• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

Should we have gone for this snatch and grab job?

  • No, here's why

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
Champs or the rest of "ilk" I've no idea, but as for myself you're wrong big time. Had they did this in 2005 it would've been a great victory, yet instead what has happened? OBL is still at large and far more influential than ever before.
Would I still be screaming foul about Iraq though? Absolutely. But that's because Iraq had nothing at all to do whatsoever with OBL.
The Bush admin is incompetent, those they should strike they don't, those they shouldn't they do. Those initiatives where they should take unilateral leadership actions they don't, those that they shouldn't they do. They do the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Of course, I'll give a bit here in that hind sight is 20/20. However that Iraq had anything to do with AQ and his lot was not a matter of debate at all within the admin. They were going in regardless of.

I've said it a million times here, I've supported the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. If taking out OBL meant going over into Pakistan so be it - afterall, aren't they our "allies"?

So you would have supported sending troops into Pakistan and risking war with an ally based solely on the possibility of OBL being there and on the chance that we might be able to get him?

Funny thing is that (at least based on these little tidbits of info we have), I would too. But I can easily see how someone would decide not to, which is why I'm not screaming about how terrible this is. And regardless of what you say, I can guarantee you that if we had tried and failed and caused an incident with Pakistan, there would be 3 dozen posts right now about how Bush is so dumb and has ruined the US's standing in the world. Your own post about the missile strike confirms it.
 
So you would have supported sending troops into Pakistan and risking war with an ally based solely on the possibility of OBL being there and on the chance that we might be able to get him?

Funny thing is that (at least based on these little tidbits of info we have), I would too. But I can easily see how someone would decide not to, which is why I'm not screaming about how terrible this is. And regardless of what you say, I can guarantee you that if we had tried and failed and caused an incident with Pakistan, there would be 3 dozen posts right now about how Bush is so dumb and has ruined the US's standing in the world. Your own post about the missile strike confirms it.

I think Pakistan would forgive us for taking out the most wanted man in the world. It would be a payoff for what they were doing with A.Q. Khan.
 
I think Pakistan would forgive us for taking out the most wanted man in the world. It would be a payoff for what they were doing with A.Q. Khan.

I don't particularly think they would either. But if we dropped a bunch of troops in without telling them, didn't get Bin Laden, and instead killed some "innocents," I think they'd be incredibly pissed. That was what we were weighing our chances of getting OBL against, and the decision was made not to do it. Knowing what little we know, I'm not inclined to play Monday Morning Quarterback.
 
So you would have supported sending troops into Pakistan and risking war with an ally based solely on the possibility of OBL being there and on the chance that we might be able to get him?
Let me make it perfectly clear - my answer to your question is yes. If they have confirmation of where he is - not the kind of confirmation we used to going into Iraq.

RightinNYC said:
Funny thing is that (at least based on these little tidbits of info we have), I would too. But I can easily see how someone would decide not to, which is why I'm not screaming about how terrible this is. And regardless of what you say, I can guarantee you that if we had tried and failed and caused an incident with Pakistan, there would be 3 dozen posts right now about how Bush is so dumb and has ruined the US's standing in the world. Your own post about the missile strike confirms it.

My post is simple. OBL is a big enough target of high enough value to risk such instances. We already have the infamous reputation now of unilateral action, so let's make it to our benefit. Pakistan is a valuable ally, however they are also the same nation that is now - according to many definitions of harboring terrorists on this site - harboring OBL. There's no denying it, OBL is running in between Pakistan and Afghanistan and protected by moron's in Pakistan that have nothing to do with the government. Their president has shaky control yes, however we're talking about the most wanted man in the world. The reason that this didn't go through is predominantly the result of the sec def having more power than the sec of state. If the reverse had been true than I don't think we would be discussing this at all because then the Sec of state would be able to "advance" our agenda to the Pakis. Or at least in theory.
Now as for the missle strike I've been blasting. It wasn't OBL thus not worth it.
Again let's not get off the target here. THe admin in this case rejected the plan not because of the implications it would've had, but because the task group did not fall under their "small cheap and disposable" framework. They didn't want to make the strike too big, they wanted to keep it down low and on the cheap so as to if things go wrong, not be held accountable attitude or whatever it is going through their minds.
 
It killed 3 senior al'Qaeda members, how do you figure it hit the wrong target? (see post #18 by dixon76710)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/14/alqaeda.strike/
Also
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842035/
FOXNews.com - Pakistan Condemns Deadly Strike Targeting Al Qaeda No. 2 - U.S. & World
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Pakistan warns US over air strike

Every source states that the intended target was missed. This is either bad intel, leaked intel, late intel, or late actions/missactions.
That some of the idiots were killed is good news but it hardly seemed a crippling blow to AQ as the guys that were killed clearly were dispensable. In otherwords, I don't think that such small targets are worth risking international relations for. But again, I'll admit, hindsight is 20/20 but based on what we know this was a missed opportunity.
I don't condemn the action because some good came of it but neither will I hail it as a success as only a few "foot soldiers" were taken out and no "officers" or higher ups.

This is a perfect example of how we've lost focus of killing/capturing the real culprits of 9/11 through being bogged down in Iraq.
 
Now as for the missle strike I've been blasting. It wasn't OBL thus not worth it.


???? In the attack that was called off, the primary target was Zawahiri. In the attack where 18 Pakistanis died, the primary target was Zawahiri.
 
jfuh said:
And every source mentions that bodies were still being identified, because they written before this:

ABC News: U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker

Which says the following people were killed in the attack:

1. al'Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical expert
2. al'Qaeda's operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan
3. a senior al'Qaeda operations commander.

If we targeted bin Ladin and killed Al-Zawahri instead, would you call that a failed attack too?

jfuh said:
This is a perfect example of how we've lost focus of killing/capturing the real culprits of 9/11 through being bogged down in Iraq.
I realize we're bogged down in Iraq and shouldn't be, but how is this an example of that? If anything this shows we're still on al'Qaeda's trail in spite of Iraq, no?
 
Last edited:
I think their brains automatically filter out any information that conflicts with what they have imagined, and creates out of thin air, information that supports this imagination.
This guy still believes the aborted attack was targeting Bin Laden and that the the other one that killed 18 pakistanis, didnt kill any al qaeda targets of any value.
 
???? In the attack that was called off, the primary target was Zawahiri. In the attack where 18 Pakistanis died, the primary target was Zawahiri.
Zawahiri was not killed in the attack and thus "missed target" applies.
 
And every source mentions that bodies were still being identified, because they written before this:

ABC News: U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker

Which says the following people were killed in the attack:

1. al'Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical expert
2. al'Qaeda's operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan
3. a senior al'Qaeda operations commander.

If we targeted bin Ladin and killed Al-Zawahri instead, would you call that a failed attack too?
IN contrast to a few foot soldiers/technicians, Al-Zawahri is a far more valuable target. He is currently the voice of AQ.
That said, if we missed OBL would that be a failure? Yes, here's why, because we missed our primary objective and would be seen as incompetent - not what we need now.

Binary_Digit said:
I realize we're bogged down in Iraq and shouldn't be, but how is this an example of that? If anything this shows we're still on al'Qaeda's trail in spite of Iraq, no?
They're gaining more and more influence and power; we're the exact opposite - that's because of Iraq.
 
Its an absolute **** up.

Pakistan is a reluctant ally, and personally I wouldn't piss on them on fire. Who gives a **** if the Pakistanis would have been embarrassed. That is why you have civilians called embassodors. You tell the Pakistanis that we'll state that the terrorists were nabbed in Afghanistan...Big deal! It amazes me that Rumsfeld didn't just get the bastards, then lie about the where abouts of the actual operation.

You either fight the war on terrorism or you don't. It amazes me that many of the hawks on this forum support the Iraq war, yet agree with Rumsfeld's decision in regards to the muted Pakistani opp....

Considering that some posters are saying that America should disregard the situation in Iraq, to achieve the mission. I don't understand why consequences in nabbing Al-Queda big wigs suddenly becomes an issue when the mission is the primary importantace and day to day realities are secondary in Iraq?

You are either morally absolutist about Iraq and Afghanistan, or you play realpolitik. You can't be absolutist about one fight, but play realpolitik on the other. That makes no logical sense....
 
So violating sovereignty is o.k. in some instances, but wrong in others?

It's a tough call to make, but if one is to have a position, that position should be consistant rather than just the product of partisanship.

Good point.

And keep in mind that there has been at least one other failed attempt in Paki (a missile strike in a village), I don’t remember if that was before or after this, but it could have played a role in the decision.

The intelligence would have to be unquestionable if it were my decision to authorize this type of mission into the territory of an alley without their consent.

And of course if you tell Pakistan ahead of time, the information might as well be broadcast on Paki radio and TV.
 
So violating sovereignty is o.k. in some instances, but wrong in others?

It's a tough call to make, but if one is to have a position, that position should be consistant rather than just the product of partisanship.

????? Soooo you are arguing that we should violate everybody's sovereignty or nobody's? I disagree.
 
It is obvious the lousy job GWB has done but I place blame on the war on the shoulders of Rummy. He was so far in over his head.
 
Back
Top Bottom