| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
True, that fact alone isn't shocking. But the details are newsworthy. "Amid U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan," by Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde for the New York Times, June 30:
WASHINGTON — Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.
Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terrorism network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.
The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was intended to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave a smoother path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Mr. bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.
Of course, catching "Mr." bin Laden will not destroy the jihadist ideology or even stop al-Qaeda; he's a trophy. But the larger issue is that jihadists have a base of operations in a country that is supposed to be our "friend and ally," and they continue to plan attacks around the world while our officials bicker in conference rooms.
But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay....
Posted by Marisol at July 1, 2008 12:37 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
When in trouble,
when in doubt,
Run in circles,
scream and shout.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 1, 2008 1:06 AM
The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was intended to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave a smoother path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Mr. bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.
This whole statement tells me, simply, that there are no adults in charge of US foreign and defense policy.
To me, and all of you will agree,, that is it well nigh that we literally need to read the 'Riot Act' to the Pakistani government.
"Mr." Bin Laden is not the problem: The problem is Islam.
at July 1, 2008 1:26 AM
In my travels I ask a question to broach the Islamic issue. Actually I ask two questions.
ONE,
Name the enemy we fought in WWII in Europe?
After they answer with Nazi, Hitler or Germany, I Ask.
TWO,
Name the enemy we are fighting today?
After several seconds of silence or if they say "terrorist". I point out the insane fact that most people do not know who we are fighting. Because terrorism is a tactic not the enemy.
I would love to ask this question in the government offices were these antics are happening. I would point out that lack of understanding who the enemy is and that he is an enemy just like Germany, is at the bottom of this problem.
I am so disheartened and I know the vast majority of the country is as well. Our national leaders exhibit a complete inability to make a decision or take the lead. And the blame goes all the way to the top IMO.
To make it worst the two lairs running for the highest office in the land are no better. Excuse me I should have said politicians.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at July 1, 2008 1:28 AM
Which government's politicians are the most incompetent? American's or Israel's? We are running neck and neck! See http://www.carolineglick.com/e/
I suppose there are some Euro governments that are also in the race...
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at July 1, 2008 1:48 AM
In fairness to the gov't, it IS the NYT's reporting this...
Posted by: Goob at July 1, 2008 2:18 AM
I would love to see Bin boy in an orange jumpsuit, but rather a bomb be placed over his head,until the gov't gets rid of their PC attitude, OBL will be holed in his luxerious cave.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 1, 2008 7:17 AM
We could use a few Special Ops at home. I love how the Press can always let the bad Guys know were coming.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at July 1, 2008 7:45 AM
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that "Mr. bin Laden" (gag) is an honoured guest of the Pakistani government.
Or perhaps, of the Carlyle Group.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 1, 2008 8:29 AM
"Of course, catching "Mr." bin Laden will not destroy the jihadist ideology or even stop al-Qaeda; he's a trophy."
As much satisfaction as we might get by killing or capturing bin Laden, it would be the height of short-sightedness to make a military incursion into Pakistan.
I can't think of a better recruiting tool for Al Qaeda than for us to inflame Pakistani nationalism, and reinforce Al Qaeda's charge that we are making war on Islam, than than to invade another Muslim country. If anything, thousands, if not millions, of Pakistanis will be lining at Al Qaeda recruiting stations to join the holy war against the American infidels.
We shouldn't forget also that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Again, what would we gain, except maybe a wider, and more deadly war, than the one we have now?
Posted by: rational
at July 1, 2008 8:44 AM
I'm so glad the MSM is in top of these issues, sarc off.
They seem to be missing all other points though.
Before John Bolton, I never knew or cared who our ambassador to the UN was. Then I saw him on TV and said way to go. Well, he went. Too bad.
Posted by: helenmiami at July 1, 2008 9:55 AM
Posted by: rational: As much satisfaction as we might get by killing or capturing bin Laden, it would be the height of short-sightedness to make a military incursion into Pakistan.
Unless we go into Pakistan the way we went into Germany in 1945, massive overwhelming force and not stopping until we meet up with the Indian army somewhere in the middle.
Any half assed efforts the way we've done since WWII is a waste of lives and resources.
Either fight to win or don't fight at all.
And can someone explain to me why the Administration isn't tracking down these leaks and charging them with treason? There are obviously people working in our government doing everything they can to undermine the President. This is the kind of thing that would need a high security clearance to gain access to, why are they being allowed to disclose classified information with impunity?
Why bother with the expense of vetting people for security clearances if they can just blab to the press everything they see and hear on the job? With the small difference of giving classified information directly to the enemy rather than going through the front page of the NYSLIMES, isn't this the kind of thing the Rosenbergs were executed for? Either way, it is an inside employee of the federal government disclosing classified information to the enemy, and it's treason during war time and subject to the death penalty.
Posted by: walterc at July 1, 2008 9:56 AM
I'm sure we all notice the one key element that is always missing when we hear about the re-surgence of the Taliban,Al Qaeda,or a variety of different Islamic Insurgents on a daily basis and whatever actions they are involved in.
That element is always missing in every news article,TV story,Etc.
A few months ago there was a guest host on the Sean Hannity show who stated that element and suddenly caught herself by saying; oops I wasn't suppose to say that on the air--I have not seen her since.
What element is that and why is it almost completely off limits to the MSM & TV news?.
Posted by: Mackie at July 1, 2008 9:58 AM
I hate using special forces for this kind of operation. They always end up getting captured or killed. Just invaded western Pakistan in force, kill as many jihadis (and any Pak forces that get in the way) as we can and get the hell out. Think Sherman in Georgia, and for the sake of humanity don't try to rebuild the place.
I must be asking for too much!
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at July 1, 2008 10:02 AM
The NYT's premise, in fact the premise of many in the West is that it's always our fault when our enemies attack us, or fail to be eliminated by us. These are variants of the poisonous "what did we do to make them hate us?" question. This is all part of the poisonous premise that our enemies hate us or act because we have either done too much or too little. While we are caught in this quagmire of faulty thinking we are paralyzed in the war.
Are we blundering in myriad ways in Islam's war with us? Of course. Should those blundering be held accoutable? Of course. But as long as leftist choose to blame America for the rape of our civilization by the Muslims, they are abetting the demoralization of our civilization which the Muslims crave and require.
Posted by: jsla at July 1, 2008 10:27 AM
We could use a few Special Ops at home. I love how the Press can always let the bad Guys know were coming.
Posted by: flowerknife_us
Amen. "Highly classified" information doesn't come from nowhere. Someone leaked it. It's not just the press telling the bad guys. It's our own military or their civilian counterparts who are getting the word out.
Either fight to win or don't fight at all.
walterc,
Since we will never enter Pakistan the way we did Germany in 1945 we shouldn't go in at all.
We didn't go into Germany to liberate the German people from their rulers. We went in to liberate the rest of Europe from Germany. We partitioned Germany for more than forty years. Pakistan would never be partitioned. It would not accept becoming part of India again. We would gain nothing. We didn't worry about bombing German cities that were the Nazis' industrial base. The capital, Berlin, was left in ruins. That will never happen to Islamabad unless the Pakistanis are foolish enough to attack anyone anywhere with a nuclear weapon.
As for why the Bush administration isn't making any effort to track down leakers: Valerie Plame.
Posted by: PMK at July 1, 2008 10:52 AM
pak would not be too hard to take down.
It is held up by the largess of the USA and the west.
All that would need to be done is:
1/ complete embargo economic/military.
2/freeze all funds.
3/expell all muslims of pak decent.
4/seize all pak air/seacraft.
5/military alliance with India.
6/large US naval fleet off shore.
7/destruction of all sea/air ports.
8/destruction of its military
9/independence for Sindh & Baluchistan
10/ Last but not least the real threat of nuclear attack against pak and saudi cities.
JOB DONE.
But we don't have a mean ass SOB for a Prime Minister do we ??
at July 1, 2008 2:34 PM
I can't think of a better recruiting tool for Al Qaeda than for us to inflame Pakistani nationalism, and reinforce Al Qaeda's charge that we are making war on Islam, than than to invade another Muslim country. If anything, thousands, if not millions, of Pakistanis will be lining at Al Qaeda recruiting stations to join the holy war against the American infidels.rational
You could not be more wrong! Like others who have posted regarding this line of thinking we did not start or cause anything. It's Islam, nothing else! It is obvieous you don't believe anything that Mr. Spencer as say or published about this religion of peace. In fact they would get more recruitments if we cave in and give them everything they want. So, you see we're damned if we do or don't.
I do agree with walterc that anything half assed is not worth the suffering and trouble. I liked the Sherman comment and suggested that for Iraq a couple of months ago.
We know Islam and democracy don't mix. So why would we think it would work in any Islamic country? The problem is Islam.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at July 1, 2008 6:15 PM
If they do drop special forces into the area I hope the rules of engagement will have been made clear enough to preclude the irresponsible idiocy of Marcus Latrell-like decisions to release caught shepherds to give away their positions.
Posted by: FM at July 1, 2008 8:23 PM
Who cares what the NYT thinks we should or should not do. I don’t care if it was leaked or not. What bothers me is after 7 years is we have done squat about the two greatest supporters of Islamic jihad in the world: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Instead of crushing them for 9-11 we instead hail them as close allies. We grovel, beg, kiss, and crawl for the slightest hope that they might do something that resembles what an ally might do.
7 YEARS!
Is this is best “Walker Texas Ranger” can do? Is this simple screen plot still to hard for him to figure out? A few special ops incursions and even that they have to argue over! While we debate the wonders of staying in Babylon and “Alexandering” Persia, the chief reasons we had a 9/11 go on their merry way, building mosques all over the place, funding the fifth column in the west, pushing for more Muslim immigration to the west, and yet funding every Islamic jihadist group from Kosovo to the Philippines with our weapons and our protection!
at July 1, 2008 8:27 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)