Posted on 07/12/2007 7:30:00 AM PDT by TBP
A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.
The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.
But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.
Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It is also true that if Musharraf fell, the goverment that replaced him would most likely be much worse, as was the case in China, Cuba, Iran, and Nicaragua.
However, it is time to say to Musharraf, either you clear AQ out of there or we will. Either you get a handle on these provinces or we will go in there ourselves.
But this Administration won't do that. That would entail standing up to the Dimmycraps, which they don't have the guts to do, and it would undermine the White House's no-win strategy.
Both of those statements are what Musharraf wants you to believe, and both are partly-to-wholly false. It's very much in Musharraf's interest to make it seem to the US that Pakistan is just one assassin's bullet away from Taliban rule. It isn't.
I LOVE that the leftists are soooooo eager to “invade” a nuclear powered country. And we all know that if you give the pakistanies’ HQ some heads up on the operation, that Al-Queda would be the 1st one called, not Mushi.
When Musharraf goes, their will be Marines in Karachi & the Airborne in Islamabad. The only thing that would prevent this from happening is if Musharraf could secure his nukes to our satisfaction — but that would mean that WE or the UN would have to physically control them. The whole point of the WOT is to keep the terrorists & WMD’s separated. I don’t think it really matters who occupies the White House, our hand will be forced. Pakistan’s fall would, in one fell-swoop, do exactly what we feared happining in Iraq.
That would be a really stupid mistake. When Musharraf goes he'll be replaced by someone from one of the two leading opposition parties, possibly a redux of Benaziir Bhutto. Bhutto is certainly no more likely than him to support the Taliban -- the Taliban generally don't like women Presidents.
Mushie recently authorized US involvement within his borders. We’ll see what the results of that are quickly, I’ll bet.
I would say that that is a true assessment. Pakistan has done some thing s to help us in the WOT, though not enough. And it’s undeniable that the army is loaded with Isalmists.
History, as I noted in my first post on this thread, is littered with countries where teh pro-American despot got toppled and replaced by a virulently anti-American regime. I cited China, Cuba, Iran, and Nicaragua as just a few examples. Musharraf is the Chiang Kai-shek, Fulgencio Batista, Shah, or Somoza of Pakistan.
Which is precisely why the US can't allow itself to appear too closely linked to the fortunes of Musharraf. If he goes, he goes. But the US will have to work with whoever replaces him.
Fortunately, if he goes, he'll almost certainly be replaced by another moderate trimmer willing to cooperate to at least some extent in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Why we trust this guy in the first place is beyond me.
“However, it is time to say to Musharraf, either you clear AQ out of there or we will. Either you get a handle on these provinces or we will go in there ourselves.
But this Administration won’t do that. That would entail standing up to the Dimmycraps, which they don’t have the guts to do, and it would undermine the White House’s no-win strategy.”
Bullseye. But as you said, Bush doesn’t have the nards to attack AQ in a KNOWN SAFE HAVEN because of ‘political considerations’. I wonder if he’s weighed the impact of ‘political considerations’ here at home for ALLOWING AQ to have a safe haven?
In the end it will be up to Joe American to solve this problem in the streets because its crystal clear that our Stuporment isn’t going to do it.
1) If we go after senior members of Al Queda in Pakistan, we will "jepoardize relations with Pakistan".
2) We need Pakistan to help us capture the senior members of Al Queda who are in Pakistan.
How does the Adminstration keep repeating both of those statements with a straight face?
And if they did it, the article would be about Bush’s disregard for our allies, Pakistan’s sovereignty, and how innocent people were killed.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The real question we have to ask in reference to this article is....if a J-DAM explodes, and no one is left alive to report it....did it make any noise?
I hope you're right. But there is a very strong militant presence in the military. They're the ones who put him in and they're the ones who will topple him (if he is toppled) and who will put his successor in place. They don't like us and they're likely to want to put an anti-American in his spot when "the time is right."
History is littered with 'Stupid Mistakes'. I agree that it would be a "Guns of August" situation, but the next president might feel backed into a corner over the 'loose nukes' potential of it all.
I read that the US people can’t go anywhere without a Paki military presence/escort. It is an exercise in futility. Pak’s military is on the side of the Islamists.
So who is Musharaffs “backup” if he dies or gets whacked? One would think he has a successor designated given all the attempts on his life.
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.