GAO: United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Eliminate AQ Safe Haven in Pakistan

[boloboffin]

The actual report (pdf) is titled:

The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

I just can't understand it. We did get attacked by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, yes? And a few other times as well, right?

And they've attacked a few more countries as well. And they were almost gone a year after the September 11th attack.

And now, they've regrown their capabilities, life is sweet for Al Qaeda, and Bush is tossing away billions of dollars a month in Iraq -- and meanwhile, there's no comprehensive plan to stop Al Qaeda.

How does he sleep?

 

[Ziggurat]

And now, they've regrown their capabilities, life is sweet for Al Qaeda,

No, actually, it isn't. It's rough. Prominent leaders still get picked off with some regularity, they haven't had a significant victory in years, and muslim public opinion is turning against them because their violence is now directed primarily at other muslims.

It's a problem that we don't have a comprehensive plan to wipe them out. But the thing is, I'm not sure there is a realistic option to do that right at this moment. I've certainly never heard any such plan proposed, and your post doesn't even make any suggestions about what such a plan might look like or how we could develop one. It might require invading Pakistan, and frankly, I don't know anyone who actually thinks that's worth it at this point in time. Do you?

 

[WildCat]

The answer is obvious: nuke Waziristan.

Or is that not what you had in mind?

 

[corplinx]

File this under Duhhhhhh.

If Pakistan had told us to go fornicate ourselves like the Taliban did, this wouldn't be an issue. However, since we aren't just the war mongers people make us out to be we don't just invade Pakistan.

We tested the waters by taking a target in Pakistan. It didn't go over well with the rabid mob.

 

[geni]

The problem is any plan with a reasonable chance of working while looking to minimise US casulties would probably have "engineer a war between india and pakistan" as step one and some might argue that trying to start a war between two nuclear powers could be viewed as somewhat unethical.


Pakistan has issues asside from Al Qaeda. Trying to sort out the Al Qaeda risks causeing other bigger problems.

 

[gtc]

Not sure if destabilising Pakistan would lead to less terrorist safespots, unless the destabilisation was in the form of a 100 or so nuclear warheads evenly spaced.

 

[Cylinder]

Yup - the Pakistani nut is a bit tougher to crack. Whatever plan might be in place would never be seen by the GAO at any rate. The problem doesn't require mental genius to recognize - Pak has nukes.

 

[boloboffin]

No, actually, it isn't. It's rough. Prominent leaders still get picked off with some regularity, they haven't had a significant victory in years, and muslim public opinion is turning against them because their violence is now directed primarily at other muslims.

It's a problem that we don't have a comprehensive plan to wipe them out. But the thing is, I'm not sure there is a realistic option to do that right at this moment. I've certainly never heard any such plan proposed, and your post doesn't even make any suggestions about what such a plan might look like or how we could develop one. It might require invading Pakistan, and frankly, I don't know anyone who actually thinks that's worth it at this point in time. Do you?

The NIE and other sources have found that al Qaeda has established a safe haven in Pakistan. The DNI’s 2008 assessment stated that the safe haven in Pakistan provides al Qaeda with many of the same advantages it had when it was based across the border in Afghanistan. According to the assessment, the safe haven in the FATA serves as a staging area for al Qaeda’s attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Further, it serves as a location for training new terrorist operatives for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United States. U.S. government officials in Washington and Pakistan also acknowledge that al Qaeda has established a safe haven near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. For example, State’s April 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Pakistan remains a major source of Islamic extremism and a safe haven for some top terrorist leaders, including those of al Qaeda.

The NIE, The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland, also found that al Qaeda had effectively found replacements for many of its senior operational planners over the years. The NIE stated that, in the past 2 years, al Qaeda’s central leadership regenerated the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks against the United States. It also found that al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States.

The 2008 DNI Annual Threat Assessment and other sources have concluded that the resurgence of al Qaeda terrorists on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan now pose a preeminent threat to U.S. national security. The assessment also examines the impact of not meeting the national security goals. It states that al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.”

I made a rhetorical flourish. Life is quite satisfactory for Al Qaeda now, despite their inability to access a Starbuck's. They have regenerated their senior operations staff in the past couple of years. Their lack of victories over the past few years may be because they have been concentrating on doing this rather than looking for token victories. They are an implacable and patient foe, and the Iraq War has bled this country dry while the actual attackers have rebuilt their capabilities to attack us, virtually unimpeded.

I think I have a government that is supposed to come up with the plan. They have the resources, they have the people, and they have the mandate. That is their job, and they have been woefully lapse in doing it.

 

[boloboffin]

Do you folks really think that Pakistan having nukes is an excuse for the United States to not have a comprehensive plan to get rid of Al Qaeda?

Really?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Unilateraly? Yes.

 

[geni]

Do you folks really think that Pakistan having nukes is an excuse for the United States to not have a comprehensive plan to get rid of Al Qaeda?

Really?

It's an excuse for the United States to not have a comprehensive plan to get rid of Al Qaeda that there is the faintest chance of your finding out about. Ever.

 

[boloboffin]

It's an excuse for the United States to not have a comprehensive plan to get rid of Al Qaeda that there is the faintest chance of your finding out about. Ever.

Spoken like a Good American.

Though I might not find out the details of such a plan, and would not require such at all, I do think that my elected representatives would be able to go over such a plan in detail. The United States is not a dictatorship. And the Congress full well has the right to review such plans in an appropriate fashion, and the GAO full well has the authority to see such a plan, and may this Republic be saved from ignoramuses who would rather malign someone wanting to see this country safe and free rather than condemn those leaders who threaten this country with their dereliction of duty.

 

[Ziggurat]

I made a rhetorical flourish. Life is quite satisfactory for Al Qaeda now, despite their inability to access a Starbuck's. They have regenerated their senior operations staff in the past couple of years.

So they don't mind getting killed off as long as they can stick someone new in that position? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Their lack of victories over the past few years may be because they have been concentrating on doing this rather than looking for token victories.

And when, pray tell, are they going to be able to move beyond refilling the ranks we're decimating to actually getting some of those victories? And how long do you think they can continue to refill those positions with competent people if they don't have any victories to show for their efforts? Maybe the recruiting posters will say, "Join Al Qaeda! We can replace you as fast as the hated Americans can kill you!"

They are an implacable and patient foe, and the Iraq War has bled this country dry

Here we go, mythologizing the enemy. You think Al Qaeda doesn't operate on limited resources too? They do. And Iraq has been bleeding their resources faster than it's bled ours. Iraq is a graveyard for Al Qaeda recruits, a sink hole for their finances, and a public relations disaster which has revealed that they're far more likely to kill their co-religionists than they are to kill infidel invaders.

I think I have a government that is supposed to come up with the plan. They have the resources, they have the people, and they have the mandate. That is their job, and they have been woefully lapse in doing it.

You are assuming it can be done in a manner we're actually willing to do. I don't think it can be. I think systematically eliminating Al Qaeda would require invading Pakistan. You have presented no argument to the contrary, nor have you stated a willingness to go that far. Why should I give your complaint any credence?

 

[UserGoogol]

So they don't mind getting killed off as long as they can stick someone new in that position? Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Al-Qaeda as an organization does not "make sense." A fairly big part of Al-Qaeda's repertoire is suicide bombing, after all.

 

[boloboffin]

And when, pray tell, are they going to be able to move beyond refilling the ranks we're decimating to actually getting some of those victories?

As the GAO points out, they have done this.

Here we go, mythologizing the enemy. You think Al Qaeda doesn't operate on limited resources too? They do. And Iraq has been bleeding their resources faster than it's bled ours. Iraq is a graveyard for Al Qaeda recruits, a sink hole for their finances, and a public relations disaster which has revealed that they're far more likely to kill their co-religionists than they are to kill infidel invaders.

Here we go, underestimating the resolve of Al Qaeda. Yes, they're local whackjobs. They still managed to fly airplanes into buildings. Have you ever read The Looming Tower?

You are assuming it can be done in a manner we're actually willing to do. I don't think it can be. I think systematically eliminating Al Qaeda would require invading Pakistan. You have presented no argument to the contrary, nor have you stated a willingness to go that far. Why should I give your complaint any credence?

You have displayed no willingness to actually read and deal with the GAO report. Why should I give your arguments any credence?

 

[Ziggurat]

As the GAO points out, they have done this.

Perhaps you read my statement too fast, but no, they have not "done this" (moved beyond refilling their ranks to achieving victories). You yourself already conceeded that Al Qaeda has not had a major victory in years, so this objection amounts to contradicting yourself.

You have displayed no willingness to actually read and deal with the GAO report. Why should I give your arguments any credence?

Yet again: you bemoan the fact that we do not have a comprehensive plan to eliminate Al Qaeda, but you can point to no evidence that such a plan is possible short of invading Pakistan. You cannot even form an argument for why such a plan should be possible. But I can rather easily point to why it is not: Pakistan is not in full control of their own territory, but they are politically unable to allow us to operate within Pakistan. It is not within our power to change that reality except by invasion.

 

[boloboffin]

Read. Learn. Get back to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Read. Learn. Get back to me.

Links aren't a substitute for being able to form an argument. Clearly you find yourself unable to do the latter. Hell, you seem to be unable to even quote anyone else's argument which addresses my challenge to you.

 

[boloboffin]

Links aren't a substitute for being able to form an argument. Clearly you find yourself unable to do the latter. Hell, you seem to be unable to even quote anyone else's argument which addresses my challenge to you.

I don't think you understand. The OP was a link to that PDF, a report from the Government Accountability Office which details a shocking and unnecessary failure on the part of the Bush Adminstration to deal with the primary issue of his presidency. It also outlines several ways that a comprehensive plan could be approached, none of which involve an invasion of Pakistan.

But you don't know that, because rather than read the report, you'd rather talk trash about me for daring to question your simplistic beliefs about why Bush can't do anything about Pakistan.

Until you demonstrate that you have actually taken the time to READ THE OP, we have no reason to speak further on this issue to each other.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you understand. The OP was a link to that PDF, a report from the Government Accountability Office which details a shocking and unnecessary failure on the part of the Bush Adminstration to deal with the primary issue of his presidency. It also outlines several ways that a comprehensive plan could be approached, none of which involve an invasion of Pakistan.

Funny, but when I look at the document, I see nothing of the sort. Which is perhaps why you never quoted anything to that effect. In fact, given the length of the document, the recommendations section is surprisingly brief. In fact, I'll quote it in full:

"We recommend that the National Security Advisor and the Director of the NCTC, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the Administrator of USAID, the intelligence community, and other executive departments as deemed appropriate, implement the congressional mandate to develop a comprehensive plan using all elements of national power to combat the terrorist threat and close their safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA region.

The comprehensive plan should also include key components called for in the Intelligence Reform Act, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and components that we have previously reported as being needed to improve the effectiveness of plans involving multidepartmental efforts to combat terrorism.17 The plan should (1) place someone directly in charge of this multidepartment effort to improve accountability; (2) articulate a clear strategy to implement the national security goal to destroy terrorists and close the safe haven in the FATA; (3) clarify roles and responsibilities of each department for implementing the goal; (4) provide guidance on setting funding priorities and providing resources to meet these national security goals; and (5) require a monitoring system and provide periodic reports to Congress on the progress and impediments to meeting national security goals in Pakistan."

In other words, the recommendations they actually have are beaurocratic adjustments that might help streamline the process of coming up with a plan. No advice about what such a plan might actually look like.

Until you demonstrate that you have actually taken the time to READ THE OP, we have no reason to speak further on this issue to each other.

Really, now. Someone might think you were loosing your cool.