We Still Need to Kill Bin Laden

9/11's Unfinished Business
USA Today
September 11, 2009

In the eight years since 19 al-Qaeda terrorists struck at America's heart, the nation has taken significant strides both here and abroad to make its citizens safer.

Security around everything from ports to pipelines to jetliners has been hardened. Intelligence agencies are vigilant in a way that was tragically lacking before Sept. 11, 2001.

The government has disrupted the terrorists' financial networks and imprisoned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the reputed tactical mastermind behind the attacks. The military has eliminated al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and Predator drones have taken out dozens of terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Yet amid all the success in weakening the al-Qaeda network, vulnerabilities remain, and one gaping piece of unfinished business stands out. Osama bin Laden and his partner, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain at large.

After 9/11, getting bin Laden seemed the only way to redress at least some of America's anger and hurt. But as the pain of that awful day has receded, so too has the urgency of bringing him to justice. (In a Fox News Poll in July, only 50% said the U.S. should attempt to assassinate bin Laden, down from 66% soon after 9/11.)

The excuses and rationalizations are plentiful: He's only one man, and one man is hard to find. He's weakened and in seclusion. If eliminated, he'd just be replaced. Al-Qaeda has splintered into a fractured network of franchises. Even in the Muslim world, its popularity is sinking: In Pakistan, a recent Pew Global Attitudes poll found that support of the terrorist group had plummeted to 9%.

Yet no matter what the state of al-Qaeda, the importance of getting the organization's leaders should not be downplayed. Bin Laden is the person most responsible for the collapsing New York skyline, the battered Pentagon and a smoldering hole in the Pennsylvania countryside. For would-be terrorists, he is inspirational proof that you can get away with mass murder.
The trail has gone cold since the U.S. botched an effort to get bin Laden in late 2001 in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region. The Times of London reported this week that a small band of CIA operatives and special operations officers remains on the hunt in Pakistan, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding.

Unrelenting pursuit is essential. For Islamic extremists, bin Laden's death or capture would deprive them of their charismatic leader. For the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11, it would bring justice. And for all other Americans, it would reinforce the message that anyone who attacks the USA will be hunted to the ends of the earth.

Indians Orbit Moon 3,400x as US struggles to get Shuttles off the ground

India loses radio contact with moon orbiter
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Indian space scientists were scrambling Sunday to regain contact with their unmanned moon mission a day after they abruptly lost contact with the orbiter.

System failures on the Chandrayaan-I apparently led to loss of contact, said S. Satish, a spokesman for the Indian Space Research Organization.

The craft was equipped with what officials said were highly-sophisticated gadgets.
"We are trying to revive the contact, but chances are slim," Satish said.

The space organization had originally announced that Chandrayaan-I would stay in orbit for two years. "That probably was a mistake because such craft do not have this much life," Satish said.

However, Chandrayaan-I had met most of its scientific objectives by providing "large volume of data," the space organization said. In 312 days, it completed more than 3,400 orbits around the moon, according to the space organization.

Chandrayaan-I aimed to take high-resolution, three-dimensional images of the lunar surface, especially the permanently-shadowed polar regions.

The craft carried payloads from the United States, the European Union and Bulgaria. One of its objectives was to search for evidence of water or ice and attempt to identify the chemical composition of certain lunar rocks.

Earlier this year, the Indian government increased the federal budget for space research to about $1 billion from $700 million.

Not Enough Canadians, faulty US strategy

In Taliban Heartland, Coalition's Made Little Headway After 8 Years

By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers
August 16, 2009

ZHARI DISTRICT, Afghanistan — Two miles from the gates of an isolated Canadian military base in southern Afghanistan lies Sangsar, the village where the Taliban's harsh interpretation of Islam was born.

A few miles farther east is Siah Choy, where students learn to build roadside bombs for passing U.S. and Afghan troops. About six miles further east, in Nakhonay, the Taliban store thousands of weapons to distribute in the region.

This fertile part of southern Afghanistan is the front line of the war between the American-led coalition and the Taliban. Yet neither the U.S. nor its coalition partners have any troops stationed in these villages.

The Taliban's grip here is so strong that Afghan government leaders can't live in their own villages, so the farmers turn to the militants to settle local disputes. When Afghans go to the polls next Thursday to pick a president, no one here will vote because the Taliban have ordered them to stay home.

The coalition's precarious position in Kandahar province after nearly eight years of a war that's claimed more than 775 American lives is a warning that the new U.S. campaign to subdue the Taliban in the Islamists' heartland will be, at best, an uphill struggle.

Later this month, soldiers from the 5th Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Lewis, Wash., will take control of this base, part of an American troop increase that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has said is key to wresting control from the Taliban.

But the tactics the U.S. honed in Iraq will be of little or no use here, where roadways are either dusty, unpaved tracks or simply dry creek beds and where the terrian is lush, Vietnam-like, capable of growing grapes, opium poppies and marijuana, yet fiercely hot — temperatures easily reach 130 degrees in the summer and soldiers walk a few hundred yards and collapse before a shot is fired.

And the Canadians who have been here for the past three years are openly skeptical that their U.S. brethren, with huge eight-wheeled Stryker armored fighting vehicles in the lush waist-high grape vines, will have any better luck subduing the Taliban than they did.

The Americans "need to understand this is the toughest environment" they'll face, said Capt. Chris Blouin of Canada's Royal 22nd Regiment. "It's not complicated. Expect everything."

For three years, a Canadian force of a few hundred has faced as many as 15,000 Taliban here. In those three years, however, the Canadians acknowledge that they've had little more than a "finger in the dike strategy" aimed at preventing Taliban forces from capturing Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city, 20 miles to the east. With few resources, stalemate was the Canadians' strategy.

America's allies have no territorial gains to show for the effort. The schools they built were destroyed after the Taliban took them over and used them to stage ambushes. The small outposts they established, including the one in Sangsar, were abandoned in 2007 under constant Taliban attack.

"All we were really able to do, and have been able to do, is keep the insurgency sufficiently at bay that it doesn't become a real challenge to the state," said Canadian Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, who commands 2,800 troops in Kandahar province, about 300 of them based in Sangsar. "And it's not a real challenge to the state."

The Canadians' efforts to guide and train their Afghan counterparts who share this base have been equally frustrating.

At a meeting of local elders last month on the Afghan side of the base, Canadian and Afghan soldiers and police officers sat around a table laden with Oreos and pretzels mixed with dried apricots and figs.

The local police chief, Bizmullah Jan, asked for more help from the Canadians. The Canadians' lack of troops, however, makes it hard for them to support the Afghans the way the Afghans would like.

"Your troops need to understand that they are better fighters than the Taliban, and the Taliban are not good fighters...the Taliban have an ammo issue as well," said Blouin, 31, of Quebec, who's assigned to the Bravo Company in the 2nd Battalion of Canada's Royal 22nd Regiment. "Don't shoot everywhere. This is your country, and you need to be out the wire (in front) first."

The local Afghan army chief, Lt. Col Miranwar, who like many Afghans uses only one name, chimed in: "You have the technology, the best technology, but every time the Taliban fight, you cannot find them...you say you are here to help and support us, so we need support and help from you."

Blouin didn't budge. "It is chaotic on the ground, and there are too many people, so I cannot see who is the enemy. . . . It is a mistake to count too much on the technology because the Taliban doesn't have technology."

"Yes, but the Taliban have the authority over the whole area," Miranwar replied.

The Canadians are bitter about their role. They've lost 125 soldiers — the highest proportionally of any coalition partner — and have killed thousands of Taliban fighters and hundreds more civilians in short bursts of operations, usually lasting a few days.

Now they feel the clock ticking: They have two years to make a lasting difference before political pressure probably will force them to go home. Canada's politicians have said that their combat forces will leave Afghanistan by the end of 2011.

"We are proud to have been here. This is the heart of the insurgency," said Capt. Christian Maranda, 30, of Quebec and of Bravo Company. "But of course it's frustrating, because we lose ground every time we lose an area."

The local population has lost hope that the coalition can wrest control from the Taliban fighters who hide in their fields and take over their homes. Afghans resent the Canadians for making their lives more difficult. They've seen civilians killed. Their districts aren't safe. Canadian soldiers often have driven off the roads and destroyed farmers' 100-year-old grapevines in an effort to dodge the explosives that are waiting for them.

"Every yard is a trench for the enemy. . . . The people don't think about government and elections. The people now are just trying to save themselves," said district leader Naiz Mohammed Abdul Sarahadi, who splits his time between the base and Kandahar city because his district is too dangerous for him.

"Whenever there are more coalition forces, there are more deaths. These operations should have a result. We have an operation, and the Taliban move back in."

Taliban wearing flip-flops and carrying AK-47 rifles and rocket launchers have the small Canadian forward operating base near Zhari surrounded, but how many of them there are is anyone's guess. Blouin has heard 15,000. Harassment fire is common, usually beginning in midmorning, from men a few hundred yards from the base.

Every time the Taliban appear, Canadian medics who've grown accustomed to the routine put on their bright blue plastic gloves and booties, stand in front of stretchers laid out in a barren outdoor medical center and await the inevitable casualties.

The Taliban have no chance of overrunning the base, but they're sending a message to the villagers: They, not the foreign forces, are in charge of this area. They'll launch another two attacks outside the base before the week is over.

The longest land battle of this Afghan war took place just south of here in September 2006. The Canadians call it the Battle of Medusa, and they say that hundreds of Taliban were killed, along with 12 Canadian soldiers. Some think that battle, the most conventional fight between the Canadian Forces and the Taliban, stopped the Taliban from moving toward the city of Kandahar.

It was the apex of the Canadian effort here. The Canadians tried to keep the momentum going, but they lost it quickly because they didn't have enough troops.

Throughout their time here, the Canadians have pleaded for more troops and resources. They asked for more helicopters but never got them. They pleaded with the Americans to send a new Marine brigade here, only to see it go to neighboring Helmand and Farah provinces.'

Their only reinforcements came last year, when a Canadian commission found that Canada couldn't continue its mission without another 1,000 soldiers. The Americans sent 750 troops plus logistical support to the neighboring Maiwand district and the Canadians agreed to stay for another three years.

They built schools in the community, but NATO destroyed them after the Taliban took them over and used them to stage ambushes. They then set up small outposts, including the one in Sangsar. The Canadians found that they spent most of their effort protecting the outposts, so by early 2007 they moved back to their main base near Zhari.

No coalition soldier has been stationed in the birthplace of the Taliban since then.

Instead, the Canadians have launched one small operation after another, sweeping through the district village by village, operation by operation, back and forth. They've hit each of the district's villages at least twice, once before and once after the warm-weather fighting season. The aim is to capture enough weapons to force the Taliban to search for more instead of driving toward Kandahar.

"We have to hit certain places several times just to keep them off balance," said Cpl. Gary-James Johnston, 27, of Montreal.

Canadian soldiers serve six-month tours in Afghanistan, half as long as the Americans' tours. Since the 22nd Regiment arrived in late March, it's launched 15 operations. In July, the Canadians conducted three operations, each lasting two to three days.

They struck Taliban staging areas toward Kandahar city, accompanied by Afghan forces. During one operation, word leaked out and the Taliban fled. During the others, the militants simply dropped their weapons and went back to farming. In the last operation in July, the Canadians found one of the largest weapons caches of the war, enough rifles, grenades, rocket-propelled grenades and ammunition to fill a small building.

Still, they've made only a small dent in the insurgency.

"Yeah, they will be back," Canadian Lt. Col. Michael Patrick said after the latest operation. "We know that."

Together, the Canadian troops and the newly arriving 5th Brigade of the U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry Division will tackle the area's population centers. The Americans will come to Zhari, and the Canadians will move south to neighboring Panjaway district to reinforce their presence there.

"If we adequately secure 80 percent of the population, and the Taliban become irrelevant to 80 percent of the population, then we are well on our way to winning," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, the international force's deputy regional south commander and the highest-ranking American military officer in southern Afghanistan.

But McChrystal's advisers quietly concede that the new U.S. strategy may not work, either, and that if more troops are needed, they'll have to be American troops who are leaving Iraq.

"Even today, we don't have enough," a senior military adviser to McChrystal said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity in order to talk more candidly about the situation in Kandahar. "This is all the reality of an under-resourced war, and that's the impact of Iraq."

"We kept a lid on this as best we could, and successfully. The insurgency didn't win," said Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, the Canadian commander in Kandahar province.

"Woulda, shoulda, coulda, there would have been more troops here, and there would have been right from the beginning," Vance continued. "But there weren't. So we did exactly what we had to do. Now we have an opportunity...we have two years" before the Canadians are expected to leave Afghanistan. "In two years, you can do a lot."

Sen Graham: Don't 'Rumsfeld Afghanistan'

Graham: Don't 'Rumsfeld Afghanistan'

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.)is transforming a former Defense Secretary's name into a derogatory verb and warning that the U.S. needs to deploy the resources needed to keep Afghanistan stable.

"Let's not Rumsfeld Afghanistan. Let’s don’t do this thing on the cheap. Lets have enough combat power and engagement across the board to make sure we’re successful," Graham told CBS's "Face the Nation."

The senator explained that he was alluding to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's support for invading Iraq with a minimal number of U.S. troops.

Graham said he was nearly certain that the Pentagon will ask for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

"I will be shocked if more troops are not requested by our commanders," Graham said on CBS. "We must secure more troops….I will shocked if more troops are not needed."

UK: In Afghanistan to topple Al-Qaeda

We're In Afghanistan To Topple Al-Qaeda, Says Armed Forces Minister

By Michael Evans, Richard Beeston and Catherine Philp
London Times
August 4, 2009

British troops are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from using it as a base to plot terror strikes against Britain, a defence minister said yesterday.

Responding to criticism that the Government had failed to explain its strategy in the Afghan campaign, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, said British troops were battling against an insurgency that, if it were to succeed, “would provide free rein to the terrorist capacity that inspired, planned and provided support for attacks like those of 9/11, of 7/7, and many more besides”.

Mr Rammell insisted that although al-Qaeda?s main base was now in Pakistan, the presence of British and American troops and forces from 40 other countries in Afghanistan was essential to prevent terrorists surging back into the country. He said that the terrorist threat to Britain would be “significantly greater” if the Taleban were allowed to regain control of Afghanistan, bringing al-Qaeda with it.

“We don?t want to be in Afghanistan for ever, that?s why our strategy is to provide greater security by building up the Afghan National Army, which is currently 90,000 and is rising to 140,000,” he said. Mr Rammell was the latest government minister to try to explain to the public why Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan.

His views were echoed by Nato?s new chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, who called on European countries to match the US commitment and prevent Afghanistan from becoming “a Grand Central Station of international terrorism”.

Mr Rasmussen said that Nato?s survival could depend on more European troops to dispel the perception that Afghanistan was a US operation. “If the Americans are to continue to regard Nato as relevant, so Europe has to do its part,” he said. General Stanley McChrystal, Nato?s top commander in Afghanistan, is preparing to demand thousands more US troops to train and support a vast parallel surge of Afghan troops, placing him on a collision course with President Obama.

General McChrystal, who will submit a review to the White House and Nato headquarters next week, was appointed by Mr Obama in the belief that he would not demand more troops. His demands, though, are backed by Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who said that without a doubling of Afghan troops, from 150,000 to 300,000, the conflict could be lost.

Middle Eastern counter-terrorist sources said that while Nato was focusing its military effort on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda had been allowed to rebuild itself after the deal signed by Pakistan in 2006 with elders in the tribal regions, which lifted the threat of attack against al-Qaeda. One source told The Times that “2007 was the best year for al-Qaeda since 2001, because many hundreds of foreign volunteers came to fight for them”.

Only the campaign by the Americans, using unmanned Predator spy drones armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs, had succeeded in making inroads into the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. In 2008 and so far this year, 20 commanders had been killed, the sources said.

Mr Rammell said that the Government?s strategy embraced Afghanistan and Pakistan. “For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be secure, Pakistan needs to be secure,” he said, speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Of the people arrested in connection with terrorist offences in Europe over the past few years, a significant proportion have been trying to engage in insurgencies in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Some people, he said, believed that the West “brought this on ourselves, that if we hadn?t gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, all would have been well”. He said that George W. Bush, the former US President, could not be blamed for al-Qaeda?s atrocities. “This strand of thinking ignores the reality that the planning of 9/11 took place while Bill Clinton was in the White House and the prospects for peace in the Middle East were closer than they had been for a generation,” he said.

It is understood that a Conservative administration would consider appointing a Minister for Afghanistan who would attend Cabinet meetings when Afghanistan is being discussed and complement the Defence and Foreign Secretaries.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the Government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain?s objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required.”

The Afghan Elections - Amb Karl Eikenberry

In Afghanistan, A Time To Debate And Decide
By Karl W. Eikenberry
Washington Post
August 3, 2009

In the run-up to Afghanistan's presidential and provincial council elections on Aug. 20, Afghan and international political elites and journalists will pass judgment on the past five years. But only the Afghan people can decide who will best lead their country for the next five.

Afghanistan's elections present an opportunity for the country's citizens to create a future of prosperity and peace for their children. Five years ago, with guid! ance from the international community, Afghanistan held its first elections and began the process of building a new state -- a complex and difficult effort following 25 years of invasion, civil war, oppression and foreign-inspired terrorism. This time, Afghan authorities bear the full responsibility for fulfilling their people's right to choose their leaders, with the international community assisting, not leading. But none of this will matter unless the voters have a real choice and know what each candidate stands for. There must be a serious debate among the candidates and by the Afghan people.

The issues at stake are numerous and weighty. How will the next president finish building a strong army and police force respected by the people and fully capable of providing security? Can the nation's wealth be used for investment and development in an accountable manner? How will young people be educated and trained to develop the human capital that Afghanistan needs to mo! ve forward? What policies will be adopted to encourage the return to A fghan society of those who renounce ties with international terrorism and the use of force while accepting the constitution of the nation? What are the candidates' ideas for governing Afghanistan; how, for example, should the provincial councils evolve to give a real voice to Afghans across the land? And how can the international community better partner with Afghanistan to achieve peace, justice and economic progress?

In March, President Obama announced a new U.S. strategy that includes a major commitment of American men and women -- civilian and military -- to Afghanistan, as well as important new financial contributions to help accelerate development. We will continue to work with the next Afghan administration to field capable and sufficient Afghan National Army and police units; to support effective government personnel systems; to help combat corruption; to provide financial assistance to key Afghan institutions; to promote agricultural development; to address de! tention issues; to support Afghan-led reconciliation efforts; and to fix contracting practices. All of these efforts must be underpinned by accountability on both sides. The international community looks forward to strengthening its partnership with whichever candidate emerges from the elections, based upon a renewed spirit of cooperation.

So it is not just the Afghan people who need to understand the candidates' platforms and plans. We members of the international community need to know these things, too. The United States is one nation among a great partnership of more than 40 NATO and non-NATO countries that have joined with the people and government of Afghanistan. We have lost our sons and daughters, just as Afghans have, and we have invested significant development assistance during difficult economic times. Our commitment is extraordinary and long term. We are prepared to forge ahead based on common interests and mutual obligations. We stand with absolute impar! tiality regarding who should be president of Afghanistan. But all of u s will benefit from clarity as to what policy goals we should expect from the next administration.

This is an exciting time to be in Afghanistan. Walking through the bazaars of Helmand, Wardak, Kunduz, Herat, Uruzgan, Khost and numerous other provinces where the Afghan people are defending against destabilizing forces, I have seen their hope and thirst for progress. Candidates -- some prominent, some relatively new to the national stage -- are for the most part embracing their responsibility to discuss the issues. Ongoing televised debates remind me that, though we may be separated by barriers of language and culture, the democratic process in Afghanistan is like our own: an intense competition of political ideas to the benefit of the common citizen.

On Aug. 20, Afghan men and women will travel great distances -- in some cases, unfortunately, under threat of attack -- to make their voices heard. In the final weeks of this election season, the Afghan people deserv! e to know the platforms and implementation plans of each candidate. And so do we. The stakes are high and the opportunity great for all of us. The Afghan people and international community must be positioned to move quickly in partnership immediately after the inauguration of Afghanistan's next president. We have no time to lose as we work together to deliver peace, justice, economic opportunity and regional understanding.

It is time for a serious debate.

The writer is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. He has served five years in the country in civilian and military capacities, including as commander of international forces from 2005 to 2007.

Pakistan: Closer to the Abyss

Closer To The Cliff
New York Times
March 13, 2009
Editorial, P. 26

Pakistan's rival political leaders seem determined to push their already unstable country over a cliff. Their increasingly out-of-control power struggle spilled out of the halls of government and the courtroom this week and onto the streets. The more time and energy they waste on selfish squabbling, the less they have to combat extremists who pose a mortal threat to their country.

We are especially alarmed to see President Asif Ali Zardari repeating the excesses of his predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Six months after taking office, Mr. Zardari?s government has banned Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister, and his brother from holding office. It issued a two-week halt on rallies and threatened to charge Mr. Sharif with sedition.

On Wednesday, authorities arrested hundreds of political activists. A day later, police in riot gear forcibly dispersed some of the thousands of Pakistanis marching from Karachi to Islamabad in support of an independent judiciary.

That?s the kind of repressive behavior that Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, criticized Mr. Musharraf for before she was assassinated. Mr. Zardari is dishonoring his late wife?s memory by following that same path.

Mr. Sharif is all too eager to manipulate this destructive drama for personal gain. He has taken up the cause of anti-government lawyers who have long campaigned for the reinstatement of the country?s former top judge who was dismissed by Mr. Musharraf. But we fear his real goal is to topple Mr. Zardari, whose popularity has plummeted as Mr. Sharif?s has risen.

There will be no stability in Afghanistan until Pakistan defeats Taliban and Al Qaeda forces along the border.. And there can be no security in the region, if a nuclear-armed Pakistan is unraveling.

President Obama and his aides are still developing a policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are pleased to see that they moved quickly on Thursday to try to defuse the crisis. The American ambassador in Islamabad spoke with Mr. Sharif, and an envoy, Richard Holbrooke, had a video conference call with Mr. Zardari.

They need to press Mr. Zardari now to compromise on the dispute over Pakistan?s courts and to allow Mr. Sharif to run for office. And they need to press Mr. Sharif to work for peaceful political solutions. If there is any hope for democracy in Pakistan, a robust opposition must be allowed to flourish and participate fully in the country?s political life.

Mr. Obama must also ensure that any new aid to Pakistan strengthens democratic institutions, not just whoever is president.

Already, some Washington analysts are suggesting there might be worse things than a return to military rule in Pakistan. We?ve seen this movie before, and it is not a strategy for long-term stability.

The Air Force - A Failed Experiment

Air Force nuclear unit fails inspection

By Barbara Starr
CNN Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the fifth time this year, a U.S. Air Force nuclear weapons unit failed an inspection, this time because of failure to document its handling of nuclear missiles and other critical issues, Air Force officials said.

A "nuclear surety inspection" and "unit compliance inspection" was conducted this month on the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming by an Air Force inspector general.

There was no risk to the unit's Minuteman III nuclear missiles, Air Force officials said.

The unit has 90 days to correct the problems and pass another inspection.

In the wake of recent problems, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top Air Force officials have indicated a zero tolerance for failing inspections, but no punishments are expected in this case, officials said.

The inspection report found the maintenance unit failed to document tests conducted on missiles correctly, including tests on safety devices. The inspector general told the unit the failures indicated either a "lack of competence" or "disregard for procedures," according to a source who has seen the report.

Additionally, failures included having some personnel on duty without proper medical clearance and failure to inspect radiation detectors.

Other units that failed inspections this year included two bomb wings and two missile units.