Posted on 05/03/2011 6:33:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
I have complied some notes from a few open source intelligence providers to put Bin Laden's death in context of the larger war on terror:
"Bin Laden had become the symbol of al Qaeda, even though the degree to which he commanded the organization was questionable. The symbolic value of his death is obvious. The United States can claim a great victory. Al Qaeda can proclaim his martyrdom.
"It is difficult to understand what this means at this moment, but it permits the Obama administration to claim victory, at least partially, over al Qaeda. It also opens the door for the beginning of a withdrawal from Afghanistan, regardless of the practical impact of bin Laden’s death. The mission in Afghanistan was to defeat al Qaeda, and with his death, a plausible claim can be made that the mission is complete. Again speculatively, it will be interesting to see how this affects U.S. strategy there.
"Equally possible is that this will trigger action by al Qaeda in bin Laden’s name. We do not know how viable al Qaeda is or how deeply compromised it was. It is clear that bin Laden’s cover had been sufficiently penetrated to kill him. If bin Laden’s cover was penetrated, then the question becomes how much of the rest of the organization’s cover was penetrated. It is unlikely, however, that al Qaeda is so compromised that it cannot take further action.
"At this early hour, the only thing possible is speculation on the consequences of bin Laden’s death, and that speculation is inherently flawed. Still, the importance of his death has its consequences. Certainly one consequence will be a sense of triumph in the United States. To others, this will be another false claim by the United States. For others it will be a call to war. We know little beyond what we have been told, but we know it matters."
"The US insisted Pakistan played no part in the operation and that the team flew from Afghanistan. That clearly is a cover story for Pakistani public consumption to try to avert overwhelming anti-Pakistan and anti-US demonstrations, which are probably inevitable in any event."
"[O]ne inference is that bin Laden has been in the safe keeping of the Pakistan Army for a decade. The news reports suggest the compound was specially built for him and his enterprise, which had to have been subsidized by Pakistan and, through Pakistan, by US aid to Pakistan."
"The conclusion is inescapable that the Pakistan Army protected bin Laden and recently decided to give him up, rather than sacrifice the Army's relationship with the US. The terms are not known as yet, but there certainly is a trade in which bin Laden was sacrificed. The trade might involve an end to US drone attacks across the border, which humiliate the Pakistan Army, or a new coordination regime for drone attacks into Pakistan."
I see nothing to support the assertion that the Pakistani army decided to “give him up”.
The terms are not known as yet, but there certainly is a trade in which bin Laden was sacrificed. The trade might involve an end to US drone attacks across the border, which humiliate the Pakistan Army, or a new coordination regime for drone attacks into Pakistan."
The way this went down completely validated the right wing approach to terror and completely destroyed the views of the left. If this was a result of a negotiation with Pakistan, there is no way this administration would not have set up the kill or capture to match their philosophy. They would have somehow set it up to be a result of diplomacy or drone activities. The entire Bush doctrine was just verified as a success.
but how will our government continue to implement its debasement of our freedoms without its Goldstein bogeyman?
The symbolic value of his death is obvious—
And I think that’s all it is, more Obama propaganda, a ‘symbolic death’ of Osama made by Obama, not the real death of Osama...
Bush vindication?
This wikileaks dump story from UK Daily Mail today points to a success of waterboarding:
IIRC, Abu Faraj al-Libi, captured in 2005, was one of the 3 people known to have been waterboarded.
Buried in the April 25th wikileaks dump was the information that the US knows the name of the courier. May have caused a hurry-up, before bin Laden got wind of it.
The fact that he had no phone and no internet in my opinion points to Pakistan holding him on ice. Just having a phone would or internet would not inherently risk his discovery, as long as he didn’t email or send communication from from there. Osama was highly interested in world affairs and would have badly wanted to surf the net.
He was not by any means computer-illiterate, witness the trove of CD’s and DVD’s the DevGru boys got hold of.
So let me get this straight. This administration is fine with shooting bin laden in the head and using drone’s to kill suspected terrorist, but it condemns torture.
...especially to obtain valuable information
The U.S. would be faced with a diplomatic dilemma. The Saudis and particularly Pakistan were key assets in the War on Terror. To move unilaterally against Bin Laden in his sanctuary would have unknown consequences.
This information could have leaked out to Obama from a politically friendly state department source during the 2008 campaign prompting Obama to state during a debate that he would not hesitate to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Upon taking office in January 2009 Obama would have been briefed on Bin Laden’s hideout and whatever security apparatus protected him. This would give Obama a political ace to play when he needed it, provided he was willing to take the risks involved.
This is pure speculation but it might answer some questions surrounding this project.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.