Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 14, 2010
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in
East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared
several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as
he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters
that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to
take him alive.
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept.
14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a
car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set
down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA
verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the
ship.
The strike was considered a major success, according to senior
administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive
matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S.
terrorism targets was gone forever.
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the
administration has faced over the past year as President
Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and
its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted
killings and no reports of high-value detentions.
Although senior administration officials say that no policy
determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several
factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama
administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George
W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in
countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or
especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and
precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a
sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives
have dwindled.
Republican critics, already scornful of limits placed on interrogation
of the suspect in the Christmas Day bombing attempt, charge that the
administration has been too reluctant to risk an international incident
or a domestic lawsuit to capture senior terrorism figures alive and
imprison them.
"Over a year after taking office, the administration has still failed to
answer the hard questions about what to do if we have the opportunity
to capture and detain a terrorist overseas, which has made our
terror-fighters reluctant to capture and left our allies confused," Sen.
Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), the ranking Republican on the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, said Friday. "If given a choice
between killing or capturing, we would probably kill."
Some military and intelligence officials, citing what they see as a new
bias toward kills, questioned whether valuable intelligence is being
lost in the process. "We wanted to take a prisoner," a senior military
officer said of the Nabhan operation. "It was not a decision that we
made."
Even during the Bush administration, "there was an inclination to 'just
shoot the bastard,' " said a former intelligence official briefed on
current operations. "But now there's an even greater proclivity for
doing it that way. . . . We need to have the capability to snatch when
the situation calls for it."
Lack of detention policy
One problem identified by those within and outside the government is the
question of where to take captives apprehended outside established war
zones and cooperating countries. "We've been trying to decide this for
over a year," the senior military officer said. "When you don't have a
detention policy or a set of facilities," he said, operational decisions
become more difficult.
The administration has pledged to close the military prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Congress has resisted moving any of the about 190
detainees remaining there, let alone terrorism suspects who have been
recently captured, to this country. All of the CIA's former "black site"
prisons have been shut down, and a U.S. official involved in operations
planning confirmed that the agency has no terrorism suspects in its
custody. Although the CIA retains the right to briefly retain terrorism
suspects, any detainees would be quickly transferred to a military
prison or an allied government with jurisdiction over the case, the
official said.
Military officials emphasized that terrorism suspects continue to be
captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in Iraq, where counterterrorism
operations must be approved in advance by its government and conducted
with Iraqi forces in the lead, all prisoners must be turned over to
Baghdad.
In Afghanistan, the massive U.S.-run prison at the Bagram air base is
scheduled to be relinquished to the Afghan government by the end of the
year. Its 750 prisoners include about 30 foreigners, some of them
captured in other countries and brought there. But recent legal
decisions, and Afghan government restrictions, have largely eliminated
that option.
"In some cases," the senior military official said, captives in
Afghanistan have been taken to "other facilities" maintained by Special
Operations forces. Such detentions, even on a temporary basis, have
become more difficult because of legal and human rights concerns, he
said.
Cooperation overseas
Outside the established war zones, senior administration and military
officials said, how an operation is conducted and whether its goal is
killing or capturing depend on where it is taking place and which U.S.
agency is involved. American personnel have worked closely on
counterterrorism missions with local forces in Indonesia, the
Philippines and elsewhere, with those countries in the lead.
Al-Qaeda and Taliban havens in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal
Areas along the border are considered part of the Afghanistan war
theater. The Pakistani government tacitly permits CIA-operated unmanned
aircraft to target terrorist sites and militants up to 50 miles inside
the country. Under an executive order first signed by Bush and continued
in force under Obama, the CIA does not have to seek higher
administration authority before striking.
But while U.S. Special Forces work closely with the CIA on the Afghan
side of the border, any ground operation in Pakistan would require
specific White House approval, which so far has not been granted. In
addition to the difficulty such a mission would pose amid a hostile
population in rugged terrain, the Pakistani government has drawn a red
line against allowing U.S. boots on the ground, and the risk of sparking
an anti-American backlash is seen as too great.
Beyond Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, potentially lethal operations
must be approved by Obama or his designee, which can include the CIA
director and the defense secretary. In Yemen, stepped-up military and
intelligence cooperation with the country's government, including the
use of U.S. aircraft and munitions for raids against a list of targets
suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, was approved by Obama
late last year, and at least two lethal attacks have taken place in
coordination with Yemeni ground forces. Any captives belong to Yemen.
The Somalia calculus
Somalia poses unique problems. In the vast majority of the country,
there is no functioning government to approve or coordinate operations,
or to take custody of captives. Under the Bush administration, the
military conducted several White House-approved air operations against
alleged senior terrorist figures fleeing south after the 2006
U.S.-backed ouster of the Islamic government there. But while military
teams made quick forays over the border to the targeted sites, finding
and identifying bodies proved difficult.
Nabhan, a 30-year-old Kenyan, had long been a prime U.S. target. A
senior official in the al-Shabab militia fighting to overthrow the
U.S.-supported transition government in Somalia and impose strict
Islamic law, he was said to be the chief link between the main al-Qaeda
organization and its East African allies. Wanted by the FBI in
connection with the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, he was also accused in the 2002 bombing of an Israeli-owned
resort in Kenya and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner that
year.
After tracking him for a while, the Special Operations Command thought
it had established a sufficient pattern of activity to target him and
had the time to plan for it. Several alternatives, including capture,
were developed and assessed under military procedures for missions
outside recognized war theaters.
Planners were asked for more details on the proposed force to be used,
intelligence proving the target's location and the level of
verification, and operational details -- including, in the case of
capture, where Nabhan would be taken. Planned under U.S. Central
Command, the operation was turned over to the U.S. Africa Command for
implementation.
On the political side, the National Security Council received detailed
versions of each proposed course of action. At that level, the senior
administration official said, "there is an evaluation making sure you
are able to prosecute the mission successfully . . . and minimize the
dangers and risks."
The Somalia calculus, several officials said, included weighing the
likelihood that U.S. troops on the ground for any amount of time in the
militia-controlled south would be particularly vulnerable to attack.
Looming large, they said, was the memory of the last time a U.S. combat
helicopter was on the ground in lawless Somalia, the 1993 Black Hawk
debacle that resulted in the deaths of 18 soldiers.
"There are certain upsides and certain downsides to certain paths," the
administration official said. "The safety and security of U.S. military
personnel is always something the president keeps at the highest level
of his calculus."
Source: The Washington Post