January 28, 2004

WHERE THE WAR ENDS (continued) [via mc]:

U.S. plans Al Qaeda offensive: Sources say military is mapping operation to strike inside Pakistan (Christine Spolar, January 28, 2004, Chicago Tribune)

The Bush administration, deeply concerned about recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and a resurgence of Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan, is preparing a U.S. military offensive that would reach inside Pakistan with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, military sources said.

U.S. Central Command is assembling a team of military intelligence officers that would be posted in Pakistan ahead of the operation, according to sources familiar with details of the plan and internal military communications. The sources spoke on the condition they not be identified.

As now envisioned, the offensive would involve Special Operations forces, Army Rangers and Army ground troops, sources said. A Navy aircraft carrier would be deployed in the Arabian Sea.

Referred to in internal Pentagon messages as the "spring offensive," the operation would be driven by certain undisclosed events in Pakistan and across the region, sources said. A source familiar with details of the plan said this is "not like a contingency plan for North Korea, something that sits on a shelf. This planning is like planning for Iraq. They want this plan to be executable, now." [...]

An offensive into Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda would be in keeping with President Bush's vow to strike wherever and whenever the United States feels threatened and to pursue terrorist elements to the end.

"The best way to defend America . . . is to stay on the offensive and find these killers, one by one," Bush said last week. "We're going to stay on the hunt, which requires good intelligence, good cooperation, good participation with friends and allies around the world." [...]

Sources said the plan against Al Qaeda would be driven by events in the region rather than set deadlines and that delays could occur. But military sources said the push for this spring appeared to be triggered by the assassination attempts on Musharraf, both of which came in December, and, to some extent, the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Hussein was captured after eight months of an intense military and intelligence effort on the ground in Iraq. Pentagon and administration officials, buoyed by that success, believe a similar determined effort could work in Pakistan and lead to the capture or killing of bin Laden, said sources familiar with the planning.

Thousands of U.S. forces would be involved, as well as Pakistani troops, planners said. Some of the 10,600 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan would be shifted to the border region as part of regular troop movements; some would be deployed within Pakistan.

"Before we were constrained by the border. Musharraf did not want that. Now we are told we're going into Pakistan with Musharraf's help," a well-placed military source said.


Many story lines converge here:

(1) President Bush understands that the war ends in Western Pakistan.

(2) Al Qaeda is its own worst enemy: President Musharraf feared his own extremists enough to restrain us instead of them, but theu bombed him into changing his mind.

(3) The Democrats have been harping on how they support going after al Qaeda but not war in Iraq--now what do they say when the war shifts back to a full scale assault on al Qaeda?

(4) Anyone who thought the Administration had been chastened by the difficulties of the post-war situations in Afghanistan and Iraq was just kidding themself.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 28, 2004 12:51 PM
Comments

The war ends in Western Pakistan? You must be joking.

Posted by: BJW at January 28, 2004 1:29 PM

Faster, please.

Posted by: jd watson at January 28, 2004 2:20 PM

Gonna have to do something about Syria and Lebanon, too.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 28, 2004 2:36 PM

Invade Pakistan?Boy,that'll be bunches of fun.

Posted by: M. at January 28, 2004 2:57 PM

My guess is the spring offensive will commence in late July or August for tactical/logistical reasons rather than political and will include elements of the 1st Marine Division.

Posted by: genecis at January 28, 2004 2:57 PM

Well darn why doesn't the pentagon just buy a large neon sign and put it in Time Square so that nobody misses our next military move?
Or leak it to Al Franken.

Posted by: h-man at January 28, 2004 4:16 PM

Heck, if they're including Pakistani troops in the pre-planning they might as well send a telegram to Bin Laden, et al. announcing our imminent arrival.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at January 28, 2004 4:34 PM

I think we're just rattling some cages to see who reacts and in what manner.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at January 28, 2004 4:54 PM

I'm with Bruce -- remember all of the leaked plans pre-invasion in Iraq?

H.D.: How does a corpse receive a telegram?

Posted by: Chris at January 28, 2004 5:03 PM

The war may not end in Pakistan--my money and desire would be on Riyadh as the site of the last battle--but I think Pakistan's at least a stop on the way.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 28, 2004 5:07 PM

The interesting thing politically -- if we do stage a major attack on al Qaida strongholds in Pakistan before November -- is how important eliminating the threat from Kim Il Jong will suddenly become to the Democratic nominee and to many in the press (with, of course, the obiligitory "Why haven't we found Osama by now" complaints within 48 hours after any incursion is first announced).

Posted by: John at January 28, 2004 6:30 PM

maybe we need to pull another invasion, for safety's sake, but don't you all think that logistically and financially fairly stretched, at this point?

Posted by: neil at January 28, 2004 9:54 PM

Neil;

Overstretch is a relative term. It's ok to be overstretched as long as you're not as overstretched as your opponent.

Moreover, we're still running on a peace time economy. Frankly, who except the troops and their families even notices the war in America? What should truly frighten the Caliphascists is that the only thing slowing us down is our willingness to spend real money on the war.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 28, 2004 11:20 PM

130,000 troops in Iraq are leaving this summer.

Posted by: oj at January 28, 2004 11:29 PM

Exactly OJ. Usama definately must be the next stop. Korea will be ready to implode by then and can wait while we clean up the middle east.

We can be multilateralists and let China, S. Korea, Russia and Japan handle Korea. Our troops should be well off line by then providing us with expanded options.

Posted by: Genecis at January 29, 2004 11:03 AM

OJ, Genecis:

On paper, those 130K troops will need 12-18 months to catch up on lost training, leave, repairs and the like before regaining the level of combat readiness they had when they deployed to Iraq. Could we push that? Sure. But is this a sprint or a marathon?

Posted by: Mike Earl at January 29, 2004 11:26 AM

Mike:

It's a sprint and it may already be over--democracies aren't very good at maintaining a war footing. But it can't be possible that those troops could stay in Iraq indefinitely but can't be moved a few hundred miles, can it?

Posted by: oj at January 29, 2004 1:07 PM
« CONVERGENCE: | Main | BILD BILE: »