Al-Qaeda crippled as leaders stay in hiding, CIA chief says

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Joby Warrick and Peter Finn Washington Post Staff Writers

Relentless attacks against al-Qaeda in the Pakistan tribal region appear to have driven Osama bin Laden and other top leaders deeper into hiding, leaving the organization rudderless and less capable of planning sophisticated operations, CIA Director Leon Panetta said Wednesday.

So profound is al-Qaeda's disarray that one of its lieutenants, in a recently intercepted message, pleaded to bin Laden to come to the group's rescue and provide some leadership, Panetta told The Washington Post in an interview.

Panetta credited an increasingly aggressive campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies, including more frequent strikes and better coordination with Pakistan, in a near-acknowledgement of the CIA's war against extremists in Pakistan. He called it "the most aggressive operation that CIA has been involved in in our history."

"Those operations are seriously disrupting al-Qaeda," Panetta said. "It's pretty clear from all the intelligence we are getting that they are having a very difficult time putting together any kind of command and control, that they are scrambling. And that we really do have them on the run."

The comments came as a senior U.S. intelligence official revealed new details of a March 8 killing of a top al-Qaeda commander in the militant stronghold of Miram Shah in North Waziristan, in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region. The al-Qaeda official died in what local news reports described as a missile strike by a unmanned aerial vehicle. The CIA formally declines to acknowledge U.S. participation in such attacks inside Pakistani territory.

more...

[scandal 951]

Good news.

I wonder what ####### Cheney has to say about this? Where is the "soft on terror" Obama administration he's so fond of criticizing? Looks to me like they're focusing on the perpetrators of 9/11 and being effective at rooting them out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Good news.

I wonder what ####### Cheney has to say about this?

"You were right! You were right!"

[alienlovechild 75]

Good news.

I wonder what ####### Cheney has to say about this? Where is the "soft on terror" Obama administration he's so fond of criticizing? Looks to me like they're focusing on the perpetrators of 9/11 and being effective at rooting them out.

Pakistan continues to pretend they don't approve of the U.S. missile strikes so it's playing both sides.

"Pakistans government of President Asif Ali Zardari has criticized the U.S. use of the aircraft as counter-productive, citing anger over civilian deaths. It has asked the Obama administration to provide the Pakistan military with the unmanned planes to aid its offensive against the militants."

Luckily, Obama's missile strikes never kill civilians so it's all good.

"Missile attacks by U.S. drone aircraft in northwest Pakistan since 2004 have killed as many as 1,216 people, one third of them civilians, according to a report by a Washington-based think tank."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-02/a-third-of-pakistan-drone-victims-are-civilians-group-says.html

When is the U.S. going to withdraw from Afghanistan again as the president promised?

Edited March 18, 2010 by alienlovechild

[scandal 951]

When is the U.S. going to withdraw from Afghanistan again as the president promised?

Um, hello?

Obama's commitment all throughout the campaign was to withdraw troops from IRAQ and redeploy forces to Afghanistan to tackle the enemy that actually hit us on 9/11, not the one we boo-booed on. He's been entirely consistent in this policy before and since taking office: Bump up the forces, hit the enemy hard, train the Afghan forces to handle their own security needs, and then leave within 18 months. So far we're pretty much on plan and on schedule.

This counts as a "Promise Kept"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan," he [Obama] said.

Here's the full list of top Promises. Many more kept than broken.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/

[alienlovechild 75]

Um, hello?

Obama's commitment all throughout the campaign was to withdraw troops from IRAQ and redeploy forces to Afghanistan to tackle the enemy that actually hit us on 9/11, not the one we boo-booed on. He's been entirely consistent in this policy before and since taking office: Bump up the forces, hit the enemy hard, train the Afghan forces to handle their own security needs, and then leave within 18 months. So far we're pretty much on plan and on schedule.

"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan," he [Obama] said.

Hello? This isn't about campaign promises but whether our military policy is going to achieve long-term goals in Afghanistan. Where's the schedule as we are only 3 months into the 18 month deadline? The deadline has little military significance and is mostly for domestic political consumption.

Edited March 18, 2010 by alienlovechild

[Scott & Lai 12]

I'll celebrate when every last member of Al-Qaeda, from Bin Laden on down, is exterminated. They've been "scrambling" and "on the run" before...

[scandal 951]

Hello? This isn't about campaign promises but whether our military policy is going to achieve long-term goals in Afghanistan. Where's the schedule as we are only 3 months into the 18 month deadline? The deadline has little military significance and is mostly for domestic political consumption.

There's absolutely no pleasing some people.

You asked about his 'promises', I answered about how he's keeping his promises, then you tell me it's not about his promises.

OK. Let's start over. Tell me what you want to discuss, stick to it, and I'll respond if I see something worth responding to. So far all you've done is given me whiplash.

What I see is an Administration that said it would be tough and uncompromising on terror, has acted tough and uncompromising on terror, continues to be lambasted by ####### Cheney and his ilk for being weak on terror, and yet is showing actual operational results from the field far more convincing than anything the Bush/Cheney administration was able to achieve (witness the OP article).

I'll celebrate when every last member of Al-Qaeda, from Bin Laden on down, is exterminated. They've been "scrambling" and "on the run" before...

They were. Briefly. For a few months in Tora Bora in the opening months of the Afghanistan war in Dec 2001.

We let them slip away.

[Scott & Lai 12]

They were. Briefly. For a few months in Tora Bora in the opening months of the Afghanistan war in Dec 2001.

We let them slip away.

I know. That's hy I'm holding off celebrating till all of AQ has been exterminated. I don't care which administration accomplishes that. If Obama does it, I'll happily give him the credit for it.

[scandal 951]

I know. That's hy I'm holding off celebrating till all of AQ has been exterminated. I don't care which administration accomplishes that. If Obama does it, I'll happily give him the credit for it.

I couldn't agree with you more.

For the record - I DO give credit to the Bush administration for taking the hard fight to the bad guys. Many mistakes were made, mistakes I criticize them for strongly, but I feel certain that they acted as best they knew how to protect America and Americans from harm.

Not everything is about politics. When it comes down to it, we're talking about fighting entrenched and sworn enemies of America. Both Democrats and Republicans believe in protecting this country. It's shameful when either side casts the aspersions of disloyalty as a cheap attack on their political opponents.

[alienlovechild 75]

You asked about his 'promises', I answered about how he's keeping his promises, then you tell me it's not about his promises.

What I see is an Administration that said it would be tough and uncompromising on terror, has acted tough and uncompromising on terror, continues to be lambasted by ####### Cheney and his ilk for being weak on terror, and yet is showing actual operational results from the field far more convincing than anything the Bush/Cheney administration was able to achieve (witness the OP article).

They were. Briefly. For a few months in Tora Bora in the opening months of the Afghanistan war in Dec 2001.

We let them slip away.

You're too wrapped up into campaign mode and unable to address anything about the timetable for withdrawal. The promise is obviously meaningless at this point as there's no withdrawal coming for months and you didn't show me a master schedule that Obama is supposedly sticking to.

You can time travel back to Bush/Cheney play armchair general and refight Tora Bora again but I was referring to our game plan for Afghanistan now and in the future and got a non-answer. You know critics were all over Bush for everything he did or didn't do so you shouldn't be surprised when Cheney finally strikes back on a subject he was regularly hammered for. "Acted tough" kind of sums up Obama's policy of making a public show so we can pull out and concentrate on domestic matters which is Obama's primary focus.

As far as operational results go, body counts even of key figures may not bring about a stable Afghanistan as the area has been a nearly ceaseless set of wars where few veteran Afghan/Al Qaeda commanders live to old men. There are plenty of others to take their places but its a question of whether the tribes semi-loyal to Kabul will stay that way once the American role is greatly diminished.