U.S. plans Al Qaeda offensive (in Pakistan). (Capture Bin Laden?)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 1/28/04

[areafiftyone]

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, deeply concerned about recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and a resurgence of Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan, is preparing a U.S. military offensive that would reach inside Pakistan with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, military sources said.

U.S. Central Command is assembling a team of military intelligence officers that would be posted in Pakistan ahead of the operation, according to sources familiar with details of the plan and internal military communications. The sources spoke on the condition they not be identified.

As now envisioned, the offensive would involve Special Operations forces, Army Rangers and Army ground troops, sources said. A Navy aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Arabian Sea.

[mikegi]

The next time you hear W proclaim islam is the religion of peace, you will understand why.

Yeah, I think many here on FR get upset with W's use of that term. It's not aimed at us, its aimed at them. He's trying to separate the rationale Muslims from the psychopaths and Mullahs.

[eastforker]

The governments around the world have always used the media to get out certain info, true or not. Ijaz is also used that way, to leak certain info for reasons we sometimes do not understand.

[green iguana]

"I want all of you to visit this link, then you might understand this article. http://www.stentorian.com/propagan.html"

Well, I went to the link and I read it, but I'm sorry it doesn't help me understand the article. Since the article is attributed to military sources, if it is propaganda, then it's either white or black. If it's white, then the link is of no use, since it only goes into detail about black.

If it's black, then I can only surmise that it's propaganda being released by bin Laden (or his non-dead leadership) to try to drive a wedge between the tribal membership of Western Pakistan and Musharraf in combo w/ the US. That wedge already exists, and an article in the Chicago Tribune isn't going to help drive it in.

I tend to go with the theory that (if it is propaganda) it's to try to get bin Laden moving. The link you provided is of no use in determining that. Maybe you can enlighten me?

[Prodigal Son]

if Osama thinks an attack is imminent, he may move out of is hole in search of a safer one.

Sound reasonable to me.

[Prodigal Son]

bin-Laden is dead

What do you base this on? (If you don't mind me asking)

I hear a lot of people here say this and I don't have a clue how they know this.

[finnman69]

Stratfor wrote about this in a Jan 21st piece. They peg the date as Spring 2005 for a final assault in Afghanistan and Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda rat holes.

[Prodigal Son]

Good link.

[finnman69]

Al Qaeda has until the November electios to try something to ensure Bush is not re-elected. They are on the ropes and must reagin their footing before the election. A new offensive is coming in Spring 2005. Stratfot.com thinks Al Qaeda has 3 choices.

1. Destabilize Saudi Arabia
2. Destabilize Pakistan
3. Major "extreme" attacks in the US to attempt to change public opinion and policy.

[section9]

I have always believed that the final decisive battle to kill Al Qaeda will be fought in the Northwestern Frontier states. This is forbidding territory, and its valleys and backwarrens favor the defender. Intelligence will be everything to a quick resolution to the conflict. Spring 2005 sounds about right, assuming, as I do, that Bush will be reelected.

If he is not, don't bet that this will happen. No one ever lost any money betting on the strategic acumen of a liberal Democrat.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[quesera]

And why are we advertizing this to the enemy. Oh! Ok I know, but I will not tell a soul. Hope the scums take the bait.

[eastforker]

That was a very brief synopsis of propaganda, you can google search it and you will have an all day read of how it is used.When we here the word media bias, what it should say is media propaganda, either by the government or by the authors political leanings. You never know for sure, thats what makes the media so powerful in swaying public opinion.

[Prodigal Son]

Yeah, I think many here on FR get upset with W's use of that term. It's not aimed at us, its aimed at them.

That's one of the problems with this type of propaganda in this day and age. It works on both sides. A long time ago, you drop some leaflets. What are the chances of the battlefield leaftlets making it back to your own public when the main form of news media is newspaper and radio?

Now, it comes out of the president's mouth and has an instant effect on both sides. It introduces different dynamics (like the Butterfly Effect) on your own side. Like conservatives getting angry about hearing the President say something they feel to be patently untrue. If something like that gets away from you, your own propaganda could change the nature of the campaign to the point where the end goal you wind up needing to achieve is only remotely similar to the goal you started out wanting to achieve.

[Tricorn]

"Apparently you're not aware that we have assembled here at FR the finest collection of military and intelligence minds ever seen! ;-)"

LOL!!!

[Tricorn]

"What does Mansoor Ijaz have to say on this subject?..."

I'm still waiting for Mansoor's last blockbuster scoop to be borne out by facts.

[ASA Vet]

[hedgie]

I think this is operation is already underway and has been for some time. This leak is to get everybody ready for an aboveboard commitment. Welcome to act three of the war on terror.

[steve8714]

Easy...someone at State found out about it.

[Prodigal Son]

Since the article is attributed to military sources, if it is propaganda, then it's either white or black.

Hmmm. I'm not so sure. No source is given.

Let me list the sources as they appear in the article:

military sources said.

according to sources familiar with details of the plan and internal military communications. The sources spoke on the condition they not be identified.

sources said.

sources said. A source familiar with details of the plan said

The Defense Department declined to comment on the planned offensive or its details. (the only actual source named- yet this is not a source because the DoD refused to comment)

A military source in Washington said last week

is characterized within the Pentagon

Sources said

But military sources said

said sources familiar with the planning.

a well-placed military source said

Internal Pentagon communications indicate

Military planners said

"We don't have enough forces but we can rely on proxy forces in that area," said a military source, referring to Pakistani troops. "This is designed to go after the Taliban and everybody connected with it."

Although clever wording makes it sound like this guy has half the Pentagon staff on his Rolodex for this article, my own suspicion is it is one single source. I've written articles myself where I had only one source that I trusted but by referring to the source in a different manner here and there I was able to make it "feel" as if I had talked to a lot of different people for the story.

The thing we don't know is who the propaganda is directed towards. It could be towards Musharraf, his military top guys or Al Qaeda biggies. We just don't know. It will be reacted to by all three this is for sure.

[roses of sharon]

Interesting, can you elaborate?

[LS]

I would be surprised if he did. I think he feels invincible in that spot (see: Monte Python, "I'm INVINCIBLE,"---"You're a looney!")