Is the "Bin Laden Raid" Story Fake?

[jsteele]

What does everyone think of Seymour Hersh's article about the killing of Osama bin Laden:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

To sum up what he says, the story we have been told about the bin Laden raid is almost totally made up. In reality, the Pakistanis captures bin Laden in 2006 and were paid by the Saudis to keep him under house arrest. Then an ISI officer approached the CIA and offered to reveal bin Laden's location in exchange for the $25 million reward. The US then used a combination of carrots and sticks get Pakistani cooperation on the raid with the understanding that bin Laden would be killed. The original plan was to keep the attack secret and announce a week or so later that bin Laden had been killed in Afghanistan by a drone strike. But, the helicopter crash scuttled that plan. According to Hersh, there was no fire fight at the compound, the SEALS didn't expect the attack to be announced and mutilated bin Laden's body, there probably wasn't a burial at sea, and "enhanced interrogation" played no role in revealing bin Laden's location.

I have no idea whether Hersh is correct. He has a mixed track record on this sort of story. But, I can certainly see the story giving a certain amount of heartburn to both Obama-supporters and Obama opponents.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the whole article yet (will go read it when I have a chance, but thanks for the summary) - but that rings very plausible to me. It sounds like the journalist had multiple sources.

I think there is likely a lot of "creative narration" about many things out of all administrations that will paint them in the best light. Why wouldn't there be?

It doesn't really bother me if we weren't told the truth about how it all went down, I don't think. It seems like there were international relation issues at play.

[Anonymous]

Well, if it's true, it seems weird that some rogue SEALS were off writing books trying to claim credit and sell out the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole article yet (will go read it when I have a chance, but thanks for the summary) - but that rings very plausible to me. It sounds like the journalist had multiple sources.

I think there is likely a lot of "creative narration" about many things out of all administrations that will paint them in the best light. Why wouldn't there be?

It doesn't really bother me if we weren't told the truth about how it all went down, I don't think. It seems like there were international relation issues at play.

I like the way you think. Kinda tired a standard for politics and foreign relations that only considers the black and white of things. The world isn't black and white nor an academic exercise.

[Anonymous]

I will take a look at the article. But it would seem to me that if the Bush Administration got him, they would have sounded it to the high heavens. Or at least leaked it when Obama took credit for it.

I also find it odd that no one in Al Qaeda would have disclosed this after the raid. It is however plausible that Pakistan aided us in the extraction but don't want to take the heat for selling him out.

It seems to me the key facts he's working from were verified from a Pakistani who said "and what you’ve told me is essentially what I have heard from former colleagues who have been on a fact-finding mission since this episode."

So basically the story's confirmation rests of "I heard that too".

[Anonymous]

Meh - I don't care. Osama is dead and we're all better for it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I will take a look at the article. But it would seem to me that if the Bush Administration got him, they would have sounded it to the high heavens. Or at least leaked it when Obama took credit for it.

I also find it odd that no one in Al Qaeda would have disclosed this after the raid. It is however plausible that Pakistan aided us in the extraction but don't want to take the heat for selling him out.

It seems to me the key facts he's working from were verified from a Pakistani who said "and what you’ve told me is essentially what I have heard from former colleagues who have been on a fact-finding mission since this episode."

So basically the story's confirmation rests of "I heard that too".

One clarification, Hersh was not suggesting that the Bush Administration or even the Obama Administration knew that the Pakistanis captured bin Laden in 2006. Rather, he says that the Pakistanis considered bin Laden too valuable simply to hand over (which they would have to do if they disclosed his capture), so they kept his capture secret. Also, the Saudis had an interest in bin Laden not falling into American hands because of Saudi payments to bin Laden and paid the Pakistanis to keep him under arrest. Hersh says the Pakistanis also wanted to use bin Laden to pressure the Jihadist to not attack Pakistan. However, 2010 was the most violent year in Pakistan so that could mean that bin Laden has out-lived his usefulness in that regard.

Your point about al-Qaida not disclosing bin Laden's capture is a good one. Before bin Laden was killed, I could understand al-Qaida having an interest in maintaining the illusion that UBL was still running the show. But, afterwards, revealing UBL's capture would be a good tool to help undermine the Pakistanis.

[Anonymous]

India has always known the ISI had bin laden in their possession for years.

Perhaps we'll know in 50-60 years when the relevant docs and cables are declassified like how the Iranian coup documentation was released.

However, it doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes bin laden 'won'.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what I think. I tried to read the piece on the LRB website early this morning, before I had enough coffee, and couldn't get through it. Hersh often has that effect on me. As you said, he has a mixed record on things like this and I admit that I now approach his writing with a little extra skepticism.

I'll have to try again after more coffee.

[Anonymous]

It's total BS.

Look at how he attributes his sourcing. It's basically hearsay.

Also note, this is published by LRB, not the New Yorker, where many of Sy Hersh's pieces have appeared. This is not a coincidence: the NYer has some of the fiercest fact checking in the business.

Hersh had some amazing scoops in his day. But for the past few years he's peddled almost exclusively conspiracy theories. Time to hang it up.

[Anonymous]

One question. Is he dead? Yes, then I am so over this story.

[Anonymous]

I think the Pakistanis had him under house arrest and we just did not look that hard for him till Obama came into office. The bush people had moved on to Iraq and did not care about him. As for the Saudis, they had no clue and would have wanted him killed. It's hard to keep secrets that big and you would have to have a lot of people in the U.S. Government buy in. They just don't do that type of stuff...everything comes out at election time.

[Anonymous]

It is possible, though I don't think the article proves anything.

It does explain how/why he was found in Abottabad, which really had been a puzzle.

[Anonymous]

What did Brian Williams say happened? I'm quite sure the opposite is closer to the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read the whole article yet (will go read it when I have a chance, but thanks for the summary) - but that rings very plausible to me. It sounds like the journalist had multiple sources.

I think there is likely a lot of "creative narration" about many things out of all administrations that will paint them in the best light. Why wouldn't there be?

It doesn't really bother me if we weren't told the truth about how it all went down, I don't think. It seems like there were international relation issues at play.

I like the way you think. Kinda tired a standard for politics and foreign relations that only considers the black and white of things. The world isn't black and white nor an academic exercise.

That's interesting to read on this forum. I'd be curious of yours and PP's opinion of Vice President Cheney.