|
Open Questions On The Alleged Bin Laden Kill
There are a lot of open questions about the recent U.S. operation in Pakistan.
Politico notes that the administration is already changing significant parts on the story for example about the involvement of women as "human shields" (a phrase which is usually a hint to propaganda nonsense): White House modifies Osama bin Laden account.
At least four involved helicopters starting in the official account from Jalalabad in Afghanistan to fly to Abbottabad in Pakistan with at least the two backups hovering for 40 minutes and then to fly back does not fit the fuel capacity of any known helicopters. It is more likely, as The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder claims, that those helos started the operation from Pakistani ground.
The extraordinary electricity outage in Abbottabad just during the operation also points to significant Pakistani involvement. The Pakistani government would of course like to keep any involvement secret as cooperation with the U.S. in such an operation would diminish its domestic standing.
Those pictured parts of a downed helicopter do not fit any known helicopter type. What is it? How was it downed? Some reports said "mechanical failure", others claimed "shot down".
The administration's counterterrorism adviser John Brennan claimed that they would have captured Bin Laden alive it that would have been possible. That does not fit to what Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress just six weeks ago:
"Let's deal with reality," Holder said. Bin Laden "will never appear in an American courtroom."
Pressed further on that point, Holder said: "The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can't be captured by us."
It also doesn't fit to what an anonymous U.S. national security official told Reuters:
"This was a kill operation," the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.
If this operation killed Osama Bin Laden it was an extrajudicial killing in breach of public international law.
There is also a lot of administration fed right wing chatter on how some Guantanamo torture confessions led to the necessary hints to find Bin Laden. That is likely just an attempt to justify such torture. The capture of the alleged Bali bomber Umar Patek in the same city, Abbottabad, in early April is much more likely to have given a lead to some hideout.
Then of course there is not even the slightest tiny bit of proof, not even an attempt to produce pictures, that Bin Laden was actually captured or killed in this operation, or was converted to crab food. Looking at the distances and the time needed to verify that the alleged dead person has been Bin Laden, how did the alleged burying at sea happen so fast?
This whole operation seems to be more designed to create conspiracy theories than to reveal what really happened.
While I do not agree with Malooga's comment here, I concur that this was likely an operation to retire the "Bin Laden" marketing campaign which has helped to promote divisive U.S. war of terror policies over the last decade.
That does not mean that the "product" that encompasses those policies is now finished. Why should it be when it is still very profitable? A new theme will be found for a new campaign to promote exactly the same product and policy program.
There are more confusing holes in this story. Please document those and possible explanations in the comments.
1)
The Pakistani government would of course like to keep any involvement secret as cooperation with the U.S. in such an operation would diminish its domestic standing.
Well, admission that the Us operates freely and without authorization in its territory doesn’t enhance its domestic standing, either
If the Us says that the Pakistani were kept in the dark; it must be true! it’s a grave accusation, a humiliating declaration of mistrust and an indictment; it will bring consequences in the relationship between the two countries, in a volatile situation with an ongoing war in Afghanistan – way too dangerous a thing to do, for both the Us and Pakistan, if it weren’t true
But indeed there are signs of cooperation (electricity outage, use of an airbase in Pakistani ground), for which the only plausible explanation I read somewhere (sorry, no link) is that the Pakistani knew of, and aided, some “high profile” operation, but did not know it was specifically directed at OBL; btw, this would entail that the Pakistani didn’t know the precise whereabouts of OBL
2) Brennan “corrections” regarding the action inside the compound are of two kinds; one concerns mix-ups (which son was killed, which woman was his wife) which might be attributed to hastiness; the other concerns decisive details of the dynamics: the use of women as human shields and OBL’s “armed” (maybe) “reaction” (maybe);
there was an about turn in the WH account: on day two, there were no reaction and no women shields;
this is really intriguing, and I offer my guess: clearly it was a kill operation, no witnesses left behind, the same propagandist explanation as usual (killed because he reacted, women killed because he used them as human shields), but something went wrong;
don’t know how it could happen, but maybe an unexpected witness turned out, maybe the same wounded woman now in Pakistani custody, that was hurt in the same “crossfire” that killed OBL, and this forced the WH to “correct” the nice fable
3) I fully agree with b regarding Guantanamo torture confessions; as I already said: shame on who “extracts” confessions, shame on who uses them, shame on who believes them;
4)
there is not even the slightest tiny bit of proof, not even an attempt to produce pictures, that Bin Laden was actually captured or killed
they finally released a photo; maybe hesitation in publishing it is comprehensible; OBL is horribly disfigured, and it’s not something anybody would want to be associated with; consider that war is always sanitized in the Us; and many people around the world will feel pity for OBL, and rage towards the Us
5)
this was likely an operation to retire the “Bin Laden” marketing campaign which has helped to promote divisive U.S. war of terror policies over the last decade.
A simpler and less conspiratorial way of saying it, is that Obama set the killing of OBL as a top priority of his presidency, whereas Bush probably had an “understanding” with his neocon advisers and Musharraf that OBL could be “forgotten” (many of those who in the past years tried to convince us that OBL was dead were neocons, or people involved in 911 investigations)
same idea as DiD, on this point; not so sure of the “strategic” considerations (end of GWOT marketing campaign) related to such a decision, exposed by Malooga, b and DiD; getting reelected for a second term is already enough incentive to go to war with Pakistan; and the GWOT rhetoric was already sidelined in favor of the “export of democracy” at the beginning of Bush’s second term (then 2006 saw the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah and al-Sadr in free elections …); the democrats never really liked the GWOT rhetoric (too politically incorrect), but a bomb will always help to advance a police state and permanent war when necessary, even under a different rhetoric
Posted by: claudio | May 4 2011 1:47 utc | 16
|
