They were within 130 miles, which is fairly narrow if you consider all of Pakistan. But how much of that was actually due to the validity of their research meth

They were within 130 miles, which is fairly narrow if you consider all of Pakistan. But how much of that was actually due to the validity of their research methods and how much of that was simply right-place right-time? How much of this article was politicized? All we know is that they used some analysis of some publicly available data and were within 130 miles. I'd like a little more detail before I actually make any judgments. Just because the general public thinks Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave doesn't mean the CIA was thinking the same thing. The article has some slant to make it seem as though our government was ineffective and slow at capturing Bin Laden and predicting where he would be, but let's ask a few more questions: if we sent troops to search every building in a 130-mile radius, Bin Laden would escape easily, wouldn't he? Even if we know within 5 square miles, he could escape. We need to know the exact building, otherwise it would be worthless. We sent a team of Navy Seals with helicopters. We invaded a sovereign country without a declaration of war. We violated international law. If we do that, we better be damn sure beyond just a 130-mile radius. EDIT: They predicted with an "88.9% probability" that he would be within 130 miles of where he was found. That in an of itself is absolutely useless. Here's what our government actually did: they found the pseudonym of a guy who worked as a courier who had ties to Al Quada, found his real name, found out where he was going, found ties to Bin Laden, and found an exact address. Over years. We can't ask the Pakistani government for help, because Bin Laden will escape again. We can't search based on a 88.9% chance within a 130-mile radius. This wasn't a very good article, but I definitely would like to learn more about the actual research.