Would this have been a political mess for the US?

[Anonymous]

Storming the house in Pakistan, killing four people on the ground floor and then getting upstairs and finding no Bin Laden, and barely any evidence of Al Qaeda.
Obama admits that there was no physical evidence that he was there.
Did they have a story planned for that possible outcome?

[Anonymous]

You can convict in court on circumstantial evidence. I guess you can storm a compound on circumstantial evidence as well. This could have been Obama's Jimmy Carter moment, but it all worked out perfectly. I don't know if they had a story planned out for failure, though. I guess there would have been news reports from Pakistan that we were conducting raids, but we never would have admitted to anything.

[Anonymous]

If it had been a failure, it'd have been roughly the same amount of damage that one of the random Predator strikes -- zero concern unless the Pakistanis make a fuss, in which case we'd apologize and lay low for another few weeks. We've already had this circular dance with them; on their part, they will "unearth" an al-Qa'eda leader every 6-12 months to stay on our good side (e.g. KSM).

There'd have been no word at all that we were going after the biggest fish save on the conspiracy websites that are wrong 85% of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it had been a failure, it'd have been roughly the same amount of damage that one of the random Predator strikes -- zero concern unless the Pakistanis make a fuss, in which case we'd apologize and lay low for another few weeks. We've already had this circular dance with them; on their part, they will "unearth" an al-Qa'eda leader every 6-12 months to stay on our good side (e.g. KSM).

There'd have been no word at all that we were going after the biggest fish save on the conspiracy websites that are wrong 85% of the time.

This would have been different. The Pakistanis would have shit a brick if we put ground troops in sovereign territory, right in the heart of Pakistain. The public has had enough of this and is putting real pressure on the government. They were already shutting down our drone bases within Pakistan and making public statements about how their population was pressuring the government due to problems with the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. The reason we got away with it is because the Pakistanis are incredulous that their own military did not detect him.

We need Pakistan to fight the Afghan war, and getting tossed out would be a big problem. We can't go to War with Pakistan.

So yes, this would have been a very big deal.

[Anonymous]

If you beleive that this is the first ground raid in Pakistan then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. If this mission had failed we probably would have heard about it (Pakistan is not getting billions for nothing). Do you really think that the media/us gets told about everything that the military/CIA does. Really???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you beleive that this is the first ground raid in Pakistan then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. If this mission had failed we probably would have heard about it (Pakistan is not getting billions for nothing). Do you really think that the media/us gets told about everything that the military/CIA does. Really???

No, but if you think we can drop in helicopters and Seals a few miles from Islamabad Pakistan without consequences, you have a screw loose. As for the media not hearing about it, well I think they picked up on the dude live tweeting about it as well as the wreckage of a stealth helicopter that does not exist. I dunno, maybe that was something the neighborhood kids built for fun.

Lastly, if you think that a few billion dollars has bought Pakistan's cooperation, you have not been keeping score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Storming the house in Pakistan, killing four people on the ground floor and then getting upstairs and finding no Bin Laden, and barely any evidence of Al Qaeda.
Obama admits that there was no physical evidence that he was there.
Did they have a story planned for that possible outcome?

That's why it was a brave call. We do know one thing: right-wing partisans are *still* going ape-shit about the time that Clinton let Osama "get away". And that incident, there was even *less* information that put OBL at a given place or time. So if Obama hadn't acted, we'd never hear the end of how he was coddling America's enemies.

Fortunately things worked out, and now the wingnuts get to drink a nice, hot steaming mug of STFU.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but I am still thinking that BO took a huge risk. Perhaps not "worth it" politically.

[Anonymous]

Yep it was a huge risk. Still remember Jimmy Carter's catastrophe. Obama was very lucky it worked out.

[jsteele]

They did know that an al-Qaida courier was in the house. Had OBL not been there, the likely story would have been that the raid was meant to capture the courier and/or intelligence that might lead them to OBL. Also, the Pakistanis are probably use to the US treating them like the hired help by now. The protests have been quite small in Pakistan's terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Storming the house in Pakistan, killing four people on the ground floor and then getting upstairs and finding no Bin Laden, and barely any evidence of Al Qaeda.
Obama admits that there was no physical evidence that he was there.
Did they have a story planned for that possible outcome?

Sounds like the invasion of Iraq based upon the circumstantial evidence of WMDs. But that still worked out ok, right?

[Anonymous]

It may not have been a sure thing, but with size of the payoff, it was a bet they could not pass up.