New York
LA
The entire rest of the country
unseen on July 8, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Lets see….
Many here want to INVADE a country WITHOUT a Declaration of War…
Hundreds of troops is an invasion. Its WAY TOO many to hide…
Small ops? OK…
Large Ops? No…
And the invasion of a NUCLEAR STATE would be stupid. Musharif would fall within a month… and the Jihadists would control that arsenal…
BIG picture here folks…
Romeo13 on July 8, 2007 at 1:08 AM
It seems that we’ve been heading down a road for a long while now that will inevitably lead to our defeat as a nation, if not our destruction.
Al Qaeda killed thousands of American’s on 9/11. After we invaded Afghanistan Bin Laden simply slipped across the border into another country. After the next attack on our homeland will America finally agree that we should take care of the threat posed by Pakistan? If so, we will be wasting our time because by the rules that we’ve elected to constrain ourselves with all Bin Laden will have to do is slip into yet another country, perhaps a nuclear Iran by that point.
Where does it end? I don’t understand how this strategy is supposed to work. Eventually Pakistan is going to develop long-range missiles that are capable of delivering a nuclear payload to our homeland and will be able to deter any action on our part through Mutual Assured Destruction. As of now, they would have to smuggle those nukes into our country somehow, which is much more difficult and time consuming and requires a lot of planning and forethought. If they forced us to we could annihilate them before they even got started.
The longer we wait the more dangerous it becomes to preserve our way of life, and if the American people and our leaders don’t have the will to fight to win, we are not doing ourselves or the world any favors by continuing to try. We would be better off withdrawing all of our troops and making nice with our new Islamist overlords. They want a Caliphate? Let’s give them one. They want our women to wear burkas? We’d better not refuse. Pray five times a day? We can get used to that.
At some point in our future the ruler of the world will be the craziest most homicidal madman with nukes. That is, unless we do something to prevent it while we still can.
FloatingRock on July 8, 2007 at 2:10 AM
I don’t think that most people here are paying attention to the fact(?) that when the operation became too big and unwieldy that Rumsfeld cancelled it. Nor are they thinking in the strategic sense wrt to the Pakistani government.
I think that Rumsfeld and his boss believed that it was better to stay on the good side of Musharraf–whatever the latter’s faults–rather than take a chance on a new head of the Pakistani state, one who might, or rather, probably would be less reasonable than the present one.
Assuming the reportage of the Rumsfeld decision is true, was it a gamble? Of course, as would have been the opposite decision.
Every decision our government makes regarding the War on Islamic Terrorists is a gamble–simply because our opponents’ goals are so final. Our opponents are bent on death for non-Muslims and on death for themselves in the attempt to make the world over in an Islamic image.
I think that the Rumsfeld decision, if true, will figure insignificantly in the larger scheme of things, though some may use it to excoriate the tactical and strategic decisions made by the US in this war.
As I implied above, there is nothing that will hold back the Islamists–not even the death of their nominal leaders. (I’m willing to bet that the alleged perps of the most recent terror attempt in the UK had no real contact with an Al Qaeda operative. That’s what it has come to.)
Whether they are 200 or 200,000 in number, Islamists will keep going and going and going until they’re dead or we are (or we are converted), in spite of the assassinations of those who step forward to call themselves leaders in the Jihad.
I fear that we will have to kill them all. And I most certainly fear the opposite.
It would be nice to have a third option.
baldilocks on July 8, 2007 at 3:21 AM
Let me think of Clinton profession the path to September 11 2001 a made up propaganda lie.
American8298 on July 8, 2007 at 4:08 AM
Baldilocks and Progressoverpeace (8:14 post);
I agree with you that it’s probable the instability an invasion would have caused the Musharraf regime was a major factor in deciding to scrub the mission. However, Pakistan is a nexus of Islamism in the world and that problem needs to be dealt with.
Hopefully Musharraf’s crackdown on the Red Mosque is a sign of his strengthening resolve to work toward that end, although I’m not at all confident that he will be able to carry it to the necessary conclusion. If he is able to secure his regime then perhaps it will be enough, (or will seem to be), but at some point, as often happens in that part of the world, he will probably fail, and if Pakistan has long range nukes at that time our position will be far more tenuous than it would be if he failed now.
It will essentially be to late to affect change in Pakistan short of capitulation and appeasement.
If Musharraf doesn’t fix his country before our intelligence determines that his successor will be able to strike the US and enforce MAD, I think that his time will have lapsed. If Musharraf is able and willing, our forces can work in conjunction with his but the job will still need to get done at some point before it is too late.
FloatingRock on July 8, 2007 at 4:17 AM
So what it boils down to is: if Musharraf falls now, we have some time to deal with the resulting problems. If Musharraf falls after they have developed a first strike capability against the US, we are liable to be in a heap of trouble. Not only because of the possibility of his successor being Islamist but also because Al Qaeda will be untouchable and may have the opportunity to include nukes into his terror arsenal.
FloatingRock on July 8, 2007 at 4:34 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »