Officials: 2 CIA Contractors Die in Afghanistan/Questions

FoxNews.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2003

WASHINGTON — Two CIA contractors participating in operations to root out top Al Qaeda terrorists and members of the deposed Taliban were killed several days ago in eastern Afghanistan, intelligence officials told Fox News.

William Carlson, 43, of Southern Pines, N.C., and Christopher Glenn Mueller, 32, of San Diego, were "tracking terrorists operating in the region" of Shkin, a village in eastern Afghanistan, when they were killed Saturday, the CIA said in a statement.

Both were veterans of military special operations forces, the CIA said.

"William Carlson and Christopher Mueller were defined by dedication and courage," CIA Director George J. Tenet (search) said in a statement. "Their sacrifice for the peoples of the United States and Afghanistan must never be forgotten."

The pair was working for the CIA's Directorate of Operations, which conducts clandestine intelligence-gathering and covert operations.

The CIA statement says the agency consulted with the dead officers' families and decided their names could be released without compromising ongoing operations.

They are the third and fourth CIA operatives that the agency has acknowledged have been killed in the line of duty since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The first, paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann (search), was killed during an uprising of Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners in northern Afghanistan on Nov. 25, 2001.

The second, Helge Boes, died in a training accident in eastern Afghanistan, on Feb. 5, 2003.

The agency did not provide particulars on the ambush or the two operatives' mission.

The region they were operating in is part of the remote mountainous region along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Usama bin Laden (search) is thought to be hiding. It is also a stronghold for Al Qaeda, Taliban and other anti-U.S. fighters.

When asked if the men were directly hunting for Laden, one source told Fox News: "We can't talk specifically about who they were hunting down ... but, they were definitely after top bad guys."

Fox News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.
______________________________

Bush keeps hammering down his objective to go after terrorists where they live but yet goes for the foot soldiers when the Bin Laden's of the world who are pulling the strings to begin with are escaping to their "holes" but yet we don't "smoke them out" like Bush claimed he would.

I supported the original premise of the war based on the imperativeness the administration seemed to have expressed on the manner. After Colin Powell went to the U.N. and presented a satisfying amount of evidence to support action I thought perhaps we really do have a serious problem. But since, it has been very difficult to corroborate anything that came of the meeting.

That and the ill treatment of the soldiers I find demeaning. To a supporter of the President who has tried to give him the benefit of a doubt each and every time it has become very difficult now. And its not something worth losing energy over anymore.

Questions -

With the article above being the first piece of news to surface in months from Afghanistan on our hunt for Bin Laden, (Well that and deaths of two troops yesterday.) hasn't it become more obvious than not that the the war in Iraq has greatly diminished any progress to catch the original culprits of 9/11? Don't you think if it weren't for the conflict in Iraq that we would have already nabbed our guy? I know hindsight is 20/20, but looking back at all we know today the Iraqi conflict has greatly weakened resources that should be hunting for the head of Al Qaida.

While I will concede that I believe I was wrong about action in Iraq there remains unanswered questions. But I now look at it like this. Before the war started we were led to believe there might had been Hussein influence with 9/11. Officials may not have come right out and said it but the general tone and impression was his (being Saddam) influence was there. Now months after the war they finally admit no direct connections to 9/11 are there but that Al Qaida was involved with Iraq.

With that said even if Saddam had relations with the terror group, which I wouldn't be surprised, was there it is clear Saddam's hand wasn't in 9/11. Now my final question to those who fully support action still -

What was more imperative about going into Baghdad first and disabling Saddam than cleaning up the leadership of Al Qaida once and for all in the mountain chain of Afghanistan?

Now I understand all the U.N. violations Saddam had and I argued that point before but the issue is 9/11. We could had dealt with Saddam after taking out the leadership of Al Qaida so why go into Baghdad first?

I'm not argueing that I believe the Iraqi war was intended to be only for oil or whatever you could conjure up I am just presenting an idea that it wasn't as necessary as going for Bin Laden first. The whole world was basically behind us in our hunt to capture this clown but yet we squander that resolve for this conflict first.

 

When I decided to support the war another arguement I tried to make was that the dictatorship in Iraq was harmful to its people. (Same as you have.) Which it was. But I think now the conflict in Iraq has caused us to forget our number one priority going into the war on terror and that was avenging 9/11. Yes, we have a global problem with terrorism that goes beyond the mountains of Afghanistan and regimes that use manupulative means to control its people. But the underlying reason we have a war on terror was to avenge the deaths of thousands on Sept. 11th. Somehow we have lost our initiative to do so and by doing so we are now handcuffed to Iraq. I have no problem with ousting Saddam but since we now have obligations to fulfill in Iraq now we are going to have a tough time living up to responsibilities in Afghanistan.

And its not just about capturing Bin Laden, but rebuilding and holding off resistance that are working to thwart our nation building objectives there as well.

Although I agree there isn't any certainty that we would be closer to Bin Laden otherwise at the least our mission there could be respected with the full resources of money and military.

Wicked. I definately will.

 

Again, those were a couple of things which I pondered and used to support a war in Iraq. They all most likely could be achieved. Although Saddam has yet to be captured either way I doubt that will put a halt to the guerilla resistance. I think alot of people in Iran for example have become more and more intolerant of their theocracy because of our action in Iraq. But the war on terror isn't about liberating people its about capturing terrorists and destorying the means they use to achieving terror.

The people in Iraq no doubt have an opportunity to do what they want now. But as great as this is we can't overlook the fact our objective after 9/11 was to root out terrorists. Particularly Al Qaida.

Its a little ironic now I am echoing the same thing many told me here before the war but I think these people were correct in the long run.

I think we can be successful in Iraq. I posted a message a month or two ago about a family naming their child after Bush. I'm not saying we can't be successful in Iraq I just don't see how we can be in Afghanistan.

I also agree these guys were ambushed which is why I wonder if our resources are becoming exhausted in Afghanistan.