Zzzzz: AP reveals that U.S. rules of engagement authorize hot pursuit into Pakistan
posted at 5:47 pm on August 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Quite the bombshell given that (a) we already knew they’ve planned operations inside Pakistan, (b) they’ve already conducted operations inside Pakistan, and (c) Bush has openly admitted that he’d send troops into Pakistan to get Bin Laden if we had a bead on him.
Newly uncovered “rules of engagement” show the U.S. military gave elite units broad authority more than three years ago to pursue suspected terrorists into Pakistan, with no mention of telling the Pakistanis in advance…
One summary states that “Entry into PAK authorized for” the following reasons:
• “Hot pursuit” of al-Qaeda, Taliban and terrorist command-and-control targets “from AFG into Pakistan (must be continuous and uninterrupted).”
• If the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, approved direct action “against The Big 3,” listed as Osama bin Laden; his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri; and Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. The three are still believed to be hiding in the border region.
• If the Defense secretary approved such an incursion.
They can go 10 kilometers but no more, according to the ROE. And the Pakistanis?
E-mail exchanges between Ranger officers in the documents make no mention of a requirement to inform Pakistan in advance of strikes into that country.
However, one summary mentions a chain of required notifications, which resulted in Pakistan being apprised — apparently after the fact. One rule says “joint task force commander must inform CENTCOM immediately” and ensure the “Mil Liaison team” in Islamabad was notified.
Operations officers had a hotline to that liaison office, which would in turn inform Pakistani officials, according to a U.S. officer who served in the region and is knowledgable about operations within Afghanistan during that mid-2004 period. On some occasions, the officer said, Pakistanis would detect ground or air incursions and request explanations from the Americans, who would open inquiries.
This is why I didn’t quite get the uproar over Obama’s comments at the beginning of the month. It’s one thing if he’s talking about some grand invasion of Pakistan, but I don’t think he is. He’s talking about surgical strikes, which is nothing more than a continuation of current policy. Zzzzz.
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:
Exactly, Obama only reaffirmed current Bush Administration policy. “It’s time for a change” my ass.
Enrique on August 23, 2007 at 5:54 PM
So now OBL only needs to stay more than 10K inside Pakistan? Either that or train up for the 10K sprint.
IrishEyes on August 23, 2007 at 6:12 PM
And once more, our own Press tells them our procedures and war plans…
Can I call them traitors yet?
Romeo13 on August 23, 2007 at 6:20 PM
If the Moshiach says it’s OK, it must be.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 23, 2007 at 6:27 PM
“…This is why I didn’t quite get the uproar over Obama’s comments…”
Oh THAAAAAATS why. I don’t remember you making that clear at the time. Hey, vote for whomever you like…
JWS on August 23, 2007 at 6:29 PM
That’s exactly what I was thinking…
BadBrad on August 23, 2007 at 6:30 PM
What’s been keeping you? The rest of us have been calling them traitors for years! Remember Geraldine-o giving away troop positions?
On-my-soap-box on August 23, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Im sure that Al Queda knew by now this was going on so isnt such a great military secret.
But it certainly does make the dems look like fools for suggesting that nothing was done to hunt Bin LAden.
William Amos on August 23, 2007 at 7:08 PM
Plus Obama has already invaded Pakistan in his dreams.
aengus on August 23, 2007 at 7:15 PM
They do! Oh my gosh!
BadgerHawk on August 23, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Nope. As AP pointed out this is public knowledge.
aengus on August 23, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Well you can if you want but in my estimation the only serious treason charge could be levelled at the NYT who leaked sensitive information about thet surveillance programme. I mean if the KGB had done that it would be espionage.
aengus on August 23, 2007 at 7:28 PM
OT
Government – Not Bloggers – Leaking Info
MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Don’t believe everything the AP tells you: of course there is nothing inherently evil about the concept of contingency plans per se.
It wasn’t the Pakistan comment by itself that is the problem. Obama said that he would not hesitate to attack Pakistan (a nuclear power and the closest thing we have to an ally in that region) in the same week that he announced he absolutely would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and that he plans to give diplomatic immunity to every enemy leader who asks for it.
The problem is that Obama seems to have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the difference between enemies and allies; and he doesn’t have the faintest clue how nuclear weapons might be used or deterred.
Is a declaration like “The Audacity of Hope” in-and-of itself idiotic? Who can say? No single comment that comes out of Obama’s mouth is any more insipid than any other. It’s only when you take two or more of those bromides together that you see what a consummate airhead the guy is.
logis on August 23, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Obamaized it for ya, AP.
James on August 23, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Obama should be coming out condemning these activities soon… keep in mind, they don’t run on idea, they run on criticism and hoping to win by default if enough goes wrong and they can complain about it, and convince enough idiots that they could do any better.
No, he was talking about pandering after being busted for his inexperience when promising to meet with our enemies. I’d tell you what really needs to be done, but then I’d be banned… The point is, Obama won’t do anything. He was simply trying to save face after a gaff, and the “we’ll get Bin Laden” line has been a Dem promise they’ve been using for years. It’s the “we’ll bring the troops home, and then go after those that actually attacked us” play that appeals to idiots. They know idiots will think “yeah, Iraq didn’t attack us!”, which no one ever insinuated they did, just like Joe Wilson saying Saddam didn’t buy yellowcake, even though no one ever said he did. They simply argue against assertions folks never made, the media doesn’t bust them on their deception, and they gain some votes with morons. Obama is trying to get 9/11 emotions running by promising to go after Bin Laden, and it came when needed to look tough. His comments weren’t offensive on their face, as a policy.. they’re offensive because they were pandering to save his ass, and because they publicly alienated an ally who’s already having trouble being toppled.
RightWinged on August 23, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Obama was lying to sound “presidential tough”, which is why no one, left or right, commented favorably on his faux he-man b.s.
(Although why anyone commented unfavorbaly on the tactic is puzzling.)
It’s generally considered one of Bush’s main failings that he has not pursued Osama with enough deadly seriousness.
Obama is a featherweight Pagliacci putting on lead clown shoes and trying to walk like a man.
Who’s buying it?
We should run over any border to get our murderous jihadist enemies, whether they hide in Tora Bora or Tehran or Timbuktu.
Anyone who tries to stop us from getting Bin laden or Zawahiri has joined the enemy, and no longer warrents legalistic consideration.
Fry the Jihadis before they fry us.
profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 11:06 PM
No one. Obama is a novice.
Anyone who tries to stop us from getting Bin laden or Zawahiri has joined the enemy, and no longer warrents legalistic consideration.
I agree emotionally but life isn’t always like that and there’s not much point pretending it is. I think the priority of the US Gov. should be to short circuit the Iranian nuclear program.
aengus on August 24, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Only if they file for permission and include a TPS Cover Sheet.
War, when run by bureaucrats, is a guaranteed loss.
Montana on August 24, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Dog Bites Man!
soundingboard on August 24, 2007 at 3:55 AM
aengus-
That too.
profitsbeard on August 24, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Thank goodness the AP told the terrorists about this. It will make them think twice before coming within 10km of Afghanistan.
Kevin M on August 24, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Comment pages: