Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp'
Photo
In this April 1998 file photo, exiled al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is seen in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now.
More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.
"Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "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. 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."
The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."
On or about Dec. 16, 2001, bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says.
Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalize on air strikes and track down their prey.
"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 said.
At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.
Nov 30, 2009 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Andrew Jackson: As a retired Military Soldier I personnally found your comment offensive. As for the slap in the mouth---back at you.
Nov 30, 2009 at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Digriz, Words cannot descibe how proud I am of you and your fellow soldiers. You all have my deepest gratitude!
Nov 30, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
usaret, you should be slapped in the mouth for suggesting that I was insulting anyone or anything.
Nov 30, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
usaret, you will NEVER find a stronger supporter of a NEEDED military than me. Our military is and was designed to DEFEND. Only a short-sighted or brainwashed(or overeaching) person would would think that we are now DEFENDING anything. Oh, maybe coporate interests. My bad! It's called NATIONAL DEFENSE not National Offense. Bring them ALL home from the likes of Germany, Japan, the Middle east, Southeast Asia and wherever else that they are hiding. Then put them at OUR borders and DEFEND US. We are not going to be able to change the world over to our way of looking at things by using our military so get the hell over it. People that think so can have the blood of our proud young people on THEIR hands.
Nov 29, 2009 at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
I often wonder why the people with all the answers to every problem in the world spend so much of their time in Janesville Gazette blogs. Why don’t you take your ideas to a national or global level? Please help the people of the world with your genius solutions. Thank you. JMO
Nov 29, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
A story I read from "historycommons.org, states about three dozen US troops were present at the beginning of the Tora Bora offensive. 12/5/01, The head of the US Marines, 4,000 strong, asks to have his troops sent to Tora Bora to help secure the area. Brigadier General James N. Mattis is denied his request. The New York Times will later report that the Bush Administration will eventually secretly conclude, "that the refusal of Centcom to dispatch the Marines, along with their failure to commit US ground forces to Afghanistan generally, was the gravest error of the war." After the Tora Bora siege ended on 12/17/01, the war was declared won.
Nov 29, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Anddrew Jackson: Protecting your rights to insult them.
Nov 29, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
DIGriz, in the 2004 election John Kerry said that bin Laden escaped Tora Bora, because we didn`t use US or NATO troops, and relied on the Afghans and Pakistanis. At the time, nobody wanted to hear it.
Nov 29, 2009 at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eman, you don't trust the national defense measures put in place by Bush after 9/11?
Nov 29, 2009 at 6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eman- I didn't realize that the "administration" was handling security at the White House, I thought that was the job of the Secret Service.
Nov 29, 2009 at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty said: "our rules of engagement are BS thanks to obama. that is making our country less safe than bin laden hiding in the mountains."
Obama didn't change the rules of engagement. You don't know what you're talking about.
Nov 29, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kerry's report is a set up for the Administration's updated policy announcement scheduled for Tuesday. Lots of rhertoric here. Why didn't Kerry use this info during his election run in '04? It is funny though that the Adminstration's focus is still on blaming the Bush Administration. Blame is easy, performance is difficult. By the way, no comments in the story about several of the battles at Tora Bora and the unclassified discussion of the decisions made by the field commanders during the battle. Sept 12, 2001 the nation was scared; then the nation wanted revenge (anyone remember the original name of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM and why it was changed?) so we executed a military response. The decisions made by commanders in the field were not closely controlled by the Bush Administration.
Nov 29, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
DiGriz don't confuse facts with derangement syndromes.
Nov 29, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
"we went to war because of 9/11 but President Bush" CLINTON, AND OBAMA "failed to get the guy. Isn't that the definition of the ultimate failure?" -yes. except men such as myself went to war because we had war declared on us. 911 was an act of war perpetrated by men in civilian clothing. the same men who hide behind women and children, and fight from places of worship. our rules of engagement are BS thanks to obama. that is making our country less safe than bin laden hiding in the mountains. the terrorists all over Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Pakistan don't need him to continue their quest for global domination and American blood.
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Crafty,
I think the reason people continue to focus on President Bush dropping the ball is because it was just 3 months after 3,000 plus American were killed.
.
3 months after 9/11 President Bush decided taking out Bin Laden was not worth doing. That will forever be less forgiveable than Clinton's failure.
.
Again, we went to war because of 9/11 but President Bush failed to get the guy. Isn't that the definition of the ultimate failure?
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty,
How about this for a conclusion?
Clinton screwed up with his chance to get him.
.
Bush screwed up with his chance to get him.
.
As a result, in 2010, US forces are still in Afganistan trying to fix a mess than should not exist.
.
Bottom line, President Obama is not to blame.
.
Can we all agree on that?
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
then why mention it as if this is the first chance we had? did you read the article? we knew who he was and what he wanted long before then. he was behind other bombings before then. we had many many more chances like the one they mention here, EARLIER.
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty: The point is not who had more chances. The point is we missed out on getting him period.
Nov 29, 2009 at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yet another indication that from the time he took office, Bush was focused on Iraq.
Nov 29, 2009 at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Clinton could have had him a thousand times! nice red herring though, just another symptom of bush derangement syndrome...when will the day come when we are able to blame obama?
Nov 29, 2009 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sad. Truly sad.
Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yea, but if we caught him them what excuse would we now use for our excessive, bloated military?
Nov 29, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
"More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks."
And yet another memory for which to thank Bush and Rumdumb.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.