Tweet
I thought that after the White House’s initial embarrassing screwups in misrepresenting what happened at the compound in which bin Laden was killed — basic facts like whether bin Laden was armed or used human shields — the White House would carefully explain to staff how important it was not to be caught giving conflicting stories again to the media, let alone conflicting messages to the already humiliated Pakistanis. Nope.
The New York Times has a story Monday night in which senior administration officials tell them, on the one hand, how important it is to repair the damaged relationship with Pakistan and, on the other, how Obama himself insisted on having sufficient US forces available during the raid in case the Seals who stormed the bin Laden compound had to “fight their way out” against Pakistani armed forces.
On Sunday, National Security Adviser Donilon intimated on the Sunday shows that there was no evidence specifically showing Pakistan had knowingly harbored bin Laden. That was presumably intended to give the Pakistan government some wiggle room. The Times reports that Admiral Mullen called the Pakistani Army chief to smooth ruffled feathers, and C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta called his Pakistan counterpart “to discuss the way forward in the common fight against Al Qaeda.” And the Times quotes Press Secretary Carney on why this is important:
“We believe that it is very important to maintain the cooperative relationship with Pakistan precisely because it’s in our national security interest to do so,” said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney.
Okay. If smoothing things with Pakistan is so important — as in, they do have nukes that could fall into the wrong hands — then why did senior officials also emphasize to the Times we not only didn’t trust Pakistan to know about or participate in the operation, but we were prepared to engage in an act of war against Pakistan forces defending their own country? And which idiot official(s) thought it was helpful or necessary to provide this information?
“Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorized to do it.” . . .
About 10 days before the raid, Mr. Obama reviewed the plans and pressed his commanders as to whether they were taking along enough forces to fight their way out if the Pakistanis arrived on the scene and tried to interfere with the operation.
That resulted in the decision to send two more helicopters carrying additional troops. . . .
“Some people may have assumed we could talk our way out of a jam, but given our difficult relationship with Pakistan right now, the president did not want to leave anything to chance,” said one senior administration official, who like others would not be quoted by name describing details of the secret mission. “He wanted extra forces if they were necessary.”
Translation: the US was prepared to enage in an act of war against a supposed ally and to fight a battle against the ally’s armed forces on their own territory, in order to pull off an armed intrusion and killing of an enemy living in that country.
Now, this wasn’t planned as a suicide mission; once you’ve decided to intrude into Pakistan to kill or capture bin Laden, it’s only logical you give your guys sufficient contingent authority and backup to protect themselves to get out. But why publically blurt this out to Pakistan?
Perhaps the White House thinks this story will add to the President’s image of a take charge, macho military leader. Presidents tend to like that.
But if the broader strategic policy requires a continued non-belligerent relationship with Pakistan, then I think it’s just as likely this is another case of another (the same?) thoughtless official saying something that will need an almost immediate retraction or clarification. So who was this anonymous official?
51 Comments
In other news: Who’s on first.
Wasn’t there a bit of buzz about Team of Rivals http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/0743270754/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305034110&sr=1-1 when O first took office? Don’t think they envisioned it turning out quite this way.
Scarecrow, you are absolutely correct on this post.
The news coming out this morning is that the US has droned NW Pakistan and killed more people. What the heck is going on over there that we have to keep shooting off 3 million dollar drones everyday?
I know the WH can’t get the story straight. Surely somebody can get to the truth.
Scarecrow, tsk tsk.
Have you completely forgotten? This is the age of eleventy dimensional chess. Nothing is as it seems and even the most simple things require the most advanced logic to interpret.
The
PentagonCommander in Chief has everything under control./sThe WH needs to keep this discussion going — to keep the worsening economy and rising gas prices off the front page to the extent possible. It’s my belief that Junior attacked Iraq to keep from becoming a one-term president — like his father. Barry may not launch a war — but who knows?
Well, that’s very reassuring.
It’s possible the continuing drone strikes are a result of the intelligence they got from the compound. But then you have to ask, why did they make such a big public deal out of “gee, we got dozens of thumb drives and computer stuff, etc.” Those associated with bin Laden would naturally assume they might be compromised but would not know for sure. So we told them.
You’d think they would have kept quiet or had a cover story instead, while they examined what they got and took advantage. But this leaves them open to the charge the WH was more interested in the domestic political value than the strategic value of the information.
I really don’t understand chess.
“Surely somebody can get to the truth.”
When I was little, we called it “keep-away” or sometimes “monkey in the middle.”
I’m wondering what you would have them do. During the Bush era, when the White House presented a completely unified front and never answered questions beyond the talking point responses, they were vilified for not being transparent enough and not really answering questions. Now there are some inconsistencies in the story, presumably determined by White House officials answering questions from curious reporters, instead of staying with pat, canned answers. Would you rather that everything be prepackaged, and that the first thing you hear about any developing situation is the last thing you hear?
http://www.juancole.com/
I suggest everyone read Juan Cole daily. It seems there was a backroom deal with the Pakistani’s where we could enter Pakistan at will to kill terrorists suspected to be hiding in Pakistan. What the U.S. Government is doing is the same kabuki dance that Pakistan is doing for their own population; they are providing as much bullshit that their people can consume at any given moment in time.
“C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta called his Pakistan counterpart “to discuss the way forward in the common fight against Al Qaeda.”
not getting out of Afghanistan.
The “We don’t know what we’re doing and we won’t allow you to see it” approach vs. the “We don’t know what we’re doing and here are bits and pieces of it for you to be confused by” approach.
LOL what a choice.
How about NEITHER.
yes, sometimes getting different viewpoints is helpful. But there are other times when your strategic interests require a clear, consistent position, and that’s especially true when you’ve got an “ally” whose own position is important to your interests but who has just been embarrassed by you.
Recall the incident when Obama sent a private messenger to meet with the Egyptian leader(s). When the guy came back and blurted out an interpretation inconsistent with the message the WH wanted to send at that delicate moment, they had to immediately say he didn’t speak for them. So expecting people who claim to speak for an Administration on a sensitive subject at a senstive moment on matters important to US interests to “get the memo” doesn’t seem too much to ask. This is basic stuff.
They should try telling the truth for a change. If they don’t want to share some of the details — for security reasons — fine, then just STFU about those things. There is NO excuse for changing stories. They must want the story to change to prolong discussion. If they don’t want the story to change, they should just tell everyone to STFU and let one person speak for all.
So, then, what? As others have said, there’s probably some chess going on here. I’m willing to bet that there’s saber rattling going on in the background by the various Pakistanis that were upset by this. I’m also willing to bet that portions of the military brass knew where OBL was; they do have a history of state-sponsored terrorism (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2993/does-pakistan-harbor-terrorists). So as those negotiations play out, different details are revealed to show how far the US is willing to play its hand against the various factions of Pakistanis. Of course, that’s speculation on my part, but viewed from that perspective, a lot of this back-and-forth starts to make more sense to me.
This is all Kabuki for domestic consumption. Since 1946 the Republicans have pounded the Democrats for being soft on defense, soft on commies, soft on terrorism, you name it. Along with lower taxes and conservative ‘values’ it is their stock-in-trade. Obama is making a strategic move to cut their little game, which has been so successful for them and led us into so many wars, off at the knees. Why do you think Card and the other Thuglicans, not to mention the PTB who organize the Sunday Reactionary Meet-ups on the teevee are so up in arms? They see exactly what is going on. The Republicans have blackmailed this country on defence for more than a half century. They didn’t get Osama, and Obama is going to ram that fact down their throats.
I am sure that the Pakistani’s are being assured of this game by the back channel.
Let’s hope this is all a case of saber rattling..I said hope. Pakistan is now the most dangerous (IMHO) place in the world…their loyalties are fluid.
Pakistan is not bound by some secret agreement between Bush and Musharraf made ten years ago.
I agree. But just consider how damaging this narrative is — from a guy who has propagated more narratives damaging to progressives than anyone in my lifetime. This clown is saying he was willing to risk war with a nuclear power — i.e., tens of thousands killed and wounded, including civilians — just to get OBL. That’s as fucking insane as anything that McCain has ever said.
It’s clear that, more and more, this is going to be a win theme for 2012 — as the economy tanks.
Pakistan is a convenient foil to explain U.S. failures. Meanwhile Pakistan has reliable allies like China and Saudi Arabia so Pakistan is able to dry lines in the sand which promote its own security, much as every country does.
“We were willing to shoot our way out of Pakistan, if necessary,” is this odious administration’s version of an exuberant playground style post-victory celebration with chest-bumping and smack-talk, or bully-speak in which no mature, sophisticated, and intelligent foreign-policy player would engage.
A true hunter wraps himself in silence and stealth before striking.
Humiliating your enemy is never wise and only a faux macho man would strip naked on the world stage unwittingly revealing his insecurity and craving to be respected and feared.
Obama’s enemies, both foreign and domestic, now know his blind-spot and the location of his soft underbelly.
Intelligent and sophisticated eleventy dimensional chess player?
Yeah, right.
It’s a nice distraction to direct Americans’ attention away from the recent wide-scale Taliban violence in a supposedly locked-down and Taliban-cleansed Kandahar, Afghanistan, and from U.S. domestic difficulties.
♪ Optics . . . ♪ Optics über alles ♪
hey, I didn’t say they were effective optics ! but this is what happens when you continue to sell ‘em the sizzle instead of the steak of actual you know, leadership
Based on Obama’s modus operandi, he’s getting off on his big FU to Pakistan. The bloody carnage left in this administraion’s wake defies his deadpan tone. IMHO, he’s a power mad bully.
The true relationship between the US and Pakistan has been muddled in secrecy for decades. The idea of Obama not hesitating to engage the US in another war is confirmation that he’s certifiable. The Nobel Peace Laureate turns the award on it’s veritable ass.
Sure seems like war with Pakistan is a fait accompli.
Why not?
That’s been going on for years now. Karzai’s essentially been the mayor of Kabul and little else since about 2006 — round about the time Pakistan let bin Laden come in and build a fortified compound down the road from their version of West Point.
Pakistan knows that if it even considered lobbing a nuke anyone’s way, India — which has enough nukes to take out Pakistan several times over — would beat the US to the return punch. (And India’s been itching to do so for ages as Pakistanis keep slipping past the ISI and coming to India to bomb tourist hotels and the like.)
Pakistan can’t depend on either the Saudis or the Chinese. The Saudis hold the Pakistani government at arm’s length and the Chinese are only allied with them as a warning to India.
I think why not because we don’t keep our word/treaty commitment, etc. so why should anyone else be obligated to do so.
I think that most nations [and particularly major power nations, (and in fact most major and minor other institutions)] do whatever the heck they want/need to do within the framework of “what’s on the ground” at any given moment so that their advantage is maintained. Got to keep dancing around the ring to avoid a sucker punch from the “OTHER” whoever/whatever they may be. That all seems to apply to economic, political and warfare realities. And when all three are in collusion (i.e. maintaining the military industrial complex, etc.) then it’s all the more certain.
Blessings,
Why is it the USA feels it can go anywhere, any time and do whatever it wants as it condems other countries for the same activities?
We are still howling at the moon over 911.
Any worthy conspiracy buff might start to think Obama’s real plan is war with Pakistan. Definitely a tough sell.
Vengence for 9/11 meant killing Bin Laden. The American people are as good as lemmings over a cliff. The idea of Bin Laden hiding in plain sight of Pakistan’s military reads better than a Tom clancy bestseller.
Here’s an idea to ponder- what if the Pakistanis had captured all our soldiers and equipment from this mission only to discover no OBL? That sure would have blown the whole story, wouldn’t it? Sure would have caused a lot of problems…
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” — Rex Tomb, FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity
This is all part of the ritual dance both sides are doing to placate their respective sets of hometown rubes.
What most folks don’t know is that Pakistan’s under a lot of heat in Asia for having done similar wink-wink nudge support of terrorist actions aimed at India (see also the Mumbai hotel bombing); Musharraf knows full well that he can’t play the nuke-lobbing game and expect to win, as while he has nukes, he doesn’t have anywhere near the amount he’d need to render India incapable of executing a response that would devastate Pakistan utterly.
Oooh! Nice ASCII!
Nah. Pakistan doesn’t dare, as India is licking its chops at the chance to be let off the leash — and India’s conventional forces alone can wipe out Pakistan’s power-projection capability.
As for the nukes: While Pakistan has enough warheads to kill maybe fifty million Indians, that’s not even three percent of India’s population — it would be a big blow, but it wouldn’t come close to disabling India’s ability to respond in kind. India, on the other hand, has far more than enough nukes to not only destroy Pakistan’s military power, but Pakistan itself. And if Pakistan had struck the first nuclear blow, China — Pakistan’s protector in the region — would look the other way so long as India confined its response to conventional means. (China might be Pakistan’s bodyguard against Indian, but it won’t take it kindly if Pakistan turns the Himalayan glaciers that feed Chinese rivers into radioactive steam.)
-from WikipediaChess
no small irony here
Nobel Peace Prizes just aren’t what they used to be
Juan cole lost his critical thinking abilities and succumbed to reactionary instincts during the Libyan crisis. Not to mention he’s an Iranian specialist. Try leaving a comment at his place he disagrees with.
I agree. They have used the Haqqani Network and Taliban as irregular forces to counter India. Hypocritically the Saudis have funded the madrassas, and we used them against the Russians. Funny that Reagan had them in the White House and referred to them as freedom fighters. The Pakistan Military must balance interests against opposite poles. Musharraf pulled off his coup with American support and sold out his country for cash to line his own pockets. General Kayani is not quite so willing to prostrate himself to the Americans, and President Zardari is only a figure head.
Taliban as irregular forces, and NGO’s.
Indeed it is common to think of such groups [Taliban] as clients if not creatures of the state, or at least of some faction within its army and secret service, which are said to use their militants against Pakistan’s domestic and international enemies in covert operations.
In the last two years, however, and as a direct result of the “war on terror”, there have been a series of unprecedented attacks against Pakistan’s military as well as civilian leadership by groups fighting in the name of Islam.
Commentators often talk about the state’s loss of control over such outfits, or about their deployment by one faction of the state against another in a kind of turf war where each claims to be acting in the country’s best interests. …
Nothing in Pakistan is what it appears to be. Controlled by the army, the state has no independent existence. The army in its turn is a corporation that owns vast tracts of land, industries and commercial enterprises, of which the military forms only one part. In this respect it is the true descendant of its ancestor, the East India Company, whose mercenary soldiers were also rented out to powers across the region, as Pakistani forces are to Saudi Arabia or the US.
…the Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups…behave like private companies or even NGOs….take over certain areas and attack government forces there to provide an alternative but non-governmental form of order. Managing territories within a state without apparently wanting to form a new government suggests a privatised and non-political ideal of governance..
In Pakistan, however, this task has been made difficult due not to the extent of militant support and firepower, but because institutions of the state appear themselves to have become a set of non-governmental actors like their enemies. In this sense Pakistan is not a failed state so much as the perverse culmination of a more familiar process of privatisation that affects us all.
Before the government attacked the Red Mosque…
You can see here where Musharraff started playing this double game, upsetting the balance of power.
You can see that Musharif declared war on the other half of his government: The taliban.
Perhaps Obama wants to go to war with Pakistan. Statements like these are provocative to say the least.
States have interests, not loyalties, except to their own citizens (presumably). It’s easy for us to get confused about this when our so-called leaders make statements about Israel and US being BFF’s forever and such.
They pakistan is the most dangerous country on the planet! Can nuclear arms be trusted in the hands of such who are harboring and colluding with terrorists or totally incompetent.
Hope military and CIA have some plan to take out their nukes as they WILL be used from everything that is now exposed of them.
Then they can go off spewing all the lies and deceits they want and no one gives a ####
The war should always have been in pakistan against pakistan and not afghanistan. The fact of the matter is this war has always been against them as they have been and are the head of the dragon. all the terrorists are trained in pakistan and disseminated to the world so the fight is here. terrorists in mumbai attacks were getting live directions from pakistan and were trained by their govt.
there are no ifs.
It’s finally becoming clear to US and world how deranged pakistan really is and how dangerous since they have nuclear arms. They are the lying school yard bullies that now have become exposed. Their word means nothing.
To the contrary. Those are Pakistans strongest relations, besides the US.
China provides the only reliable counter-weight in the Great Geostrategery Game, as the Saudis are ultimately US Puppets.
People’s Republic of China – Pakistan relations
Pakistan reliably secures the border for China and returns the Uygur separatists (covertly supported by the US), no questions asked.
The Saudis draw their armed forces from Pakistan and balochistan and is the hunting ground of the Princes.
Sorry, but you are wrong. It is the Saudis and the Israelis has always been the Saudis and the Israelis. The attacks were always about American and Israeli occupation of Muslim holy lands. The Saudis and decadent puppets.
The Siege of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising in Islam’s Holiest Shrine and the Birth of al-Qaeda
The whole war is wrong. It’s the consequences of short sighted choices of the past for short-term goals, you know.. blow back.
Yeah, he’s getting really comfortable with the killing.
Wow! I mean, Wow.
How in the world did you come up with such off the wall ideas. Please reread Shekissesfrogs’s comment because she’s right. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States are the enemies of freedom and democracy.
In fact, the US government is a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of the Wall Street Bankstahs and the racketeers that own and control the corporations that exploit the natural resources, sell weapons all over the world, and arm and equip the largest and most dangerous military in the world. That makes the US the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world and Obama the most dangerous terrorist.
The US conducts aggressive war to steal natural resources and brands people who resist its war crimes as terrorists.
sues, besides being fact-free, you need a new handle. May I suggest ‘mushroom cloud’?
That is a most interesting statement. The war should have always been against Pakistan, eh? Just like the Pakistanis just invited Al-Qaeda into their country years before 9/11? Harrumph. Bah! The UNITED STATES created Al-Qaeda, back when the big bad ol’ Soviets were occupyin’ per little ol’ Afghanistan. Please watch Charlie Wilson’s War.
Pakistan trains ALL the terrorists, eh? I could ask about the IRA or the Aryan Nation, but I suppose I will be nice in my first internet exchange with you.
You sound like an extremist Indian government propagandist.
Besides, get real. The American government will never actually wage war on any country that has nukes, be that country Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, Israel or North Korea.
They’re not quite that insane, no matter how much I detest them.
And Pakistan is so much more dangerous than North Korea or Israel…how?
Working link: The Siege of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising in Islam’s Holiest Shrine and the Birth of al-Qaeda
Thanks, Mason ;)
How does this match up with 0′s horoscope, Mason?