Friday, December 22, 2006

Really???

I got his link from the daily Kos:French troops had bin Laden in sights

A documentary says French special forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights twice about three years ago but their U.S. superiors never ordered them to fire.

The French military, however, said that the incidents never happened and the report was "erroneous information."

The documentary, due to air next year and seen by Reuters on Tuesday, says the troops could have killed the al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan but the order to shoot never came, possibly because it took too long to request it.

"In 2003 and 2004 we had bin Laden in our sights. The sniper said 'I have bin Laden'," an anonymous French soldier is quoted as saying.

The documentary 'Bin Laden, the failings of a manhunt' is by journalists Emmanuel Razavi and Eric de Lavarene, who have worked for several major French media outlets in Afghanistan. A cable television channel plans to air the documentary in March.

Razavi said the soldier told them it took roughly two hours for the request to reach the U.S. officers who could authorize it but the anonymous man is also quoted in the documentary as saying: "There was a hesitation in command."

Razavi told Reuters several sources told them the sightings were six months apart and they declined to be more specific.


It is a very interesting story. The trouble is I doubt it could be true. The vagueness of the story with its lack of detail sticks out like a red ass on a baboon. We do know that these events were supposed to have happened in 2003 and 2004, six months apart. O.K.

A) The NATO force (including 500+ French troops) doesn't get to Afganistan until August 11th, 2003. However, they are restricted to operations in Kabul.

Maybe Bin Laden was hanging around in a Kabul cafe?

B) On October 14th, 2003 the UN security council OK's the NATO force expanding its role outside of Kabul. NATO says it will take it under advisement.

C) In meetings held on December 1-2, 2003, NATO agree to the plan to expand the role of the force in Afganistan.

OK, so this leaves most of the month of December for some French troops to get deployed outside of Kabul so they can train their greedy little gun sights on OBL himself, right?

Well, no. On the 19th of December we learn:


The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force has stepped up security in Kabul, including temporarily sending extra troops, as the loya jirga meets to debate a constitution for Afghanistan.

The loya jirga, or grand assembly, is a traditional gathering of representatives of Afghanistan’s various tribes and factions. This is the second time that a loya jirga has been convened since the ousting of the Taleban, with the first one meeting last year to select an interim government for Afghanistan.

This loya jirga numbers over 500 representatives, including – for the first time ever - women delegates. It will discuss a proposed draft text for a constitution for Afghanistan. The meeting began on Sunday, 14 December, and can last several weeks.


So NATO had a priority operation in Kabul that called for extra men, and would take up the entirety of December. The same article also points out,

On 11 August this year NATO took over command of the UN-mandated 5,500-strong International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), which is responsible for providing security in and around Kabul.

The Alliance is currently preparing for a gradual expansion of the peacekeeping beyond Kabul.


In fact, NATO doesn't expand its mission outside of Kabul until early January, 2004, and those folks are hardly special forces:

A ceremony held in Kunduz on 6 January marked the transfer of command of the Kunduz Provincial Reconstruction Team to NATO and a first step in the expansion of the Alliance’s mission in the country.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) are small teams of civilian and military personnel working in Afghanistan’s provinces to provide security for aid workers and help with reconstruction work. There are currently six, under the command of the US-led coalition forces.


To say the least it seems doubtful that the timeline expressed in the article is accurate.

Gee, I wonder what else they got wrong....

No comments: