Replies

Reuters just came out with a similar article. Interesting excerpt here:

But a military source described as "well-placed" told the newspaper: "Before we were constrained by the border. Musharraf did not want that. Now we are told we're going into Pakistan with Musharraf's help."

Let's hope it's true.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=447920&section=news

What I find so fascinating about this type of thing is: A Chicago Tribune reporter writes an article using spurious un-named source(s). Then Reuters writes an article based on the ChiTrib article. Then it's on the news wires and other papers pick it up. It travels around the world. Pretty soon, you've seen it in so many different places, you just assume it's honest to God fact.

This is what happened with Jessica Lynch. The Wash Post did an article claiming to have sources saying she had been shot. Everyone else- assuming, I guess that the WP is a good source- wrote articles based on that account. Pretty soon it looks like the official truth.

The Pentagon never said any of that. CENTCOM never said that. In fact, the NYTs didn't even say it. In every report I read back then, the NYTs was the only paper of note who stuck to what it knew and listed sources. I found that interesting.

What happens afterwards? Public assumes a military conspiracy.

This ChiTrib article- hmmm. It could be true. Seems like an intentional leak (ie propaganda) to me. But given two days, it will be repeated by so many news 'sources' that it will carry the force of truth. Therefore, I suppose, it will produce the desired effect in other parts of the world.

It's just fascinating to watch.

"No foreign forces will operate from Pakistan's territory." Major General Shaukat Sultan told Reuters when asked about the Tribune's report.

BTW, I found the sentence just before the one you cite (in the Reuter's report) to be just as interesting:

"No foreign forces will operate from Pakistan's territory." Major General Shaukat Sultan told Reuters when asked about the Tribune's report.

I speculated in an earlier post that this report could actually be aimed at Mushy's top military guys. I found that quote intriguing.

The reports over the last week or so suggest to me that our guys have a pretty good idea where OBL, but it may take a while to flush him out of his "hidey hole" so to speak.

Musharraf was also clear enough about al-Zawahiri's involvement in the assassination attempts. I still wonder whether Z is in Iran as has been reported (speculated?) or whether he too is in the Paki tribal area. We all want OBL and Zawahiri nabbed, but Zawahiri is probably a more important target than OBL in terms of real operational considerations.