Bin Laden confirmed DEAD

[Andy in Sactown]

How ironic, a recruiter talking about prevarication.


By the way a Clerk, or a Cook, or a Computer Specialist, in The Corps IS a rifleman. Not everyone is a Killer but they are all qualified to do so.

Similarly, not all sailors are SEALs, but all SEALs (and every rate in the Navy) are sailors first.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The one thing I remember when I was in Basic, is that everyone was either a high school All-American football player or a golden glove boxer.

I went to basic with the biggest group of goobers in the world.

 

[Irishbounty28]

I would agree that most people that just put it out there that were part of any Special Operations Command are most likely blowing smoke. I have known a good amount in MARSOC, and had a SEAL Team attached to our command in Fallujah 2004. I also went to work in an environment currently that employs a ton of veterans. All of them were John Rambo, when they weren't cooking chow or filing paperwork.

I was in the Marine Corps, and understand the "every Marine is a rifleman" mantra, but lets not take it out of context. Every Marine qualifies with a rifle on a yearly basis, but only a select few are trained to Locate, Close with and Destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel enemy assault by fire and close combat.

 

[Fbolt]

Many of the pols have benefited from his actions. Obama, Gates, Panetta, Hillary. Pretty sure all of their books have or will have chapters related to taking down UBL. Go through the book review process and he should be good to go.

 

[Fbolt]

How ironic, a recruiter talking about prevarication.


By the way a Clerk, or a Cook, or a Computer Specialist, in The Corps IS a rifleman. Not everyone is a Killer but they are all qualified to do so.

Nice one.

Same applies to every cook, mechanic, or water purification specialist in the Army. All qualify annually with their weapons and have been trained.

 

[Irish4Life09]

This is just my .02...
Im not in the military, never have been and never will be. Completely respect eveything they do.
As far as this goes. The dude didn't leak any confidential information, he just simply broke a code. Not that big of a deal. Sure he burned bridges with his SEALs, but now he will make a ton of money, and never have to buy a drink again. I'd say the reward is much bigger than the risk.

 

[phork]

This is just my .02...
Im not in the military, never have been and never will be. Completely respect eveything they do.
As far as this goes. The dude didn't leak any confidential information, he just simply broke a code. Not that big of a deal. Sure he burned bridges with his SEALs, but now he will make a ton of money, and never have to buy a drink again. I'd say the reward is much bigger than the risk.

Non-military here as well but.... The Code is everything.

 

[ND NYC]

ive always felt the ones that do (have done) the most say the least

 

[ozzman]

How do you know if he leaked classified info or not? The mission itself was classified, so anything that gets out is a leak, right?

I'm not an operator, but I did deploy with a spec ops task force to Afghanistan. I can't imagine any of those guys are happy about these names getting out there. It's more than a code.

 

[ACamp1900]

That's badass...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

TAC's Philip Giraldi just published an article titled "How Was Bin Laden Killed?"

Some might argue that knowing exactly how Osama bin Laden was killed really doesn’t matter. Some might even argue that he is still alive, which, if nothing else, would demonstrate the persistence of urban legends relating to conspiracies allegedly involving the U.S. government. JFK’s assassination has the grassy knoll and second gunman, plus Mafia, CIA, and Cuban connections as well as a possible Vietnamese angle. 9/11 had the mystery of the collapse of Building 7. More recently still, the Texas State Guard was mobilized to monitor a military training exercise because it was rumored to be a ploy to impose martial law. Demonizing Washington as one large conspiracy is good business all around.

The death of bin Laden has been memorialized by a CIA-sponsored film “Zero Dark Thirty” and a book by Peter Bergen, by numerous White House leaks and press releases, and by memoranda of participants, including the CIA’s female officer who tracked bin Laden and the Navy SEAL who allegedly fired the fatal shots. The most recent contribution to the oeuvre is an account by the former CIA Deputy Director and torture apologist Michael Morell, The Great War of Our Time: the CIA’s Fight against Terrorism from al-Qai’da to ISIS.

Inevitably, great stories that don’t quite hang together are often revised as memory grows weak and, in the manner of Rashomon, frequently take on the coloration of where the narrator was sitting when events unfolded. And then there are the skeptics, who focus on the inconsistencies and pull together their own explanations. A number of articles and blogs have questioned details of the standard narrative on bin Laden. One compelling account by R.J. Hillhouse in August 2011 challenged central aspects of the prevailing story, and there has been corroborative reporting from highly respected New York Times correspondent Carlotta Gall.

A more recent skeptic about bin Laden is America’s top investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh. In a lengthy article published in the current London Review of Books, Hersh provides a fascinating narrative regarding the killing of bin Laden, which contradicts the account provided by the government. A White House spokesman immediately weighed in to describe Hersh’s account as “baseless,” while Morell has called it “all wrong” and Bergen has dubbed it a “farrago of nonsense.”

Sy Hersh believes the official account, that bin Laden was discovered in Abbottabad after one of his couriers was tracked, is wrong. Instead, he claims, the source of the information was a Pakistani intelligence officer who was paid as much as $25 million. Hersh also claims that the heads of the Pakistani Army and its intelligence service (ISI) knew about the raid in advance and were able to facilitate the U.S. incursion. A Pakistani intelligence officer participated in the operation after a Pakistani army doctor obtained DNA evidence proving the presence of bin Laden, convincing the White House to authorize the attack. The Obama administration, however, claims that the assault was completely unilateral and Pakistan knew nothing about it.

The Hersh account also states that bin Laden had been under house arrest by the Pakistani intelligence service for five years and was unarmed when the U.S. team arrived with instructions from Washington to kill him. His stay in Pakistan was being secretly funded by the Saudi government, which did not want him released. There was no shooting apart from that done by the Navy SEALs. An after-the-fact cover story prepared by the White House and Pakistani officials, that bin Laden had been killed in a drone strike in Afghanistan, was abandoned when Obama, for various reasons, decided to instead go public on the night of the killing, betraying the trust of the Pakistani generals.

The Hersh account and the government response together raise a number of questions which can be examined based on plausibility of the respective accounts and the possible security considerations that might have influenced an official narrative that milked the event for political gain while also protecting sources and methods. Interestingly, NBC News came out with its own report one day after Hersh’s article was published, confirming it from its own sources that a Pakistani official “helped the U.S. find Osama bin Laden, not a courier.” The article, subsequently retracted, also cited a New York Times Magazine report by Carlotta Gall that the Pakistani intelligence service ISI actually had a special desk tasked with hiding bin Laden.

For what it’s worth, I have known Sy Hersh for more than 15 years and have a great deal of respect for him as a journalist. I am aware of how carefully he vets his information, using multiple sourcing for many of his articles, and I also know that he has a network of high-level contacts in key positions scattered throughout the defense, intelligence, and national security communities. For this article he cites three anonymous U.S. special ops and intelligence sources, three named Pakistani sources, and a number of unnamed Pakistanis. I think I know the identities of at least two of his American sources, both of whom are reliable and have access, while one of his other anonymous sources might well be Jonathan Bank, the former CIA station chief in Islamabad. If Sy says that someone revealed something to him either on background or anonymously, I am sure that he accurately conveys what was said, though that does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the source might be intentionally misleading him or somehow be mistaken.

Against that, the government has hardly been a reliable source of accurate information, even regarding this past weekend’s Delta Force raid in Syria in which the Pentagon account and the report of a British monitoring group vary considerably. Some of those who are most aggressively attacking Hersh know nothing about the death of bin Laden except what the White House and its various spokesmen have provided. Several have a vested interest in parroting the official line, to include books they want to sell and white lies they would prefer remain somewhere in the shadows. Nevertheless, the bin Laden killing was a story that benefited the White House politically, making it important to get the details right lest it be discredited from the get-go.

Hersh’s first assertion, that the source of the information was a Pakistani intelligence officer who walked-in with the information is quite plausible and it actually makes more sense than the courier story, which is inconsistent in terms of who, what, when, and where. Walk-ins are mistrusted, but they also provide many breakthroughs in intelligence operations. In this case, the walk-in passed a polygraph examination and provided significant corroborating information. If the man was indeed paid and he wished to keep the connection secret, a cover story would be needed to explain how the U.S. came by the information. That is where the courier story would come in.

The presumed role of the Pakistani intelligence officer leads naturally to the plausible assumption that Pakistan had bin Laden under control as a prisoner. Among retired intelligence officers that I know no one believes that the Pakistanis were unaware of bin Laden’s presence among them though there are varying degrees of disagreement regarding exactly why he was being held and what Islamabad intended to do with him. Some speculate, as Hersh asserts, that the Paks were seeking a mechanism both to get rid of bin Laden and obtain a satisfactory quid pro quo for turning him over to Washington. Per Hersh, they considered bin Laden a “resource” to be cashed in at the right time, which makes sense.

That several senior Pakistani military officers were informed of the impending raid is also not exactly surprising. The billions that Washington has provided to the Pakistani military was largely controlled by the head of the army and the chief of ISI. That did not exactly make them paid agents of the United States, but it certainly would create a compelling self-interest in keeping the relationship functional. They could be relied upon to be discreet and they were certainly well-placed enough to mitigate the risk to incoming American helicopters if called upon to do so.

Hersh notes that due to the delay caused by the crashed helicopter the SEAL team was on the ground for 40 minutes “waiting for the bus” without any police, military, or fire department response to the noise and explosions. The public lighting in that area had also been turned off. And, indeed, the White House could still claim that it was a wholly U.S. operation because the civilian government in Islamabad, out of the loop on what was occurring, could plausibly deny any deal with Washington. Hersh notes that in Obama’s press conference on the killing, the president nevertheless acknowledged that the “counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding,” a statement that may have been true enough but also exposed the assistance that had been received and put at risk the generals who had cooperated.

And then there is the Saudi role. Hersh claims that Riyadh was footing the bill for holding bin Laden because they did not want him to reveal to the Americans what he knew about Saudi funding of al-Qaeda. The Pakistanis for their part wanted bin Laden dead as part of the deal so he would not talk about their holding him for five years without revealing that fact to Washington.

Other claims by Sy Hersh include his debunking of the “garbage bags of computers and storage devices” seized by the team, used to support the contention that bin Laden was still in charge of a vast terrorist network. But there is little evidence to suggest that anything at all was picked up during the raid. Documents turned over by the Pakistanis afterwards were examined but found to be useful mostly for background on al-Qaeda.

Concerning the firefight that may not have occurred, the government account started with a claim that bin Laden was armed and resisted using his wife as a shield, a wild west fantasy concocted by then-White House terrorism chief John Brennan, but it eventually conceded that the terrorist leader was unarmed and alone. In the initial debriefing the SEAL team reportedly did not mention any resistance in the compound. The military participants in the raid were subsequently forced to sign nondisclosure forms threatening civil penalties and a lawsuit for anyone who discussed the operation either publicly or privately.

Finally, what happened to bin Laden’s body? The original plan was to wait a week and announce that bin Laden had been literally blown to bits by drone, but that was preempted by President Obama, who saw an opportunity to score some political points. There is no evidence that bin Laden was buried at sea, as was alleged, no photos, no eyewitness testimony by sailors on board the USS Carl Vinson, and no ship’s log confirming the burial. Two of Hersh’s sources are convinced the burial never took place and that what remained after being torn apart by bullets was instead turned over to the CIA for disposal. They regard the burial at sea as a poorly designed cover story to get rid of the body and avoid any embarrassing questions over possible misidentification.

So what do I think is true? I believe that a walk-in Pakistani intelligence officer provided the information on bin Laden and that the Pakistanis were indeed holding him under house arrest, possibly with the connivance of the Saudis. I am not completely convinced that senior Pakistani generals colluded with the U.S. in the attack, though Hersh makes a carefully nuanced case and Obama’s indiscreet comment is suggestive. I do not believe any material of serious intelligence value was collected from the site and I think accounts of the shootout were exaggerated. The burial at sea does indeed appear to be a quickly contrived cover story. And yes, I do think Osama bin Laden is dead.

 

[Irish#1]

TAC's Philip Giraldi just published an article titled "How Was Bin Laden Killed?"

Events like this will always have conjecture over what really happened. Fifty years from now we'll probably know.

 

[Henges24]

IF he isn't dead he is in U.S. custody and we are either getting information from him or beating the living shit out of him. Both would probably be true.

For as much as I know about the whole situation I did find it odd that they sent his body to the sea as quickly as they did. Hell, any of other country in the Middle East would have drug his body around the entire country tied to the back of a horse for days.

 

[Grahambo]

IF he isn't dead he is in U.S. custody and we are either getting information from him or beating the living shit out of him. Both would probably be true.

For as much as I know about the whole situation I did find it odd that they sent his body to the sea as quickly as they did. Hell, any of other country in the Middle East would have drug his body around the entire country tied to the back of a horse for days.

Trust me, he's dead.

 

[phork]

Trust me, he's dead.

OK Then smart guy. Where is Hoffa then?

 

[Grahambo]

OK Then smart guy. Where is Hoffa then?

In Giants Stadium...err...in Michigan?

Actually, isn't the story now that he was tossed in a barrel of acid and then the barrel was smashed at a junk yard or something like that?

 

[Grahambo]

The story is also well done. If I could draw a diagram of what's what in the Middle East it'd look like

 

[FDNYIrish1]

The story is also well done. If I could draw a diagram of what's what in the Middle East it'd look like

I recently went to a weeklong counterterrorism class and that's pretty much exactly how I felt on Friday. The entanglements of that area blew my mind. I literally was depressed.

 

[NDRock]

I have no idea if some or all of the Hersh account is accurate but some of it is much more believable than the "official" account. It seems (to me) almost impossible that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan, half a mile from their military academy and they no idea. It also seemed strange that we went into their country, crashed a helicopter and nobody from the Pakistani military responded (and we were there for 30+ minutes).

I can't help but believe that Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia) knew that Bin Laden was there and Pakistan was aware that we were going in to get him.

 

[Irish YJ]

I don't buy a lot of the conspiracy stuff, but I sure in the hell don't believe that he lived there for as long as he did and the government didn't know.

 

[ozzman]

I recently went to a weeklong counterterrorism class and that's pretty much exactly how I felt on Friday. The entanglements of that area blew my mind. I literally was depressed.

What class?

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

I don't buy a lot of the conspiracy stuff, but I sure in the hell don't believe that he lived there for as long as he did and the government didn't know.

You mean the Pakistani government (or elements of the ISI-Pakistan's version of the CIA)? Because they sure as hell knew.

 

[Irish#1]

Hide in plain site like Whitey Bulger did for years when he was #1 on the FBI's most wanted list.

Pakis probably knew he was there. My guess is the military took a long time observing the location, analyzing patterns of cars, passerby's, visits to the house, deliveries, etc. to use in preparing an attack.

I remember that the military said they did not tell the Paki's about the attack because there had been too many previous leaks to the militants from the Paki's. JMO, but the burial at sea happened so quickly to stave off any potential issues that could arise.

This reminded me of this bit from SNL when rumors of Franco still being alive came up.
<iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/butZyxI-PRs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

I have no idea if some or all of the Hersh account is accurate but some of it is much more believable than the "official" account. It seems (to me) almost impossible that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan, half a mile from their military academy and they no idea. It also seemed strange that we went into their country, crashed a helicopter and nobody from the Pakistani military responded (and we were there for 30+ minutes).

I can't help but believe that Pakistan (and Saudi Arabia) knew that Bin Laden was there and Pakistan was aware that we were going in to get him.

I don't know Paki response time or early warning systems. Assume they are relatively acceptable by today's standards, I would have expected the copters to be engaged upon leaving...they weren't...

I guess my thought is...more posturing from Middle Eastern countries who can't stand the political pressure for appearing to "help" the US. This is why I'm deeply cynical of the middle east in its entirety. How can you work out "agreements" with leadership who is afraid to be seen as cooperative and standup...

We need to finish what we started in Iraq, protect it, and reassess what it means to be an ally on both sides of the equation...what do we expect of ourselves, and what do we expect of others...and then remove those "decisions" from the wildly swinging political climate in this country, because we look fucking stupid the way we vacillate.

Time for some re-alignment for sure, and some international policy that everyone fucking adheres to for some consistency, because consistency is the primary force in the international arena...but you gotta have the desire and discipline to be that beyond individual political desires.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

How many things we hear are accurate? I mean through the news and about our governments actions.

In the seventies I was lucky enough to see some photos from early advanced photo technology satellites.

• Russians were building tons of tanks; and driving them out of the plant to be parked in fields, mile after mile, most never having guns installed. So much for the Red menace.
• Chinese Peoples Army units were targeted, Millions strong and ready for action; except the million's had hundreds of guns!
• Almost every Viet Nam MIA story was run down; I won't tell you what happened to any I heard about, but it wasn't the story of a Chuck Norris movie.
• Same in Grenada. And Nicaragua. Did see some neat film of high altitude Gatling guns and 105mm cannons pinpointing a whole shitload of whoopass on some poor Cuban slobs that had no idea of what hit them.

Every time you hear the story, it changes a bit, and gets a little better. This happens with anything political. And like it or not our military is controlled by the political.

Do I believe that everyone took credit, even if it wasn't due for killing Bin Laden, Hell yais!

Does that make this any different than anything before it? Hell no.

I knew someone who flew in the Army above the Ia Drang Valley. Divisional intelligence knew that the mountains in the area were peppered with tunnels, but they never passed it on to the pilots tasked with observing. So not only did Hal Moore know he was walking into a trap, his commanders suppressed or forgot to mention the vehicle that the NVA and the VC would use to take the fight to the Americans. Was this stupidity, arrogance, or intentionally trying to get the US in deeper? Same kind of situation as the Osama assassination.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Makes sense.