Socialize

Senate report blames Rumsfeld for bin Laden escape

By
November 29, 2009

Osama bin Laden was “within the grasp” of US forces in late 2001 but escaped because then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected calls for reinforcements, a US Senate report says.

Dated for release Monday, the hard-hitting study comes as President Barack Obama prepares to announce a major escalation of the Afghan conflict, now in its ninth year, with the expected deployment of some 34,000 more US troops.

It points the finger directly at Rumsfeld for turning down requests for reinforcements as Bin Laden was trapped in December 2001 in caves and tunnels in a mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan known as Tora Bora.

“The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the marine corps and the army, was kept on the sidelines,” the report says.

“Instead, the US command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack Bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes.”

Entitled “Tora Bora revisited: how we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today,” the report commissioned by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says Bin Laden expected to die and had even written a will.

“But the Al-Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.

“Requests were also turned down for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.

“The decision not to deploy American forces to go after Bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, General Tommy Franks,” the report says.

“On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, Bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.”

Rumsfeld’s argument at the time, the report says, was that deploying too many American troops could jeopardize the mission by creating an anti-US backlash among the local populace.

The report, which Kerry says in a foreword “relies on new and existing information,” dismisses statements from Franks, Vice President Dick Cheney and others defending the decision and arguing that the intelligence was inconclusive about Bin Laden’s location.

“The review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora.”

The report admits that capturing or killing the Al-Qaeda leader, accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that killed nearly 3,000 people, would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat.

“But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide,” it says.

“The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.”

Kerry points out at the beginning of the report that when the United States went to war less than one month after the September 11 attacks, the mission was clear: to destroy Al-Qaeda and kill or capture Bin Laden.

“Today, more than eight years later, we find ourselves fighting an increasingly lethal insurgency in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan that is led by many of those same extremists,” he says.

“Our inability to finish the job in late 2001 has contributed to a conflict today that endangers not just our troops and those of our allies, but the stability of a volatile and vital region.”

Posted by on November 29, 2009. Filed under FUBAR. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Responses to Senate report blames Rumsfeld for bin Laden escape

  1. keith

    November 30, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Why is any of this news?

    Indeed, if OBL had been removed, the “enemy” (and hence, the whole bogus reason for keeping our over-bloated “military industrial complex” fully intact) would have evaporated. 

    This same thing happened when the Soviet Union collapsed on itself.  Our nation’s military, which today constitutes nearly one quarter of the federal budget and some 5% of our GDP, was left wondering how to justify its continued existence.

    Clearly, a substitute “boogieman” had to be found…and quickly.  That “boogieman” just happened to be OBL and his ilk. 

    But, just in case OBL happened to stumble into our arms, Saddam Hussein got tossed into the “boogieman” mix for good measure along with Iran who might (someday) get nukes.  I’ve always found it fascinating that nobody seems to be raising any fuss about the 100 or so nukes that the Government of Israel is ALREADY sitting on in the region (or the “Berlin Wall” they’ve now erected on the West Bank to keep the Palestinians out of their homeland.)

    Indeed, we now have multi-million dollar spy satellites that can easily read an automobile’s license plate from orbit.  But, after nearly ten years of trying, we still seem utterly incapable of locating and capturing an ever aging (not to mention ever ailing!) Bedouin who wanders around in the mountains of southwest Asia with a dialysis machine in tow.

    Either our military leadership is horrifically incompetent, or our “enemy” is being carefully preserved to continue justifying our already massive (and growing) military machine and the industry that feeds it. 

    My hunch is that it’s very much the latter. Indeed, the manufacture and sale of military hardware is probably one of the few remaining US industries that can’t be easily exported due to “national security” concerns. That’s absolutely wonderful news in a sagging economy.

    The bottom line here is that war has ALWAYS been very good for business.  But, modern wars require “boogiemen” for their continued justification and funding. 

    Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (and now Iran) fit that role perfectly.

  2. Carl Nemo

    December 1, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Superb, spot-on commentary Keith! : )

    The so-called “War on Drugs” is an example of the same.  Just as the war against terrorism; ie., a noun concerning intimidation through violence.

    We have massive interdiction against drugs; ie., a noun too, that causes intoxication in humans with little success to date, but with mind-boggling expenditures for the U.S. tax-debtor since there will never be anyone with which to parley.  Both conflicts have no leader or nation with which to negotiate, resultant peace treaties to be signed and a cessation of hostilities or trafficking. These synthetic conflicts can be waged endlessly in order to bleed tax slaves dry wherever they might reside. 

    This is all part of a  planetary wide, social psychodrama script created in the bowels of the CIA  and global associates guided by their patrons in the MIC and the “oil patch”.  

     We’re “their “herd” and they’ve “rounded us up and are headin’ us out…hee yahhhh!…rawhide! (planetary corporatist style)   : |

    Carl Nemo **==