Posted on 01/28/2006 5:00:16 PM PST by Dog
Prevarication by the Pakistani government cost America the chance to kill Osama bin Laden in an airstrike near the Afghan border two years ago, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
A CIA lead that the al-Qaeda leader was hiding in a remote province was squandered because the Pakistani government delayed giving permission for the attack on its soil, according to a senior Western diplomat.
By the time US officials got the go-ahead, bin Laden had left the suspected hideout in Zhob, in the Baluchistan province of south-west Pakistan.
The near-miss was cited by the diplomat as the reason why America chose not to consult Islamabad before the US missile strike in Pakistan's Bajaur region two weeks ago. The January 13 attack, prompted by a tip that bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was hiding in a local village, killed 13 civilians.
Speaking of the Zhob attack, the diplomat, who asked not to be named, said: "For unknown reasons, Pakistani officials delayed in giving permission...which ultimately gave these militants time to move to an unknown location."
According to his account, which was backed by sources within Pakistani intelligence, the CIA picked up electronic traffic suggesting that bin Laden and his bodyguards had sought temporary shelter in Zhob, which is dominated by Pathan and Baloch tribesmen sympathetic to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Fearing that a commando raid would cause massive casualties to both sides, with no guarantee of success, the US decided to launch a strike by laser-guided missiles, fired from Predator drones.
The reason for the delay is not clear. While Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf, has vowed to eliminate terrorists operating within his country, elements within Pakistan's ISI intelligence service may have sought to protect bin Laden.
If he was in Zhob at the time it would have been the first known occasion that he had been firmly in America's sights since his escape from Tora Bora in Afghanistan, where he slipped through a cordon of US troops in 2001.
Gen Musharraf last week described the strike against al-Zawahiri as a "violation of sovereignty", although he said other al-Qaeda figures had died in the raid.
Al-Zawahiri is thought to have cancelled his visit, possibly after spotting CIA drones in the area.
"I doubt all Indians are "gloating" over this news. It's old, for one thing and It isn't in any Indian's best interest to "gloat" about success of Pakistan's terrorists. You might be next, after all. (And I say all this as a friend.) "
Indians might feel good that the US will begin to finally see the truth about pakistan. And when were we next?
We were always first. YOU were next. Remember that after 9/11 Mush gave a public speech in Pak saying he was siding with the lesser evil meaning.. that the greater evil was India. We have ALWAYS been the Enemy number 1 and they are killing us in Kashmir still and you guys just dont get it!
"If the U.S. cuts off Pakistan, Musharaff goes and Pakistan becomes fundamentalist and belligerent, don't you think?
Do you think this will be good for the U.S. and India?"
Mush wont go if US cuts off pakistan. Mush wasnt installed by the US. He installed himself through a coup which incidently the US deplored at the time before 9/11 happened. After 9/11 the US made the folly of feeding the snake hoping to fix the problem against Indias better counsel and now the snake that Mush is.. knows that he needs to keep terrorism alive if he wants american money.
Right now the US policy is too carrot heavy. There is no stick. Show him the stick and once he realizes that International isolation aka saddam will follow unless the genuinely cleans up the country , you will see better results.
We know this very well in India. Also remember it was India that had warned the US about Pak's hand in terror all over this part of the world including afghanistan and the US ignored it to its peril before 9/11. US needs to open its eyes and see who its really allies (shared values) are.
And when were we next?
My reply to gengis "you might be next" doesn't mean you were NOT first. (It means we have an common enemy.)
I've followed Pakistan's jihadi proxy war in the Kashmir for quite some time. I understand. I *do* "get" it.
But what I don't get? I don't get that India doesn't believe in Arjuna. Chew on that awhile, and then get back to me.
me too- but I bet his ears are STILL ringing from Tora Bora
"I don't get that India doesn't believe in Arjuna. Chew on that awhile, and then get back to me."
Whats that supposed to mean? US=Arjuna in WOT? I dont think so.
I don't think so either. The statement means that India doesn't equal Arjuna in the WOT. (In my own opinion, of course.)
You carry the name, what does it mean.?
I think I understand.
Just read #117. Excellent...
Pakistan cannot afford to be more belligerent. The Mafia that controls pak knows that very well. Mush is but a stooge of that Mafia. They are not stupid. If one general goes another will take over. The military / ISI combine controls every single nook and cranny of that place. Thats why Mush could take over the country with such ease when he threw out sharif. Learn your history.
Clarification: #122, excellent.
"So U.S. should just cut off arms to Pakistan, as a lawless nation?"
Thats the first requirement.
"And U.S. and India confront China to do same, or risk jeopardizing their U.S. trade?"
The confront China will have to be a joint Indo-American-Japanese long term strategy. We would have to confront them economically , strategically and perhaps even militarily. I think these three countries will have to start working in that direction.
"Would Indian gov't really work so closely with U.S., you didn't answer my question about if that is so, has it been reflected in Indian support for U.S. in Iraq? Or do Indians care about aggressor nations only next door to themselves?"
You would remember that India was the first country to pledge complete and unconditional support for the US post 9/11. It was as some had called "giving US a blank check". Just that US refused to encash it thinking Pakistans alliance would be more valuable and so the US government decided to by-pass India.
India was all ready to send army to Afghanistan but the US refused Indian help at Pakistan's behest. Even then it was Indian intelligence that US had to rely on, in Afghanistan it was India backed NA that did the fighting against Taliban.
As for Iraq, asking for Indian help could never have been an option after the US refused Indian help. After all you cannot expect Indian help in Iraq while we fight it out alone in Kashmir. No political party in India would agree to that. America's best chances of getting Indian help in Iraq was when the BJP was in power, now with the present Congress government its next to impossible unless the US makes a paradigm shift in its foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan.
"It isn't in any Indian's best interest to "gloat" about success of Pakistan's terrorists. "
Pakistan is lauded as the foremost country on GWOT by the Western media and governments. In many circles comparison is made with India and its said that Pakistan is a bigger ally....."afterall what has India ever done for us".
Well we are gloating now because the West will very soon realise what we have done and what Pakistan has been doing.
The reason why most Americans piss harder on Indians is because deep inside they realise their own folly (of having chosen Pakistan over India) but wont admit. Its a pride thing.
"Btw, Are you personally responsible for your government's foolish mistakes?"
I am not holding you or anyone here personally responsible for anything. I am only expressing my political viewpoints.
I dont think so. This writer has only written stuff that many Indian newspapers have been writing for over a period of time now. In fact many of these behind the enemy lines intelligence stuff first appear in Indian newspapers from where they are picked up by the media from other countries. In fact US relies heavily on indian intelligence as far as jihadi activity in Pakistan is concerned.
"If the U.S. withdraws its support, Pakistan will likely become more belligerent and openly terrorist, with Mush or without"
Mistaken you are. At a time when Mush is going around the world trying to get foreign investment to come into Pak they will get more belligerent? I dont think so. You simply dont understand Pak.
Besides they dont have the balls to take on India without American support. They have simply nothing to Gain. The chinese wont overtly support Pak against India. Their interest is in only creating a lackey state in pak which becomes a customer as well as a conduit for energy and making sure the terrorism out of Pak doesnt hurt them.
The question: How many countries will Pakistan will take down with it?
Btw, I do note the India/Pakistan "peace" process going forward. Hindus beware of the train.
"Pakistan, on the other hand, played an irreplaceable role in the U.S.'s rapprochement with Red China, on the verge of momentous change under Chou En-lai."
Do you know why India was non-aligned and had to move closer to the soviets at the time of the cold war? Guess who pushed them closer to the soviets.. it was good old uncle sam.
Find out about how good the relations between US-India were during the kennedy administration. Then when Nixon took over he conspired against India by trying to get closer to the Chinese. Learn about the 1971 India-Pak war over bangladesh genocide and the role played by Nixon in supporting Pak. It has parallels to the Iraq conflict. It was the US reluctance to save lives in Bangladesh siding with its "ally" Pak that eventually forced the Indian hand to move to the soviet camp.
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.