5 ms·

A few parts of the story seem to be reasonable. There was widespread speculation that the ISI knew Bin Laden's location, even right after Bin Laden was killed.

A few parts of the story seem to be reasonable. There was widespread speculation that the ISI knew Bin Laden's location, even right after Bin Laden was killed. The story about the Pakistani general defecting seems to have been reported by others and seems reasonably plausible. Some other portions of Hersh's story just don't seem plausible to me (the Vox piece made a number of these points and more, but personally I think these are the strongest). If Bin Laden was under ISI control, I don't understand why the Pakistanis would have wanted the US to send in SEALs to kill him in Abottabad when they could have just put him on a helicopter and had the SEALs kill him in Afghanistan. That would have avoided all sorts of embarrassment to the Pakistani military and intelligence services. The fact that the US penetrated Pakistani air defenses was very embarrassing to the Pakistani military, as was the fact that Bin Laden was living practically down the street from a Pakistani military academy - not to mention that it seems strange that the Pakistanis and Americans would have chosen to undertake all the risks of discovery of sending helicopters in to a peaceful town when the ISI, which was supposedly guarding Bin Laden, could have just quietly taken him to a remote area. The business about SEALs dumping parts of his body out of a helicopter also seems strange - given how politically charged the mission was I would imagine that they would have been incredibly disciplined and professional. And Hersh's explanation for the breach in US/Pakistani relations following the mission just seems convoluted and implausible. It seems very plausible to me that the US went in and killed Bin Laden without Pakistani knowledge, and that the mission caused the breach. Hersh's explanation just seems like he's building up a whole convoluted series of explanations to justify his theory.

nyolfen 11y ago
as far as why the pakistanis didn't just hand him over: hersh reports that they were receiving a great deal of saudi money to keep them from letting the americans know about him, presumably because they didn't want them to get him to talk about his ties to high-ranking saudis. the pakistanis conditionally permitted the raid, as long as it was explicitly a kill mission, which would stay in line with the saudi terms. again, the original plan was to kill him and take the body and announce a week later that he was killed in a drone strike on the afpak border, but that was scuttled when the helicopter crashed. as for the unprofessionalism of dumping parts of the corpse of the most hated man in american history, perhaps you hold higher estimation of the moral restraint of a team of men who kill for a living than i do
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  He may be the most hated man in America History but I think the moral thing to do would have been to capture him and bring him to trial, but that apparently didn't enter into consideration.
  - bhayden 11y ago
    They don't even give trials for American citizens abroad. Seems unlikely they'd do it for terrorist #1.
    - jMyles 11y ago
      They're trying KSH - why not?
      - ghurtado 11y ago
        I'm assuming you mean KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). I think it could be strategically valuable to be able to parade pictures of your former enemy looking like this: http://usofarn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed+.jpg http://usofarn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Khalid-Sheikh-... . It would have been awesome if we could have done the same with Bin Laden.
        jMyles 11y ago
        I don't know how my fingers wrote "H" for Mohammed, but yes, of course. :-) I'm not sure I agree that it's strategically valuable - in an asymmetrical engagement, it seems like this just provokes sympathy and stokes recruitment. Treating him (both of them, in fact) with dignity, respect, and an honest public trial including an accounting of their crimes might help, though.
  - mcantelon 11y ago
    Bringing Osama to trial might have been embarassing. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.ter... And then there's the possibility that Osama was long dead before the raid (which former Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto stated a month before she was killed).
carrotleads 11y ago
I would think the reason for doing it in Abottabad would be the plausibility of the whole scenario. ANything else, the contracdictions would have been enormous. Lets imagine OBL was eliminated in Afghanistan, how do you explain his presence there, where did he get his food, medical supplies for all those years. With the US presence in Afghanistan you can at best argue for a few sneakthroughs that supported OBL. So I would say US picked the best case scenario based on circumstance.
- sukilot 11y ago
  There are lots of people who have survived for decades in afghanistan. UBL could have hidden with any of them.
  - carrotleads 11y ago
    Yeah ordinary people can survive but OBL is no oridinary person plus he had medical needs.. not possible to hide those trails in Afghanistan but quite easy in a garrison town like Abbottabad..
hindsightbias 11y ago
The ISI is probably not all monolithic, many probably knew over the years, some wanted him protected and someone probably sold him out. A raid gives everyone plausible deniability. I would bet the raid force wasn't on a helicopter, that was just for evac.
- spydum 11y ago
  fully agree here.. and yes, why would you land a black hawk for a raid? that gives the target far too much ready time. you come in silent, you evac on the bird.

nyolfen 11y ago

as far as why the pakistanis didn't just hand him over: hersh reports that they were receiving a great deal of saudi money to keep them from letting the americans know about him, presumably because they didn't want them to get him to talk about his ties to high-ranking saudis. the pakistanis conditionally permitted the raid, as long as it was explicitly a kill mission, which would stay in line with the saudi terms. again, the original plan was to kill him and take the body and announce a week later that he was killed in a drone strike on the afpak border, but that was scuttled when the helicopter crashed. as for the unprofessionalism of dumping parts of the corpse of the most hated man in american history, perhaps you hold higher estimation of the moral restraint of a team of men who kill for a living than i do

Synaesthesia 11y ago
He may be the most hated man in America History but I think the moral thing to do would have been to capture him and bring him to trial, but that apparently didn't enter into consideration.
- bhayden 11y ago
  They don't even give trials for American citizens abroad. Seems unlikely they'd do it for terrorist #1.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    They're trying KSH - why not?
    - ghurtado 11y ago
      I'm assuming you mean KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). I think it could be strategically valuable to be able to parade pictures of your former enemy looking like this: http://usofarn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed+.jpg http://usofarn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Khalid-Sheikh-... . It would have been awesome if we could have done the same with Bin Laden.
      - jMyles 11y ago
        I don't know how my fingers wrote "H" for Mohammed, but yes, of course. :-) I'm not sure I agree that it's strategically valuable - in an asymmetrical engagement, it seems like this just provokes sympathy and stokes recruitment. Treating him (both of them, in fact) with dignity, respect, and an honest public trial including an accounting of their crimes might help, though.
- mcantelon 11y ago
  Bringing Osama to trial might have been embarassing. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.ter... And then there's the possibility that Osama was long dead before the raid (which former Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto stated a month before she was killed).

carrotleads 11y ago

I would think the reason for doing it in Abottabad would be the plausibility of the whole scenario. ANything else, the contracdictions would have been enormous. Lets imagine OBL was eliminated in Afghanistan, how do you explain his presence there, where did he get his food, medical supplies for all those years. With the US presence in Afghanistan you can at best argue for a few sneakthroughs that supported OBL. So I would say US picked the best case scenario based on circumstance.

sukilot 11y ago
There are lots of people who have survived for decades in afghanistan. UBL could have hidden with any of them.
- carrotleads 11y ago
  Yeah ordinary people can survive but OBL is no oridinary person plus he had medical needs.. not possible to hide those trails in Afghanistan but quite easy in a garrison town like Abbottabad..

hindsightbias 11y ago

The ISI is probably not all monolithic, many probably knew over the years, some wanted him protected and someone probably sold him out. A raid gives everyone plausible deniability. I would bet the raid force wasn't on a helicopter, that was just for evac.

spydum 11y ago
fully agree here.. and yes, why would you land a black hawk for a raid? that gives the target far too much ready time. you come in silent, you evac on the bird.