Newsweek: Jihadis nearly killed Osama in 2004 to prevent capture by U.S. troops
posted at 8:28 pm on August 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A mammoth piece but essential reading. From the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to the chatter this summer that’s got intel analysts on edge, it’s the fall and rise of Al Qaeda in the tribal territories in 14 pages. Some of it you’ve heard before, like the assault on Tora Bora, the disastrous peace deal in Waziristan that gave AQ their opening to rebuild, and the 2005 raid on Zawahiri that Rumsfeld cancelled at the last minute, but not until you read this will you appreciate how systemic and crippling the U.S.’s two recurring problems — poor intelligence and unbelievable degrees of risk aversion — have been in the hunt for Osama.
The story of the near-miss with Bin Laden is a sexy bit at the beginning of the piece that doesn’t have much to do with the main thrust so I’ll let you follow the link for that. Some highlights, starting with Rumsfeld’s and Franks’s decision not to deploy Rangers at Tora Bora because it would “take too long” and wasn’t worth the risk:
To catch bin Laden [at Tora Bora], the CIA was left to lean on local tribesmen, a slender reed. NEWSWEEK recently interviewed two of the three tribal chiefs involved in the operation, Hajji Zahir and Hajji Zaman. They claimed that the CIA overly relied on the third chieftain, Hazrat Ali—and that Ali was paid off (to the tune of $6 million) by Al Qaeda to let bin Laden slip away. Ali could not be reached for comment. But Crumpton, who admits that he has no hard evidence, told NEWSWEEK he is “confident” that a payoff allowed Al Qaeda to escape. Unsure which side would win, some tribesmen apparently hedged by taking money from both sides.
That’s the first of many cases of fatal risk aversion described in the story. Here’s how bad it gets:
In July 2002, a CIA case officer told [Special Forces team leader Adam] Rice that a figure believed to be Mullah Omar, the one-eyed chief of the Taliban, had been tracked by aerial drone to a location in the Shahikot Valley, a short flight to the north. The Taliban chief and his entourage would be vulnerable to a helicopter assault, but the Americans had to move quickly.
Rice was not optimistic about getting timely permission. Whenever he and his men moved within five kilometers of the safe house, he says, they had to file a request form known as a 5-W, spelling out the who, what, when, where and why of the mission. Permission from headquarters took hours, and if shooting might be involved, it was often denied. To go beyond five kilometers required a CONOP (for “concept of operations”) that was much more elaborate and required approval from two layers in the field, and finally the Joint Special Operations Task Force at Baghram air base near Kabul. To get into a fire fight, the permission of a three-star general was necessary…
But Rice made his request anyway. Days passed with no word. The window closed; the target—whether Mullah Omar or not—moved on…
Rice, the A-Team sergeant stuck in his safe house near Kandahar, recalls that his team’s frustration peaked when a memo came down from the brass at Baghram, ordering men not to initiate fire fights and even not to use words like “death” and “destruction” in their CONOPS. Among Rice’s men, it became known as the “limp dick memo.”
The other running theme throughout the piece is how many top-flight resources were sucked away for the Iraq invasion and how Iraq, as much as the new safe haven AQ got in Waziristan when Musharraf ran away, has helped to restock the jihadi knowledge base that the U.S. dismantled in 2001. The authors don’t pursue that to ask what it might imply about a symbiosis between AQ and Al Qaeda in Iraq or whether leaving Iraq would create a bigger jihadi laboratory there than exists now (pretty clearly the authors think it wouldn’t), but that’s beyond the scope of the article anyway:
When the United States struck Afghanistan in 2001, “there were probably 3,000 core Al Qaeda operatives,” says Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School. “We killed or captured about 1,000; about 1,000 more ended up in distant parts of the world. And about 1,000 ended up in Waziristan. But the great terror university in Afghanistan is gone; they’ve relied on the Web since. They haven’t had the hands-on instruction and the bonding of the camps. That’s resulted in low-skill levels. Their tradecraft is really much poorer.”
The danger now, says Arquilla, is that the longer the Iraq War goes on, the more skilled the new generations of jihadists will become. “They’re getting re-educated,” he says.
Like I say, a must read. I’ll leave you with the following bit from Musharraf as the takeaway quote, not because it’s hugely significant to the piece but because given the way the wind is blowing on Iraq, it’s hard to deny its awful but essential truth: “My great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.”
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
I am thinking Ol’ Osama has finished up with the last of his virgins by now. He’s probable already back to goats.
TheSitRep on August 25, 2007 at 8:30 PM
It’s why the people of Iraq were afraid to join with us after Saddam was toppled. After we desert them again, our credibility in the ME — not just Iraq but throughout the ME– will be zero for as far out as the eye can see.
petefrt on August 25, 2007 at 8:38 PM
So last week they were too quick to bomb villages and kill civilians and this week they are “risk averse.” Uh huh.
TheBigOldDog on August 25, 2007 at 8:42 PM
So last week they were too quick to bomb villages and kill civilians and this week they are “fatally risk averse.” Somebody needs to get their story straight.
TheBigOldDog on August 25, 2007 at 8:49 PM
No, you’re right. We should probably just nuke them. That’ll be the least risk averse solution of all.
You’re really stupid sometimes.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I’m stupid? Dude last week you were sticking up for Obama claiming they were too quick to “just bomb villages” and kill civilians. This week, they weren’t willing to bomb fast enough. Dude get your story straight. I don’t particularly care what your point of view is but at least try to be consistent in the same month. Give us time to forget what you’ve already said.
TheBigOldDog on August 25, 2007 at 8:53 PM
This is only true for post-WWII America, after we had created the UN, signed the 4th Geneva Conventions, and decided that we no longer fight to win (Truman’s moronic “limited war”).
Before WWII, we didn’t abandon allies because we had no problem doing whatever dirty work a conflict or situation called for. Heck, the modern US would have lost most of the wars that the pre-WWII US won, and that includes WWII.
Now, whenever the work gets too dirty (and it’s a dirty world out there) we leave instead of “sullying” our name. In the end, the name is worthless if we cannot be trusted by allies, and the fighting and blood will also end up being worse, since no one expects us to ever do anything “ruthless”, anymore. (Ruthlessness was totally outlawed in the 4th Geneva Conventions)
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Tut, tut. No need for name-calling. TheBigOldDog is only human you know.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 25, 2007 at 9:09 PM
We almost got OBL, again?
Castro is almost dead, again?
Almost, the second biggest little word after if.
Man I wish I had a dollar for every almost.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:14 PM
You’re really stupid sometimes.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM
The difference between Stupidity and Genius is that Genius has its limits.
- Murphy
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:16 PM
I don’t particularly care what your point of view is but at least try to be consistent in the same month. Give us time to forget what you’ve already said.
TheBigOldDog on August 25, 2007 at 8:53 PM
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Sound’s like Bill Clinton did a great job a putting his “people” into key positions all throughout the chain of command inside our Military. In effect redering our commanders and leaders absolutely impotent. We are pretty much primed to be punk’d. If we do Iran.
Egfrow on August 25, 2007 at 9:25 PM
And your taking this as gospel?
bnelson44 on August 25, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Putting aside the little spat above:
Consistency is the single, most important attribute of any logical system - literary opinions aside. With logic, there is NOTHING without consistency. .. Or, actually, everything, since all theorems are true in inconsistent systems.
It is the foolishness that is the hobgoblin of little minds. Sorry if I don’t take my lessons in logic from Emerson.
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Ap, never under estimate the positive effects of 20 or 30 well placed thermonuclear devices. I recommend high air burst. I hear the Neutron devices inflict mass casualties with amazingly little property damage. That just sounds ideal.
TheSitRep on August 25, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays.
TheSitRep on August 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Grow up Allah.
Montana on August 25, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Eh, for me, anything printed in Newsweek is suspect. That’s not to say that they’re wrong every time, but certainly they deserve no quarter.
It’ll take at least 3 weeks to flesh out what, if anything, is true in their story, until then, they ain’t worth commenting on.
ShoreMark on August 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Consistency is the single, most important attribute of any logical system - literary opinions aside. With logic, there is NOTHING without consistency.
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.
- Confucius
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:44 PM
AP has the weight of the world on his shoulders and it’s the weekend.
Speakup on August 25, 2007 at 9:48 PM
I’ll play that game:
“The art of governing is to keep its affairs before the mind without weariness, and to practice these affairs with undeviating consistency.”
- Confucius
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Is it safe to lob grenades at the last bit of the post? Too late…
The moment the Peacenik ‘Rats seize power, that is.
steveegg on August 25, 2007 at 9:53 PM
It’ll take at least 3 weeks to flesh out what, if anything, is true in their story, until then, they ain’t worth commenting on.
ShoreMark on August 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:58 PM
“The art of governing is to keep its affairs before the mind without weariness, and to practice these affairs with undeviating consistency.”
- Confucius
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 10:03 PM
The problem though, steveegg, is that they think their actions apply in the vacuum of what they don’t like in their present time, and they’ve applied that inane outlook all through the past, with absolutely no consideration of the long-term consequences of same inanity.
Millions have died because of that outlook, and millions more will in the future (lots of us at that), yet they remain glib (and glibness incarnate is one John F. Kerry).
ShoreMark on August 25, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Allah, that’s no way to speak to your guests. You’re a professional and that was uncalled for.
Now whatever I was gonna say about the article seems pointless. We’re all on the same side here, let’s not get distracted over such minor issues.
Tony737 on August 25, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Yup. That’s the post-WWII West. And since WWII, our success in armed conflicts has been NIL. The only win we had was in the Cold War, but there we explicitly threatened to incinerate every man, woman, child, and pet of the Soviets.
Of course, the US of 2007 is much too gentile and civilized to act like the US of 1980 … even though we still have strategic nukes ready …
I have not heard any such threats against anyone, lately. I’m just talking about threats, here. That’s the new order, and we see what it brings us. Liberals satisfied that we are superior (morally) to everyone else and enemies who attack us with relative impunity. Great.
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Yup. That’s the post-WWII West. And since WWII, our success in armed conflicts has been NIL. The only win we had was in the Cold War
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Actually Gulf War I was pretty successful, with respect to Kuwait anyway and to very much degradating Saddam’s Army. Korea was very successful for those south of the DMZ anyway. Afghanistan was pretty successful at the start. Iraq II was successful till Bush changed the mission.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 10:21 PM
AP is BANNED. No Nuke em talk here.
.
Might be AP needs a few days off - or at least 2.
.
What is it AP? you really haven’t been yourself for a while.
KP? iPhone? the hours?
.
Maybe just go out & get a little… uh…you know.
shooter on August 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM
A liar can only lie so many times before his “halfway around the world” conduit is short-circuited permanently — ShoreMark
P.S. The MSM in general has a 5 amp fuse in their self-overloaded 30 amp circuit.
ShoreMark on August 25, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Yes, on that limited point, but a horrible failure overall - which is why we are there, now. A success looks more like Japan - fiercest enemy transformed to trusted ally and highly productive and non-threatening nation. But we had to do things like target masses of civilians and threaten the people with absolute extinction (along with actually beginning to carry it out). Not nice stuff, but that’s what armed conflicts require sometimes, depending on the culture of the enemy. The arabs/persians/muslims are of the same types of cultures and will, in the end, require the same sort of action, at least as far as I see it.
Not to the extent that was required at the time. Gulf War I was a miserable failure, and, even worse than what happened on the ground, the UN was empowered by Bush Sr, in one of the dumbest moves in all of recorded human history.
But North Korea is, tothis very day, one of the worst problem areas on Earth and no one has any idea what the heck they are going to do out there. No, I don’t call the Korean War a win. I don’t even call it a draw, since the North has not just retreated, but remained a major problem in the world - and worse every year.
Well, the initial invasion was great, though the screwup with trusting the tribes there … I mean everyone knows that double-dealing is just par for the course in that part of the world. It is not personal, but cultural, and when people do it, they need to be punished as that culture would punish. But we don’t have the stomach for that sort of thing.
But Afghanistan is still ongoing, and not yet determined, though it has been quieter … but then we get into the actual subject of this thread!
I like Bush, but … his attempt to sell the Iraq conflict as a mission of mercy for the Iraqis is just, plain [insert nasty description], in my mind. Holier-than-thou kills, and it usually kills the holier one.
progressoverpeace on August 25, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Thanks for the link Allah. Very good article.
Bradky on August 25, 2007 at 11:54 PM
The Newsweek article starts out describing a near-miss by US forces around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, as told by Sheik Said to Omar Farooqi to Newsweek, about how Osama almost bit it, by his own orders. The tale ends with:
What official reporting is there on an incident that the US was not aware of? What incident is Newsweek talking about in the parentheses? The near-miss, that the US didn’t know about, obviously. Sheik Said’s words about the incident? (Though Newsweek doesn’t say who the sheik was talking to, other than a Taliban guy who told Newsweek)
Am I missing something? That note about the reporting makes no sense to me, at all.
progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 12:39 AM
At the risk of sounding stupid, the article shows all the signs of being written by committee (which it is: Sami Yousafzai; Zahid Hussain; Rod Nordland; Mark Hosenball, Michael Hirsh, Michael Isikoff, John Barry, Dan Ephron, Eve Conant; Christopher Dickey, Roya Wolverson and Evan Thomas.)
It appears contradictory to me. For example, one minute the intelligence is good enough to launch troops from hang gliders, the next minute it’s non-existence and even intentionally misleading. I’d need to sit down and map out all the things that seemed contradictory to me upon a first reading, but it really isn’t worth it. The main point they seem to want to get across is that Afghanistan is a failure because of Iraq. That point is one of the few they seem to make clearly and consistently.
TheBigOldDog on August 26, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Hey! I resemble that remark!
nukemhill on August 26, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Considering the type of infrastructure in that area, mud huts and tents, what is the point of trying to save it?
Texas Nick 77 on August 26, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Yep, one day we’re indiscriminately bombing innocent villages on a whim and the next we’re letting the AQ leadership escape due to insufferable red tape. The common thread is that the DEMs have to somehow overcome their own reputation as being soft of terrorism and show the war as pointless even as progress is being made. Considering the source I doubt both stories.
Buzzy on August 26, 2007 at 1:23 AM
He was being stupid though. When villages get bombed and civilians killed, it is not because of lax controls. Controls are usually very tight in the US military. In the case of this article, excessive controls were exactly the reason why OBL and Omar had escaped.
The guy implied that having even more bureaucracy would prevent civilian deaths, which is pure B.S.
The one reason why Israeli special ops and military are so successful is because there are less controls in place. The guy in the field has more freedom to act.
Nuance is the keyword.
AlexB on August 26, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Your information is dated. The last one was dismantled in 2003.
“High Airburst” of 20-30 devices will have a disastrous EMP effect on the entire region. No electricity in many countries including China and India. Call it a hunch but they might consider that an act of war.
Oh and it probably will knock out power to the oil wells, causing a global economic crisis.
You may want to rethink your strategy for killing a few hundred thousand Pakistanis in order to kill a couple of thousand AQ personnel.
Bradky on August 26, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Nice story, but moot since Osama is currently enjoying his 72 Virginians. Right now John Quincy Adams and Patrick Henry are busy kicking him in the miniscule family jewels he has.
MadisonConservative on August 26, 2007 at 2:20 AM
The failure to track down and eliminate OBL only emboldens the Jihad.
It shows a failure of will by their infidel enemy.
We hardly need to give these psychopathic theocratic lunatics encouragement.
They cannot plot their terrorism as well when they are scurrying like scorched rats.
And cannot plot it at all if they are worm entrees.
profitsbeard on August 26, 2007 at 3:00 AM
So … exactly what should be the proper response to a successful WMD attack in the US?
We should not nuke them?
Kristopher on August 26, 2007 at 3:25 AM
allahpundit,
Thanks for the synopsis. I went to the link and just couldn’t read all those pages…being on newsweek. newsweek has screwed up a lot of things in the past so I have a hard time reading them. I read Tommy Frank’s book and it was good enough for me in regards to Osama and the near miss.
Highrise on August 26, 2007 at 4:28 AM
No, you’re right. We should probably just nuke them. That’ll be the least risk averse solution of all.
Allahpundit on August 25, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I agree.
leanright on August 26, 2007 at 7:55 AM
you forgot the money part of the quote so let me refresh your memory.
context is everything
Bradky on August 26, 2007 at 8:06 AM
Well I just hope that G.I.Joe doesn’t have to fill out request forms in triplicate before attacking Cobra!
Tony737 on August 26, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Bradky on August 26, 2007 at 8:06 AM
My memory is just fine thank you.
I don’t beleave anyone really thinks nukes would solve anything. This was just my way to caution AP to be more carefull with how he replies to subscribers. He has proven himself capable of better retorts.
As you can see, it is very easy for people to be misqoted or qoted out of context.
By the by, for that reason, context is not always everthing. The perspective behind the context of a statement is often underestimated. We all need to look deeper.
leanright on August 26, 2007 at 9:25 AM
It will be fascinating, when accurate history books are written, to find out exactly when in the previous 6 years W found out bin Laden was dead, and how that influenced subsequent war strategy.
Halley on August 26, 2007 at 10:25 AM
I think BigOldDog’s comments were spot on.
The fact is that Allah did deride our “risk aversion” this week and did defend Obama’s idiotic comments last week - two views which are contradictory on the face of it.
If Allah believes that they are not incompatible then he should present an argument that explains his position, rather than resort to calling BOD “stupid” and implying that BOD just wants to conduct a reckless, nuke happy war.
I do thank Allah for the link to the Newsweek story though, which I will print out and read poolside. I’ll save a chair for Allah, since it’s clear he has been working too hard and needs some well-served leisure time.
Buy Danish on August 26, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Nice observation. You reminded me of how GWB seems to be averse to publicly taking credit for his accomplishments `or` taking advantage of circumstances for the political gain of his party (ie, not leveling with the American public that Secretary Rumsfeld was leaving, just before the 2006 election).
RushBaby on August 26, 2007 at 2:13 PM
From page 10 of the Newsweek story:
Oh, BOO HOO. Is there anything that isn’t offensive to Muslims? Beheading? Good! Stoning? Good! Dogs? Bad!
A Danish hygiene study found:
Most children appeared to be unclean (90%) and also a big part of the adults wore dirty clothes (55%). Interviewers also noted that most areas around the main water sources (80%), most of the yards (81%) and most kitchens (85%) were unclean. Animals, garbage or faeces were spread around those places.
Yeah, it must be the unclean dogs fault.
But hey, if you’re interested in being culturally correct with Afghans, here are the rules.
Buy Danish on August 26, 2007 at 5:24 PM
However that may be, so far, the United States have never relinquished one of their member States. If the U.S. Government were to return to its constitutional role as governing matters of Justice, Treasury, State, and War, leaving other matters to the States, the United States’ federal government could once again become the “umbrella organization,” so to speak, that it was designed to be. At its origin, it was the shape of a federal, worldwide government to come. Now, as its officials have tried to make it omni-provident and omni-competent, it’s become unwilling and unable to extend its peace and good order to new member States. Musharraf’s problem, fundamentally, is that he’s an outsider. His remote successor, in a future century, might have been the Governor of one of the United States. Now, given the corruption of federal order in the United States, perhaps the states outside will always be outsiders.
Kralizec on August 26, 2007 at 7:03 PM
I’ve been working in Baghdad over a year, and in various middle east or muslim countries for the last thirteen years. Believe me, their is nothing less clean than a toilet in one of these places.
Texas Nick 77 on August 27, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Oops… didn’t preview that one. There, not their, is the proper spelling in that case.
Texas Nick 77 on August 27, 2007 at 9:59 AM