Defense Tech: How We Let Osama Get Away


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

How We Let Osama Get Away

"We will prosecute these men and send a clear message to those who kill Americans: No matter how long it takes, we will find you and bring you to justice."

-- George W. Bush, 9/9/06

Five years ago tomorrow, three thousand people were killed in my home town. And the bastards who masterminded this mass murder have gotten away with it, thanks in part to the actions of our government and its allies. Sure, hunting for a single, clever man in a vast world is an extremely difficult task. It gets even harder, when there's anything less than 100% commitment and focus to catching him.

By now, you probably know that Pakistan has signed a "truce" with the militants who many believe are harboring bin Laden. You know that the CIA has shut down its Osama-hunting shop. But what you may not know -- and what the Washington Post reveals today -- is that there hasn't been a "credible lead" on the Al-Qaeda chieftain's whereabouts in "more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader."

In an exhaustive article, the paper shows how the trail for bin Laden grew so cold. The story starts not long after the President promised that the terrorist would be caught "dead or alive."

[In a December, 2001] videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice...

Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq...

Although the hunt for bin Laden has depended to a large extent on technology, until recently unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were in short supply, especially when the war in Iraq became a priority in 2003...

Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years... In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.

"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.

"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.

Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop...

In 2004, Rumsfeld finally won the president's approval to put SOCOM [the Defense Department's Special Operations Command] in charge of the "Global War on Terrorism..."

Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!"

The President and his team rightly deserve credit for deflecting any attacks on the homeland since 9/11. They deserve credit for catching Al-Qaeda bigwigs like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But to let their hard-ons for Iraq and their petty infighting distract them from nailing America's number one enemy is more than frustrating. It's dangerous. They've shown would-be Osamas all over the world that you can attack America, and get off scot-free. And I'm afraid that more of my neighbors will one day pay the price for sending that awful message.

Comments

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 01:29 AM

FROM ARMY TANKER, TO LONG HAUL TRUCK DRIVER, FINALLY CONFINED TO A WHEELCHAIR, YOU GOT IT BABY I AM ALWAYS IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL NOW SUCK IT UP, & DO YOUR DUTY DEFEND THIS NATION OR PERISH ,BIN LADEN HAS BEEN A FIGHTER FOR YEARS BUILDING AN ARMY OUR MILITARY IS BUILT IT JUST NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED A LITTLE REPAIRED A LITTLE,BUT UTMOST RESPECTED, HONORED AND HAVE THAT CAN DO SPIRIT! CONTINUE FOREVER THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE ARMY BUT IT IS A GOOD LIFE,SURE IT COULD BE BETTER,BUT YOUR SACRAFICES ARE MUCH APPRECIATED, THANK YOU GOD BLESS,MERRY CHRISTMAS

Posted by: Rick Mills at December 15, 2006 10:27 PM

Gen. Tommy Franks, Sec Def Rumsfiled and their staffs decided that using the locals, in concert with SOF and air power would be the quickest, cheapest, and most affective way to remove the Taliban from power. They studied the Soviet's methods and decided that a traditional large and heavy force would not work.

We wanted to remove the Taliban and kill every Al-Qaida we could find. Removing the Taliban requires one strategy, and killing all the Al-Qaida requires another. We chose the remove the Taliban strategy, and promote freedom and democracy. To kill every Al-Qaida we needed different tactics.

We could not have both strategies at the same time, and have to live with the consequences.
There is no right answer, and no one is to blame.

Posted by: BT at September 12, 2006 07:23 PM

WAT BOTHERED ME WAS OUR OUTSOURCING THE TASK OF TAKING TORA BORA BY FORCE. AFGHAN WARLORDS DO NOT WANT TO FIGHT, THEY THREATEN, POSTURE...AND NOTHING. WE GAVE HIM TIME TO MAKE HIS ESCAPE WHEN WE STOPPED THE PRESSURE. IF THE 10TH MOUNTAIN WAS THERE, SF FROM THE U.S., U.K., CANADA, AUSTRALIA, FRANCE, ROYAL DUTCH MARINES, U.S. MARINES, WE SHOULD HAVE WENT IN THERE HELLBENT FOR LEATHER KNOWING HE WAS THERE. WHO IS AT FAULT? GEN.HAGENBECK? OR HIGHER UPS? PART OF ME THINKS HE IS DEAD. OR JUST LYING LOW...WAITING...

Posted by: ROBERT BRYNE at September 12, 2006 10:24 AM

The comments to this post just go to show the huge advantage the Islamist terrorists have over us- our incredible ability to in-fight in the face of the biggest threat to our civilisation since the Cold War. As a number of people here point out, what's currently our weakest point is our collective resolve. The Islamofascists cannot defeat the US and allies militarily in Iraq, Afghanistan or in any other theatre- we can, however, let them win by not having the fortitude to continue to fight them.

Has the Bush administration made mistakes? Yes

Did the Clinton administration do enough to combat terrorism? No

Now, can we please move on and put a combined front on in the battle against terrorists who would like nothing more than to kill innocent civilians in vast numbers?

And, just for the record, Clinton didn't foil the Millennium terrorist plot as Aaron suggests; that was down to the actions of alert LEOs. The other plots hatched at the same time were defeated by Jordanian intelligence and the terrorists overloading and sinking their own boat. Clinton had exactly nothing to do with any of it.

Posted by: Jay.Mac at September 12, 2006 10:08 AM

Okay, the Atlanta Olympic bomber evaded capture for 5 years by hiding in the woods of Georgia, but somehow finding Osama in a foreign country in a desolate region is supposed to be a piece of cake, and thus represent the failings of the Bush administration.

The problem with the current so-called debate is the total lack of perspective and patience. Here we have Islamofascists who are committed to spending their entire lives fighting for their cause, no matter what the setbacks and hardships they face, and we Americans get into a frenzy of self-loathing because 5 years of anything is too long to wait.

Isn't it any wonder OBL is convinced the U.S. lacks the resolve, and all he has to do is wait for the Democrats to gain power and pull troops out of Iraq and suddenly make a triumphant appearance to claim victory for that?

Just think about this post and consider again why Osama and his gang consider the West to be weak. It's not about our weapons, folks. It's because it seems most of us slap "failure" on anything that doesn't produce instant gratification, and this post merely confirms how short-sighted and unwilling Americans are to see things through. Americans are only prepared to hardship and the long haul, as long as it's over by tomorrow.

Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2006 04:49 AM

Soros and Terresa Kerry are not super rich??? Isnt Marxist class warfare getting a little old??
Democrats are more dependent on fat cats than the GOP is..

Posted by: Rob at September 12, 2006 12:06 AM

Got Gulbubdin Hekmatiar. This is no small thing!! Maybe he knows where Osama is.

Posted by: Rob at September 11, 2006 11:56 PM

It's a moot point anyways. Osama Bin Laden was killed years ago. I would say in the Tora Bora region from airstrikes. No concrete audio or video evidence of his existence has ever been released since the infamous Tora Bora video where he looked about a few days from death.

Posted by: The Realist at September 11, 2006 07:56 PM

The reason we haven't caught bin Laden is simple: If we caught him, that would mean we have 'won' the so-called 'war on terror', eliminating justification for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, removal of civil liberties from Americans, gargantuan military budgets and endless weapons programs, no-bid contracts to politically connected corporations, etc.

That is why his capture at Tora Bora was 'outsourced' to non-US units. That is why the military was 'misdirected' to Iraq. That is why the CIA unit devoted to bin Laden was disbanded. That is why Bush went from "dead or alive" to "I truly am not that concerned about him."

WASHINGTON POST: Why do you think bin Laden has not been caught?
DUBYA: Because he's hiding.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 11, 2006 07:50 PM

I am not going to comment on C-Low's five thousand word diatribe, except to say there are some legitimate points.

Anyway, why does the GWOT have to a partisan matter? It took decades to create the situation we have now and it will take decades to resolve. I find it amusing that we Americans are always debating the past, even though it can never be changed.

Unless someone creates a set of principles in an over arching strategy for the GWOT, and then develops the metrics to gauge our successes and failures, then everything else is trivial.

My own personal philosophy is to never give your opponent what he wants. For some people, there are things worse than death. Find it and then use it to its maximum affect.

Posted by: BT at September 11, 2006 05:03 PM

You guys are pitiful. How does anyone know that even if we had inserted that Marine assault force in theater on top of the SOF and our N Alliance allies Bin Laden wouldn’t have been able to slip out the net?

Do you guys forget that not long ago almost 15k US forces circled a small city with a terrorist big wig inside rallying the troops before he escaped out? Falluja 04’ ring a bell. “How we let Osama get away” Asshatery in its finest. That title would maybe fit on a scenario were say Bush was offered Bin Laden by X nation in return for getting off the sh*t list but Bush (due to legal mumbo jumbo interpretation even thou knowing full well the consequences of not killing this known enemy would be dead Americans) refused to take the prize instead attempted to pass the potato to a “allied” nation , whoops that wasn’t Bush eehh who was that president its was just so long ago the good ol days of blissful ignorance were terrorist victims were just acceptable losses?

How many terrorist were killed or captured after;

93' World Trade (that if they had picked the right column the building would have collapsed and casualties would have been more than 9-11)

Somalia humiliation

Nairobi Embassy attack

Kenya Embassy attack

Cole

Multiple CIA agents assassinated across the ME

Millennium attack (stopped only ONLY because some lady border guard had a GUT feeling some guy looked nervous suspicious and she had the BALLS to run with it and searched his car)

What was done in response to these blatant attacks? Just because we were lucky and the body count stayed low in these strikes the fact is they were attacks that were left unanswered. "I feel your pain" warm fuzzy feel good speeches and a one time handful of cruise missiles telegraphed then back to the good old days of "Ignorance is Bliss" attitude.

Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away. Sometimes you have to make the hard decisions and those decisions have consequences in WAR bad things happen, bad things have to be done, people die, sacrifices are made, and things never go perfectly it’s the nature of the beast. Change requires instability, risk, sacrifice, doing nothing "ignorance is Bliss" mentality only delays the inevitable and makes the price of change higher.

Bush may not be perfect may not even be the best suited BUT he HAD the balls to make the hard call and at least start on a path to fix a horrific growing problem. Bush invaded Afghanistan (were the Soviets were beaten) and took Tora Bora (were the Soviets failed to) he made the hard decision, he made the call. He chose Iraq as the next front in the war with Islamic Radicalism like it or not WE ARE NOW ENGAGED the debate ended in 2003 when we rolled across the Kuwaiti border on whether Iraq was the best choice of battle field. Italy and North Africa may have not been the best choice fronts but once engaged we stood together and won the fronts not fought each other. Some may even say that if we didn't season our forces in N Africa then Italy that those lessons learned in Normandy would have meant cost and sacrifices way past anything we paid with the path we had chose.

9-11 Bush went offensive since then we have.

We have Guantanamo and "secret" prisons overflowing with captured AQ "aggressively questioned" hehe and laundry list of dead AQ.

We have the whole world arresting Islamic Radicals now (not highly publicized) but after we went offensive the risk of having Terrorist in your territory was more expensive than the risk of having to kill, arrest, or run out those same terrorist. Today the only nations willing to openly take that risk is Syria, Iran and unfortunately looks like maybe Pakistan (pending to see how it plays out there) were as pre-US-going-offensive the entire ME was letting the terrorist run free will even Jordan/Egypt (so called allies).

We have Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Lebanon, Egypt, hell even Saudi Arabia making baby steps towards Democratic nations in the British Model with Iraq, Afghanistan being done by force.

Numerous snatch and grab Ops along with very aggressive predator hunter killer Ops in nations all over the globe from EU to Pakistan to Yemen to Africa to SE Asia.

Afghanistan, Iraq: Invaded, Conquered, Occupied with Insanely light casualties (historically compared) so far. In these areas we have bleed the enemy of THOUSANDS of foot soldiers (over a thousand last week alone in Afghanistan) and huge amounts of their limited resources (to run a resistance cost a hell of a lot more than 9-11 did). The AQ leadership has been decimated (yes they have been replaced and yes that is the nature of warfare and Yes we are not Done). Both of these nations for the first time in history have a freely elected governments, and militaries in training to take over the duties our forces are currently doing (massive progress has been made in this respect to were we soon will be in a backup role for air support and major action).

Both of these nations if they survive will be ALLIES that have bleed shoulder to shoulder with US against Radical Islamist (Britain was not considered a ally until after WW2 wonder why you think that is?). All of these things are happening and TIME IS ON OUR SIDE the more time goes by the stronger these will become fact.

The Terrorist cannot run US out of these territories by force the only way we can lose is by US losing heart. What would have happened if in WW2 at the gates of Berlin we had just up and stopped lost heart?

If you guys could just channel your hatred of Bush/Republicans towards the enemies that wish to KILL US we would be a sight better off.

Posted by: C-Low at September 11, 2006 12:21 PM

The reason we haven't caught OBL is simple: thanks to CLINTON we didn't have enough human intelligence in the area or region - not enough spies talking the language, not enough informants from that entire region... you can't know everything from satelites and UAVs.

I swear, if George W. Bush were caught drinking the blood of an infant out of champagne glass, someone would find a way to blame his mental imbalance on ther moral horror of the Clinton years.

There were systemic failures across several administrations, going back at least to Reagan. As for human intelligence failures, talk to Colleen Rowley, among others.

You can't fight an effective WOT if you have more loyalty to a emotionally satisfying narrative than to reality.

Posted by: Phila at September 11, 2006 10:53 AM

BT - I'd have to disagree with you about hunting down bin Laden. He is an icon of al-Qaeda's success on 9/11 and leaving him alive is an injustice to those killed that day. Taking him and Zawahiri out is more extracting justice and punishment than GWOT.

After we get them, then it will be time to move away from the Israeli assassination and counter-organization model of counter-terrorism. That kind of strategy just plays into the terrorist socio-political narrative and creates martyrs in a culture than exalts martyrdoms. The British counter-terrorism model of counter-operations activity combined with efforts to address the root causes and undermind the terrorist messages has proven much more successful.

As for John's jibe about human intelligence, you can't just blame the Clinton administration - HUMINT has been languishing as a profession since the 1980s. The CIA and the past four administrations share the blame equally for allowing weak intelligence training, poor hiring practices and rudderless human capital policies to persist for decades.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 11, 2006 09:57 AM

So even IF we put 100% of our assets on nailing OBL, short of invading Pakistan, there's a limit to what technology can reveal - especially when the man is cagey enough to not directly use any technology. Blaming Iraq for our not nailing him is to not give him enough credit. Even if we had 100 UAVs and 30 intel sats pointed at that region 24/7 they wouldn't spot him if he stays indoors. But a well placed operative, native to the region, who was in Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, could very well lead us right to him...

Posted by: John at September 11, 2006 09:01 AM

Of course you can kill a popular idea with bullets. It just takes a lot of them.

Posted by: Brian at September 11, 2006 08:48 AM

It's so easy to say that the US government let Bin Laden 'slip away.'

But let's not get so cavalier. The Soviets never captured Tora Bora, even after years of fighting. The Americans? Got it in 2 weeks.

Posted by: Ben Fan at September 11, 2006 07:13 AM

Warning: the following comments may offend Neo-realists.

Does anyone think that killing UBL is the end of our war with Islamic extremists? I do not; there is always someone to take his place. No need to waste valuable resources on one person, hiding out in some cave, when the game is much broader. This conflict is bigger than just the US versus Al Qaeda. Relax; this is not WW3, Newt Gingrich style.

Beware of Moby Dick. An obsession with one transnational organization solves nothing, and may be self destructive. Killing the old Al Qaeda, might make us all feel good, like we actually won, but the underlying threat will remain. It is time to expand our horizons.

Address the root causes, not the symptoms. You can't eliminate a popular idea with bullets alone. It requires a multi-faceted, and multi-disciplined global effort, in order to create an environment that will ultimately marginalize Islamic extremists. Sorry Neo-Con’s, I am not talking about a democracy either.

This will take decades, and requires more than killing terrorists. We cannot win a war of attrition, nor simply ignore the threat and become isolationists. It is time to tone down the rhetoric and find a creative, long-term global strategy, one that helps Muslims transition to Modernity.

Pet Peeve: there are no legitimate historical parallels for the "war on terror", so people should stop trying to attach one to it. Years 476,1099,1648,1857,1914,1920,1924,1939,1948,1973, etc. Don't think so.

Posted by: BT at September 11, 2006 03:17 AM

You tube has the interview up. the part about clinton begins at around 2.30, but its worth watching the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdbNWucX_cU&mode=related&search=

Posted by: Aaron` at September 11, 2006 01:30 AM

Anthrax attack.
I dont know why people seem to think there havent been any more terror attacks. there were.

Paul,
the fact is it was Republicans who pushed monica and bitched and moaned about how this whole terror thing was merely Clinton 'wagging the dog'.

Jon Stewart just had on Clinton era Sec. of Def. William Cohen. A republican, he stated in no uncertain terms that Clinton instructed him to make any decisions that had to be made and not to worry about political issues and timing, becouse that was his job to take the heat. Clinton took terrorism very seriously and disrupted the millenium plot. He was limited by a hostile Republican congress.

George Bush and company ignored dozens and dozens of warnings before 9/11.

Under Reagan and bush41 FEMA was a back water filled with political chrony appointees.
Under Clinton FEMA became an elite agency with an incredible reputation becouse they believed in good government.
Under Bush43, the commision recomended it be disbanded becouse again, Republicans dont give a shit about good government.

Dont spread this 'oh they all suck b.s.'
It just isnt true.

Posted by: Aaron` at September 11, 2006 01:08 AM

What evidence do we have that Bin Laden is alive? Where are the video tapes he loved releasing previous to Toa Bora? Would it be in the administrations interest withold news of his death?

Posted by: Bruce at September 11, 2006 12:22 AM

The comment by Bill is your typically rant against the Republicans which is a load of crap. There is more than enough blame to go around for both Republicans and Democrats. Where was Clinton and Company when Bin Laden was bombing embassies etc.. They make a half hearted attempt to get him with a cruise missile and back to Monica..

If these guys are the best that either of these parties have to offer we are all in a world of hurt.. What we need to do is toss all of them out and start electing people by their capabilities not who can be most popular..

Unfortunately too few Americans know anything about the issues or bother to investigate what the candidates really know or how they really vote.

Posted by: Paul at September 10, 2006 09:29 PM

The thing that really frustrates me is that your Republican audience will just pass right over this one. They don't see themselves as responsible; but they voted for Bush, and they are responsible. Bush is protected by the corrupt Republican majority in both houses of Congress, and your readers keep on voting for them, too. Nice going, fellas. But you are responsible.

Bush is a corrupt failure, as are Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the long list of Bush appointees. But your readers will just skip right over this. Make no mistake, if you voted for Bush you are responsible.

Although I like defensetech and this is an excellent article, your last paragraph betrays you. The President deserves next to no credit for "deflecting attacks on the homeland." The global war on terror is just this election's device for frightening people into voting Republican. Get out and read some of the alternative views on why America has not been attacked again. And your audience can't wait to vote Republican again in the next election.

People who vote to keep these losers in office are throwing away everything that my father (and many of their fathers, I'm sure) fought for in WWII. Wake up and get rid of these servants of the superrich; put anyone else in office and give them a chance. And then maybe our excellent military (I can't tell you how much I admire the resolve of the guys who keep going back because their country asks them to - why can't you Republicans vote for someone who is worthy of that trust?) will be able to nail the bastards who actually attacked us.

Posted by: Bill at September 10, 2006 07:53 PM

How We Let Osama Get Away

Comments

Post a comment