U.S. missile strikes take heavy toll on Al Qaeda, officials say -- 3-22-09

[Kolesar]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington -- An intense, six-month campaign of Predator strikes in Pakistan has taken such a toll on Al Qaeda that militants have begun turning violently on one another out of confusion and distrust, U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials say.
...
"This last year has been a very hard year for them," a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said of Al Qaeda militants, whose operations he tracks in northwest Pakistan. "They're losing a bunch of their better leaders. But more importantly, at this point they're wondering who's next." U.S. intelligence officials said they see clear signs that the Predator strikes are sowing distrust within Al Qaeda. "They have started hunting down people who they think are responsible" for security breaches, the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said, discussing intelligence assessments on condition of anonymity. "People are showing up dead or disappearing."
...
But the Predator campaign has depleted the organization's operational tier. Many of the dead are longtime loyalists who had worked alongside Bin Laden and were part of the network's hasty migration into Pakistan in 2001 after U.S.-led forces invaded neighboring Afghanistan. They are being replaced by less experienced recruits who have had little, if any, history with Bin Laden and Zawahiri.
...
U.S. officials say that despite complaints, the Pakistani government's opposition has been muted because the CIA has expanded its targeting to include militant groups that threaten the government in Islamabad.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-predator22-2009mar22,0,2028263.story

[marmar]

1. I wonder if they've taken out yet another Al-Qaeda No. 2 ?

n/t

[Rebellious Republican]

3. Yep, those number two's keep piling up.............

Remember, America will keep the oil flowing as long as they do not take out Number one. Which happens to be a Saudi prince, cause god forbid that we should kill a member of the royal family!

Not that we have ever done any special favors in the past......

NEW YORK, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- The bin Laden family were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace following the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.
http://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/BinLadenFam.html

:think:


:hi:

[saigon68]

5. They have also killed Goats, Donkeys, Infants Grandmothers etc

They have indiscriminately wiped out groups of houses,stables, places of worship with dozens of civilians inside.

Since the RELIGION the USA is fighting, respects and reveres MARTYRS.

Making thousands of additional MARTYRS seems to be counter productive.

I wonder why they can't send the Green Berets etc in there on foot to shoot the
"TERRORISTS" RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES !!! As in ----kill the right people.

[Rebellious Republican]

9. Well said saigon68, or they could use ....

JSOC and pick your poison from that list, such as Delta Force or Devgru.

[Kolesar]

10. I am sure that we would lose the "element of surprise"

...that we certainly have with the unmanned predator attacks. The current policy has hardly created any discord back here in the USA.

I presume that you were asking for a serious answer.

The US had truly incompetent leadership in foreign affairs until Bush dumped Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 2006. The US is having a hard time putting together any kind of a real plan to deal with our rival Al Qaeda.

Should this policy "be effective", I imagine that the US would leave Pakistan and let the Pakistani government rule that region as a autocratic/police state, which is the state that half of the world lives in right now. Then, we can get on to our other security challenges like mass dislocations from super hurricanes and the instability across the border in Tijuana.

[Fumesucker]

12. "Our rival Al Qaeda"

Al Qaeda is a rival to the USA?

You're hallucinating.

[Kolesar]

15. ^Wholly devoid of substantive research or analysis

Go for a walk or something.

[Fumesucker]

24. I agree, your post was wholly devoid of substance..

"Our rival Al Qaeda" indeed.

To suggest that a loosely knit group of guerrillas is in any serious way a rival to the most powerful nation in the known universe is utterly ludicrous.

[Kolesar]

30. Pee Wee Herman?

[Crowman1979]

13. The use of a predator aircraft is just another way to make it look like we're attacking terrorists.

Because if W the chimp actually attacked the terrorist, then the war would end and be bad for the businesses belonging to his cronies.

[Rebellious Republican]

14. Crowman1979, you do realize the chimp is no longer in charge?

Just sayin, that argument no longer holds water, as we have had an election since then. Its up to the new President to determine policy, not some has been.

:shrug:

[Crowman1979]

16. Yeah, but this campaign of using predators was in place a few weeks before Obama was in office

[Rebellious Republican]

19. I agree, lets hope President Obama is formulating a better policy.

He does have kind of full plate right now. I have confidence that he is going to do the right thing, he has reversed many of the chimps bad policies. I believe he will continue to do so. We are all very anxious to see change happen. I am willing to give him some time, he does need to eat and sleep occasionally.

:toast:

[hugo_from_TN]

26. I would imagine that Obama has approved this policy and is probably ramping it up

since that is what he said he would do on the campaign trail.

[hugo_from_TN]

29. Quote from Panetta at the end of the article indicates there will be no change.

Panetta, asked about the Predator attacks in a meeting with reporters last month, refused to discuss the program directly, but said, "Nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists, and nothing will change those efforts."

[newfie11]

2. Who knows if this is the truth or just more propaganda

to justify the cost of this insane war.

[Prometheus Bound]

4. I know.

It's propaganda.

U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials say.

a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said

U.S. intelligence officials said

the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said

The counter-terrorism official and others, who also spoke anonymously, said

U.S. officials described

officials said

former officials said

officials said

said a former CIA official

said a former senior U.S. counter-terrorism official

Former CIA officials said

A CIA officer involved said

the official said

...and so forth

[Downwinder]

11. Plus, if it really was working,

they would not have to expand the number of drones.

[hack89]

17. What if they are working on an expanded target list?

sounds like they made a deal with the Pakistani government - be quiet and we will kill some of your enemies too.

[hugo_from_TN]

27. Exactly.

The Pakistani nationals that were in league with Al Quada were always relatively safe before. Now they are being targeted also which is greatly changing the dynamic.

[Optical.Catalyst]

6. The Bush Administrations started this violation of Pakistani sovereignty

but President Obama needs to end it.

We have never been invited to kill people in Pakistan, and we are not advancing our position in the eyes of other sovereign nations around the world. We should not continue the conservative philosophy of "kill 'em all", because that is not who we are.

[bahrbearian]

8. So true

[hack89]

18. We were invited

There are Predator bases in Pakistan. The Pakistani government is feeding us intel. We are killing terrorist attacking the Pakistani government.

[peace_to_world]

21. you are uninvited guests

[hack89]

25. Take it up with your government. nt

[ixion]

7. Another glorious victory against Eurasia. Huzzah for Oceana!

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[peace_to_world]

20. I don't believe them

It is not written on their faces whether they are Taliban or not.US has just wiped out civilians instead of Taliban.If they consider it as their victory then its a shameful one.


US has lost Pakistani people as its ally.They just support some dummy govt people which I hope will go back soon.

[bemildred]

22. It just seems like an awfully expensive way to kill a few peasants ...

And anybody that thinks al Qaeda has some sort of hierarchical leadership that is not easily replaceable is not paying any attention. This is like pounding sand, a very expensive way to pound sand, thereby creating more and more sand.

[pimpbot]

23. So whats your better idea?

They fled afghanistan after the 2001 invasion. They've been operating out of the FATA in Pakistan for the last couple years with no worries and have kept the local population hostage to their extreme views. Any US operation on the ground would never work, since the area is so mountainous / remote.

[bemildred]

31. Leave the peasants alone?

When you are engaged in a stupid activity, which the USA trying to run affairs in Central Asia definitely qualifies as, then engaging in even more stupid activities, like trying to run affairs in Pakistan, is definitely even more stupid.

[rcrush]

35. +1

I agree. NOT bombing poor people seems like a better solution that to bomb poor people. I mean if we really want the muslim world to like us that would be a good start.

[EFerrari]

32. Yeah. We need to get the hell out of there because there is not military solution.

[peace_to_world]

33. better idea for US

is to pack up their things and leave our country.US is just increasing the problems.The situation was at least better before they arrived for nothing but their selfish goals.

[pinniped]

28. They tried that "turn violently on one another" BS before.

If that's the case, get the F out of the country and let them kill one another until there are no more.

This is the same recycled BS from before.

I'm waiting for the resurrection of al-Zarqawi.

[rcrush]

34. How many civilians did they kill?

Or are they all part of Al Queada now?