We Should of Had Him
The book the CIA didn't want you to read, JAWBREAKER by Gary Berntsen, is out and it kills. I've sent Gary a nasty note because his story kept me up till 4 am today. Just couldn't put it down. Gary spent most of this year battling CIA censors, who were refusing to release the book. They insisted on excising parts of the story that have already appeared in other books about CIA operations in Afghanistan written by Steve Coll and another CIA veteran, Gary Schroen.
Gary Berntsen was the second CIA officer sent to Afghanistan and put in charge of directing the destruction of Al Qaeda and the hunt for Bin Laden. He arrived in the fall of 2001, replacing veteran officer Gary Schroen, who had led the first CIA element into Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. Gary 2, i.e., Berntsen, built on Schroen's foundation and played a critical role in directing the offensive that broke the back of the Taliban and scattered Al Qaeda.
The key news from Gary's book is that we had Bin Laden in our sights but Tommy Franks and JSOC Commander, Dell Dailey, dilly dallied and did not deploy U.S. troops requested by Berntsen to the battle at Tora Bora. We could of had him; we should of had him; but we let Bin Laden get away.
Gary's book is important in another regard. It shows what the CIA is capable of doing and why we need this capability in addition to the talents offered by U.S. military special operations forces. When the CIA puts its mind to it, it can move fast, innovate on the fly, and do some mind boggling things.
But JAWBREAKER also uncovers why the CIA is at times a faltering, incompetent, risk averse bureaucracy. Although the title of the book is the codeword for the Afghan operation in 2001, it may also be a clever reference about what may happen to you when you read how obtuse some CIA managers and other Government bureaucrats can be in the midst of a crisis. Your jaw may drop open and hit the floor. Hence, "jawbreaker".
Consider for example what happened to Gary, who was sent into Afghanistan in 2000 with orders to capture a top Al Qaeda commander. His mission was sand bagged by another CIA Chief of Station who served in one of the neighboring "Stans". This prima donna, a guy named "Lawrence", was sending reports back to Washington lying about what Gary was and was not doing. Lawrence had his nose out of joint because he felt his turf was being trampled on. The petty jealousy of this bonehead (who in a previous overseas assignment had lost of his intelligence assets) is bad enough. Making matters worse, CIA Director Tenet and the Director of Operations, Jim Pavitt, helped pull the plug on the operation. This wasn't a case of President Clinton getting cold feet, rather the CIA leadership pulled the plug on an operation that had a chance of success. And, Al Qaeda was left virtually unmolested until they struck the United States one year later.
If that doesn't get your blood boiling maybe you will get riled when you learn that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Gary, who was serving in South America, was warned by the Director of Operations for Latin America to NOT, I repeat NOT, volunteer to go to Afghanistan even though Berntsen had led the last American team to go into Afghanistan. Hell, the World Trade Center was still smoldering and this CIA bureaucrat was more concerned about keeping his positions filled than using all available resources to go after Osama Bin Laden.
The list of CIA bureaucratic stupidities detailed in Gary's tale is long and agonizing. But, the book also shows you what the CIA can do if it places mission over covering its own ass. In that regard it is important to acknowledge the harmful role that politicians have played in asking the CIA to carry out a mission and then feigning amnesia when the risk goes wrong.
Some folks of a liberal political persuasion may find Gary's high charged, testosterone laden. type A personality a bit overwhelming. Be forewarned and enoy the ride. Gary is a refreshingly authentic soul who is more concerned with doing what he thinks is right rather than checking to find out what is politically palatable. Gary understood that finding and killing Bin Laden was a priority. Unfortunately, our current civilian and military leaders seem to have forgotten the promise to get him, dead or alive.
Thanks Larry,
I'll check it out. After reading Steve Coll's and several other South Asia experts books, I regret that I didn't keep myself apprised about South Asian foreign policy in that specific period, although many people have always asked my opinion about different issues. I don't know if they were agents or in any way affiliated with CIA or State, or Defense. Most certainly, I didn't know that the CIA existed until 1998. So whatever opinions I have offered were my original and gut rendered and unvarnished by any institutional culture.
I have had a vision. And I am only a LITTLE flattered that it was taken seriously, as I don't like to see innocent people sacrificed in the process. I want to be able to do something that is not commodified to death. That might be wishful thinking, as the value of something is in its salebility.
December 29, 2005 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the nature of CIA review, do you know if he is going to be doing book talks, signings to promote the book? Boston?
Would he come to the Cafe to talk?
December 29, 2005 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The terrain in Afganistan is impossible. Just ask the British and Russians. Anyone can go in there to take him if 99% casualties are acceptable. Highly doubtful to bomb him out. It takes ground people and lots of them.
December 29, 2005 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can we capture Bin Laden if we can't even write articles with grammatically correct titles? Is this what the "blogosphere" is all about? Losers loosing all manner of loose usage so that the literate can lose all hope?
That's "We Should Have Had Him".
December 29, 2005 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hymie,
It is colloquial use. Are you really that devoid of a sense of humor? Lighten up man.
December 29, 2005 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hymie, it's "losers," not "loosers." Tee hee.
December 29, 2005 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mistake - you did mean loosing ... but yeesh! Would rather have colloquialisms than torturing grammar like that.
December 29, 2005 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Gary Berntsen were a Democrat -- we know all of them are Islamofascists, communists and of course traitors-- would he ever appear on TV touting his book? Having not read the book, I found his interview with Norah O'Donnell on Hardball troubling when he gave General Tommy Franks a pass since Franks was the one in charge of this operation to get Osama Bin Laden! It also seems he has no criticisms of anyone regarding the failure of the Jawbreaker Mission. And yes he seems to think that President Bush is winning the war on terrorism.
December 29, 2005 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailing bin Laden would have provided a big, one-time boost for Bush. But politically Bush and the Republicans gain by having the bogeyman at large.
December 29, 2005 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question.
IIRC Tora Bora was lost because somebody gave the job to two Afghan warlords, Hazret Ali, a Pashay, and Haji Zaman Ghamsharik, a Pashtun. They couldn't stand each other, wouldn't cooperate, and only agreed on one thing -- don't go up that mountain if it means taking casualties.
Who designed and directed this plan? Army? Special Forces? CIA?
Anybody know the answer?
December 29, 2005 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush had no commitment to a political-military settlement of the Afghanistan matter, it was actually the EU and especially the Germans who pressed forward the plan for an Afghan interrium Government, with the UN in a lead role. They sponsored the conference in Bonn -- Bush's delegates did not really take the lead. One might say Bush likes the invasion-bomb-break things up part of war, but he has no idea how you shift back to politics and normal diplomacy in ways that husband whatever value you got from Combat.
I can think of lots of reasons why both Pakistani and Saudi logic would want to avoid a bin Laden take-down given the following he has in both countries. They would not want him operating, but they also don't want him in the dock in NYCity or dead in a bloody shoot-out. It is domestic political self-interest, and somehow they managed to make that sufficently important to Bush so as to get him to call off most of the dogs. For Musharrif that changed with the attempts on his life -- for the Saudi Royals with the realization of how large and sophisticated al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia actually was. Thus a kind of Golden Cell in an isolated tribal prison. Both countries are far more interested in control of bin-Laden's cohorts than they are in him, assuming they can keep him under wraps.
December 29, 2005 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah; these CIA thugs are so used to talking out of both sides of their mouths, it's impossible to tell when they're telling the truth -- unless, of course, you've got them wired up to an old style field telephone.
December 29, 2005 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
Tommy Franks, the former Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command, is the "somebody" who turned the job over to the Pashtuns. His job was to direct the US Armed Forces in that region.
He doesn't get a pass for not using U.S. Forces for this high-priority mission which allowed bin laden to get away.
From Larry Johnson's post
December 29, 2005 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I see where Berntsen was asked not to volunteer for a detail to Afghanistan.
Does Berntsen's book address the 'reassignment' of CIA Counterterrorism Center Chief Cofer Black by Rumsfeld for going to the press about the Department of Defense's failure at Tora Bora? Since, Franks worked under the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
Reassignment of Cofer Black
December 29, 2005 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally am amazed that it's been FOUR GODDAM years since 9/11 and nobody seems to mind that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.
I am even more shocked that by March 2002, President Bush had gone from saying that we'd get Osama "dead or alive" to saying, literally, that he was "not that concerned about him." That's nine months after 9/11.
And, of course, I'm appalled that in the 3rd Presidential debate, George Bush denied ever saying that. And despite the fact that Kerry said, "wait, you're denying it?" and the fact that Bush was on tape saying it, that it utterly failed to be newsworthy.
Hi, does anyone remember 9/11? Guy with a beard and a bunch of airplanes? Where the fuck is he now? You think we look like schmucks or tough guys?
Unbelievable.
December 29, 2005 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But really -- and I mean this kindly -- copyedit first. There is nothing in the article to support the notion that the "of" in the title and again in the text is colloquial; that's an absurd defense. A grammatical error like this looks bad, and like it or not it does undermine credibility. I'm not trying to be a jerk here. It just needs to be mentioned.
December 29, 2005 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . troops requested by Berntsen . . . . Larry Johnson
I guess that's partly why I asked the question: What was Berntsen doing sticking his nose in? was Tora Bora a CIA plan put together on a bunch of pie-in-the-sky assumptions? sort of another Bay of Pigs?
N.B. The idea of using Afghan warlords to do the "fighting" has CIA fingerprints smeared all over it.
December 29, 2005 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
NA--than! Would it make you feel better if Larry'd titled his piece "We Shoulda Had Him"? as in shoulda woulda coulda?
December 29, 2005 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 29, 2005 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
do you know if he is going to be doing book talks, signings to promote the book?
He is promoting his book in public, appears to be on tour right now. I just saw him interviewed on MSNBC or CNN, last day or so. Sorry I don't remember what show.
December 29, 2005 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give no one a pass. Franks was in charge. He shoulda-woulda- coulda. He didn nota. However, I have no military experience, and really shoulda-coulda-nota.
December 29, 2005 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dana Priest's new article is interesting. Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow.
It's all about Bush's covert action that is code named GST. NSA is not lonely anymore.
How does Dana do this?
December 29, 2005 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smucker's 2004 account is written with the intensity of a first person account. As the csmonitor war correspondent Smucker tells the story from the perspective of the double crossing warlords and tribal chieftains who orchestrated Al Qaeda's escape while prancing with Geraldo in front of FOX's cameras. Because of it's "up close and personal" nature it takes more than one read to get a perspective of what all went wrong.
Why was this left up to the CIA instead of a division of regular troops? Why did we gamble on warlords delivering us the head of Osama bin Laden? And just as quixotic, did bin Laden really believe that a thousand Toyota warriors could hold off the U.S. military? Consider the circumstances.
Tora Bora was not built by bin Laden, it had been used by Mujahideen fighters against the Soviets and had been the site of a decisive battle in that war. While warlords in Herat, Kandahar, Mazar-e Sharif and Kabul had lost power under the Taliban, the Taliban was merely a veneer atop the power structure of the old Mujahideen controlled Easter Shura in the Jalalabad region. The old Mujahideen victors in the war against the Soviets were still in firm control and, unlike other parts of Afghanistan, had no incentive to rise up to defeat the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Only drug lords stood to gain in Al Qaeda's disappearance from the Jalalabad scene, which is why we hired drug lords.
Smucker details when the deals were made (November 13) and the political realities that resulted in those drug lord mercenaries not only allowing Al Qaeda's escape but preparing the "underground railroad" for their escape. In short, this was not hospitable territory to be landing a thousand U.S. troops in. Col. Mulholland, commander over the Green Berets in Afghanistan, related to Smucker that the Pentagon feared that the entire region would rise up, not to defend Al Qaeda particularly, but to resist a foreign aggressor. Considering the double cross that did take place, the continuity of the power structure, and the proud history of that power structure's resistance to the Soviets, that was a real possibility.
Imagine a thousand of America's crack troops stranded in the Hindu Kush, surrounded by thousands of Winston Churchill's "Mad Fakirs". Barely 40 miles away the British had lost all but one survivor from a force of 4500 attempting to retreat across the Khyber Pass into Pakistan. Sure that was in 1842, but in a land where entire civilizations have flourished, died and been forgotten, that memory is as fresh as yesterday's meal. Such a crushing defeat of American power may be hard to imagine from the comfort of one's living room, but Osama bin Laden imagined it from the caves of Tora Bora. And most likely Dick Cheney imagined it too from his bunker somewhere in the Virginia countryside. Perhaps we were on a fool's errand from the outset.
December 30, 2005 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
We do know Franks had available two batallions of the 10th Mountain Division then stationed north of Afghanistan in one of the Stans. Those troops are trained and equipted to fight in high elevations. Franks also had a Marine Division at Kandahar, but they are not trained to fight in low oxygen environments. This would be critical if climbing Tora Bora was part of the plan. Tora Bora is all above 10,000 feet, with peaks up to 13,000 or so.
December 30, 2005 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not colloquial use, it's just an error. What you normally hear people saying is the contraction, "We should've had him". That's short for "should have". But it sounds like "should of" and then the ignorant start writing it that way.
You know how some people here think that Democrats should stick firmly to their principles regardless of popularity? To lead and not follow? Well, the same goes for spelling, grammar, and literacy. I'm not interested in sharing a Big Tent with people who haven't gotten past first-grade in their writing skills.
December 30, 2005 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smucker details when the deals were made (November 13) and the political realities that resulted in those drug lord mercenaries not only allowing Al Qaeda's escape but preparing the "underground railroad" for their escape. In short, this was not hospitable territory to be landing a thousand U.S. troops in. Col. Mulholland, commander over the Green Berets in Afghanistan, related to Smucker that the Pentagon feared that the entire region would rise up, not to defend Al Qaeda particularly, but to resist a foreign aggressor. Considering the double cross that did take place, the continuity of the power structure, and the proud history of that power structure's resistance to the Soviets, that was a real possibility. The Taliban is a faction that controlled the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, which dominated the country after the Soviets left. Frankly, I thought the plan all along was to have non-Pashtun groups (Northern Alliance) and disaffected factions within the Pashtun do most of the work in knocking the Taliban down. As you say, it would make that an Afghan victory assisted by US troops, not an invasion by a foreign aggressor like the Soviets or earlier British. As a general strategy it worked pretty well.The "drug lord mercenaries" were Pashtun cousins of the Taliban and I am sure played every angle they could taking bribes from all sides as folks have been doing there for thousands of years.
December 30, 2005 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 30, 2005 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine - you get bin Laden.
Now what, geniuses?
Put him on trial? Sure. Convict him of terrorism? Sure. Execute him? Sure. Give him life in Guantanamo? Sure. Torture him for details of his operation? Sure.
Now what?
You think 18,000 members of "Al Qaeda" - which doesn't exist, by the way, it's a symbol, not an organization - would suddenly go back to being camel herders (not that they ever were)?
Don't waste my time with this nonsense. You want to martyr bin Laden, feel free. Bush wants to let him roam free so he can justify burying the Constitution and filling his cronies pockets with government contracts, fine.
The only way to deal with bin Laden is to remove his influence. And the only way to do that is to change US foreign policy.
Start by cutting off all aid to Israel, demanding Israel dismantle all its nuclear weapons, demand Israel deal fairly with the Palestinians by pulling its borders back to the 1947 agreement, and pull ALL US troops totally out of the Middle East. Then figure out how to stop guzzling all the oil in the world - let the Chinese have it, they need it more than we do.
Don't waste my time with James Bond raconteurs - I personally find Richard Marcinko has already covered that territory a lot more colorfully.
You want bin Laden? Pay me one billion dollars in advance. bin Laden will be dead in ninety days - and I'll make a nine-hundred-million-dollar profit...
I made you clowns the same deal for Saddam - and now it's cost you nearly $300 billion, over 2,000 US lives, 30-100,000 Iraqi lives, and totally lost all US credibility (what little it had) worldwide, and destabilized the entire Middle East.
Get a clue. You don't need a massive military effort to kill one human, no matter who he is or where he is.
Morons.
December 30, 2005 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, yes. Then it would obviously have been a colloquialism, rather than an embarrassing grammatical blunder. We write for clarity, don't we? Even giving the author the benefit of the doubt, and assuming the error was really just an attempt at being clever, the fact that it's caused this much fuss indicates it was poorly judged attempt. And I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt here; sorry. The piece was not written in a "colloquial" style. The "of" stands out like a pillar. It was a mistake. It's okay. All I ask is that writers be more careful.
December 30, 2005 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ALl your phrase are belong to ours!"
December 31, 2005 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would mark the height of hubris and such a command would arguably be an impeachable offense in and of itself and carry with it the stigma of jail time under the UCMJ.
"IIRC Tora Bora was lost because somebody gave the job to two Afghan warlords, Hazret Ali, a Pashay, and Haji Zaman Ghamsharik, a Pashtun. They couldn't stand each other, wouldn't cooperate,"
Is that why the details of Tillman's death are not being released? What would his brother have to say on this matter, himself a Ranger?
George Bush has produced a record deficit in the realm of accounting to the truth. Something far beyond fiscal measure. The well being of those who have taken the Oath of uniformed service deserves better.
Interesting you say he details the Clinton era and how the CIA previous emplaced/entrenched interests helped undermine efforts during the time Republicans screamed "Wag the Dog".
Turns out people sympathetic to their vested interests overrode the ability of capable field personnel when deployed in the same region. Such conflicts of interest must fall under greater degrees of scrutiny.
December 31, 2005 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sat in the bookstore and read in one long sitting, not wanting interrupt the story. I think I am am pretty well-read but I learned substantial things that I had never read before.-Thanks to you. Gary deserves my thanks for what he did and how he persevered to get the book out so we the public can read. I appreciated reading with the redacted parts and his explanations of what was in them.
January 10, 2006 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声