How To Lose The War On Terror
October 9th, 2007 by gordo
Bush will never get serious about winning the War on Terror
It looks like the Bush administration just threw away yet another opportunity to gain the upper hand in the fight against al Qaeda. From the Washington Post:
A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.
Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company’s Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group’s communications network.
“Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless,” said Rita Katz, the firm’s 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE’s methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.
Of course, it goes without saying that the outlet that the Bush administration leaked the video to was Fox News, ensuring that the public’s first impression of the video would be presented by an outlet that would attempt to tie bin Laden to the Democrats (VIDEO):
He seems to adopt the exact same language being used by the hard left in this country as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a civil war. He actually used the term ‘Neocons.’ He talks about global warming. He demonizes capitalisms (sic) and corporations in this whole thing — very, very specific language. It seems to be coming from somebody who is keenly aware of the world situation and the battle and the conflict in America over this war, and even admonishing the Democratic Party for not ending the war.
–Fox News host Sean Hannity
So for whatever political advantage they could get in the days leading up to the Petraeus Report, White House officials squandered yet another resource in the War on Terror.
I say “yet another” because the Bush administration has a disturbing habit of throwing away opportunities. During the final days of the invasion of Afghanistan back in 2001, American forces had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. Bin Laden managed to slip away because the pentagon refused to provide forces to cut off his retreat into Pakistan. In late 2005, the US had an opportunity to kill or capture one of bin Laden’s top Lieutenants:
In late 2005, the CIA and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command came up with intelligence that gave them “80 percent confidence” that either Zawahiri, bin Laden’s longtime sidekick, or another of bin Laden’s highest-ranking lieutenants would be attending a meeting in a small compound just inside Pakistan along its northern border with Afghanistan. “This was the best intelligence picture we had ever seen” about a so-called HVT, said a former intelligence official who was involved in the operation. The spooks and Special Operations Forces planned an airborne commando raid that could have been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Some 30 U.S. Navy SEALs were to be flown by C-130 transport planes, under cover of darkness, to a spot high above the Afghan side of the Pakistan border, about 30 to 40 miles away from the target. The SEALs would jump from the plane and use parasails—motorized hang gliders—to fly through the night sky, across the mountains, to a secret staging point close to the compound. They would attack the target and capture Zawahiri or whatever other HVTs were on the premises, killing them only if necessary. The SEALs would then spirit their captives away to another staging point, where two CH-53 helicopters awaited to airlift them back to Afghanistan.
The plan was nixed by Donald Rumsfeld because the CIA could not offer a 100% guarantee of success. And last August, the Bush administration squandered another opportunity to kill bin Laden:
For three days and nights — between Aug. 14 and 16 — U.S. and Afghanistan forces pounded the mountain caves in Tora Bora, the same caves where Osama Bin Laden had hidden out and then fled in late 2001 after U.S. forces drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan cities. Ultimately, however, U.S. forces failed to find Bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, even though their attacks left dozens of al Qaeda and Taliban dead.
Military officials admit there were unidentified “planning and coordination problems” even before it got to execution, “primarily between the operators and the generals who give the go-orders” added an intelligence official. A company of the 82nd Airborne was brought in since a Ranger team trained in special operations was not available. But the combination of the “dark side” — the SEALs — and the conventional — the 82nd Airborne — didn’t work. “They didn’t gel,” said the military official. There was “a lack of responsiveness to the intelligence and a lack of aggressiveness.”
All Delta Force and “dark side” Rangers were moved to Iraq, said a special operations officer involved in the Afghanistan operation. Left behind in Afghanistan were SEAL Team Six and some Rangers. But apparently in this case, not enough “dark side” were available. The 82nd, said a second special operations officer, “is a poor substitute … [it is] a blunder to use them on an op with dark side operators.”
So this latest opportunity was missed because the appropriate units for the operation were tied up in Iraq.
But the most disturbing missed opportunity of all may have led to the London Underground bombings that killed 52 and injured 700 back in 2005. That operation was set in motion after the Bush administration inadvertently exposed a mole within the al Qaeda network named Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan:
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced on August 1, 2004 that we had information about an “unusually specific” threat against “the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup in Manhattan, Prudential’s headquarters in Newark and the headquarters buildings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington.”
We now know that this threat info came from Mr. Khan’s computer that we got our hands on only weeks before. As a result of the heightened security alert, the media dug into the story to find out what the heightened alert was based on, and they got a hold of Mr. Khan’s name and made it public.
That was important because Khan was remaining in touch with his Al Qaeda contacts AFTER his arrest - he was our mole - and the authorities were thus tracking INSIDE Al Qaeda. Once the American official made the info about Khan’s arrest public, our mole inside the cell was blown, and the British police, caught off guard, had to make a high speed chase, literally, to catch Khan’s contacts before they fled.
The British police weren’t able to get all of the London cell’s members, and two of those who escaped planned and executed the Underground attacks 11 months later.
Given the Bush administration’s tendency to screw up, it’s not surprising that the president could not point to a single success in the War Against Terror during his State of the Union address last January. He did cite four incidents that he claimed as successes, but not one of them was an authentic terror plot that was broken up by an American intelligence, military, or law enforcement operation. In fact, none of the alleged terror plots was ever a serious threat to American lives or American property. I think that if the president had been truly successful in breaking up a real terror plot, he’d have told us about it by now.
He certainly hasn’t been shy about trumpeting his alleged successes in the past, regardless of the long-term cost.
(cross posted at appletree)
October 9th, 2007 at 9:03 am
[…] The Liberal Avenger notes, Of course, it goes without saying that the outlet that the Bush administration leaked the video to was Fox News, ensuring that the public’s first impression of the video would be presented by an outlet that would attempt to tie bin Laden to the Democrats (VIDEO). […]
October 9th, 2007 at 9:55 am
[…] Gordo at The Liberal Avenger has more. […]
October 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Typical…
October 10th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I find it hard to believe that if “SITE” were a legitimate source of information for the united states that they would have had one source for providing information.
The fact that they didn’t give the information directly to the director of national intelligence tells me that they probably have not provided any pertinent information in the past.
As far as the presidents track record on the war on terror goes. I think it speaks for itself.
Last i had heard there hasnt been an attack here since 911.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Given the incompetence of the current administration, that all by itself really questions whether there is enough organized international terrorism to warrant all this fuss in the first place. Even 9/11 could only have been brought off by amateur foreign pilots through US military security breakdowns. That has to be plural, since there are backups for nearly every part of the national security apparatus that was in place, any one of which could have saved the lives lost in WTC. There is no military excuse whatsoever for anything getting through to the Pentagon. If 9/11 is your touchstone for American terrorist vulnerability and like you say there have been no subsequent attacks, then all this has already grown out of incompetence rather than any significant threat that needs new countering tactics. Definitely not ones that target the potential victims.
Here’s what that says: if you want an increase in terrorist activity get Bush to fight it.
In the meantime how many mass shooting incidents have there been in the US? The recent one in Wisconsin was by a deputy sheriff. He shot a bunch of high school kids. That all by itself is more serious than anything foreign terrorists have been able to bring off, since the security apparatus let four hijackings proceed unhindered in 2001.
For gordo, I am not yet in agreement with Blu either on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The facts I have seen are tremendously disturbing and I cannot dismiss them out of hand, but for the time being anyway, I normally work out of an assumption that there were inexcusable security breakdowns on 9/11 that should have prevented all of the building impacts. If that assumption is wrong, then the data supporting Blu’s beliefs points directly to capital crimes involving some of the most important persons in this country. I am not yet ready to cross that bridge. The number and variety of people with the proper experience coming from all sides of the political spectrum who have already done so amazes me.
The only two possible interpretations that I see to account for the amount and type of damage done on 9/11 including most of the loss of life is domestic military incompetence, a domestic murder conspiracy or some combination of them. So bin Laden’s got a big mouth, he doesn’t have arms that long, or he would have done something else. Virtually the same security holes remain, and nobody has yet figured out a way to close huge amounts of the Mexican border or the Canadian one. For Canada all it takes is a fishing boat and not a very big one either. Forge some papers and slip through for perhaps as much as decades of unnoticed presence. Latin American peasants do it all the time. Do you really think dedicated foreign terrorists with ready capital could not? But they apparently haven’t. They certainly haven’t done anything with it, as Fred points out so eloquently. Foreign terrorism in the US? Big whup! IMO it is so unlikely as not to be worth one wasted minute of sleep worrying about.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Brilliant deduction Fred.
Now, if 9/11 hadn’t happened on Bush’s watch…
his anti-terrorism track record would be spotless.
Too bad he had to go vacation in Texas in Summer 2001. If he and Condi had bothered to carefully read over the National Intel Assesments that were prepared for them that month, 3000 people may not have died.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Looks like I goofed the bold tags. Sorry. They should only have bracketed the word “all”.
October 10th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Still and all a great point.
October 11th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Alpha–
Actually, no. A lot of Americans have been killed by the terrorists since then. But they’ve been over in Iraq and Indonesia. Also, the terrorists have been slowly isolating us by attacking our allies. So his record since 9/11 is far from spotless.
dutch–
Something else? Like blow up a Spanish train? Set off a series of bombs in London? Like helping the Taliban take over half of Afghanistan and a big chunk of Pakistan? Bin Laden’s been very active, and he’s been remarkably effective, considering the fact that his organization was nearly destroyed in 2001-2002.
How do you know they haven’t? Wouldn’t we have to wait “decades” to be sure? And no, I don’t think that a terrorist from Saudi Arabia would be able to just “blend in” as a migrant farmworker.
I think that al Qaeda is as strong as ever, thanks in part to the lack of effort of the Bush administration. I think that we do have to be vigilant, but I think that means that we have to start focusing our efforts on al Qaeda, instead of trying to think of excuses for attacking governments that view al Qaeda as an enemy (Syria, Iran, Hussein’s Iraq).
October 11th, 2007 at 11:30 am
My statement was specifically in relationship to terrorist actions inside the US in response to Fred’s statement which was limited to “here”.
First dispose of Afghanistan and Pakistan, without the distraction of Iraq that situation would not be as it is. It’s current severity is due to a combination of lack of US resources and the stupidity of the Pakistani government which supported the Tailban in the beginning. Considering what the Afghani warlords were doing following the Soviet withdrawl, I am not sure that I wouldn’t have supported the Taliban in the beginning myself. We have put a number of those warlords back in power; really it is no wonder that reestablishing the conditions which led to the Taliban in the first place might revitalize their operations.
Add in Donald Rumsfeld’s “just enough forces to lose” tactics and then deplete that for an additional nationwide military campaign elsewhere; it is not terrorism that is rebuilding the Taliban, it is stupid incompetency.
I did not and will not say that international terrorism is harmless, either. Of course it isn’t. Your examples are both valid and dramatic instances of why it is not, but I intend to lose no sleep over incidents here in the US anymore than I intend to worry about the Spanish speaking family across the street’s immigration status or those who run the Quick Stop where I buy my cigarettes or of the janitorial crews who clean my office building.
The way I see it there is an immediacy to al Qaeda that does not lend itself to long term embedded operatives. I also think that bin Laden would have followed up with additional dramatic operations in the US if he could have.
You proceed on the absolute assumption that al Qaeda was solely behind 9/11; while I will admit that was the mostly likely situation, I do not think that is absolutely proven nor that the incidents of 9/11 should have turned out the way they did anyway. I still see no justification for why 4 hijackings inside the US could have proceeded with no interference nor why any of them were allowed to impact any building at all. That was not in any way a matter of skill or planning on al Qaeda’s part; so I would not overplay their ability to strike inside the United States in the first place. I see 9/11 as a fluke that proceeded to the ends it did against what should have been 100% probability for failure. I want to know how those odds got beaten.
For that matter many Arabs and Middle Easterners can pass for Latinos. You might be surprised to realize how many left their native lands for opportunities in Latin America. I have actually met former Iraqis who not only could pass for Latino but were quite fluid in regional Spanish as well. They worked in a mixed Arab and Latino work crew moving back and forth between Arabic among themselves and Spanish with their Latino co-workers and English with many of their customers. And I know actual Saudis, too. Not only are there physical similarities, at times Arabic and Spanish have a similar sound to the average American ear. I know a little Spanish and I have gotten that impression myself.
Most illegal immigrants are not migrant farm workers any more, especially many of the single ones. Migrant farm workers tend to move in families, very often with some generations of following the same patterns, which is one of the things holding them in the fields. Some of those families have been doing that sort of thing for generations.
Solitary and even families of illegal immigrants have appeared in nearly every part of the US. Illegal penetration by individuals from the Arab world is demonstrated in European countries and is IIRC illustrated by the actual bombings you mention. So embedding a ringer would be no real difficulty provided al Qaeda was willing to invest the time and patience, which I frankly do not see due to the delays in the required preparation.
It recruits heavily on the basis of immediate martyrdom as a ticket to Paradise; so actions need to proceed relatively quickly upon being staffed or else when detained many of them become undependable as operatives. Its leadership are essentially glory hounds, even if they can hide pretty well from time to time. Its primary financial and manpower support are factions in Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly I think that al Qaeda has some very import aspects of being a front for powerful behind the scenes players after political power in Saudi Arabia itself. Much of their extra-Saudi actions are diversions, tragic and viscous diversions, but meant to draw attention away from internal Saudi affairs. Clean up Saudi support and where does Islamic terrorist financing come from? There isn’t much else holding it up outside of Afghani poppies whose proceeds really tend to stay in Afghanistan in the first place..
Like I said above the best way to support terrorism is to get Bush to fight it. Nor do I wish to disagree about the danger of terrorism in general. It can be a very difficult thing to pin down and almost impossible to completely stop. I suggest to you that concentrating on al Qaeda, however it keeps getting redefined by our government, is an incomplete response, almost certain to overemphasize the role of only one of the players.
As far as domestic terror is concerned we have enough home grown mass violence, which I think should rate as terror, that we need to deal with first. That has proven to be far more immediate and extensive in this country than the efforts of marginalized Saudi factions most of whom are vested in diverting attention from their own domestic efforts by primary efforts in neighboring Islamic countries. They are really far more of a problem there than they could likely ever be in the US, and in reality they have been so there for a very much longer time than American politics has been restricting the spelling of terrorism to “al Qaeda”.
To be really honest I see far more danger from some nutcase walking into the school where my niece goes and spraying around a bunch of bullets, than in al Qaeda doing anything inside the US. Those are my terrorism priorities.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Dutch
“In the meantime how many mass shooting incidents have there been in the US?”
So you really do think there are more important things in this world than 4000 soldiers dying in iraq?
If thats the case…pick a cause and freaking stick to it.
How many people die each year in railroad crossing accidents?
Farm accidents?
Pneumonia?
Lung cancer?
Accidental falls?
Each is much higher than iraq, as far as americans are concerned.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Dutch, Gordo, and all,
What I have heard from the FBI trasnlator-Sibel Edmonds, who has had a gag order put on her from the US government, has said, in her limited ability to speak about what she knows (and she wants to tell us the whole thing, but fears being imprisoned for speaking), what she has said, is that if one were to use an analogy of the way it (911—etc.) is being handled, would be to…say for example, using illegal drug trade in place of terrorism, merely going after street drug dealers, and ignoring an entire network of those producing and distributing drugs wholesale, so to speak. That was the analogy she used in an article I’d read from her.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Blu,
Sibel certainly knows what she’s talking about. So do I. And I’m equally certain that you do too. Moreover, we both understand what the ‘things’ involved are that are compared to ‘drugs’. Further, we can be (99%) certain that we know who’s doing the producing and distributing. Right?
October 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Yes, thank you, dear Brit.
Of course, there are numerous former CIA, military intelligence, and FBI, including the former FBI director, Louis Freeh, Pentagon officials, etc…..I could go on, but, I’ll spare you. I’d give you the link, but, I’ve noticed that when I type the live link in, my post disappears, as if there were a spam repellant, disallowing it. Although, you all have heard it before from me. Even I tire of hearing myself. Even though it’s more than obvious, the factual accessments, opposite the governments’ story.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
i saw at walmart standing in line today that bin laden is dead.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
So, what does that have to do with reality?
October 13th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Hey, Fred!
Did you notice anyone called Michela in that line? Or even on another thread here? She’s mislaid her meds. If you see her, say “High!”
Oh, and say “corridors” - NOT - “hallways”.
Thanks, Fred.
Now, get back in line.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Absolutely! Like bringing our soldiers home so that there are no more who die.
And dealing with the mass killings that occur here which are every bit as terrorist as al Qaeda, but aren’t allowed the label. The US has around 20,000 murders a year of which at least 4 percent involve multiple victims. That is some 800 a year so in the span since 9/11 where there have been no additional foreign terrorist attacks in the United States that is some 4800 murder victims alone. Something like 15 percent or more of all murders involve multiple attackers. That amounts to group murders of at least 3000 Americans a year or 18000 over the same period. That level should be considered domestic terror.
Americans face far more danger at home from other Americans than from any group of foreigners no matter how big their mouths or how hostile their appearance.
Murder statistics
October 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
That’s it, Fred’s gone loco for good.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:03 am
So dutch you are saying that we should label these murders as terrorism?
I will agree that murder in America is out of control compared to say 30 yrs ago when the very mention of a murder was quite disturbing. We have become sensitized to it. You hear of a murder on the radio or television and you drop your gum and are more concerned for the whereabouts of the gum.
This cant be a good thing for a society. But it’s damage already done. How could we ever get that back?
If you are simply stating this to somehow say that bush is responsible for terrorist deaths in the u.s. because there are gang related murders. Well thats stretching it a bit too far.
Describe your motives?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Describe my motives to you? If you need remedial reading, there is no time like the present.
Say goodnight, Fred.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Sorry dutch i don’t have time to read all of your rants. Maybe keep it down to 5 or 6 hundred lines and then ill try and read your replies.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Bad new, fred. Your hero’s approach to winning the war on terror isn’t working.