transmission on which analysts
Right, and our Sigint folks always report
on intel matters to the New York Slimes?
Here's one for James Risen and Eric Schmitt.
Posted on 09/02/2002 7:33:22 PM PDT by GeneD
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 — Commanders in the American military's most elite Special Operations unit are contending that their troops should be freed from the fruitless hunt in Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden, military and intelligence officials say.
Some senior officers in the Joint Special Operations Command have concluded that Mr. bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, was probably killed in the American bombing raid at Tora Bora last December, officials said. They concluded that he died in a bombing raid on one of several caves that had been a target because American intelligence officials believed they housed Qaeda leaders.
Yet the Special Operations leaders lack hard forensic evidence that would prove Mr. bin Laden is dead, and acknowledge their conclusions are deductive, drawn partly from the lack of recent confirmed sightings or radio intercepts indicating he is still alive, officials say.
Other military and intelligence officials have sharply disagreed with their assessment, and the analysis by some commanders of the Joint Special Operations Command does not represent a consensus of all Special Operations forces leaders, military officials said.
The analysis concerning Mr. bin Laden's fate plays into a deepening debate under way among Special Operations leaders about how best to use the military's super-secret counterterrorism forces.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is pushing for an expanded use of Special Operations forces units beyond Afghanistan to kill or capture terrorists. As a result, Special Operations leaders are trying to determine whether the hunt for the elusive Qaeda leader is still the best use of the limited resources of the most elite units.
At least publicly, President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld have said they do not know whether Mr. bin Laden is alive or dead. Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of the American military effort in Afghanistan, said last week that he had not seen "convincing proof" that Mr. bin Laden had been killed. But General Franks added that he did not know Mr. bin Laden's fate.
American intelligence agencies have received reports from people on the ground in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region claiming to have information that Mr. bin Laden is alive.
Still, the assessment suggesting he is dead comes from the commanders of the elite military units responsible for counterterrorism, which have been on the front lines of the hunt for Mr. bin Laden and other Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. They are so respected that senior intelligence and law enforcement officials elsewhere have been briefed on the assessment, leading to more debate on whether Mr. bin Laden is dead or alive.
Despite the argument raging within the Special Operations ranks over Mr. bin Laden, American and allied ground troops — including the elite commandos — continue to scour Afghanistan, searching for pockets of Qaeda fighters and clues about Mr. bin Laden. Barring conclusive evidence that Mr. bin laden is dead, the military's default position is to assume he is still alive and to keep hunting for him. Yet Special Operations forces are increasingly frustrated by how little they have to show for their efforts.
In the late spring or early summer, a meeting of Special Operations leaders was held to discuss how to allocate Special Operations resources, officials said. At that meeting, some senior commanders told their colleagues that they believed Mr. bin Laden was dead, officials familiar with the meeting said.
"There are a lot of people — though it's not an official position — who think he's gone, way gone," said one senior military officer.
The meeting's focus pivoted to implications of that assessment, the officer said. "It was a discussion of what requires us to stay there in Afghanistan," the officer said. "If Osama bin Laden is presumed dead, then it would reduce the pressure to keep the forces in Afghanistan."
Spokesmen for Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the two men had not been briefed on the discussion, suggesting that the commanders' assessment was not a formal written intelligence report that was handed up the chain of command.
Still, officials at other intelligence agencies said they were familiar with the assessment that Mr. bin Laden was dead, indicating that the unit's views have circulated widely among the government's counterterrorism experts. But Special Operations leaders remain divided on the issue, officials said.
"There have been no formal intelligence assessments suggesting definitive conclusions concerning bin Laden within the Special Operations forces community," said a military spokesman. "However, there are some members of the intelligence community within S.O.F. who have asserted independently in formal settings that it is their personal belief bin Laden was killed at Tora Bora.
"The individuals making this case claim no more than that their conclusions are deductive and they have offered no definitive proof," the military spokesman said. "Others contradict them with their own assertions that he is probably still in rural Pakistan. Bottom line: no concrete conclusions guided by rule of thumb in the intelligence business which is, until you can produce the body, you can't make the claim."
The Joint Special Operations Command, based at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, is responsible for conducting the military's most sensitive counterterrorism missions. The unit is so secretive that the Army refused to release the résumé of its commander, Maj. Gen. Del Dailey.
Within the command, two highly secretive, relatively small groups are designated for counterterrorism missions: the Army Special Operations unit known as Delta Force, and the Naval Special Warfare unit, often called Seal Team 6, senior military officials said.
The Joint Special Operations Command is subordinate to the larger United States Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, Fla. In Afghanistan, the Special Operations forces have worked closely with paramilitary officers from the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.
Now, as President Bush weighs whether to attack Iraq, and Mr. Rumsfeld is seeking an expanded worldwide role for Special Operations forces, a number of Special Operations commanders say their scarce elite forces could be employed more effectively if sent on other sensitive missions, military officials said.
"The issue is, what are your options, and how many places do you stay engaged and committed?" said one senior military officer. "If the assumption is bin Laden is dead, then maybe you don't need those assets in Afghanistan anymore."
In the global campaign against terrorism, the military's Special Operations units are already stretched thin. Officials say that fewer than 1,000 commandos are part of frontline counterterrorism teams, out of total combat Special Operations troops of between 7,000 and 8,000, which includes Army Rangers, other Seal teams, and Air Force Special Operations units. Overall, the military has about 46,000 personnel in Special Operations forces, including those involved in civil affairs and other nondirect action roles.
But it takes years to recruit and train members of the elite counterterrorism units, and their numbers have clearly not grown as rapidly as the number of jobs they may soon be called upon to accomplish.
Should President Bush decide to invade Iraq, for instance, Delta Force and Seal Team 6 would probably be asked to perform another one of their specialized missions — counterproliferation. They would be assigned to help hunt down and destroy Iraq's suspected arsenal of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and the missiles to launch them.
Despite the desire by some Special Operations officials to move on to new assignments, others in American intelligence agencies, the military and law enforcement remain uncertain about Mr. bin Laden's fate.
"I would bet my paycheck, but not my mortgage, that he is still alive," said one senior American official.
Intelligence officials acknowledge that they have no hard evidence that Mr. bin Laden escaped Tora Bora. American intelligence agencies have not obtained any intercepted communications indicating that Mr. bin Laden is alive since the assault on Tora Bora. In mid-December, the United States intercepted a radio transmission on which analysts believe they could hear Mr. bin Laden giving orders to Qaeda fighters. He has been silent ever since.
American intelligence agencies have received reports from people on the ground in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region who have claimed that they have information that Mr. bin Laden escaped Tora Bora and made his way into Pakistan. These reports are not conclusive, but are numerous enough to convince some officials that he did escape Tora Bora.
American intelligence officials also say they believe that if Mr. bin Laden was dead, other Qaeda leaders, as well as Mr. bin Laden's family, would behave differently than they appear to be acting today. "If he is dead, very few people in Al Qaeda know it," said one official.
Mr. Rumsfeld says that he has no idea whether Mr. bin Laden is alive or dead. "He's either alive and in Afghanistan or somewhere else, or he's dead," Mr. Rumsfeld said last month.
But in July, Dale Watson, the F.B.I.'s counterterrorism chief, became the first senior government official to say publicly that he believed Mr. bin Laden was dead. Mr. Watson said that he did not have hard evidence to support his opinion. It is unclear whether he had heard about the commanders' assessment before making his statement.
Right, and our Sigint folks always report
on intel matters to the New York Slimes?
Here's one for James Risen and Eric Schmitt.
Regards
The problem they face now is burnout because they are being used now regular forces , but in this capacitiy there are not enough of them ; they cannot be used as a 'regular army ' . The regulars ( 82nd ,etc .) should follow from behind and ocuppy the hunt as a standing force .
The same Army-military tactics that were used in the U.S army since it's creation in the 1700's have been used ever since ; these tactics have given the United States unparalled advantage over America's enemies from the begining of our country's creation over 200 years ago . These tactics are : 1) Mass (logistics of military suplies and hardware into the battlefield , communication ) and 2) Men , 3) Hasty attacks 4) Pursuit 5) Don't go past your culminating point ; Rommel ran out of gas in the desert . This lead to his defeat - He went past his culminating point , that is , he went beyond where he as a General was actually able to go .
Using the Special Forces beyond their culminating point could hurt their operational capacity where they will be needed in the near future , namely Iraq . Lets get more regulars out in the field with Special Forces if operations in Afghanistan are to continue .
Just some of the downside of conducting a war from 15,000 ft.
The NYTimes has not run one, not a single positive story on the War. Right from the beginning they have taken the most anti, critical view. And been consistently wrong. It is Owellian. They have no sense of institutional history. And they keep it up. Since these are well educated individuals, from the best and brightest schools, working for the supposed best paper in the world, I have to assume it is done on purpose.
If Consistentlibertarian had any critical reading abilities beyond a comic book, he and other would of picked up, for example, this statement; "I would bet my paycheck, but not my mortgage, that he is still alive," said one senior American official. A. It has it's own paragraph. Implying importance. B. It is snappy, and has the ring of authority. C. It is not attributed. D. The reporter, left out "Military" in the “senior official part”. So, he could be, if he even exists, a thirty year official of the Post Office, the Forest Service. It doesn’t even say “Intelligence”. It is fluff, but needed fluff, for the reporter.
Another example. That SF being short with a deployed 1,000 men. This is about 1, single Special Forces Group. They Army has 4, at least, not counting reserves, and the other services. So the whole gist of that particular paragraph is out right false.
But mostly this article, if true and accurate, the NYTimes couldn't get one, single person on the record (I am not talking about the bland and very general, quotes they pulled from the evening newscasts) to back this story up. Not even out of the military, not even a respected civilian think tank type. Why is that? Because no expert would say it. No one would criticize the campaign because it has been beyond textbook perfect. It has been stunningly successful. And the Times and everyone knows it.
I do not see the the bias you cite in this article. It seems to me that the news story (whether in the Times or any other news outlet) is not the appropriate place for either positive or negative positions on any topic. The story should just lay out the facts as the reporter has found them .... and I think this one does a pretty good job. Although the sourcing is somewhat vague, it is also quite understandable since the subject is the military during war time. IMO, the place for opinions whether postive or negative would be the editorial page or opinion columns or talk radio/TV.
You wrote ..... But mostly this article, if true and accurate, the NYTimes couldn't get one, single person on the record (I am not talking about the bland and very general, quotes they pulled from the evening newscasts) to back this story up. Not even out of the military, not even a respected civilian think tank type. Why is that? Because no expert would say it. No one would criticize the campaign because it has been beyond textbook perfect. It has been stunningly successful. And the Times and everyone knows it. .....
IMO, the lack of named sources is actually quite understandable. Rummy and I suspect, the President would make short work of the career of anyone leaking "dissention" to the Times..... and rightfully so.
Regards
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.