Al-Qaida Number Two Dead?
Well, I consider it poor taste to root for someone’s death, but in this case, I’ll make an exception:
U.S. officials told NBC News on Friday that American airstrikes in Pakistan overnight Thursday were aimed at the No. 2 man in the al-Qaida terror organization — Ayman al-Zawahri.
One official said intelligence indicated a strong possibility that Zawahri was in the Pakistani village at the time of the airstrike, but there is no confirmation that he was killed.
Pakistani officials say U.S. aircraft, apparently CIA Predator drones, fired as many as 10 missiles at the residential compound.
ABC News is reporting that Pakistani forces will run forensic tests on the recovered remains to determine if al-Zawahri was among the victims:
Pakistani officials tell ABC News that five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures, and their bodies are now undergoing forensic tests for positive identification.
Officials say Zawahiri was known to have used safe houses in this area last winter and was believed to be in the area again this winter.
Zawahiri, who appeared just last week in a new videotaped message, had increasingly been taking the operational reins of al Qaeda, and is thought by U.S. officials to be the current true mastermind of the terrorist group.
Pakistani officials tell ABC News that the bodies of the five suspected al Qaeda figures will be recovered at first light in Pakistan, but it will still take a day or two for any kind of positive identification. U.S. officials in Washington did not comment.
May it be so…
UPDATE 9:10 a.m.Unfortunately, it appears we didn’t get him after all…
Okay, I’ve developed a crackpot theory that is somewhat related to this topic: If it’s true that Usama died in Iran a couple of weeks ago of kidney failure and is buried there, does this make some sense out of the Iranians’ apparently insanely-aggressive behavior? I mean, if they’ve been harboring bin Laden and it’s eventually going to come out because his grave will be a pilgrimage site, they’re going to need that nuke, and soon–or at the very least they would want to distract everyone for as long as possible. Meanwhile, the attendant al-Qaeda confusion and disarray would explain why we were able to snare Zawahiri.
Wishful thinking, perhaps. What do you think?
I think you’re a crackpot, alright…I kid, I kid. Seriously, it’s the first I heard of the bin Laden – Iran theory…but who knows? I would love to think he’s met his demise…but I hate to get my hopes up…
I agree it sounds like conspiracy theory, but it comes from Michael Ledeen:
“And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year’s message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200601090808.asp
It seems to me that if you fit that piece into the puzzle things start to get a little clearer.
According to news reports, the eighteen people who died were innocent civilians, including five children.
I’m not suggesting that we deliberately tried to kill civilians. A reasonable guess is that someone had a vendetta against someone else and got us to do the dirty work.
My question is: under what law — or what moral principle — are we justified in sending our military into a sovereign country and dropping bombs?
“…are we justified in sending our military into a sovereign country and dropping bombs?”
For the obvious reason that said sovereign country asked us to – Musharraf has been quite clear about this for some time – the targets have already tried to assassinate him more than twice over the past few years. Simply put, he wants them eliminated as much as we do, if not more so.
Perhaps you’ve also missed the related story on the massive amounts of humanitarian aid we’ve given Pakistan, after their recent devastating earthquakes – no one else had the infrastructure in place (that means the military, Peter) to perform the kind of aid we’ve been providing for their victims:
http://pakobserver.net/200511/15/news/topstories07.asp
But you’re right, Peter – what right do we have to send in our military into a sovereign country’s affairs?
You may want to ask the Pakistanis themselves this question – you probably won’t like the answer.
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to write, “Unfortunately, it appears we killed 18 innocent people by mistake, including women and children.”
Today’s New York Times: “Pakistan has not granted American forces in Afghanistan the right to cross the border into Pakistan, even in pursuit of militants. American-led coalition forces … have often been frustrated by their foes’ use of Pakistan as a sanctuary.”
Is it possible that we had tacit approval from the government? Perhaps — and if so, that obviously counts. But it is also possible that we did not have Islamabad’s consent, in which case this is a very grave situation. It is certainly plausible that Bush — who has basically taken the position that the war on terror enables him to do whatever he wants to do — simply disregarded Islamabad and authorized the bombing. You don’t have to think very hard to imagine how it will be played out in the Muslim press.
There is obviously a lot to this story which has yet to be revealed –
True enough, and it’s also true that we’ve had extensive involvement with the PKK (Pakistan’s version of the CIA) over the years, so there’s a plausible chance that this is just being winked at on the offical level.
Nothing really new here – we’ve always worked with intelligence agencies that share the same goals, no matter what the official governmental lines are at the time – witness the German involvement in Iraq, our co – operative work with the French security services, the Russian help in tracking OBL in Afghanistan prior to the war, etc.