ISI chief implicated in 9/11

[Double Edge]

We were spinning wheels about this in another thread so i thought we'd look at it with a more narrow focus.

The scenario is there are reliable intercepts that indicate the ISI chief interacting with the 9/11 plotters. The nature of those intercepts is less important than the link they establish. Whilst the information isn't directly incriminatiing it indicates that the chief was aware of the operation even suggest a degree of familiarity with it. And they leave the question of how involved the ISI were in 9/11 hanging. These intercepts are dated to before 9/11. Does not matter how old, a week, a month even more. But they occur before 9/11

This comes to light in late 2001 as a result of coordinated intel efforts with other countries.

The question is how significantly would this knowledge affect US strategy & deployment plans in the Afghanistan or would it continue unchanged as it has.

Also, would it ever be in US interest to ensure that this information never became public ?

If the public know the wiggle room is less. States can have secrets etc.

What complicates this for me is its no longer about non-state actors but state actors that too at the top level.

[zraver]

If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.

Powell wasn't kidding when he told Pakistan, "You're either with us or we bomb you into the stone age." Those words were delivered with the full support of the American people.

[Parihaka]

Armitage Refutes Musharraf's Claim

comments
17
inShare.0More+
EmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInDigg.PrintDeliciousRed ditStumbleuponGoogle Bookmarks....Former U.S. diplomat Richard Armitage said Friday that an official document detailing his conversation with President Pervez Musharraf's intelligence chief confirms he did not threaten that Pakistan would be bombed back into the Stone Age should the Pakistani leader refuse to join the U.S. fight against al Qaeda.

In a radio interview, Armitage, who was then deputy secretary of state, also said Musharraf had fired the intelligence director shortly after he had relayed the alleged U.S. threat to the Pakistani president.

Musharraf said in an that Armitage told a Pakistani official the United States would attack Pakistan if it didn't back the war on terror.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.

Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

"It did not happen. I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it," Armitage said Friday in an Associated Press Radio interview.

Armitage — who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's right-hand man at the time — said he called the State Department Friday morning to double-check his memory and had an employee read him the cable he had sent after his meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief, whom Armitage identified as Gen. M.

"I reviewed the cable, or had it read to me this morning from the State Department, and there was in no way that threat," Armitage said.

The exchange occurred during the lead-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to flush al Qaeda fighters out of their bases and to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants. Bin Laden and al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain at large.

"I told him in a very straightforward way this was a black-and-white issue for Americans. You were either for us or against us.

"He started to tell me about Pakistan's history. ... I said, 'You should communicate with your president and see if you are willing to cooperate with us.'"

He said he told Gen. M that if the answer was yes, they could meet the next day and Armitage would tell him the U.S. requirements. "They will be onerous," he said he told the Pakistani.

"The general came back the next day and said they were willing to go along with us. And I presented to him a list of items Secretary Powell and I had jotted down the night before."

He said several State Department personnel were in the room and heard the exchange, and "no one remembers a military threat. And the cable does not reflect that."

"I would note that Gen. M was fired not long after that by President Musharraf," Armitage added.
Armitage said he met with Musharraf on Thursday. He did not discuss their conversation.

Julie Reside, a State Department spokeswoman, said she knew no specifics of the Armitage documents, but department cables generally reflect conversations precisely.

Earlier Friday, President Bush said he was "taken aback" by Musharraf's comments. At a joint White House news conference, Mr. Bush praised Musharraf for being one of the first foreign leaders to come out after the Sept. 11, 2001.

Musharraf wouldn't comment on his statement, saying he has a book coming out and that he's promised the publisher he wouldn't talk about it.

Mr. Bush accepted that answer and told reporters to "buy the book," CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports. Musharraf's book will be published by Simon & Schuster, which is part of CBS Corp.

As for Musharraf, no matter how his relationship with the United States was started, a senior White House official said President Bush trusts him fully as a partner in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, reports CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

[Agnostic Muslim]

If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.

Powell wasn't kidding when he told Pakistan, "You're either with us or we bomb you into the stone age." Those words were delivered with the full support of the American people.

That would have been the time to do it too, with a degree of certainty that Pakistan would not be able to get off a nuclear response (attacking India, Israel, Gulf bases) given that (according to Musharraf's book) Pakistan did not have a working deliverable nuclear deterrent at that time.

[Doktor]

Z,

What reaction of the Russians and/or Chinese would be when that nuclear arming of the B-2s and the missiles occurs?

[zraver]

Z,

What reaction of the Russians and/or Chinese would be when that nuclear arming of the B-2s and the missiles occurs?

In the days right after 9-11, the Russian's wouldn't say boo, AQ had been supporting operations in Chechnya. The Chinese would scream bloody murder in their press and privately via diplomatic channels but otherwise wouldn't budge, with no mated nuclear weapons they lacked the ability to do anything but chest thump. 9-11 met the stated requirements for the US to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.

That is if they even knew, with a sea borne nuclear strike force and the bombers are kept in close proximity to the weapons, likely in dual use covered hangars like used in Europe. In 2001 the stealthed cruise missiles had not yet been retired either.

[zraver]

That would have been the time to do it too, with a degree of certainty that Pakistan would not be able to get off a nuclear response (attacking India, Israel, Gulf bases) given that (according to Musharraf's book) Pakistan did not have a working deliverable nuclear deterrent at that time.

Pakistan got lucky, if the US knew then what we know now, chances are Pakistan not Iraq would have seen a coalition government imposed.

[Officer of Engineers]

If the US had reasonable suspicion that Pakistan was in on 9-11 in late 2001, the world may well have seen its first nuclear weapons release since WWII with B-2's and stealthed cruise missiles hitting Pakistani nuke storage sites and air fields prior to a massive conventional air and sea campaign that would destroy the Pakistani military and then a ruthless blockade until all the major players were dead or in custody.

I don't think so.

1) The US won't need nukes. The PGMs were/are that good against non-nuclear hardened targets which Pakistan is not, not even today.

2) Nukes were not used during Tora Bora, the one place where nukes were justified, a hardened target against a mass murderer where no civilians were anywhere close, indicating cold hard calculations, and not emotions, determine the strikes.

3) We don't need nukes to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age.

[Parihaka]

3) We don't need nukes to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age.

Agreed. I doubt they'd even see it coming. There would have to be an invasion of sorts though to secure their nukes. There'd have to be a very delicate political tight-rope walked to placate the Chinese, i.e. their people secretly embedded and China the destination of the removed nuclear devices and material, in just the same way it has to be arranged for the Russians to receive Syria's chemical etc stockpile.

[zraver]

Agreed. I doubt they'd even see it coming. There would have to be an invasion of sorts though to secure their nukes. There'd have to be a very delicate political tight-rope walked to placate the Chinese, i.e. their people secretly embedded and China the destination of the removed nuclear devices and material, in just the same way it has to be arranged for the Russians to receive Syria's chemical etc stockpile.

If Assad is forced out and the CW are removed, the US is the most likely destination. The incinerator in Pine Bluff, Arkansas is purpose built for destroying CW and has an observer network already in place. Russia doesn't want them, they are illegal and would just have to be destroyed anyway.

[DOR]

We were spinning wheels about this in another thread so i thought we'd look at it with a more narrow focus.

The scenario is there are reliable intercepts that indicate the ISI chief interacting with the 9/11 plotters. The nature of those intercepts is less important than the link they establish. Whilst the information isn't directly incriminatiing it indicates that the chief was aware of the operation even suggest a degree of familiarity with it. And they leave the question of how involved the ISI were in 9/11 hanging. These intercepts are dated to before 9/11. Does not matter how old, a week, a month even more. But they occur before 9/11

This comes to light in late 2001 as a result of coordinated intel efforts with other countries.

The question is how significantly would this knowledge affect US strategy & deployment plans in the Afghanistan or would it continue unchanged as it has.

Also, would it ever be in US interest to ensure that this information never became public ?

If the public know the wiggle room is less. States can have secrets etc.

What complicates this for me is its no longer about non-state actors but state actors that too at the top level.

Follow the logic:

“The scenario is there are reliable intercepts that indicate the ISI chief interacting with the 9/11 plotters.”
* Henry Kissinger met with North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho on October 8, 1972.

“The nature of those intercepts is less important than the link they establish.”
* Six months later, the US and RVA launched the Cambodian Incursion.

“Whilst the information isn't directly incriminating it indicates that the chief was aware of the operation even suggest a degree of familiarity with it.”
* Therefore, Le Duc Tho must have known about the Cambodian Incursion.

[Deltacamelately]

If anything, had the US attacked Pakistan with or without nukes, there would be a war India couldn't stop getting squeezed in.
What that would lead to finally is anybody's guess?

[Doktor]

Maj,

Why would India get squeezed? AFAIK, GoI was not backed in any of her wars.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Pakistan got lucky, if the US knew then what we know now, chances are Pakistan not Iraq would have seen a coalition government imposed.

Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.

[Socrates]

but the american people would not stand by and watch with a smile they would takeit apone them self to fight or something they did it in ww2 a hole plane team fought with the English with out the goverment