Revealed: the infighting that has hobbled hunt for Bin Laden

I've already posted Sy Hersh stating that US forces are already operating inside Iran attempting to destabilise that nation, and note today that Dana Perino is refusing to issue any White House denial of Hersh's claims:

The White House Monday refused comment on whether U.S. President George Bush has requested funds for covert operations in Iran.

The New Yorker published a story by Seymour Hersh alleging the administration has initiated covert operations on the ground to destabilize the Iranian regime -- something denied Sunday by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker in a CNN interview.

Asked whether Bush sought $400 million for such operations to "prepare the battlefield" in Iran, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told the daily press briefing she couldn't comment.

This comes at a time when the Bush administration are coming under criticism for concentrating on Iran at the expense of chasing al Qaeda.

Mr Bush will now leave office with al-Qa'ida having successfully relocated its base of operations from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas. According to the report in The New York Times, there may be more than 2000 foreign recruits to al-Qa'ida.

The US failure to tackle the al-Qa'ida leadership comes at a time when Mr Bush is increasingly focused on projecting the US military into Iran.

Operations in Iran have been expanded with the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command joining forces, according to current US officials. The New Yorker reported that undercover US operations inside Iran are undergoing a major expansion aimed at destabilising the religious leadership.

It has never seemed to me as if Bush was serious about getting bin Laden. From his failure to use US ground troops at Tora Bora to his misguided decision to invade Iraq rather than continue to hunt down bin Laden, Bush always appears to have had his eye on other goals, and his bizarre decision to announce recently that he wanted bin Laden caught before he left office only reinforced the impression that he has somehow placed bin Laden on the back burner.

Were bin Laden a priority Bush would never have had to make his most recent statement. That would simply have been taken as a given.

Nor has Bush's concentrating on Iraq and Iran at the expense of bin Laden and al Qaeda even been competently managed according a new US Army report:

Most damaging of all for President Bush's legacy may be a 700-page official history by the US Army. It points the finger of blame at US-based commanders who believed "in the euphoria of early 2003" that the goals in Iraq had been accomplished and failed to send enough troops to handle the occupation. The study specifically blames President Bush's declaration on board an aircraft carrier off San Diego on 1 May 2003, that major combat operations were over for reinforcing that view.

The audacious conclusions of the official army history, On Point II, were defended in a foreword by General William Wallace, commanding general of US Army Training and Doctrine Command, who wrote: "One of the great and least understood qualities of the United States Army is its culture of introspection and self-examination."

The report blames civilian and military planning for the failures of post-Saddam Iraq. After Saddam was toppled, US commanders sat back and expected a peaceful transition much as they had experienced in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The report also said the administration of George Bush assumed incorrectly that the Saddam regime would collapse after the 1991 Gulf War. The army history points out that the coalition commander, General Tommy Franks, told his subordinates to prepare to move most of their forces out of Iraq by September 2003.

"In line with the ... general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for US ground forces in Iraq," the report said.

It would take until July 16 2003 for his successor, General John Abizaid, to acknowledge that US forces were facing a classic guerrilla insurgency.

Some of the most scathing criticisms of the US military have come from within its own ranks.

Lt- Col Paul Yingling touched off the debate last year, complaining in public: "After going into Iraq with too few troops and no coherent plan for postwar stabilisation, America's general officer corps did not accurately portray the intensity of the insurgency to the American public."

This has been an administration of simply stunning incompetence, who took the events of 9-11 as an excuse to carry out a right wing agenda, which saw the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein as an urgent US priority, whilst singularly failing to take seriously the mission of tracking down the man they claim was responsible for the worst terrorist attack ever on their own soil.

And, even today, we read of Bush's continual obsession with undermining the Iranians, whilst bin Laden continues to evade capture. It's hard, reading this, to ever believe that bin Laden was treated as anything other than the excuse they needed to complete the agenda set out by Kristol and others through The Project For A New American Century's website.

As of May 20th this year, the Project For A New American Century's website became inoperable. I hope that's a metaphor for the collapse of the entire failed neo-con agenda.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, bin Laden, Iraq, Afghanistan, war on terror, Iran, project for the new American century, neo-cons, William Kristol