Bush’s plans falter, al Qaeda establishes new base of operations

In late 2007, Bush administration officials drafted a secret plan, giving the Defense Department’s Special Operations forces greater ease to go into the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the goal of targeted al Qaeda’s top leaders.

The plan, codenamed “Operation Cannonball,” sounded very encouraging on paper — it would sidestep turf wars between Washington and Islamabad, and target high-value targets where we know they are. So, what happened? More than six months later, the plan has not yet been executed, and the Special Operations are still standing by, waiting for orders. Bureaucratic disputes within the administration have slowed the whole initiative down to a stop.

The NYT reports it’s all part of a broader problem with Bush’s counter-terrorism strategy.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world. […]

Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.

Publicly, senior American and Pakistani officials have said that the creation of a Qaeda haven in the tribal areas was in many ways inevitable — that the lawless badlands where ethnic Pashtun tribes have resisted government control for centuries were a natural place for a dispirited terrorism network to find refuge. The American and Pakistani officials also blame a disastrous cease-fire brokered between the Pakistani government and militants in 2006.

But more than four dozen interviews in Washington and Pakistan tell another story. American intelligence officials say that the Qaeda hunt in Pakistan, code-named Operation Cannonball by the C.I.A. in 2006, was often undermined by bitter disagreements within the Bush administration and within the C.I.A., including about whether American commandos should launch ground raids inside the tribal areas.

Inside the C.I.A., the fights included clashes between the agency’s outposts in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Islamabad. There were also battles between field officers and the Counterterrorist Center at C.I.A. headquarters, whose preference for carrying out raids remotely, via Predator missile strikes, was derided by officers in the Islamabad station as the work of “boys with toys.”

Remember, as far as most people are concerned, counter-terrorism is Bush’s principal strength, and John McCain’s embrace of Bush’s worldview on the issue is one of his selling points.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole article — though it might be wise to keep a bottle of Maalox handy — and pay particular attention to the ways in which the war in Iraq undermined our efforts to capture al Qaeda leaders.

There was nowhere to house an expanding headquarters staff, so giant Quonset huts were erected outside the cafeteria on the C.I.A.’s leafy Virginia campus to house a new team assigned to the bin Laden mission. In Pakistan, the new operation was staffed not only with C.I.A. operatives drawn from around the world, but also with recent graduates of “the Farm,” the agency’s training center at Camp Peary in Virginia.

“We had to put people out in the field who had less than ideal levels of experience,” one former senior C.I.A. official said. “But there wasn’t much to choose from.”

One reason for this, according to two former intelligence officials directly involved in the Qaeda hunt, was that by 2006 the Iraq war had drained away most of the C.I.A. officers with field experience in the Islamic world. “You had a very finite number” of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. “Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.”

So, the war in Iraq created an opportunity for al Qaeda to recruit more terrorists, and at the same time, made it harder to go after al Qaeda terrorists.

The result: the threat posed to the U.S. is as great now as it was on 9/11, nearly seven years ago.

What exactly have Porter Goss and General Michael V. Hayden been doing at CIA if they haven’t been getting on top of these disagreements.

These are supposed to be the best leaders the Republican’ts could find?

It makes me cry.

  • Given Bush’s complete failure to manage the Iraq war, as detailed in Fiasco, Cobra II, State of Denial, No End In Sight, etc., why should it not suprise us that there’s no managment of this issue either?

  • More Quotes from the Artcle from a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation:

    “The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001 ……. The base of operations has moved only a short distance, roughly the difference from New York to Philadelphia.”

    This Since 9/11 our gov’t has spent $1 Trillion, $2 Trillion or maybe upwards of $3 Trillion on the Global Struggle Against Violent Extermists War on Terror and these ***holes, who were wanted dead or alive, are still running free?

    I knew GWB was incompetent, but this is really mind boggling.

  • Meanwhile, Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador in Pakistan until 2006 and is now in Iraq, thinks the opposite. From the NYT article:

    “I do wonder if it’s in fact the case that Al Qaeda has really reconstituted itself to a pre-9/11 capability, and in fact I would say I seriously doubt that,” said Mr. Crocker, the American ambassador to Pakistan between 2004 and 2006 and currently the ambassador to Iraq.

    “Their top-level leadership is still out there, but they’re not communicating and they’re not moving around. I think they’re symbolic more than operationally effective,” Mr. Crocker said.

    I mean, he’s never been wrong, has he?

  • Said it before here and will say it again — perhaps the greatest near term threat that Al Qaeda can pose inside the US is the assassination of a political candidate for president.

    These guys don’t get into any hurries. Time between the first and second Twin Tower attacks was 8 years. Time since 2001 attack — 7 years.

    If you really want to have a potentially multi generational effect in the US, kill whatever sense of hope we might have during an impending storm of crises in the US. Revisit the 60s in the US, except now, we are in a much weaker position to recover.

    Despite whatever Secret Service protection the presidential candidates have, they would provide little defense against a well organized group of terrorists or even a determined individual.

    We are still operating in la la land in a very dangerous world. We don’t want to answering “what if” questions about Obama in 2050 like we are about RFK now.
    The assassination question is in the open, but we have our heads up our asses, standard mode in the US.

  • “So, the war in Iraq created an opportunity for al Qaeda to recruit more terrorists, and at the same time, made it harder to go after al Qaeda terrorists.

    The result: the threat posed to the U.S. is as great now as it was on 9/11, nearly seven years ago.”

    Yeah, but Exxon et al wouldn’t have gotten the oil.

    Sooner or later, somebody has to admit that those who think we invaded Iraq for the oil are not a bunch of fringe loonies.

    Nah. Witness the outrage over Clark’s remarks. The Republicans are right – we manufacture our own reality here in America. We brook no inconvenient truths.

  • The next major terrorist attack on US soil will occur sometime in the 2nd half of 2009. Al-Queda will want to test/provoke the next President (whoever it is).

    The only question is, will we as a nation have learned anything from our national insanity following 9/11?

  • The plan, codenamed “Operation Cannonball,” sounded very encouraging on paper — it would sidestep turf wars between Washington and Islamabad, and target high-value targets where we know they are. So, what happened? — CB

    They want to rename the plan “Operation Loose Cannon” but aren’t sure whether it’s spelt “loose” or “lose”.

  • The only question is, will we as a nation have learned anything from our national insanity following 9/11?

    That’s not the only question. A better question is: “Will our national security apparatus be capable of catching them BEFORE they do something horrible this time?” As I mentioned in another thread here earlier today, I’m worried that Justice, the CIA, the FBI and the NSA have all been so infested by partisan hacks that if Obama is the next President they’ll be too busy covering their asses and trying to score political points against the next administration to keep their eyes on the terrorism ball. And if McCain is the next President they’ll be too busy trumping up wars with Iran and Syria to keep their eyes on the ball. Those damn former Mujahadeen might very well pull off ANOTHER successful attack while our country is playing stupid games.

  • al queda is doing just what the Bush Administrations wants them to do. Rebuild. Regroup. Redouble. They can’t scare Americans into continuing to vote Republican if they’re weak or nonexistent.

  • “The American and Pakistani officials also blame a disastrous cease-fire brokered between the Pakistani government and militants in 2006.”

    Really? So it’s the Pakistani government’s fault?

    As opposed to, oh I don’t know, letting bin Laden go when he was cornered at Tora Bora.

  • I’m sure that pulling Intelligence resources and troops out of Afghanistan for the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda’s ability to reconstitute itself. That diversion also has nothing to with the Taliban’s resurgence or the fact that terrorist attacks in Afghanistan are up 40% this year.
    Four more years of Republican security expertise should see car bombs being detonated in Topeka, Kansas.

  • Sorry to get to the party so late, but isn’t there a flip side to this? If alQ was able to regroup thanks to an AWOL Bush admin, how is this result different than what would happen if we withdrew (aside from casualties, stress on troops, expense)? Just asking.

  • beep52, AlQaeda is like a parasite. it needs a host population to live off. Afghanistan and Pakistan work fine. Iraq doesn’t.

  • Operation cannon-ball… After loading the “cannon-ball” by stirring up alQ’s top officials, what’s the back-lash the defense department has planned for the rest of the world? Either alQ is going to duck into Iran, and Iran then ‘harbors terrorists’, or something similar to transfer the conflict to that country. We’re already imposing stealth-sanctions on Iran based on suspicion. What next? It’s easy, it’s all in the PNAC handbook.

    The true intents aren’t going to surface until years after extensive fighting continues. Based on the historical experiences the US has had w/ Japan (a major trade partner), the obvious intent is to establish a trade-tie to Persian-Gulf countries and their neighbors; and international mobilization will facilitate consolidation of the conflict by-way of initiating new trade-relationships. And guess who’s going to be ‘first-in-line’ to establish those relationships? I’m not going to tell say who. I just want everyone to think a bit about who they believe will be there establishing ‘peace through trade where there once was conflict.’

    Another feature of WWII was that the US’s armed forces grew the budget and prowess. Now, in a post-9/11 world, the US claims 50% of the world’s military spending and 5% of the world’s population.

    But here’s the differences between ‘the war on terror’ and ‘WWII’: (1) WOT has no clearly defined enemy with borders etc, WWII does: Italy, Germany, and Japan (2) WOT has no commoner civic-support, WWII allowed Americans to “going to work in the factories symbolized fighting the Japs”, (3) FEAR is the main social-melding device of the WOT, and ANGER was the main social-melding device of WWII.

    The differences greatly outweigh the similarities, but the similarities are what fueled these administrative decisions pumped into our politicians by neocon thinktanks.

    The enemy of ‘alQ’ is becoming less scary to Americans as our own government has become, with new spying laws flying around and ghost threats and warnings to keep everyone in fear. This is truely a horrible situations the American people find themselves in.

    PNAC’s “new Pearl Harbor” doesn’t resemble the old one, so the results cannot be expected to be similar; this is only a hoped-for aim of the business-interests that went into the plotting of 9/11. Some are already compensated for their time, like Cheney. Why would he care to establish peace in the region now? He couldn’t give a rat’s ass what happens at this point. Next, Paul Wolfowitz, he has already been compensated as well; with no need for establishing the peace. The clear loser here who’s going to have to take all the blame, the future risk, is George W.

    Zen-like globalistic thinking cannot mask future endeavors like they have in the past. Anyone who thinks so is living in a pre-9/11 world (Sorry George HW, can’t pull that one out ever again). But as sad as that sounds, it’s at least funny to watch someone’s evil plans thwarted by his friends’ lack of motivation.

  • Comments are closed.