NY Times: Al Qaeda Chiefs Are Seen to Regain Power

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID ROHDE
Published: February 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 ? Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The United States has also identified several new Qaeda compounds in North Waziristan, including one that officials said might be training operatives for strikes against targets beyond Afghanistan.

American analysts said recent intelligence showed that the compounds functioned under a loose command structure and were operated by groups of Arab, Pakistani and Afghan militants allied with Al Qaeda. They receive guidance from their commanders and Mr. Zawahri, the analysts said. Mr. bin Laden, who has long played less of an operational role, appears to have little direct involvement.

Officials said the training camps had yet to reach the size and level of sophistication of the Qaeda camps established in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. But groups of 10 to 20 men are being trained at the camps, the officials said, and the Qaeda infrastructure in the region is gradually becoming more mature.

The new warnings are different from those made in recent months by intelligence officials and terrorism experts, who have spoken about the growing abilities of Taliban forces and Pakistani militants to launch attacks into Afghanistan. American officials say that the new intelligence is focused on Al Qaeda and point to the prospect that the terrorist network is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained American-led campaign to weaken it.

The intelligence and counterterrorism officials would discuss the classified intelligence only on the condition of anonymity. They would not provide some of the evidence that led them to their assessments, saying that revealing the information would disclose too much about the sources and methods of intelligence collection.

The concern about a resurgent Al Qaeda has been the subject of intensive discussion at high levels of the Bush administration, the officials said, and has reignited debate about how to address Pakistan?s role as a haven for militants without undermining the government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president.

Last week, President Bush?s senior counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, went to Afghanistan during a Middle East trip to meet with security officials about rising concerns on Al Qaeda?s resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an administration official said.

Officials from several different American intelligence and counterterrorism agencies presented a consistent picture in describing the developments as a major setback to American efforts against Al Qaeda.

A Split Over Strategy

But debates within the administration about how best to deal with the threat have yet to yield any good solutions, officials in Washington said. One counterterrorism official said that some within the Pentagon were advocating American strikes against the camps, but that others argued that any raids could result in civilian casualties. And State Department officials say increased American pressure could undermine President Musharraf?s military-led government.

Some of the interviews with officials were granted after John D. Negroponte, then the director of national intelligence, told Congress last month that ?Al Qaeda?s core elements are resilient? and that the organization was ?cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders? secure hide-out in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.?

As recently as 2005, American intelligence assessments described senior leaders of Al Qaeda as cut off from their foot soldiers and able only to provide inspiration for future attacks. But more recent intelligence describes the organization?s hierarchy as intact and strengthening.

?The chain of command has been re-established,? said one American government official, who said that the Qaeda ?leadership command and control is robust.?

American officials and analysts said a variety of factors in Pakistan had come together to allow ?core Al Qaeda? ? a reference to Mr. bin Laden and his immediate circle ? to regain some of their strength. The emergence of a relative haven in North Waziristan and the surrounding area has helped senior operatives communicate more effectively with the outside world via courier and the Internet.

The investigation into last summer?s failed plot to bomb airliners in London has led counterterrorism officials to what they say are ?clear linkages? between the plotters and core Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. American analysts point out that the trials of terrorism suspects in Britain revealed that some of the defendants had been trained in Pakistan.

In a videotaped statement last year, Mr. Zawahri claimed responsibility for the July 2005 London suicide bombings. Included in the same tape was a statement by one of the London suicide bombers, pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda. Two of the four bombers traveled to Pakistan prior to the attack.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, told the House Armed Services Committee last week that Al Qaeda ?is on the march.? He said, ?Al Qaeda in fact is now functioning exactly as its founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, envisioned it,? because, he said, Qaeda leaders are planning major attacks and inspiring militants to carry out attacks around the globe.

Other experts questioned the seriousness of Pakistan?s commitment. They argued that elements of Pakistan?s military still supported the Taliban and saw them as a valuable proxy to counter the rising influence of India, Pakistan?s regional rival.

Joint Efforts by Militants

Since 2001, members of various militant groups in Pakistan have increased their cooperation with one another in the tribal areas, according to American analysts.

The analysts said that North Waziristan became a hub of militant activity last year, after President Musharraf negotiated a treaty with tribal leaders in the area. He pledged to pull troops back to barracks in the area in exchange for tribal leaders? ending support for cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, but officials in Washington and Islamabad conceded that the agreement had been a failure.

During a news conference days before last November?s elections, President Bush said of the campaign against Al Qaeda: ?Absolutely, we?re winning. Al Qaeda is on the run.?

But in a speech several days ago, Mr. Bush painted a more sober picture of Al Qaeda?s current strength, especially inside Pakistan.

?Taliban and Al Qaeda figures do hide in remote regions of Pakistan,? Mr. Bush said. ?This is wild country; this is wilder than the Wild West. And these folks hide and recruit and launch attacks.?

Officials said that both American and foreign intelligence services had collected evidence leading them to conclude that at least one of the camps in Pakistan might be training operatives capable of striking Western targets. A particular concern is that the camps are frequented by British citizens of Pakistani descent who travel to Pakistan on British passports.

In a speech in November, the director general of MI5, Britain?s domestic intelligence agency, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, said that terrorist plots in Britain ?often have links back to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.? She said that ?through those links, Al Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale.?

Leaders Appear Secure

Officials said that the United States still had little idea where Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri had been hiding since 2001, but that the two men were not believed to be present in the camps currently operating in North Waziristan. Among the indicators that American officials cited as a sign that Qaeda leaders felt more secure was the release of 21 statements by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri in 2006, roughly twice the number as in the previous year.

In the past, statements issued by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri referred to events that were sometimes several weeks old, one official said, suggesting that the men had difficulty creating a secure means of distributing the tapes. Now, the statements are more current, at times referring to events that occurred days earlier.

American intelligence and counterterrorism officials said that most of the men receiving training in Pakistan had been carrying out attacks inside Afghanistan, but that Al Qaeda had also strengthened its ties to groups in Iraq that had sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden. They said dozens of seasoned fighters were moving between Pakistan and Iraq, apparently engaging in an ?exchange of best practices? for attacking American forces.

Over the past year, insurgent tactics from Iraq have migrated to Afghanistan, where suicide bombings have increased fivefold and roadside bomb attacks have doubled. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee last week, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the departing commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, said the United States could not prevail in Afghanistan and defeat global terrorism without addressing the havens in Pakistan.

Pakistani officials say that they are doing their best to gain control of the area and that military efforts to pacify it have failed, but that more reconstruction aid is needed.

Officials said that over the past year, Al Qaeda had also shown an increased international capability, citing as an example its alliance with the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, an Algerian-based group that has carried out a series of attacks in recent months.

Last fall, the Algerian group renamed itself Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb. Officials in Washington say they believe that the group is linked to a recent string of sophisticated car bombings and other attacks in Algeria, including a December attack on a bus carrying Halliburton contractors.

Those who say that our CinC dropped the ball in Afghanistan so that he could wage war in Iraq appear to have been proven right. I only hope that whomever gets elected in '08 will 'stay the course' where it really counts.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Iraq and Afghanistan are mirror images of the same wrong approach--GWB&co. start at the leadership of the country. And it never trickles down to the man on the street---and for the man on the street, government is provided by home grown thugs.---and you might as well be talking about different planets when talking about the impact GW and the USA has.----with the taliban infinitely preferrable.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: dahunan
Iraq is possibly the biggest mistake in the history of the USA

Ever hear of Vietnam? War of 1812?

Iraq's impact won't be fully felt for a decade or two. The middle east is more vital to the well-being of the US than Vietnam ever was or ever will be.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Niether country is fixable in any way you'd recognise or approve of. 20 trillion dollars and 1 million troops couldnt "fix" aftghanistan. You're fighting people who find death/martyrdom most profitable. People who will never accept Infidels presence in Dar Islam. So unless you're ready to "kill them all" you better pack a lunch.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Zebo
Niether country is fixable in any way you'd recognise or approve of. 20 trillion dollars and 1 million troops couldnt "fix" aftghanistan. You're fighting people who find death/martyrdom most profitable. People who will never accept Infidels presence in Dar Islam. So unless you're ready to "kill them all" you better pack a lunch.

There was nothing to fix in Iraq until we broke it.

Afghanistan is all talk, no walk.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,003
8,036
136
\
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: dahunan
Iraq is possibly the biggest mistake in the history of the USA

Ever hear of Vietnam? War of 1812?

Iraq's impact won't be fully felt for a decade or two. The middle east is more vital to the well-being of the US than Vietnam ever was or ever will be.

This is entirely true.

However, the Middle East is only 1/3rd of WW3's facets. Once Russia/China go berserk and Venezuela finishes a nuclear program things really heat up. We could destroy radical Islam entirely, and we?d still face a serious threat.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Every country has problems iraq had more than others but I agree religious minorities, women and free thinkers were certainly fairing better under Saddam than after we broke his choke hold and let these people be themselves. The only thing we are doing now is human shield duty - preventing what must happen when there is no strong man to keep Islam in check since Islam inculcates a zero-sum view of the world as divided between the victor and the vanquished.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The only thing in its last throes is Donald Rumsfeld----one idiot down and many more to go.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
"Officials said that the United States still had little idea where Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri had been hiding since 2001, but that the two men were not believed to be present in the camps currently operating in North Waziristan. Among the indicators that American officials cited as a sign that Qaeda leaders felt more secure was the release of 21 statements by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri in 2006, roughly twice the number as in the previous year.

"In the past, statements issued by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri referred to events that were sometimes several weeks old, one official said, suggesting that the men had difficulty creating a secure means of distributing the tapes. Now, the statements are more current, at times referring to events that occurred days earlier."
How is it we're in Iraq winning the "War on Terror" again?
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
"Officials said that the United States still had little idea where Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri had been hiding since 2001, but that the two men were not believed to be present in the camps currently operating in North Waziristan. Among the indicators that American officials cited as a sign that Qaeda leaders felt more secure was the release of 21 statements by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri in 2006, roughly twice the number as in the previous year.

"In the past, statements issued by Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri referred to events that were sometimes several weeks old, one official said, suggesting that the men had difficulty creating a secure means of distributing the tapes. Now, the statements are more current, at times referring to events that occurred days earlier."
How is it we're in Iraq winning the "War on Terror" again?

Cuz Iraq is enough of a distraction to the American people that Bin Laden doesn't matter anymore yet Afghanistan/Pakistan is where the REAL war on terror should have STAYED. And it's where most of our troops SHOULD be.

Kinda one of those shoulda, woulda, coulda things...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Are we done bashing Bush?

This is bad bad news, but look at the first line of the story.
Operating in Pakistan. That is a major problem, and you can?t really blame Bush for the problems we have with getting Pakistan to cooperate.

A perfect example of the problems we face in Pakistan is our resident Iranian apologist who takes Iran?s side in any dispute with the US, no mater how guilty Iran may look.
Now imagine all the Muslims in charge in Pakistan who sort of agree with the idea of spreading Islam through the world and therefore turn a blind eye to what is going on there.

It seems like the best we can hope for at this point is to deny terrorists a major base of operations, like Afghanistan was, and to keep up the pressure on their money and world wide operations. This ?war? is going to be going on for a long time and will most likely not end until much of the Middle East becomes democratic capitalist societies in which people are busy trying to keep up with Obamas as opposed to trying to blow up the Smiths.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
The problem with our strategy is that we need to clean up Pakistan, too, especially Northern Pakistan. We know where the Al Qaeda people are; it's just a matter of having the will to clean them out. If the end result is that the radicals in Pakistan overthrow the Mushariff government, then we'll have to go clean them out too as well as take out their nuclear weapons and facilities. (All easier said than done, of course.)

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
would anyone here cry foul if we invaded NW Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
would anyone here cry foul if we invaded NW Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there?

If Bush and the Neocon cabinet members were impeached for their derilection of duty in regards to attacking Iraq when there were other more importnat issues such as "invading Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there" .. then I would not have a problem with it.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: palehorse74
would anyone here cry foul if we invaded NW Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there?

If Bush and the Neocon cabinet members were impeached for their derilection of duty in regards to attacking Iraq when there were other more importnat issues such as "invading Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there" .. then I would not have a problem with it.
Holy thread-crapping Batman!

ok, try #2, if the current Admin, or the next (sans impeachments), were to invade NW Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there, would anyone here cry foul and protest?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
would anyone here cry foul if we invaded NW Pakistan to clean out the Al Qaeda, HIG, and Taliban elements based there?
Why would they? A clear target and intelligence that isn't faked, unlike Iraq.

A lot of the people who opposed invading Iraq did support the war in Afghanistan.

World opinion was in our favor for Afghanistan. Man-on-the-street interviews in the ME at the time had people stating respect for our strength and resolve.

A problem with acting in Pakistan now is that "the decider" has squandared all of the respect and political capital gained from Afghanistan, so the rest of the world has stopped trusting the US and our motives.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Are we done bashing GWB?---------naw---we are just warming up.

But many of the problems we are having lie exactly in the deficiencies in GWB&co. though processes. And it can be seen quite clearly in many of the posts in this thread and in this forum.

Fallacy number one----get it through your head---the average Moslem is no different from the average Christian or average human being. They simply want a better and safer life and don't like someone from half a world away to tell them how to live. They understand the local issues far better than we do---but they have to survive in what amounts to government by local thugs---irregardless how free and democratic some local puppet government is in some far off and limited green zone.----get it through your heads---that democratic government is in no way real for them---and the local thugs are too real.---for the average Afghani---the taliban were the good guys who got rid of the local thugs---and now GWB&co. brought the thugs back.

Fallacy number two.----Pakistan is a nuclear nation----and Mushariff is hanging on by a thread---and is dodging frequent assassination attempts---the Taliban was in Pakistani interests---and has great favor with most Pakistani's
both in and out of government. And where this notion comes from that we can simply treat that nation--seething with local issues with India---as a bunch of children just baffles me. If Mushariff is somehow removed---all hell will break out---and it will become almost a certainty that AL-Quida will get some nuclear material in the process.

But getting back to GWB bashing----one has to understand that in this fight---GWB&co. cannot possibly make headway without an understanding of what he is up against--and get a clue---its not terrorism---and an excellent understanding of the local powerful political forces he is completely ignorant of but playing with none the less.

In short---------how do your bash ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance?---all you can do is conclude GWB&co. has zero chance of success until they get some smarts they now totally lack---in terms of probability of acquiring smarts and sensitivity at this late date-----see the one word that sums it all up---ARROGANCE.---and that applies to many of us also.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,851
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It seems like the best we can hope for at this point is to deny terrorists a major base of operations, like Afghanistan was, and to keep up the pressure on their money and world wide operations. This ?war? is going to be going on for a long time and will most likely not end until much of the Middle East becomes democratic capitalist societies in which people are busy trying to keep up with Obamas as opposed to trying to blow up the Smiths.

This is likely to never happen. At least no time soon. I have read (a lot of) and written (one) paper on this very subject recently. Not only is there no history of democratic institutions in the middle east, but you can make a good argument that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. Islam's most perfect state, the one that was headed by Muhammad, was a theocratic dictatorship. That is the ideal that the koran tells muslims to aspire to, and that doesn't bode well for democracy. As I've mentioned before, Turkey is the sole exception to this rule. Even though Ataturk was able to somewhat secularize and democratize Turkey, the military has had to intervene repeatedly in order to restore the democratic state after it was overthrown by Islamic theocrats.

Oh yeah, and invading Pakistan is stupid. Would anyone here be opposed to the invasion of Laos and Cambodia in order to clean out the Viet Cong supply routes through there? I love how the jingoists on here always think that our problems that we've gotten from invading these countries is due to the fact that we just haven't invaded enough countries yet.

Some more escalation should clear these problems right up! I'm sure Musharraf's government would survive a US presence on his soil killing and imprisoning tribal leaders. Oh wait, no it wouldn't. I wonder who would take over after his government fell? I'm not sure, but I bet it would rhyme with "Islamic Theocrats".
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It seems like the best we can hope for at this point is to deny terrorists a major base of operations, like Afghanistan was, and to keep up the pressure on their money and world wide operations. This ?war? is going to be going on for a long time and will most likely not end until much of the Middle East becomes democratic capitalist societies in which people are busy trying to keep up with Obamas as opposed to trying to blow up the Smiths.

This is likely to never happen. At least no time soon. I have read (a lot of) and written (one) paper on this very subject recently. Not only is there no history of democratic institutions in the middle east, but you can make a good argument that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. Islam's most perfect state, the one that was headed by Muhammad, was a theocratic dictatorship. That is the ideal that the koran tells muslims to aspire to, and that doesn't bode well for democracy. As I've mentioned before, Turkey is the sole exception to this rule. Even though Ataturk was able to somewhat secularize and democratize Turkey, the military has had to intervene repeatedly in order to restore the democratic state after it was overthrown by Islamic theocrats.

Oh yeah, and invading Pakistan is stupid. Would anyone here be opposed to the invasion of Laos and Cambodia in order to clean out the Viet Cong supply routes through there? I love how the jingoists on here always think that our problems that we've gotten from invading these countries is due to the fact that we just haven't invaded enough countries yet.

Some more escalation should clear these problems right up! I'm sure Musharraf's government would survive a US presence on his soil killing and imprisoning tribal leaders. Oh wait, no it wouldn't. I wonder who would take over after his government fell? I'm not sure, but I bet it would rhyme with "Islamic Theocrats".

so what would you propose we do to squash the cross-border tactics use by the Taliban/HIG/AQ to harass our troops in Afghanistan, as well as plan and train for future terrorist attacks? Just suck it up and pretend it's not happening? Continue to apply pressure on an impotent Musharraf? what's your suggestion?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
what's your suggestion?

Fair enough question palehorse674.

To win in Afghanistan--and by extension in Pakistan---we have to undo exactly what we did when we removed the taliban---we now have to go to the taliban---hat in hand and work with them to remove the local thugs and warlords who now control the bulk of the country---if done correctly we can get a far less nutty and open taliban that is less anti western---and get a stable Afghani state that has not had a stable government since 1937.---and Pakistan will find it in their interests also.---which will also help prop up Mushshariff who pissed so many off in his own government by daring to accept US carrots.

There were threads to that effect six months ago on this forum---with many in the US government thinking that way.

But as long as GWB&co is in charge---those kinds of ideas are probably non-starters---so I am resigned to perpetual negative US progress as long as a clueless GWB is in office.

Look at it this way---when you have a huge rock rolling down a mountain---its arrogant to think you can stop the rock in its tracks---but its wiser to think you can apply some pressure to modify the course of the rock in a direction more favorable.