LA Times reveals secret technology used in surge that Woodward discussed on 60 Minutes

www.latimes.com ^ | september 21, 2008 | www.latimes.com

[MikeFrancesa.com]

Friday, The Times' Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes reported that the United States has escalated its war against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies by "deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq."

It's a story whose significance may extend well beyond the benighted hills and valleys of Pakistan's violent Pashtun hinterlands and onto the hustings of our current presidential campaign. Coupled with Thursday's report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad's permission, the odds of an "October surprise" that could influence the general election have risen appreciably.

U.S. officials also told The Times that the new surveillance systems allow the operators of the unmanned Predators to locate and identify individual human targets "even when they are inside buildings. ... The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator's lens of confirming a target's identity and precise location."

The Times' story confirms the most sensational revelation contained in Bob Woodward's new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2007," which was published this week. Woodward revealed the technology's existence but, heeding requests from intelligence officials, declined to describe its operations except to say that it had allowed U.S. forces to locate and kill decisive numbers of senior Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi insurgents. In what may be the book's most controversial claim, Woodward argues that the secret technology and the so-called Anbar Awakening -- in which counterinsurgency techniques developed by the Marines won over tribal leaders in that crucial Sunni-dominated province -- had as much or more to do with stabilizing Iraq as the "surge" in U.S. troop numbers.

[Rammer]

Actually, STTW has been in development for a few years now. Do a Google search.

[Big Giant Head]

Coupled with Thursday's report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order ~

The Times' story confirms~

Wow.. I'm trying to wrap my mind around these two details. New York Times Knows ALL? A "secret order?" The Old Grey Lady of Ill Repute confirms?

Just wow.

[Right Wing Assault]

I hope AQ doesn’t learn about our long range DNA searcher. When it’s loaded with a sample of someone’s DNA, it can find them from space anywhere on the planet. Even miles below the surface.

Oh, I’ve said too much already.

[Nextrush]

They must poop their pants worrying that Bin Laden will be caught or killed soon.

[Hardastarboard]

Don't mention the top secret emails that Karl Rove has been sending in code through the RNC about how we're going to round up all the liberals and send them to the Halliburton camps right after we steal the election by voter fraud and electronic hacking using Pentagon computers.

We can't let that secret get out or the liberals will be furious in their acting out and make complete asses of themselves. They've been pretty good about conducting themselves as adults in this election so far.

[ballplayer]

Well that rules out hiding in Buildings ,back to the caves or downtown Tehran

[nclaurel]

Could terrorists have any better friends than Woodward, NYT, LA Times and a few others? Question the success of the surge or Obama might look back and to h@ll with America! Disgusting.

[InterceptPoint]

You write about the surge:

"It was a minor factor that certainly helped, but without the other factors, would not have produced the results we see today. "

I think you underestimate the importance of the surge to the Sunnis. It convinced them that we were not giving up, that Bush was not a quitter. By bringing in the troops to really go after Al Qaeda we gave the Sunnis a rationale for doing what they really wanted to do anyway - end the fighting. After five years even the Sunnis were tired of it. The surge was the key to expanding the Awakening beyond it's initial roots. Was it a brilliant strategy or was it luck. Who knows. Who cares. It worked.

[xzins]

I disagree. 30,000 troops would make a huge difference.

That surge represent 1.5 divisions, and their combat power is unquestioned.

Petraeus knew the Iraqi army had been grown large enough to occupy cleared-out communities. (Despite other things that George Casey might have gotten wrong, he never took his eyes off the prize of increasing the size and combat-readiness of the Iraqi Army. He’ll get credit for that some day.)

The additional 30,000 warriors enabled the US to attack the worst areas of enemy concentration and defeat it while keeping already stabilized areas stable.

[SunkenCiv]

Coupled with Thursday's report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad's permission, the odds of an "October surprise" that could influence the general election have risen appreciably.

[r9etb]

U.S. officials also told The Times that the new surveillance systems allow the operators of the unmanned Predators to locate and identify individual human targets "even when they are inside buildings. ... The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator's lens of confirming a target's identity and precise location."

Psyops....

[SunkenCiv]

No serious military commander would have you believe that adding 30k troops to a 25 million population was going to dent the violence.

I'll have to respectfully disagree. If the US armed forces were fighting all 25 million, another 30k troops wouldn't have made a difference; but the bulk of the fighting took place in limited areas, and involved a tiny fraction of the Iraqis themselves, along with a comparable number of foreigners.

I wholeheartedly agree that the 30k troops bought time -- the time they bought was in Congress, where the supposedly Lame Duck President upped the ante after the 2006 Pubbie defeats at the ballot boxes, and Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Party of Treason backed down, and kept backing down, and kept backing down the public's perception of themselves, of the rest of Congress, and of their miserable name brand.

[Steel Wolf]

I disagree. 30,000 troops would make a huge difference. That surge represent 1.5 divisions, and their combat power is unquestioned.

Sure, but our combat power has never been in question. MND-B (Multi-National District Baghdad) is the city and surrounding metro area with population 9 million. Another 30,000 troops can't do much for that security situation, when you consider that most of the 30k are support personnel that don't leave the FOB anyway. Sitting at checkpoints and driving around doing presence patrols doesn't cause security on it's own, especially in such light numbers.

That commitment to the capital doesn't even begin to address the porous borders, EFP / foreign fighter ratlines with Iran and Syria, or the Sunni problems to the west, or the Shia to the south, or the multi-cultural clashes of the north.

The 30k was a great way to show our sustained commitment to the Iraqi people, to the insurgents, and to the rest of the world. It showed we were 'all in', and it bought us enough time to get our act together on the intelligence side. By itself, though, the surge was more PR than anything. Crucial PR, an emergency shot in the arm to our national morale, but PR nonetheless.

[Steel Wolf]

If the US armed forces were fighting all 25 million, another 30k troops wouldn't have made a difference; but the bulk of the fighting took place in limited areas, and involved a tiny fraction of the Iraqis themselves, along with a comparable number of foreigners.

There's nothing limited about it. Evert population center from Mosul to Basrah has seen security issues, and we're doing operations constantly in the population centers all in between.

The fact that our opponents are a small fraction of the population is meaningless when we don't know where they are. Some of our enemies float from city to city, avoiding us where we were strong, and striking where we were weak. Others were defended or feared by their communities, and were able to remain invisible.

Again, 30k may sounds like a lot of troops, but it's nothing. The initial invasion estimates that called for 500,000 troops were conservative. We have 150,000 private contractors here now (yours truly included), the majority of which are doing security services. This effectively doubled the number of U.S. troops, and we were still far short of where we needed to be. Iraq is stabilizing now, but we cut it very close.

[ctdonath2]

Utter hogwash and basement liberal science fiction fantasy.

The concepts culminating in "Predator drones" was utter hogwash and basement liberal science fiction fantasy not all that long ago. Pilotless armed flying machines controlled from techs on the other side of the planet, able to watch & terminate nighttime activities miles from the drone? riiiiiiight...

[McGruff]

to: L.A. Times
cc:
subject:STFU

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks!

[SunkenCiv]

Higher-tech Predators targeting Pakistan
(incorporating see-through-the-wall technology)
LA Times | 9/12/08 | Mel Melcon
Posted on 09/20/2008 11:29:59 AM PDT by LibWhacker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086647/posts

-recent-

US hits compound in North Waziristan
longwarjournal
Posted on 09/12/2008 6:59:03 PM PDT by flyfree
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081317/posts

Guard: Al Qaeda chief in Pakistan killed
CNN | 13 minutes ago
Posted on 09/09/2008 12:07:36 PM PDT by sidewinder009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2078333/posts

-from the archives-

US commandos ready to conduct raids in Pakistan
Daily Times
Posted on 07/09/2008 4:08:13 PM PDT by milestogo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043130/posts

BBC: Pakistan fury at deadly US strike
BBC | Wednesday, 11 June 2008 17:51 UK 16:51 GMT, | BBC Staff
Posted on 06/11/2008 11:56:03 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2029574/posts

Predator Combat Air Patrols Double in One Year
American Forces Press Service
Posted on 05/07/2008 4:50:36 PM PDT by SandRat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2012729/posts

Pakistan Secular Win ‘Will Aid War On Terror’
The Telegraph (UK) | 2-26-2008 | Isambard Wilkinson
Posted on 02/25/2008 6:56:56 PM PST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976269/posts

Bomb-Maker Killed As US Exploits Ethnic Rifts In Al-Qa’eda (More)
The Telegraph (UK) | 5-15-2005 | Massoud Ansari/Philip Sherwell
Posted on 05/14/2005 6:35:53 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1403345/posts

U.S. Drones Crowd Iraq’s Skies to Fight Insurgents
NYT | 04/05/05 | Eric Schmitt
Posted on 04/05/2005 6:23:26 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1377711/posts

[Windflier]

nice tagline.

Thanks. Hannity seems to like it too. He's using it on his show now. Wish I could claim credit, but I stole it from somewhere myself, a long time ago.

[08bil98z24]

We're crushing them in Waziristan. They're moving into the Pakistan cities and attacking hotels and troops, but this increased proximity is driving them into range of the Pakistani military and intelligence services.

I strongly disagree with the assessment in Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan right now is NOT getting better. Given, we are finally attacking some of the Taliban in the Tribal regions, A helicopter raid and 15+ limited air-strikes is not crushing them.

The Strategy in Afghanistan does not seem to be working, and to have faith in the Pakistani government to help sort out the problems in the Tribal region is not smart, wise or practical (7 years later and those same characters are still in the same general area in Pakistan). It is definitely time to change strategy's, The Taliban revival should not have been allowed to happen.