2 ms·

The article says much more than that: > Two years later, when I was researching my book, I learned from a high-level member of the Pakistani intelligence servi

The article says much more than that: > Two years later, when I was researching my book, I learned from a high-level member of the Pakistani intelligence service that the ISI had been hiding Bin Laden and ran a desk specifically to handle him as an intelligence asset. After the book came out, I learned more: that it was indeed a Pakistani Army brigadier — all the senior officers of the ISI are in the military — who told the C.I.A. where Bin Laden was hiding, and that Bin Laden was living there with the knowledge and protection of the ISI. > The local police told me that they received the calls and could have been at the compound within minutes, but army commanders ordered them to stand down and leave the response to the military. Yet despite being barracked nearby, members of the Pakistani Army appear to have arrived only after the SEALs — who spent 40 minutes on the ground without encountering any soldiers — left. Hersh's key claims were that the Pakistani intelligence was hiding OBL, eventually they (or at least one of them) let the US in on the fact, and that the US essentially went on a cakewalk to kill him, all of which are corroborated by other reporting. What are the major details that have been debunked?

tptacek 8y ago
No, that's not Hersh's key claim. Hersh's key claim is that UBL was captured by Pakistan in 2006(!) and ransomed to the US in exchange for increased aid and influence in Afghanistan --- that the UBL story we all heard was an elaborate ruse to cover up a quid pro quo conspiracy that involved not just Pakistan but Saudi Arabia. In fact, after UBL was killed, we cut aid to Pakistan, and increased our military presence in Afghanistan. Again: it's not a crazy argument to suggest people in Pakistan may have had intelligence about UBL's location (after all, we got intelligence about UBL, and we suck at this) and that someone who was read in ratted UBL out for the reward money. But that's not all Hersh reported! This is the problem with a lot of Hersh-style reporting: it sometimes starts from a plausible kernel and extrapolates wildly.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  If you have time, it would be great if you could add some citations for what you are writing. The lack of them doesn't make the comments wrong or useless, but this is a discussion about the veracity of someone's claims.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Hersh's key claim is that UBL was captured by Pakistan in 2006(!) and ransomed to the US in exchange for increased aid and influence in Afghanistan There have been several leaks as suggesting Pakistan knew of his whereabouts as early as 2009. And Hersh says they did it as the US was threatening to cut off aid, anything about "influence in Afghanistan" was about the reason they kept Bin Laden. Aid did not see the sudden stop, and stayed about the same level as most preceding years, save one one outlying year. https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PAK https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PAK
- imbokodo 8y ago
  > an elaborate ruse News started to leak out that bin Laden had been killed in Abbotabad not long after it happened. As no one disputes, one of the helicopters crashed. The disputed premise is either the Pakistani high command ok'd the raid (Hersh) or they did not (you - official line). That is the premise. The "elaborate ruse to cover up a quid pro quo conspiracy" is a no-brainer after that. If the high command did OK the raid and there was no ruse, it would basically be saying the Pakistani military does not protect Pakistanis from the invasion of foreign armies, that it is more or less a US puppet. Something a sizable portion of Pakistan, not unsympathetic to bin Laden, thought already. And why wouldn't they support bin Laden - the US stood along side them supporting bin Laden's jihad to oust the secular government of Afghanistan in the 1980s. They have just remained the same, it's the US that shifted its policies (putting Army bases in Saudi Arabia, getting into conflict with bin Laden and other Arabian elements). Either the high command ok'd the raid or they did not. It is natural for the ruse and conspiracy to follow. I am sure it was one of the "ransom" demands made so that the raid could happen.
danso 8y ago
> What are the major details that have been debunked? I posted this link in an earlier comment, but to my knowledge, Hersh's major claims have neither been debunked nor proven: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-really-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-reall...

tptacek 8y ago

No, that's not Hersh's key claim. Hersh's key claim is that UBL was captured by Pakistan in 2006(!) and ransomed to the US in exchange for increased aid and influence in Afghanistan --- that the UBL story we all heard was an elaborate ruse to cover up a quid pro quo conspiracy that involved not just Pakistan but Saudi Arabia. In fact, after UBL was killed, we cut aid to Pakistan, and increased our military presence in Afghanistan. Again: it's not a crazy argument to suggest people in Pakistan may have had intelligence about UBL's location (after all, we got intelligence about UBL, and we suck at this) and that someone who was read in ratted UBL out for the reward money. But that's not all Hersh reported! This is the problem with a lot of Hersh-style reporting: it sometimes starts from a plausible kernel and extrapolates wildly.

forapurpose 8y ago
If you have time, it would be great if you could add some citations for what you are writing. The lack of them doesn't make the comments wrong or useless, but this is a discussion about the veracity of someone's claims.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>Hersh's key claim is that UBL was captured by Pakistan in 2006(!) and ransomed to the US in exchange for increased aid and influence in Afghanistan There have been several leaks as suggesting Pakistan knew of his whereabouts as early as 2009. And Hersh says they did it as the US was threatening to cut off aid, anything about "influence in Afghanistan" was about the reason they kept Bin Laden. Aid did not see the sudden stop, and stayed about the same level as most preceding years, save one one outlying year. https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PAK https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PAK
imbokodo 8y ago
> an elaborate ruse News started to leak out that bin Laden had been killed in Abbotabad not long after it happened. As no one disputes, one of the helicopters crashed. The disputed premise is either the Pakistani high command ok'd the raid (Hersh) or they did not (you - official line). That is the premise. The "elaborate ruse to cover up a quid pro quo conspiracy" is a no-brainer after that. If the high command did OK the raid and there was no ruse, it would basically be saying the Pakistani military does not protect Pakistanis from the invasion of foreign armies, that it is more or less a US puppet. Something a sizable portion of Pakistan, not unsympathetic to bin Laden, thought already. And why wouldn't they support bin Laden - the US stood along side them supporting bin Laden's jihad to oust the secular government of Afghanistan in the 1980s. They have just remained the same, it's the US that shifted its policies (putting Army bases in Saudi Arabia, getting into conflict with bin Laden and other Arabian elements). Either the high command ok'd the raid or they did not. It is natural for the ruse and conspiracy to follow. I am sure it was one of the "ransom" demands made so that the raid could happen.

danso 8y ago

> What are the major details that have been debunked? I posted this link in an earlier comment, but to my knowledge, Hersh's major claims have neither been debunked nor proven: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-really-know-about-osama-bin-ladens-death.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/magazine/what-do-we-reall...