Why was Russia's intelligence on Al-Qaeda ignored?

Jane's Intelligence Digest ^ | 05 October 2001 | Jane's Intelligence Digest online

[rwb]

Back in March Moscow's Permanent Mission at the UN submitted to the UN Security Council an unprecedentedly detailed report on Al-Qaeda's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan, but the US government opted not to act. To find out why - and to discover the astonishing degree of information contained in that report - buy the latest special issue of Jane's Intelligence Digest online for just $36. Jane's Intelligence Digest's analysis of this Russian report, leaked from the highest levels of the UN, uncovers the following revelations: The breathtaking extent of intelligence data tabled by the Russians The degree of Pakistani military and security involvement in Afghanistan The extent of the Taliban's involvement in drug trafficking The key reasons why the US Administration didn't seize the initiative and act upon the intelligence given. As the US-led coalition embarks on the war against terrorism, Jane's Intelligence Digest is at the forefront of the geopolitical issues behind the military action. As well as studying the implications of the leaked Russian report, the latest issue of Jane's Intelligence Digest also contains unique and insightful analysis on the following: The problems associated with closing down the funding for Al-Qaeda With Western leaders now discussing the concept of a Palestinian state, the chances for brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal in the current climate The effects of the growing international coalition against terrorism for the nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States Beyond the need for increased funding and emphasis on human intelligence on the ground, the war on terrorism's requirement for a solid, permanent political commitment as a requisite for success.

********************************************************

Mine: The rest is just a lot of self-promotion, requiring the reader to pay $36 for the details.

[rwb]

Would be mighty interesting to know what was in that report. (Minus the 36 bucks, of course).

[eclectic]

but the US government opted not to act

Apparently for the same reasons that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are not acted upon right now

[okie01]

"Apparently for the same reasons that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are not acted upon right now."

Which do you believe is the best strategy:

1. To identify and unite your enemies, then try and defeat them all at once?

2. To isolate your enemies and defeat them one-by-one, in detail?

Just wondering...

[Hillary 666]

Why was Russia's intelligence on Al-Qaeda ignored?

Because the Klinton/Gorp team stood to make a lot of money to look the other way. They were stupid enough to think that they would be important in the new totalitarian regime.

[CatOwner]

"2. To isolate your enemies and defeat them one-by-one, in detail?"

Probably the best comment made since 9/11. Kudos!

[clee1]

Interesting question.
Divide and Conquer is a good strategy, but there is immense satisfaction potential in gathering the enemy in one group and nuking the s#!t out of them.

[eclectic]

Obviously 2. The sad fact is that the enemies are already united, though. Consider declaring war on one Nazi division and ignore another. Taking them out one-by-one will only prolong suffering. It can be a valid tactics but not the strategy

[okie01]

"...but there is immense satisfaction potential in gathering the enemy in one group and nuking the s#!t out of them."

If they would just all gather at the Al-Hazir oasis for the First International Terrorist Exposition & Fat Camel Show, we could have our way with them.

Unfortunately, the event has been cancelled...

[rwb]

That report was made in March of this year (2001). Clinton/Gore have nothing to do with it.

[rwb]

"...but there is immense satisfaction potential in gathering the enemy in one group and nuking the s#!t out of them."

Good one :)

[okie01]

"Consider declaring war on one Nazi division and ignore another."

Would you rather attack one Nazi division...or two?

In this case, as we isolate and utterly defeat the "first division", enthusiasm for harboring the "second division" is likely to have waned significantly.

By the time we get to deal with the "third division", they are likely to hand them over, tied and bound, in cages.

Note that, before we have fired a shot (that we know of), the Taliban is reportedly self-destructing.

Are we anxious for action? Or results?

[eclectic]

Are we anxious for action? Or results?

No action - no results