Hunting Bin Laden in Pakistan, Covert Ops in Iran

Finally Bush admin is serious about seeking out Bin Laden from his hideout in Pakistan. Atleast that's what one would think from the draft plan to authorize the Special Ops to launch operations to get Bin Laden and other Al Qaida leaders like Al-Zawahiri. However Special Ops are waiting for the green light from the Bush administration for the past 6 months. NYTimes and its international subsidiary IHT is reporting this news.


 Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to authorize the Pentagon's Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden's terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave an easier path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington's risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was "mounting frustration" in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

For more follow these links.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washin gton/30tribal.html?_r=1&hp=&adxn nl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214795 217-ry2KEzh3N8qVpymUOus3WQ

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/a merica/30tribal.php

Drudge is reporting that Bush is furious with NYT for the Pentagon leak...umm maybe because it shows how incompetent Bush admin is...
http://www.drudge.com

On the other hand Seymour Hersh is reporting in New Yorker that Bush admin already had Special Ops conducting covert ops in Iran. This has great significance in coming years.  


Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in the President's war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Please read Seymour Hersh's expose in the following link. It is a long article, but your patience in reading it would be rewarded with increasing awareness of what's going on around the World especially in Iran in terms of US policy.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/ 07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=al l



Display:


How you rate the Bush Admin's performance in (none / 0)

catching terrorists? And how about the Iran moves?


by louisprandtl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:31:18 PM EST

BTW I hope you enjoyed the Drudge link (none / 0)

the actual drudge link is
www.drudgereport.com
by louisprandtl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:41:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hunting Bin Laden in (2.00 / 2)

This story may destabilize Pakistan further, and that's not good for any of us.  I hate to rain on the parade, but sometimes leaks have consequences (think back to when the Shah came to New York for cancer treatment, for example).

I hope they catch and kill those fuckers, but I must say the timing of this newfound resolve is quizzical.  It almost seems as though they're trying to effect the upcoming election.

But they'd never do that, right?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:49:01 PM EST

For 7 years we watch with dismay the inaction (2.00 / 1)

of Bush admin trying to catch with Bin Laden. But we had been treated to detours in Iraq and now probably Iran. While Al Qaida continues to rebuild its networks in Pakistan under the continued patronage of ISI.


by louisprandtl on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For 7 years we watch (2.00 / 2)

"Wanted, Dead or Alive......when it suits us."


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:08:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not how much a Bin Laden capture (none / 0)

can affect the GE Presidency race. However a terrorist attack can be very detrimental.


by louisprandtl on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hunting Bin Laden in Pakistan, Covert Ops in I (2.00 / 1)

The Hersh piece is interesting, but it would be wise to read it skeptically. Laura Rosen at War and Piece has more on some of Hersh's sources:

I am also pretty skeptical about the CIA-supporting-PJAK/Baluch to destabilize the Iranian regime stuff that Gardiner, discredited former ABC news consultant and phony Obama interviewer Alexis Debat, and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been saying. Skeptical in large part because people out front saying it like Debat have shown an inclination to make things up, while well meaning and sincere people like Gardiner saying it don't offer much in the way of evidence beyond their own conviction and some charts tracking the hawks' rhetoric that make the conspiracy theorists go nuts but don't in the end really show very much but that there's a propaganda effort, which was already reported a year ago. Another of that allegation's sources cited in the piece, who I do respect, seems sometimes inclined to crowd please and sex things up for his audience on occasion, in an almost he can't help himself or unwitting way perhaps because he feels that's what his audience wants.

Hersh's article also has more evidence suggesting that Kyl-Lieberman was designed to support Gates' and the Joint Chief's pushback on an Iran attack.


by souvarine on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.