Bush Had No Plan To Catch Bin Laden After 9/11

Source: ipsnews.net

By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 29 (IPS) - New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

Franks apparently already realised that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out", according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that".

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks's request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book "Inside Centcom" that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that", because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look you are missing the point: there are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin". The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than was available.

Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.

Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.

Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines to Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the airbase there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.

The marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometres of border."

U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said "because he had given them millions of dollars."

Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theatre over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sep. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and Jul. 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after Sep. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush's top secret order of Sep. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book "Pretext for War".

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.


"Intention" is more like it.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Absolute rubbish

They didn't need 60,000 troops to seal 1,500 miles of border, they needed 1,000 to seal a section of the perimeter around Tora Bora. Porter should be ashamed of himself for writing such total dross. There was a plan to capture bin Laden, it was run by Gary Berntsen, see here:

Berntsen requested the troops from Franks, but was replaced in the middle of the battle by the CIA officer who was arguably most responsible for 9/11:

Given that Rich B was running the operation, I am unsurprised Osama escaped. What did Rich B have on Tenet that got him such a big promotion straight away after making such an incredible hash of the pre-9/11 warnings?

Gareth posted this to me

I am aware of the CIA team's view of the situation. I was telling the larger story of how the Bush administration clearly didn't care about bin Laden. Saying that there was a "plan" to catch bin Laden is bullshit. I would have integrated that part of the story into my larger story, but I have only 1,200 words at IPS, and I knew that couldn't get it published anywhere else.

Definition of plan

David, I don't know who you are and I don't know who Porter is and I don't know what IPS is, but I do know that article is wildly misleading.

Porter writes (according to you): "Saying that there was a "plan" to catch bin Laden is bullshit."

The CIA, led by Berntsen, intended to surround him in a specific place (Tora Bora) and capture him, to that end they tried to arrange the deployment of resources around the place that he was thought to be hiding and, indeed, most of those resources were deployed. I would call that a plan, I don't know why anybody else would not define that as a plan. The plan failed after Berntsen was replaced, no US troops were deployed to plug a hole caused by the Afghans.

The article says, "the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001."

Later, it quotes an official as saying "There weren't enough (US troops in Afghanistan) to police 1,500 kilometres of border."

That is simply misleading. The US did not need to cover a "large number of possible exit routes" or hundreds of miles of border, it needed to cover one exit route from Tora Bora. The article makes it sound like lots of troops were needed to cover lots of exits. That is not the case, about a thousand guys were needed to plug one hole. The article consistently inflates the difficulty of the task, making the failure seem reasonable.

The key question I have with this incident concerns Rich B, the CIA officer who replaced Berntsen. Rich B was the official most responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen, but was (a) not fired, (b) promoted to station chief in Afghanistan, and (c) replaced Berntsen in the middle of the battle to capture bin Laden. Berntsen consistently requested about a 1,000 troops to plug the hole, as he was uncertain about the Afghan ally that eventually let bin Laden through. Simple question: did Rich B make any similar request for about 1,000 troops to plug the hole? If not, why not?

While we're at it, check this:
"He (bin Laden) could have been stopped. A combined force of SAS and SBS commandos tracked him down and was just twenty minutes behind him, but they were pulled off to allow US troops to go in for the kill. It took several hours for the Americans to get there, by which time he had escaped."

Another simple question: who pulled the British off?

you make good points

I have been an active truther since 2002. I invited Gareth, a former professor, to attend a dinner talk by Doug Feith at the MIT club of Washington DC. IPS is the Institute for Policy Studies, one of the more important left think tanks.

I interpreted his response to mean that even though Berntsen had plans, someone in the cabal knew they had to squelch those plans. This still does not seem to justify implying, as he does, that larger numbers of troops would be needed. Maybe he feels inclusion of reference to Berntsen's claims would have caused IPS to nix the article. If so, that's very sad.

I have been trying to use bannering and leafletting at federal agencies to encourage whistleblowing or at least weaken the will of federal civil servants to follow orders. He is personal friends with Dan Ellsberg, who did not respond to Gareth's discussion to Dan of my efforts. I worry Ellsberg is hesitant to deal with a 911truth organizer, me, because truthers are so often hostile to leftists. I wish you could state your well reasoned well sourced argument without using terms like "rubbish."



The Air Force could have dropped cluster bombs on the "Al Qaeda" convoys.

Israel (junior partner) managed to drop "one million" cluster bombs on Southern Lebanon in 2006.

Where were the US cluster bombs, that they drop with impunity when it suits their needs?

In 1991, about 100,000 retreating Iraqi troops were massacred on the "highway of death." The convoys were bombed at the front, so they couldn't move, and then bombed repeatedly down the length of the caravan.

No such similar strike was ordered against "Al Qaeda."

Why not?

Why were "thousands" of Al Qaeda flighters allowed to "airlift" out of Afghanistan into Pakistan shortly after this? Again, no Air Force intervention.

Why not?

It's a farce.

It won't end "in our lifetimes."

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

I thought

those spy satellites could see a fly's ass from outer space?

Bush's plans for the Bin Ladens

Cocktails after the theatre

And the FBI had no evidence!