Blog Chatter

What are tags?

List

Feed

Top stories submitted and voted on from Propeller.

damabeya on 'Tri' y 'Vasco' son un verdadero desastre
sexyyseductora on Primeras damas visitan en Italia lugar dañado por terremoto
meanguerax3 on Pelé critica los fichajes del Real Madrid
fworfe on LAPD: Michael Jackson's drug history to be probed
mcarbajal78 on Hondureños justifican destitución de Zelaya

Get the latest updates sent straight to your inbox.

U.S. Aborted Raid on al-Qaida in 2005

By MARK MAZZETTI,

The New York Times

Posted: 2007-07-08 14:10:23

Filed Under: World News

WASHINGTON (July 8) - 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 Qaeda 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 an 11th-hour appeal by 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, the C.I.A. and the White House declined to comment. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed about the planned operation.

Feed

More Stories

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 undertaking 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 Sept. 11 attacks, and the militaries of the two countries have close ties.

The Pentagon officials said 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 one reason Mr. Rumsfeld called off the 2005 operation was that 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.

Those 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."

2007-07-08 09:28:11

Read Related Blogs and Articles

Must Read?

90 %

10 %

0 VOTES

Recent Comments

Post Your Own

1 - 10 of 453

453 comments

nativearbor6 10:07:22 PM Jul 11 2007

Report This!

This so called "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" is going about as well as the "WAR ON DRUGS" remember that one? please get this straight,,, "TERROR" and "TERRORISM" are not standing armies, they can be Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kazinsky. Any time a person or group of people are tired of oppression perceived or otherwise, or angry at their government or the government of another country "TERROR" or "TERRORISM" can arise. We Americans have been fear mongered into believing this tripe coming from DC and we need to stop. I have read blogs saying what we need to do to win this war, we cannot win a war that is fighting a mindset, an idealology. My opinion says that we need to close our borders, remove anyone that is ileagally here, and clean our own house. The Crips, and Bloods, The Aryan Nation, MS13, Latin KIngs, and any of our very own domestic terror groups need to be stopped. The crazy power hungry liars in Washington need to all be fired, the special interest lobby groups, and big bus

papa2001mbi 10:02:59 PM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

Accountability, Mr Bush and Mr Cheney...where is it? Liars all.

impeaCHIMPeach!

bbbkowens 02:38:15 PM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

I seemed to have ben cut off. let me see if i can continue. this war is going exactly as planned they wan`t a long term presence in Iraq with an embassy to boot. The bush family has been in bed with the bin-laden family for at least 30 years. If 17 of the highjackers were saudis then why dont we attack saudi arabia. Moreover if we move to alternate sourses of energy ie ethanol, solor ,wind, water turbines the jobs that would be created would jumpstart the economy and free us from the ever tightening grip of mideast oil. And on top of all that we would be addressing the whole global warming issue to boot. Does this make sense to anyone but me. This should be somones entire presidential platform, along with completely closing our borders. And i do not mean some fence covering a few hundred miles, i mean complete coverage north and south with increased navy presence on the coasts, no more imigration until we get our borders secured and eliminate the policies that cause people to hat

bbbkowens 02:02:51 PM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

this is the most evil incompetent administration in history. The recent action in the Scooter Libby case has firmley cemented G.B. as the worst president in the history of the USA.The previous bush along with the regan administration funded trained and armed both bin ladin and saddam. When sadaam was gassing the kurds it was with our support, when he was at war with Iran we funded and armed him. Why do you think we were so sure he had WMDs? Because we gave them to him. Now we are about ready to nuke Iran, well lets not forget Regan even gave them arms. Have we forgotten the Iran contra scandle. Have we forgotten when Afganistan was kicking the soviets out with our aid it was binladen who was one of the major combatants we aided thus creating al Qeaida and the taliban. If you handle snakes sooner or later you ard going to get bit. T
his "war" in iraq wasn`t about democry it was about Imperilistic dominance of a region that controls the worlds oil supply. This war is going e

UserAl7899 09:51:31 AM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

When President Bush stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center he vowed that countries would have to decide if they were for us or against us in the global war to catch these terrorists. Somehow Pakistan has not had to make that decision. They are playing a cat and mouse game with us and that has allowed the Al quida leadership to survive.and grow. This is a big mistake that we are living to regret. If we are to win this war we need to take the gloves of and fight it as a war. That is the only way we won WWII. We need to start using all the conventional weapons we have and not be concerned about political consequences. When we start doing this you will see that other governments will take us seriously and line up in our camp.

Thinkztoa 08:05:51 AM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

On September 12, 2001 the U.S. should have put a one billion dollar bounty on Bin Ladin's head. Imagine all the countries and individuals competing for that kind of income. The U.S. would have saved a few billion dollars, a few thousand lives, and that coward would have been caught by October 1st, 2001.

dondon747 07:36:35 AM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

This is the war on terror. Our war on terror is not about us, it about the terrorist and there cause. They say it is about Islam. They call it Jihad.
Islam is a warrior religion Still, much of the West is addicted to a fairy-tale version of Islam. . All that's needed is a Moslem character on "Sesame Street." Look the Jihad Monster! Are we so silly that we can not simply identfy the issue. Are we so naive that we think this religion is peacful. Most people would had the idea after the crusades. How many bombings and wars before you relaize that this is what it is. Go read the news because if that not enfough do not worry they will kill more. This is just the start.

bro0klyn59 05:57:42 AM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

we keep hearing from bush and crew our economy is strong and the record high stock market numbers prove this , what I,m wondering is , why is the average american these days either losing thier job or barely getting by ?

highest deficit in american history .
highest record number of home forecloures .
highest vacant homes in history across the united states .
gas prices , out of reach insurance rates , unaffordable housing , our grossly underfunded schools across america .

strong economy ? am I missing something ?

sfhsqh 01:17:54 AM Jul 09 2007

Report This!

Let's withdraw from Iraq immediately so gas is $10.50 a gallon. . . .Al-Qaida will then use the oil money to attack us some more. . . . .This is a really smart plan by the same people who wanted to appease the Soviet Union. . . .

mp7duce8 11:24:31 PM Jul 08 2007

Report This!

Ben Laudin is dead. The proof is in logic. OBL died in the early days of the war some 4 years ago. OBL has never met a camera he did not like. Not since the war's early days has anyone seen him live on video. We are will to claim that he lives so he does not become a myrtar. The idiots happy to go along with us on this because they are afraid his demise would hurt their efforts and slow down recruiting.
Bottom line is OBL is dead. The Irani's are too involved in tribal bull shit and ethnic lunacy to care about their country.
Time has come for the USA to imform the idiot zealots that the next attact on American will result in the total destruction of Mecca. Do not bring a sword to a bomb fright.

1 - 10 of 453

453 comments