Jump to content

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ?05

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON, July 7 ? A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan?s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.


The target was a meeting of Al Qaeda?s leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden?s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group?s operations.


But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected the 11th-hour appeal of Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.


Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.


The decision to halt the planned ?snatch and grab? operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military?s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.


Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan?s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.


In recent months, the White House has become increasingly irritated with Pakistan?s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for his inaction on the growing threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.


About a dozen current and former military and intelligence officials were interviewed for this article, all of whom requested anonymity because the planned 2005 mission remained classified.


Spokesmen for the Pentagon, C.I.A. and White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation.


The officials acknowledge that they are not certain that Mr. Zawahri attended the 2005 meeting in North Waziristan, a mountainous province just miles from the Afghan border. But they said that the United States had communications intercepts that tipped them off to the meeting, and that intelligence officials had unusually high confidence that Mr. Zawahri was there.


Months later, in early May 2005, the C.I.A. launched a missile from a remotely piloted Predator drone, killing Haitham al-Yemeni, a senior Qaeda figure whom the C.I.A. had tracked since the meeting.


It has long been known that C.I.A. operatives conduct counterterrorism missions in Pakistan?s tribal areas. Details of the aborted 2005 operation provide a glimpse into the Bush administration?s internal negotiations over whether to take unilateral military action in Pakistan, where General Musharraf?s fragile government is under pressure from dissidents who object to any cooperation with the United States.


Pentagon officials familiar with covert operations said that planners had to consider the political and human risks of launching a military campaign in a sovereign country, even in an area like Pakistan?s tribal lands where the government has only tenuous control. Even with its shortcomings, Pakistan has been a vital American ally since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the militaries of the two countries have close ties.


The Pentagon officials noted that tension was inherent in any decision to approve such a mission: a smaller military footprint allows a better chance of a mission going undetected, but it also exposes the units to greater risk of being killed or captured.


Officials said that one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was the number of troops involved in the mission had grown to several hundred, including Army Rangers, members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives, and he determined that the United States could no longer carry out the mission without General Musharraf?s permission. It is unlikely that the Pakistani president would have approved an operation of that size, officials said.


Some outside experts said American counterterrorism operations had been hamstrung because of concerns about General Musharraf?s shaky government.


?The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five and half years after 9/11 we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahri to ground,? said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.


These political considerations have created resentment among some members of the military?s Special Operations forces.



The Special Operations guys are tearing their hair out at the highest levels,? said a former Bush administration official with close ties to those troops. While they have not received good intelligence on the whereabouts of top Qaeda members recently, he said, they say they believe they have sometimes had useful information on lower-level figures. ?There is a degree of frustration that is off the charts, because they are looking at targets on a daily basis and can?t move against them,? he said.


In early 2005, after learning about the Qaeda meeting, the military developed a plan for a small Navy Seals unit to parachute into Pakistan to carry out a quick operation, former officials said.


But as the operation moved up the military chain of command, officials said, various planners bulked up the force?s size to provide security for the Special Operations forces.


?The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,? said the former senior intelligence official involved in the planning. Still, he said he thought the mission was worth the risk. ?We were frustrated because we wanted to take a shot,? he said.


Several former officials interviewed said the operation was not the only occasion since the Sept. 11 attacks that plans were developed to use a large American military force in Pakistan. It is unclear whether any of those missions have been executed.


Some of the military and intelligence officials familiar with the 2005 events say it showed a rift between operators in the field and a military bureaucracy that has still not effectively adapted to hunt for global terrorists, moving too cautiously to use Special Operations troops against terrorist targets.


That criticism has echoes of the risk aversion that the officials said pervaded efforts against Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration, when missions to use American troops to capture or kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan were never executed because they were considered too perilous, risked killing civilians or were based on inadequate intelligence. Rather than sending in ground troops, the Clinton White House instead chose to fire cruise missiles in what became failed attempts to kill Mr. bin Laden and his deputies ? a tactic Mr. Bush criticized shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.


Since then, the C.I.A. has launched missiles from Predator aircraft in the tribal areas several times, with varying degrees of success. Intelligence officials say they believe that in January 2006, an airstrike narrowly missed killing Mr. Zawahri, who hours earlier had attended a dinner in Damadola, a Pakistani village.


General Musharraf cast his lot with the Bush administration in the hunt for Al Qaeda after the 2001 attacks, and he has periodically ordered Pakistan?s military to conduct counterterrorism missions in the tribal areas, provoking fierce resistance there. But in recent months he has pulled back, prompting Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to issue stern warnings in private that he risked losing American aid if he did not step up efforts against Al Qaeda, senior administration officials have said.


Officials said that mid-2005 was a period when they were gathering good intelligence about Al Qaeda?s leaders in Pakistan?s tribal areas. By the next year, however, the White House had become frustrated by the lack of progress in the hunt for Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri.


In early 2006, President Bush ordered a ?surge? of dozens of C.I.A. agents to Pakistan, hoping that an influx of intelligence operatives would lead to better information, officials said. But that has brought the United States no closer to locating Al Qaeda?s top two leaders. The latest message from them came this week, in a new tape in which Mr. Zawahri urged Iraqis and Muslims around the world to show more support for Islamist insurgents in Iraq.


In his recently published memoir, George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director, said the intelligence about Mr. bin Laden?s whereabouts during the Clinton years was similarly sparse. The information was usually only at the ?50-60% confidence level,? he wrote, not sufficient to justify American military action.


?As much as we all wanted Bin Ladin dead, the use of force by a superpower requires information, discipline, and time,? Mr. Tenet wrote. ?We rarely had the information in sufficient quantities or the time to evaluate and act on it.?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that the Sudanese government had Bin Laden and was willing to give him to the US, this action in Pakistan wouldve required forced entry into a sovereign country and conducted military operations. Plus, Osama was not part of the group that wouldve been captured in this raid. Totally different situation.


In this case its hard to argue against or for cause we really dont know all the facts. I personally wouldve loved to have tried and taken these SOBs down but we didnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the difference is that the "Clinton refused Bid Laden from Sudan" story is a boldface lie that Sean Hannity and other conservative outlets have been perpetuating. It has no basis in fact at all.

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.


Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that

the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Pakistan was truly our ally, Al Qaeda leaders wouldn't be able to meet in their country safely.


Why? They could be our ally and go 100 percent after Al Qaeda within their means and Al Qaeda could still be there safely. Just because they're there doesn't mean Pakistan is officially allowing them to be there. It is possible, and probable, that Pakistan has a weak state and therefore can't enforce a lot of its own laws and policies - that happens in lots of places, including the U.S.


The 9-11 terrorists were here for several years before the attacks... does that mean that we allowed them to meet in our country safely?


Sorry, but that's a very naive and simplistic position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why make this some type of political pissing match?


"I'll agree not to criticize Bush if people agree not to criticize Clinton."


Are you kidding me?

Because I guarantee that if I had bashed Bush for this move, someone would have brought up Clinton. I would have bet any amount of money on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why make this some type of political pissing match?


"I'll agree not to criticize Bush if people agree not to criticize Clinton."


Are you kidding me?

Because I guarantee that if I had bashed Bush for this move, someone would have brought up Clinton. I would have bet any amount of money on that.


If one was to be fair and balanced, they both should be 'bashed' (for lack of better word) for not getting the job done.


EDIT: critisized. Bashed is too strong a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...