[NEWS] US unilateral Pakistan airstike misses al-Zawahiri

[solypsist]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ike/index.html

"U.S. sources said al-Zawahiri was the target of Friday's strike and initially reported that he may have been among the 18 people killed.

The Pakistani intelligence official said it was not known whether al-Zawahiri was in the area.

Pakistan's Foreign Office said Saturday it had lodged a protest with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan over the attack on the village of Damadola, near the Afghan border."


Can the CIA do anything right? Anyway, I suppose the big deal here is not that the US missed him again so much as it was done in Pakistani airspace without their permission. I know that Pakistan is a US "ally" in the GWOT and that US aircraft fly in their airspace all the time. Maybe the rules on munitions release has changed in Pakistan?

[Marcellus]

Eighteen people killed and the US military didn't even ask for permission to attack parts of a sovereign state?

[Dâriûsh]

Shoot first, ask later. Too bad 18 people had to die.

[Just A Girl]

acording to what ive red In this post.
I havent read the article yet.

It seems there was no evidence that al-Zawahiri was in the are they attacked,
So why did they?

[Ice]

Can the CIA do anything right? Anyway, I suppose the big deal here is not that the US missed him again so much as it was done in Pakistani airspace without their permission. I know that Pakistan is a US "ally" in the GWOT and that US aircraft fly in their airspace all the time. Maybe the rules on munitions release has changed in Pakistan?

In March 2004, Pakistani troops launched an assault on an area in Waziristan province where intelligence indicated al-Zawahiri was hiding, but he was not captured.

It's more along the lines of: Can the Pakistanis do anything right? They have had how many years to catch Bin Laden and other key Al Queda members, who are assumed to be hiding in Pakistan on the Pakistani/Afagan Boarder? If they really wanted these guys caught, it would be done.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed Rabbit

[Reenk Roink]

If they really wanted these guys caught, it would be done.

Yup, and we can say the same for the good ol' US.

[Watchman]

The Pakistanis can at least cite muddy internal politics and the need to tiptoe diplomatically around the damn hill tribes as excuses, since they need to manage the blasted place tomorrow too.

[solypsist]

so tell me what gains the US made by acting on their own with this little failed effort other than to really piss off one of our allies on the War On Terror.

A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed Rabbit

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight.

Crazed Rabbit

[Reenk Roink]

It's easy to act without considering the consequences...

[Xiahou]

A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed Rabbit

It's a clear case of damned if you do vs damned if you dont. I would've like to heard soly's reaction to a news story saying we found Zawahiri with an UAV but didnt do anything because it was just across the border. My guess is it'd be pretty much the same reaction.

[solypsist]

No, what I want to read is this: Coalition forces capture/kill top terrorist Zawahiri. I want mission success, and I expect it to be done properly. Your "alternative" is narrow since you've chosen a scenario that ends in defeat.

It's a clear case of damned if you do vs damned if you dont. I would've like to heard soly's reaction to a news story saying we found Zawahiri with an UAV but didnt do anything because it was just across the border. My guess is it'd be pretty much the same reaction.

Hey, let's talk about other stuff the US could have done properly: "A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials."

See? I don't want to go O/T but come on - time and again the US approach to the War on Terror lets me down - the bungled attack in Pakistan is just the latest in a series of bad gaffes and ....oh, man.

[Xiahou]

So what did you mean by

I suppose the big deal here is not that the US missed him again so much as it was done in Pakistani airspace without their permission. I know that Pakistan is a US "ally" in the GWOT and that US aircraft fly in their airspace all the time. Maybe the rules on munitions release has changed in Pakistan?

The 'real big deal' isn't whether they hit or missed him according to your prior statement- what matters was that they fired without permission.

Hey, let's talk about other stuff the US could have done properly: "A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials."

See? I don't want to go O/T but come on - time and again the US approach to the War on Terror lets me down - the bungled attack in Pakistan is just the latest in a series of bad gaffes and ....oh, man.

Ah, there comes the rhetoric- you rightly point out it's off topic, but dont let that stop you from getting some swipes in huh?

[Watchman]

States do so tend to get edgy when others infringe on their "monopoly on legitimate violence" thing without permission...

[solypsist]

Read the second sentence in my post above yours, the italicized word.

truth be told, if we had killed him, I probably wouldn't be complaining, but after so many times of US forces just being cowboys and charging in and then botching the mission, maybe the solution is to start doing things properly with the help of our allies instead of in spite of them.

So what did you mean by The 'real big deal' isn't whether they hit or missed him according to your prior statement- what matters was that they fired without permission.

Ah, there comes the rhetoric- you rightly point out it's off topic, but dont let that stop you from getting some swipes in huh?

some well deserved and documented swipes at that.

[Xiahou]

truth be told, if we had killed him, I probably wouldn't be complaining, but after so many times of US forces just being cowboys and charging in and then botching the mission, maybe the solution is to start doing things properly with the help of our allies instead of in spite of them.

So if they can see into their crystal ball and know the operation will succeed, you wouldnt mind them doing it without permission eh? Too bad the real world doesnt work that way- for all we know at this point, they could've missed him by a matter of feet or minutes, but since it failed you can now look back and say assuredly that it should never have been attempted.

some well deserved and documented swipes at that.

Hardly, do you know how much body armor they wear now? It's up to 90lbs at times isnt it? If they encased every soldier in 300lbs of ceramic armor it might protect them better from bullets or shrapnel... but then they couldnt move either. What the Pentagon study was for more likely, was to study the effectiveness of current armor and what parts need modification or reinforcement based on the types of injuries sustained.

Armor is heavy, and hot- there's always going to be a trade-off between protection and mobility. Could an injury or death have been prevented had there been a heavy trauma plate there instead? Probably, but how many others could be injured by being weighed down by bulky armor and unable to fight/move/dodge properly. Obviously a study was being done to monitor it's effectiveness. Why do you think this was done?

It's just more of the same anti-military dailykos claptrap.

[Ice]

Yup, and we can say the same for the good ol' US.

Wonder why that is? Hmm, think about it. Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan, now why aren't we going to get him?

[Marcellus]

Wonder why that is? Hmm, think about it. Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan, now why aren't we going to get him?

Perhaps because Pakistan is a sovereign state, and an ally of America in the 'War on terror'? In a relatively undeveloped country, with remote areas, like Pakistan, it's not really that surprising that they haven't caught Bin Laden, even if he's in the country. After all, the Americans couldn't catch him when he was (probably) in Afghanistan.

[Tribesman]

What a dumb ass move . An easy lesson in how to annoy your "friends" , but with friends like these who needs enemies .
The dictator in Pakistan has made it clear from day one that Coilition forces will not be allowed operate his side of the border , his army has repeatedly fired on US/Afghani patrols along the border just to reinforce the message .

Perhaps in this global war on terror it isn't really a great idea to have an ally who supports terrorists and backed the Taliban .

[solypsist]

note true: AQ has tried numerous times since 2003 to assassinate Musharaff - he wants them dead as much as we do. i could find no sources indicating Pakistan firing at Coalition soldiers

The dictator in Pakistan has made it clear from day one that Coilition forces will not be allowed operate his side of the border , his army has repeatedly fired on US/Afghani patrols along the border just to reinforce the message .

Perhaps in this global war on terror it isn't really a great idea to have an ally who supports terrorists and backed the Taliban .

[Watchman]

Pakistan (which wasn't being run by Musfarrah at the time anyway - he only took power a few years ago) acted as the middleman when the US was supplying and training the beardy guys in the mountains who were shooting up the Soviets back in the day, and of course had its own interests involved. And right next door the Iranians were doing about the exact same thing, save from their own pockets and not American ones.

That's geopolitics for you. Yesterday's indispensable ally is tomorrow's sworn enemy. Nothing new under the sun there.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I say Nuclear Carpet Bomb the entire freakin mountain rage where we think he is.

[Watchman]

That from "How To Gain Friends and Influence(tm)" ?

[Leet Eriksson]

That from "How To Gain Friends and Influence(tm)" ?

Nay, its from Kaiser's "I came, I saw, I conquered.. then i failed"tm

[Tribesman]

note true: AQ has tried numerous times since 2003 to assassinate Musharaff - he wants them dead as much as we do.
Al-Qaida is not the only terrorist organisation Soly , besides which several senior officers in the military regime have been arrested for aiding Al-Qaida and for trying to assasinate Musharraf , that is the problem you get when your military supports terrorists , sometimes they support the terrorists that you don't want them to It is a problem that the dictator is having to face as he walks the tightrope of supporting the US while at the same time opposing the US .
i could find no sources indicating Pakistan firing at Coalition soldiers

Well I suggest you look a little harder .
Like I said there are numerous and continuing incidents stretching back to 2002 . Try the incident where the coilition troops called in an airstrike on the Pakistani border patrol at Shkrin after being fired on after refusing to leave Pakistani territory , it should be easy enough for you to find .

[solypsist]

i'm afraid i can't. links? you said numerous, so more than two or three incidents (w/ links) would be nice

Like I said there are numerous and continuing incidents stretching back to 2002 . Try the incident where the coilition troops called in an airstrike on the Pakistani border patrol at Shkrin after being fired on after refusing to leave Pakistani territory , it should be easy enough for you to find .

[Ice]

Washington: Pakistan has issued new rules of engagement permitting its Army to fire at US forces that cross the border from Afghanistan without coordinating first, according to a report contributed to the magazine ‘American Conservative’ by a former CIA officer.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...2-2-2005_pg1_4

[doc_bean]

The US has probably killed more innocent civilians in the so called war on Terror than the terrorists (including 9/11).

[Kanamori]

I think there is a big difference between accidentally killing civilians in a country you are in a full scale war with and accidentally killing totally innocent civilians in your allies country...

We should not have been bombing in a friendly nation unless the target was the only thing there.



This is absolutely disgraceful, as far as I'm concerned.