Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britian Denounces U.S. "Blundering" in Hunt for Al-Qaeda
The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | July 1,2002 | Christina Lamb

Posted on 06/30/2002 10:18:44 AM PDT by yankeedame

Britain denounces 'blundering' US hunt for al-Qaeda

By Christina Lamb in London

July 1 2002

Senior officials in the British Prime Minister's office have delivered an astonishing attack on America's handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda fugitives.

They say that troops conducting house-to-house searches in tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghan border were "blundering", with a "march-in-shooting" approach. The US action was "backfiring", increasing support for terrorism and making it harder to catch bin Laden and his henchmen.

"The Americans think they and the Pakistanis can just march in shooting," an official closely involved in the war said. "They don't understand the sensitivities. We have years of experience in the tribal areas and we know using force will just backfire and increase sympathy for al-Qaeda."

The comments will further strain Anglo-US relations after a week of tensions over Middle East policy and Washington's introduction of steel tariffs.

The scale of the divide was shown by scathing comments by one British minister involved in steel negotiations.

"You have to remember that this is a rather unpleasant administration," the minister said. "... A full-blooded attempt to forge a relationship with it hasn't changed its fundamental nature - protectionist and self-interested."

A spokesman for US Central Command rejected the criticism.

"Our entire approach to removing the Taliban from power and eliminating the al-Qaeda threat has been sensitive to regional issues," he said. "We have liaison teams co-ordinating with the Pakistani military but have not been directly involved in any operations in that area."

Although officially part of Pakistan, the tribal areas have governed themselves since British colonial times. Disputes with the outside have traditionally been resolved through negotiation between political agents and their chiefs, usually involving large amounts of money. The people of the tribal areas are Pathans, like the Taliban.

The Pentagon says at least 1000 al-Qaeda crossed into the tribal areas late last year, possibly including bin Laden, and are regrouping.

Under United States pressure, Pakistan agreed to deploy 12,000 troops in April, backed by US Green Berets, CIA paramilitaries and British special forces.

Tribal leaders were furious. A leading member of the powerful Yusufzai tribe, Arsallah Hoti, said: "This is not how things work here. They have been raiding our villages with less than an hour's notice and even burst in on a wedding because they heard the traditional firing of Kalashnikovs and assumed it was al-Qaeda."

Visiting London last week, Mr Hoti said: "I think people who were ambivalent to al-Qaeda in the tribal areas are now supporting them. A lot more could have been achieved through the old colonial way of negotiations rather than the American way of bombing and killing."

A US-Canadian investigation has found two American fighter pilots responsible for a "friendly fire" bombing in Afghanistan on April 17 that killed four Canadian soldiers and wounded eight.

(The Telegraph London and AFP)


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: binladen; british; pakistan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Out of regard to my blood pressure, I shall only say: "Talk is cheap, limey."
1 posted on 06/30/2002 10:18:44 AM PDT by yankeedame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: nohorse
I remember the yanee go home signs myself. We were all in favor but the brass and Washington had other plans for us.
3 posted on 06/30/2002 10:29:27 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Make that yankee. Sorry about that.
4 posted on 06/30/2002 10:30:31 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
".... with a "march-in-shooting" approach."

Sounds good to me.

5 posted on 06/30/2002 10:31:12 AM PDT by Search4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
LOL! Tony Blair's party comrades do NOT like it that he's working closely with the president, and they do NOT like it that Bush is accomplishing what he said he would do.

And they do NOT like it that this war is exposing the the trashing of the British military by the Labour Party, and the proliferation of terrorists in Britain, the deterioration of their infrastructure, the miserable failure of their National Health AND rising crime in Britain under the Labour party.

People are complaining about the Labour Party. That bunch of know-nothings are hoping to start a Brit vs America fight. To show the antiAmerican Europeans they are on the Europeans side, not matter what Tony boy says!

6 posted on 06/30/2002 10:42:51 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
"The Americans think they and the Pakistanis can just march in shooting," an official closely involved in the war said. "They don't understand the sensitivities. We have years of experience in the tribal areas and we know using force will just backfire and increase sympathy for al-Qaeda."

Perchance the limey jackass who made those comments would care to next comment upon the "sensitivities" involved in the near total massacres inflicted by the Afghans upon the British soldiers and citizens in the Khyber Pass in 1842 and next again at Kabul in 1879. Then again, morons usually have very short historical perspectives. Never mind.

7 posted on 06/30/2002 10:46:32 AM PDT by SamKeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
Two points. First some "high officials" speaking anonamously do not constitute "Britain".

Second, for British officials to say of the Pakistanis "They don't understand the sensitivities. We have years of experience in the tribal areas and we know using force will just backfire and increase sympathy for al-Qaeda" is asinine. It ain't your empire anymore, Sahib.

8 posted on 06/30/2002 10:56:02 AM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
the old colonial way of negotiations
This person has obviously forgotten that the sun has set on the Empire-- and set hard. How much of the unrest that is going on these days can we say is a result of some past British action?
9 posted on 06/30/2002 10:57:47 AM PDT by Clara Lou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
"BLAIR AIDES DENOUNCE U.S. 'BLUNDERING' IN AFGHAN WAR
Sat Jun 29 2002 19:20:06 ET

Senior officials in British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office have launched an astonishing
attack on America's handling of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda fugitives.

But Downing Street late Saturday played down reports that Number 10 officials have attacked the
United States' anti-terror campaign in Afghanistan.

Blair's senior aides accused US troops of "blundering" about during house-to-house searches for
Islamic fighters, according to the SUNDAY TELEGRAPH.

MORE

"The Americans think they and the Pakistanis can just march in shooting," one told the paper.

Americans did not understand the "sensitivities" involved in such tribal areas, where Britain
has experience of operating, they said.

Using force will just backfire and increase sympathy for al Qaida," the source added.

But a Downing Street spokesman said: "Any suggestion of any split between us and the US in the
fight against terrorism is completely wrong.

"The whole campaign in Afghanistan has been characterised by us standing together. That is not
going to change."

Developing...

This is from the Drudge Report.
10 posted on 06/30/2002 11:06:58 AM PDT by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
Seems soon there won't be many of us (international entities) left over there.

Britain says it will not help finance Turkey's leadership of peacekeeping force

Bush thanks Turkey for leading peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan (plus picture gallery)
11 posted on 06/30/2002 11:31:03 AM PDT by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
The Soviets took Afghanistan in a week. They held it for ten years using the most brutal tactics ever seen in modern warfare. They planted mines disguised as toys. They slaughtered villages without hesitation using their Hinds. They left in disarray once they lost air control because Reagan gave the Mujahadin Stingers.

How long do you think we will be able to remain there?

12 posted on 06/30/2002 11:53:03 AM PDT by gwynapnudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
And like they have done such a great job managing the affairs of Commonwealth countries like Rhodesia, South Africa, etc, etc....

The day we listen to the Brits for advice on our foreign policy is the day we should remind them of 1940 and how close they came to drinking German beer and singing polka songs back then.
13 posted on 06/30/2002 12:17:05 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
Patton needs to slip his tanks into neutral. Monty wants to take 5.
14 posted on 06/30/2002 12:29:15 PM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwynapnudd
We aren't staying in Afghanistan. This is asymmetrical warfare and it's dirty. Keep the count of these mopes being rounded up around the world and that's our winning score.
15 posted on 06/30/2002 6:35:07 PM PDT by Thebaddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
What a nerve! Why should Britain pick-up the bill for Turkey’s deployment?

Turkey gets the kudos and Britain gets the bill. Does anything here sound stupid to you?

16 posted on 06/30/2002 8:05:18 PM PDT by spitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Zimbabwe and South Africa are independent states. For the life of me I can’t remember voting for apartheid or Mugabe.

1940 was a bad time - thank god for the Russian front.

17 posted on 06/30/2002 8:11:45 PM PDT by spitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: spitz
Sorry, but the Brits promised to protect the rights of the original citizens when the great Margaret Thatcher was in power. Unfortunately, the Labor Party, as throughout England's history has no memory.
18 posted on 06/30/2002 8:14:15 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spitz
Does anything here sound stupid to you?
Picking up for the Brits does.. Why we would get suckered in to help is beyond me. If we couldn't afford it, then we should watch and comment like the rest of them.
19 posted on 06/30/2002 8:15:32 PM PDT by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
The U.S. can pay, I doubt it's be the first time they picked up the tab.
20 posted on 06/30/2002 8:35:29 PM PDT by spitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson