According to Greg Miller (in The L.A. Times) the six-month program of Predator strikes in Pakistan, started by Bush in August and continued apace by Obama, is causing severe disruption of al-Qaeda's organization.
The pace of the Predator attacks has accelerated dramatically since August, when the Bush administration made a previously undisclosed decision to abandon the practice of obtaining permission from the Pakistani government before launching missiles from the unmanned aircraft.
"This last year has been a very hard year for them," a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said of Al Qaeda militants, whose operations he tracks in northwest Pakistan. "They're losing a bunch of their better leaders. But more importantly, at this point they're wondering who's next."
U.S. intelligence officials said they see clear signs that the Predator strikes are sowing distrust within Al Qaeda. "They have started hunting down people who they think are responsible" for security breaches, the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said, discussing intelligence assessments on condition of anonymity. "People are showing up dead or disappearing."...
The stepped-up Predator campaign has killed at least nine senior Al Qaeda leaders and dozens of lower-ranking operatives, in what U.S. officials described as the most serious disruption of the terrorist network since 2001....(LAT)
While bin Laden "remains elusive," says the article, the program has severely undermined Al Qaeda's "organizational tier." (More) The main factor in the success of the program, we are told, has been "the decision to skip Pakistani approval."
"At a certain point there was common recognition of the untenable nature of what was happening in the FATA," said a former senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, referring to Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas where Al Qaeda is based.
The breaking point came when Musharraf was forced to resign mid-August, officials said. Within days, President Bush had approved the new rules: Rather than requiring Pakistan's permission to order a Predator strike, the agency was allowed to shoot first. (LAT)
Also helpful: the decision to accept the collateral damage -- a/k/a "civilian casualties." (LAT) To make an omelet you have to, etc., etc.
At Newshoggers, Steve Hynd refers to the program as "remote-controlled criminal stupidity."
You can't kill a hydra by decapitation. Neither can you kill a non-centric insurgency or terrorist operation by killing all the bigwigs. New ones crop up just as quickly and often they're even more nasty, cruel or twistedly clever than the ones you just killed.
Matt Yglesias is likewise concerned about this down side.
The impact of these strikes on public opinion in the Muslim world writ large, and specifically on political dynamics inside Pakistan, can easily outweigh the gains from killing even a bona fide bad guy. The fact that Miller’s intelligence sources deem the program an unqualified success based on what look to be pure body count considerations is disturbing. There’s no use in killing a terrorist if in the course of doing so you accidentally kill a civilian whose two sons grow up dreaming of avenging their father’s murder, or if it makes it impossible to stay politically viable in Pakistan while publicly cooperating with the United States. (emphasis added)
At Newshoggers, meanwhile, Jay McDonough discusses the administration's emerging policy in Afghanistan.
A couple news stories this weekend suggest a new U.S. strategy is beginning to emerge. The word that the U.S. would be amenable to negotiating with the moderate Taliban forces has been rumored for some time, and the Obama Administration and General Petraeus have recently endorsed the strategy.
There are moderate Taliban forces? Color me surprised. Shows how little I know about it.
Whatever; apparently Obama is preparing to discuss the establishment of a Taliban party in Afghanistan on the theory that "all insurgencies end...when there is an agreement" (UPI) -- though that same piece strongly suggests that they're not really at that point yet.
The ambassador said a political party would have to come along with a requirement that the Taliban would respect the Afghanistan constitution
"They have said, 'No start of negotiations without prior departure of foreign forces.'" Wood said. "That's not serious. Let's get serious."
The Observer said other ideas, such as changing the Afghan constitution and taking senior Taliban figures off U.N. blacklists, are also being discussed. (More...)
McDonough comments:
How does the U.S. and Europe justify replacing (or supplanting) democratically elected Afghani officials with designees without incurring a charge of imperialism?
We care about incurring charges of imperialism? Color me surprised....
Memeorandum has more blogger reactions re: Predator Strikes.
RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS
Sweeping Oversight Proposed re: Executive Pay & Other Things
Can Somebody Please Take the Damn Economy Away from Geithner? [Part 2]: James K. Galbraith Disses the Geithner Plan
Alan Grayson [D-FL] on Why AIG Went Broke ("Regulation vs. Chaos"); Grayson Questioning Change to Valuation Rules ("Let's Make Inches Larger While We're at It")
Portia di Rossi Apologizes to All Those She Hurt by Marrying Ellen
Can Somebody Please Take the Damn Economy Away from Geithner?
Spot the Connection: Dead Baby Jokes, The Rules of Engagement in Gaza, & The Immorality of Showing Mercy to the Enemy During a Holy War (A News Round-Up)
Corruption's Role in the Failure of our So-called "War on Drugs"
WealthTrack: Investor Watchdog Pat Huddleston on Investment Scams
Guilty Plea re: Army Officer's Iraq-War-Related Bribery
Comments