SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (18024)2/4/2002 5:07:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Bin Laden's Trail Is Lost, but Officials Suspect He Is Alive

By JAMES RISEN with JUDITH MILLER
The New York Times
February 4, 2002

WASHINGTON — A month after United States officials expressed confidence that they had cornered Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora, they now acknowledge that they have lost track of the terrorist leader and are increasingly frustrated over the virtual absence of intelligence on his whereabouts.

The officials say they have had no firm fix on Mr. bin Laden since early December, when intelligence agents believe that they overheard him directing troops over a short-wave radio in the Tora Bora area of southeastern Afghanistan.

"He has gone silent," one official said.

That silence has fueled debate among analysts over whether Mr. bin Laden has switched to a more secure form of communications, gone into hiding or died.

So far, the consensus of American intelligence officials is that Mr. bin Laden remains alive, hiding in either southeastern Afghanistan or just across the border in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

Other operatives of Al Qaeda may have slipped into Iran, possibly with its compliance, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others in the administration say.

The assessment of Mr. bin Laden's whereabouts is based primarily on an absence of evidence, officials said. It is assumed that if Mr. bin Laden were dead, the remnants of his network, Al Qaeda, would be overheard discussing his demise in phone calls or radio transmissions.

"It would be hard for some of these guys to resist talking about it," said one American official.

Another reason he is believed to be alive, officials said, is that Afghans have not produced any convincing evidence that he is dead, despite a $25 million reward for such information.

One official described the effort to find Mr. bin Laden as a mix of guesswork and analysis. "We have some fixes on where he was at certain times in the past," the official said, "and we have some estimates of how fast he was moving from one fix to another and so we kind of navigate where we should look next."

The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," said that the administration had "no recent evidence that he's alive or dead."

For months, intelligence officers have scoured Afghanistan, peering at thousands of hours of videotape and satellite photos and listening to countless intercepted phone calls and radio transmissions. While the exhaustive hunt has not yielded Mr. bin Laden, officials disclosed that they have turned up some sensitive information: intelligence reports that some members of Al Qaeda, possibly including top officials of the terrorist group, are being allowed into Iran from western Afghanistan.

Mr. Rumsfeld today accused Iran of turning a blind eye to Al Qaeda members finding refuge there. "The Iranians have not done what the Pakistan government has done: put troops along the border and prevent terrorists from escaping out of Afghanistan into their country," he said on the ABC program "This Week."

Ms. Rice said, "This is one of the things that we are concerned about with the Iranians, that there may be some porousness on that border."

The administration officials did not specifically charge that the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami has sanctioned such border crossings. Some officials said approval may have come from local leaders in the border regions or conservatives in the intelligence and security apparatus.

With Mr. bin Laden remaining elusive, President Bush has recast his war aims. On Sept. 17, he declared that the capture or death of Mr. bin Laden was a prime objective. "I want justice," he said. "There's an old poster out West I recall, that said `Wanted Dead or Alive.' " But in a recent televised interview the president said: "Osama bin Laden is not my focus. My focus is terror at large." And in his State of the Union speech he did not even mention Mr. bin Laden by name, simply delivering a general warning to terrorists that "you will not escape the justice of this nation."

Although government rhetoric has shifted, many officials say they believe that it is too late for the Bush administration to alter the focus of the war, and play down the importance of finding Mr. bin Laden.

They noted that the United States has frequently stumbled whenever one person has been made the object of American foreign policy. President Bush's father, for example, ran into difficulty in Panama in 1989, when the Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega briefly slipped through America's grasp.

"I think everyone knew from the beginning how hard it was going to be to get one person, and we knew we shouldn't put so much emphasis on Osama bin Laden," said one American official. "But it is too late for that now."

Some American intelligence analysts say that the heavy bombing of the Tora Bora area in December may have prompted Mr. bin Laden and his top deputies to split up in order to survive. American officials have long believed that Mr. bin Laden has been traveling with one of his top deputies, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as he retreated from the advancing American and anti-Taliban forces.

Now, some officials say it is possible that Mr. Zawahiri and another top lieutenant of Al Qaeda, Abu Zubaydah, have dispersed and are hiding somewhere in Afghanistan or the Pakistani border region.

American officials also acknowledged that they had lost track of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader who is believed to be somewhere in central Afghanistan.

As American troops and Afghan forces have moved in to search the cave complexes around Tora Bora, the United States has not found any physical evidence that might reveal exactly where in the cave complex Mr. bin Laden had been hiding, American officials said.

One official said the government had considered getting DNA samples from members of Mr. bin Laden's family to aid in identification if the United States finds a body it suspects is his. But those steps have not yet been taken.

In November, the C.I.A. concluded that Muhammad Atef, Al Qaeda's chief of military operations, had been killed in an American bombing raid after it intercepted communications among Al Qaeda officials discussing his death.

So far, however, no other senior leaders of Al Qaeda have been reported killed, and if the United States has such men among the prisoners it is holding in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, it is not saying.



To: tekboy who wrote (18024)2/4/2002 10:33:52 AM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Palestinian Conversation
By DEBORAH SONTAG nytimes.com

Always good to note the link for future reference, it gets hard to retrieve after a week these days. Deborah wouldn't be any relation to Susan, would she? I agree that this article is depressing. I don't know about the squishy part, it's hard to read policy tea leaves in man-on-the-street pieces, the NYT isn't the state press agency or anything.

A few bits that struck me.


After Arafat asked the Palestinians on Dec.16 to halt attacks on Israelis, he visited Barbakh's turf to beseech the residents of Rafah to honor his request. Barbakh boasted that he wagged his finger at Arafat and declared: ''May the cease-fire go to hell. They are shooting at us. We can't offer them flowers.'' He said that Arafat waited him out. ''Then he told me I was too agitated, and when the meeting ended, he ordered me arrested,'' Barbakh said.

Immediately, though, the loyal shebabs -- my kids'' -- came to Barbakh's defense by burning the neighborhood police station. So a truce was reached; Palestinian police officers did not take Barbakh into custody, and he embraced the cease-fire in practice if not in principle. ''We'll give Abu Amar a chance,'' he said, using Arafat's nom de guerre and speaking in his own way for a majority of Palestinians at that moment in time.
. . .

Before I traveled to Jerusalem, which I left in August after three years there as a reporter, I e-mailed friends to commiserate about how things had gone from horrible to worse over the fall. My Israeli pen pals sounded pretty despairing, but the Palestinians didn't. It wasn't as if they saw a rainbow on the horizon, but they seemed to have reset their clocks, accepting the idea that their struggle for independence might take a good deal longer.
. . .

Toward the end of our conversation, David ruminated a bit on the suicide bombers. He and his wife condemned the bombings because ''we don't want innocent civilians to die.'' But Maria said that the bombers themselves had to be understood as products of desperate circumstances, and David effectively said that he was impressed by their self-sacrifice. ''Theirs is real faith,'' he said.

This appeared to be a bit much for his father to handle. He sputtered: ''Excuse me, David, but what did they do, these noble creatures? Blow themselves up? They blew themselves up and blew us up with them. To hell with them. What is the result of their self-sacrifice? Now America is saying Arafat is bin Laden? Bravo for Hamas.''

David changed the subject. ''Are you sure we can't get you a beer?'' he asked me.


One thing I noticed in this article is that there was very little reference to religious fundamentalism, somewhat in contrast to the popular local "demon Islam" subtopic. (the "real faith" line above was delivered by a Christian.) I've always found the 9-11-Afghanistan / Palestinian tie-in sort of weak, though obviously advantageous for the people preaching that tie-in. The Palestinians cheered for Saddam too. Economically, that was probably a bigger blunder than the 9/11 cheering. Before the Gulf War, they were a large part of the expatriate labor force in the Gulf states. But the Palestinians didn't bring Saddam to power, or invade Kuwait, or keep Saddam in power afterward. And I haven't seen any indications that Palestinians had much role in Afghanistan either.



To: tekboy who wrote (18024)2/4/2002 12:36:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
TB,
I don't think it's at all accurate to draw an equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian "maximalist" visions. The Israelis had come around to an acknowledgement of Palestinian nationalism and a willingness to share the land. Whatever else you call it, Barak's offer of 95% of the territories was not "maximalist".

The Palestinian response convinced the Israelis that the Palestinians had never given up their maximalist vision that someday they would wake up, and Israel would just be gone. This discovery, not unnaturally, caused Israeli support for a Palestinian state to dissipate. What makes this situation so dire is not two sides sitting on their maximalist positions, but one side having offered about as much as it could at that point, and having received a guerilla war as a counteroffer.

As a result, the Israelis have withdrawn to maximalist positions (Likud recently changed its platform to oppose creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan), but there's still latent support for Camp David, if the Israelis could be persuaded they had a peace partner. But for that, the Palestinians need new management with some stock of credibility left.

I don't think there's much support at all for Greater Israel among the Israeli public. But while the Arabs are sending suicide bombers, the guys arguing for transfer as the only true moral solution have their work half done for them.

In short, I think the Israelis have the necessary pessimism. But the Palestinians don't, and have been educated not for peace, but for a terrible hatred.

I haven't seen Sontag's article yet. She wrote an article on Camp David last year that was a real hatchet job -- she presented the opinions of Robert Mallery, Yossi Beilin, and the Palestinian negotiating team as the whole story, carefully ignoring the opinions of President Clinton, Ehud Barak, Dennis Ross, and Shlomo Ben Ami, and previously held Palestinian positions (their story evolved quite a bit in the year following the breakdown of the talks). Needless to say, when you added in everybody's opinions, things looked quite different!