Posted on 09/12/2006 7:45:27 PM PDT by gusopol3
Looking for New Partners Although not all CIA officers had lost faith in the tribals' capabilities-many judged them to be good reporters-few believed they would carry out an ambush of Bin Ladin. The chief of the Counterterrorist Center compared relying on the tribals to playing the lottery. He and his associates, supported by Clarke, pressed for developing a partnership with the Northern Alliance, even though doing so might bring the United States squarely behind one side in Afghanistan's long-running civil war.
The Northern Alliance was dominated by Tajiks and drew its strength mainly from the northern and eastern parts of Afghanistan. In contrast, Taliban members came principally from Afghanistan's most numerous ethnic group, the Pashtuns, who are concentrated in the southern part of the country, extending into the North-West Frontier and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan.
Because of the Taliban's behavior and its association with Pakistan, the Northern Alliance had been able at various times to obtain assistance from Russia, Iran, and India. The alliance's leader was Afghanistan's most renowned military commander, Ahmed Shah Massoud. Reflective and charismatic, he had been one of the true heroes of the war against the Soviets. But his bands had been charged with more than one massacre, and the Northern Alliance was widely thought to finance itself in part through trade in heroin. Nor had Massoud shown much aptitude for governing except as a ruthless warlord. Nevertheless, Tenet told us Massoud seemed the most interesting possible new ally against Bin Ladin.
In February 1999, Tenet sought President Clinton's authorization to enlist Massoud and his forces as partners. In response to this request, the President signed the Memorandum of Notification whose language he personally altered. Tenet says he saw no significance in the President's changes. So far as he was concerned, it was the language of August 1998, expressing a preference for capture but accepting the possibility that Bin Ladin could not be brought out alive. "We were plowing the same ground," Tenet said.
CIA officers described Massoud's reaction when he heard that the United States wanted him to capture and not kill Bin Ladin. One characterized Massoud's body language as "a wince." Schroen recalled Massoud's response as "You guys are crazy-you haven't changed a bit." In Schroen's opinion, the capture proviso inhibited Massoud and his forces from going after Bin Ladin but did not completely stop them. The idea, however, was a long shot. Bin Ladin's usual base of activity was near Kandahar, far from the front lines of Taliban operations against the Northern Alliance.
That was one of the most interesting chapters in the whole report.
bump
Bin Laden didn't have any concerns about killing Massoud when he got the chance; it's like the Shah vs. Khomeini under Carter; it's really bad to be a friend to one of these elitist Presidents
Just imagine if it had been John "I was in Vietnam" Kerry instead of Bill "Blow me" Clinton!
This is from Tommy Franks , end of chapter 8 "Historic Victory": "Banners hung on the walls,emblazoned with Persian script and English. "Death to terrorism." "May Allah bestow Peace and Prosperity on the World." Behind the dais hung a huge portrait of Ahmad Shah Massoud, "the Lion of Panjshir," now the nation's martyr.... Everyone stood for the national anthem of the new Afghanistan, a rousing march... After the second speaker concluded his animated remarks, he suddenly raised his right fist. "Massoud!" he called, as if in prayer himself. "Massoud!"... Around us, hundreds of people raised their fists. "Massoud!" they shouted in reply."Massoud!"
I think that indecision and inability to prioritize factors may be one result of relativism. No moral compas.
I don't think Bush wants to leave Karzai, Talibani, Alawi and guys like that high and dry; Kerry you know you couldn't trust.
Can't disagree with that! (Though you'd always have to wonder: who's talking - John or his wife?)
the old saying, "money talks,b.. ... walks"
So Liberals can understand the point of view of Hamas, great - now why can't they also hold, simultaneously, the point of view of Israel and of America, their own country?
I think that it is said that the mind can only hold seven ideas at once, and that any additional idea will take the place of one of those seven: I'm beginning to suspect that Liberalism, as a mental disorder, includes being capable of only holding one idea in the mind at a time.
I'll digress from my digression before I really digress!
So when I was in sales we taught an empathetic rebuttal called FFF. I know how you feel. I have felt that way, too. but, I have found... That's empathy. But when you say a lib is talking about Hamas, he isn't really. He has some hypothetical construct in mind that he projects on Hamas. He doesn't know how they feel at all. He has just jammed them into some category by race, creed or ethnicity and can't decide which is more important. Humanity is not good enough basis on which to proceed.
True, as the saying goes: "if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing", which should be rejoined with "nature abhors a vacuum" - which may explain why Liberals tend to be so quick to absorb the convictions of religious fanatics bent on the destruction of freedom and intent on imposing Sharia - ignoring the fact that under Sharia Law they would be the first to go.
Your point about empathy allowed me to coin a new (but not all that novel, I admit) term: fauxempathy.
The fact that everything is hypothetical for them (possibly a result of university campus insulation from the real world) would explain why they can love the idea of communism and socialism while disregarding the historical reality of their implementation - including the fact that liberty, the very basis of the term 'Liberal' by which they refer to themselves, is usually the very first thing to go. How ironic is that?
Well, for the last ten years I lived among hundreds of cradle democrats. They talked like democrats, but they absolutely refused to vote. Turns out, if the walk doesn't match the talk people get mad about it, eventually. That's their problem at the polls.
If they absolutely refuse to vote, and if they're genuinely "liberal" Democrats (even if only in name), I wouldn't disabuse them of that trait, personally. ;^)
Not just hyperbole. There is cognitive dissonance between the rhetoric and patronage politics of corrupt democratic machines. They have never lived in a democracy, don't know how it should work, and believe all pols are liars whose promises are worthless. They do believe in the Mafia, though. I am talking NYC, NJ, Boston. When the bullets are flying and the pimps and drug dealers run the streets and kids graduate unable to read, the esoteric concerns of the ACLU don't compute.
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.