Posted on 09/10/2008 8:49:16 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter
Frustrated by repeated dead ends in the search for Osama bin Laden, U.S. and Pakistani officials said they are questioning long-held assumptions about their strategy and are shifting tactics to intensify the use of the unmanned but lethal Predator drone spy plane in the mountains of western Pakistan.
The number of Hellfire missile attacks by Predators in Pakistan has more than tripled, with 11 strikes reported by Pakistani officials this year, compared with three in 2007. The attacks are part of a renewed effort to cripple al-Qaeda's central command that began early last year and has picked up speed as President Bush's term in office winds down, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials involved in the operations.
There has been no confirmed trace of bin Laden since ... December 2001, according to U.S., Pakistani and European officials. They said they are now concentrating on a short list of other al-Qaeda leaders who have been sighted more recently, in hopes that their footprints could lead to bin Laden.
In interviews, the officials attributed their failure to find bin Laden to an overreliance on military force, disruptions posed by the war in Iraq and a pattern of underestimating the enemy. Above all, they said, the search has been handicapped by an inability to develop informants in Pakistan's isolated tribal regions, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
With CIA officers and U.S. Special Forces prevented from operating freely in Pakistan, the search for bin Laden and his lieutenants is taking place mostly from the air. The Predators, equipped with multiple cameras that transmit live video via satellite, have launched their Hellfire missiles against four targets in the past month alone. Since January, the reconnaissance drones have killed two senior al-Qaeda leaders with $5 million bounties on their heads.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ping
“There has been no confirmed trace of bin Laden since ... December 2001...”
And unless he is dead,likely killed by the US military, how does that absolutely hidden profile, possibly benefit the Islamic Jihadist movement?
The obvious tactic for Obama is to go to a Muslim third country where there is no al-Qaeda activity and a small population. He is not the strategic or tactician leader for al-Qaeda, just its “spiritual leader”, who only needs to put out a video every six months or so.
When he does, he has a agent take it to a second country, where he gives it to another agent who takes it to a third country, and there, several copies are made, that are sent to yet other countries for distribution.
It is ponderous and time consuming, but it only happens intermittently, so is very hard to track back.
This dates back to November/December 2001:
NOOOO!!! We do NOT want to capture Osama bin Laden:
Worst case: We capture Osama - Terrorist acts to get him released. No guarantee of conviction.
2nd Worst case: We kill Osama. - Makes him a martyr.
3rd worst case: The Taliban kills Osama - Still a martyr, but anger is not as directly focused on the US.
Best case (IMHO) We flatten The Taliban, and Osama “escapes”...
We hear that he is in Iraq. Flatten Iraq, Osama “escapes”...
We hear he is in Lybia*. Flatten Lybia, Osama “escapes”...
Repeat as needed until all terror exporting countries stop...
Rather than becoming a martyr, he becomes the “Flying Dutchman” of the Muslim world.
Everywhere he shows up, disaster follows.
I think it’s the only way to kill a martyr (not the body, the idea). People want to see Elvis. Soon no-one will want to see Osama.
*In 2001 Lybia was clearly in the terrorist supporting nations camp. They smartened up, without a single life lost...
Pres. Bush needs to put teeth in to his words, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. If you are with the terrorists, you will share their fate.”
Those Pakastanis should be given a choice. Give up Bin Laden, or give up your lives.
At this point, my only strategic preference is to listen to what Petraeus recommends.
Iraq is the front line (was) of the WOT. It did not hurt our efforts to go after UBL/Zawahiri. Two separate missions that we are more than capable of accomplishing simultaneously. Without question.
Being in Iraq is not responsible for some of our difficulties in this hunt.....It is more lack of willingness to take more risks (by HQs). Along with the bigger reality of that where UBL/Zawahiri sought their refugee put time on their side in the short run.....(and the short run in this regions is measured in years)
As this area of the world is one of the must rugged, dangerous and difficult areas to run any sustained Ops in.....Let alone the facts regarding the Pastuns, Uzbeks, Pak-Taliban and long held customs of the region...
Being more aggressive has always been key - Taking more risks - While at the same time offering the butter (and gold) to those who can / will be helpful. Gold and butter to those that help and bombs and guns on those who won't. Simple as that.
Don't look to change this region in the since we needed to in Iraq. They are not the same place. They do not call for the same solution. However, provide the guns and butter options so long as until we put AQ #1 & #2 in the ground. Then leave them be.....
I would not be surprised to find that OBL was in Yemen. His family is originally from there. He would be close to the money men in Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. He would be close to the Arab media he seeks to influence. In addition he would have access to better medical care than he could get along the Durand line.
“...the reconnaissance drones have killed two senior al-Qaeda leaders with $5 million bounties on their heads.”
___________________________
Pretty good ROI (return on investment) Begs the question why in the heck these drones haven’t been used sooner.
I get this feeling that Obama’s death (or confirmation of it) is coming very soon.
People frequently equate winning a war with capturing their “king”. The truth in fact is that, in modern times, this is never the case.
The US has never in its history been in a war that had the goal of capturing or killing a leader. Even in Iraq, while we targeted Saddam, that was a means to an end not the end itself.
History has shown us that civilian and military leaders frequently do not engage the enemy aggressively enough at the outset out of fear of political blow back or other concerns. Consider the "Phony War" at the outset of WWII or consider the lawyers saying we could not kill Mullah Omar in the opening days of the war in Afghanistan. War is often an incremental process.
Corrected - Don’t look to change this region in the same sense we needed to in Iraq.
Anyone who wants to understand the mindset in this Pashtun tribal area should read the “Lone Survivor” about the seal team member that survived because an Afgan village protected him from the Taliban.
It gives great insite as to how these remote villagers will die to protect someone they have taken under their roof. They have a term for it but I do not recall it at this point.
Eyes in the sky are great - A tremendous asset - But more often than not (especially in much of this region) they are for sh*t without boots on the ground (prior).
It is called Panah, meaning protection or asylum.
He is too much of an egotist and narcissist to stay away from the camera for 7 years (the video that came out earlier this year is old stuff, look how young he looks).
Either that or he moved to America, shaved, became a community organizer by killing and stealing the identity of another and is running for President.
My point: there's as much chance of him being alive as there is of Obama being Osama.
Hey I can remember when we always tried to shoot the Indian Chief, at least on Saturday afternoon. Then along would come Flash Gordon, and he was always trying to get the Evil leader.
First off this isn't really the case - When one truly understands the man and his background - Secondly, UBL is much more concerned with staying alive (and has been, well above PR) ever since he realized we had boots on the ground in Stan in mid-Sept of 01 - This man is of the ilk that him staying alive is above and beyond all else......Others should and can die "for the cause"....but not him.
Reality is we have had a number of HVTs that managed to eek out their survivals for years until we put a JDAM or guns on them........He will be no different...
A wise man knows when to listen to a wise man.
“At this point, my only strategic preference is to listen to what Petraeus recommends.”
Is Pertaeus in command in Afghanistan?
“The collective effort in the government required to go after an individual like bin Laden — the Iraq campaign consumed that.”
This assumes that Bin Laden was and should be our main target. While it would be great to kill him, it would not do a lot to end terrorist attacks against us. Killing thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq probably had a greater impact in the war on terror than killing UBL. They have been defeated in their efforts to take over Iraq and they have discovered that they can’t operate openly in muslim countries.
“Pretty good ROI (return on investment) Begs the question why in the heck these drones haven’t been used sooner.”
Mainly because the build time is lengthy, the infrastructure to fly them is huge, and they were in great demand in Iraq. The limited number of UAVs meant they had to be put where they could be most effective, which was in Iraq where they could be used to find and destroy bad guys on a daily basis. Flying them in Afghanistan, unless you had known target locations, was a poor use of the resource. Now that Iraq has calmed down considerably they are being transfered to the Afghan theater, which may explain the increase in activity.
RE: Best case (IMHO) We flatten The Taliban, and Osama “escapes”...
We hear that he is in Iraq. Flatten Iraq, Osama “escapes”...
We hear he is in Lybia*. Flatten Lybia, Osama “escapes”...
Repeat as needed until all terror exporting countries stop...
Oh my gosh! That is one of the funniest postings I have read in a long time. :)
No, the reason they were not more in use in the Afghan-Pak theater is because the USAF hates UAVs. The thinking in the USAF was that there is no career to be made commanding a squadron of UAVs, so why do it? SECDEF Gates fired USAF Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley – the top two leaders of the US Air Force – in June 2008 in part because they would not support UAV ops.
More on that here.
The assumption in the article is that it was because the USAF hated UAVS, but the author didn’t state it, just posed it as a question. In 2005 many of the UAVs in Iraq were under the command of special ops units, and trying to get more was not about an unwillingness to provide them, but a difficulty in acquiring them. UAVs do not pose a threat to traditional aircraft since they can stay airborne for almost 24 hours and are far more often used as eyes than as weapons.
The USAF is just screwing the other services.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164181,00.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.