Originally from the Chicago Tribune (requires registration) , followed up by AP in Newsday: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...n,0,7449699.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines -- Pentagon Plans Afghan Spring Offensive By PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press Writer January 28, 2004, 9:33 AM EST WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is planning a new offensive to foil the expected movement of Taliban figures and Al-Qaida terrorists in still-troubled regions of Afghanistan, officials said Wednesday. Defense officials have issued an order alerting troops to the planned "spring offensive" so forces can start working on logistics and getting equipment in place, one official said on condition of anonymity. Another official declined to discuss what he said might have to be the next step after that -- the possibility that troops would extend operations to the Pakistan side of the border, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has long been said to be hiding. He said Defense Department officials believe current operations are not having the effect they want on the terrorist network and said officials are determined to do more. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, said last month that hundreds of al-Qaida fighters still appear to be active in Khost and neighboring provinces on the long Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The area has seen a wave of attacks this year by insurgents believed to be a mix of Taliban, al-Qaida and fighters loyal to renegade Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In recent months, Pakistan has stepped up efforts to track terrorist fugitives along the rugged frontier with Afghanistan -- amid criticism that Taliban rebels are launching cross-border attacks from Pakistan's tribal regions. A Pentagon official said Wednesday that some groups of Taliban and al-Qaida are believed waiting out the harsh Afghan winter in some hiding places, and that defense officials plan the upcoming offensive to move against them and keep them from launching new activity when the spring thaw comes. The Chicago Tribune, which first reported the offensive in Wednesday editions, said officials are particularly determined to hit al-Qaida hard in coming months partly because of concerns over two recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, whose role as a major U.S. ally in the war on terror has angered Islamic extremists.
This isn't good news. I'm not saying Al-Queda isn't in Pakistan or that we shouldn't chase them there. But I'd be very wary of invading *another* country to chase a loosely knit band on the run. When you're chasing a phantom menace, you can use the chase to justify anything.
I disagree, GV. I think this is exactly the sort of thing they should have done instead of invading Iraq when we had Saddam in a "box" and he was not a credible threat any time soon. It's one of the many blunders of the Administration in foreign policy. What I question is, now that we are so committed in Iraq, how many troops can they spare? Not anything like they could have pre-Gulf War II. And that diminishes the likelihood of success, in my opinion. It's not going to be any great "surprise offensive", either.
i don't think this will be a huge invasion like Iraq, even if we had those troops available. Pakistan simply wouldn't allow that type of U.S. footprint on their soil. it'll be a lighter special ops dominated force, more akin to afghanistan. special ops forces aren't really needed in Iraq now.
That only worked in Afghanistan because the Northern Alliance was providing the manpower for fighting. We're wasting our wad in Iraq. However another hot war works wonders for elections...
Excellent points. I agree with you on several points. I'm just very uncomfortable chasing terrorists all over the world, regardless of border or a country's wishes. It sets a nasty precedent, and it's something that can be easily exploited in the future. That said, if Pakistan is a *willing* partner, I have few problems with U.S. forces working in conjunction with Pakistani troops. But like you said, given that we're knee-deep in Iraqi sh*t, it would be hard to pull ourselves out of that toilet, spray the stink off, and send the appropriate number of troops to Pakistan. It's sad that, given the choice between ousting an impotent dictator and actually squelching terrorist operations elsewhere, we went after Saddam. There are only so many troops to go around.
Same source, completer story http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...040128/ts_chicagotrib/usplansalqaedaoffensive . . . Speaking on Friday at the World Economic Forum (news - web sites) in Davos, Switzerland, Musharraf again rejected the need for U.S. forces to enter Pakistan to search for bin Laden. "That is not a possibility at all," Musharraf said. "It's a very sensitive issue." The U.S. military is operating under the belief that, despite his recent statements, Musharraf's thinking has changed, sources said. Musharraf said last week that bin Laden and his followers likely were hiding in the mountains along the Afghan border. He also said "we are reasonably sure that it is Al Qaeda" who was behind the two attempts on his life. . . . I thought we didn't trust our intelligence because it made so many mistakes. Oh wait, that was because it favored our argument. Never mind.
the musharaff quote is a week old. the Trib story is today, the implication being they'll have musharaff's support. i don't think they do this w/o it.
I hope we get the support and that small teams of special ops do go into Pakistan and that we get Osama and his henchmen, plus anyone who's been helping him. I think we need to go where the terrorists are, and not where they aren't.
Musharraf will deny we're in Pakistan, even if we march down Main Street in Islamabad, but he'll privately be pleased as hell. He's not going to become a bigger target than he already is by letting us do what we want on the sly, and we just might disrupt things for some of those who are trying to kill him. Musharraf would like nothing better.
You'd better hope so, anyway. No way Pakistan would allow us to send troops in. Many Pakistanis view OBL as some kind of hero. While we all know differently, the thing is, Pakistan already might be some form of nuclear-proliferation bazaar. Giving them reason to further spread nuclear know-how would not be wise. Besides, we won't touch Pakistan for fear of screwing up our Unocal natural-gas-pipeline deal.
and maybe not just Pakistan: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107481280820783909 -- The Cedars of Lebanon Reader DL points to a Jerusalem Post article that suggests a planned US special forces deployment in the Bekaa puts it on a collision course with Syria. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane's Intelligence Digest. In an article to be published on Friday, the journal said multi-faceted US attacks, which would be conducted within the framework of the global war on terrorism, are likely to focus on Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon. It noted that the deployment of US special forces in the Bekaa Valley, where most of Syria's occupation forces in Lebanon are based, would be highly inflammatory and would "almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops." The Washington Post, in a wide-ranging article entitled Military Split On How to Use Special Forces In Terror War , reported two weeks ago that Secretary Rumsfeld was reviewing proposals to "send the Special Mission Units into areas such as Somalia and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where little government authority exists and terrorists congregate, seemingly safe from the long arm of the United States". This coincided with the Weekly Standard article Showstoppers, which excoriated the Clinton and Bush administrations for failing to deploy Special Forces against terrorist threats before September 11. This takes place against a changing canvas in Iraq, where US forces are waxing in strength even while the insurgency is slowly being crushed. The Boston Globe reports that Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, told reporters that ''the former regime elements we've been combating have been brought to their knees''. He was referring to the Iraqi Ba'ath -- who are the ideological kindred of the Syrian Ba'ath. Meanwhile, a plannedmassive rotation of units will temporarily result in the presence of a quarter of a million men in Iraq, as relief units take the place of outgoing outfits over the next few months. The Jerusalem Post article rightly suggests that any US special forces deployment would inevitably bring then into direct conflict with the Syrian occupiers of Lebanon and the sponsors the Hezbollah. Their use would perforce be accompanied by the organization and training of indigenous Lebanese auxiliaries, a feature of all US special forces campaigns from Indochina to Afghanistan. The special forces would be supported by air units and fire support, plus light infantry to prevent a repetition of the "Blackhawk Down" scenario. Units could draw on equipment already prepositioned in Israel, located in the mysterious Sites 51, 53 and 54. All in all, it would create a strategic nightmare for Damascus. With Americans in the Bekaa 40 km west of downtown Damascus -- less than a marathon run, the Israeli army on the Golan Heights a mere 60 km south of the capital and American forces on the Iraqi border 300 km to the east and Turkey on the northern border, the Assad regime would be literally encircled. The US probably feels that it has the Iraqi problem in hand and may want to maintain the operational tempo in its wider campaign against the Middle Eastern dictatorships. An American deployment to the Bekaa would open a new low-intensity warfare front which would resemble a cross between the campaign in Afghanistan and the recent anti-Saddam counterinsurgency in Iraq. In the light of recent experience, the Pentagon may feel confident in challenging the Syrians and Hezbollah to what has become a familiar operation of war with a known cost and proven methods. But to the Syrians, Americans in the Bekaa will be a mortal threat, which they must prevent or repel. If they cannot, the spring of 2005 will see a new regime in Lebanon hostile to Syria and their Hezbollah lackeys in flight. It would also sound the death-knell of Arafat's Palestinian Authority, which will be boxed in and probably beset by American-sponsored auxiliaries. A successful campaign to topple Syria would in turn mean American control of a continuous swath of territory between the Mediterranean and the Iranian border. It would cut off the Arabian Peninsula to the north and squeeze Saudi Arabia and Yemen onto American deployments on the Horn of Africa -- of which the Washington Post's report of a return to Somalia would be a part. Will it happen? Wait and see. Can it happen. Yes it can.
