Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
If all went according to plan, the SEALs would drop from the helicopters into the compound, overpower bin Laden’s guards, shoot and kill him at close range, and then take the corpse back to Afghanistan.
I wanted to clarify whether this was true or not. That is to say, that THE official plan was to actually kill OBL rather than capture him. Watched a discovery program and the narrator, a journalist also implied this was solely a kill mission.
“There was never any question of detaining or capturing him—it wasn’t a split-second decision. No one wanted detainees,” the special-operations officer told me. (The Administration maintains that had bin Laden immediately surrendered he could have been taken alive.) Nine years, seven months, and twenty days after September 11th, an American was a trigger pull from ending bin Laden’s life.
Again a 3rd party account.
Will we ever get an official confirmation ?
The second question is what rationale did they use to kill him ?
- major objective of the Afghan war
- self-defense
In August, 2010, Panetta returned to the White House with better news. C.I.A. analysts believed that they had pinpointed bin Laden’s courier, a man in his early thirties named Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. Kuwaiti drove a white S.U.V. whose spare-tire cover was emblazoned with an image of a white rhino.
Another question i've long had is did the US find this needle in a haystack the size of Pakistan all by themsleves or was it by a series of tips from the Pakistan establishment. And then narowed down the list by a process of ellimination. This process being all american legwork.
When the helicopter began getting away from the pilot, he pulled back on the cyclic, which controls the pitch of the rotor blades, only to find the aircraft unresponsive. The high walls of the compound and the warm temperatures had caused the Black Hawk to descend inside its own rotor wash—a hazardous aerodynamic situation known as “settling with power.” In North Carolina, this potential problem had not become apparent, because the chain-link fencing used in rehearsals had allowed air to flow freely. A former helicopter pilot with extensive special-operations experience said of the pilot’s situation, “It’s pretty spooky—I’ve been in it myself. The only way to get out of it is to push the cyclic forward and fly out of this vertical silo you’re dropping through. That solution requires altitude. If you’re settling with power at two thousand feet, you’ve got plenty of time to recover. If you’re settling with power at fifty feet, you’re going to hit the ground.”
Lets say they were aware of this problem during the trials.
The walls were 10 feet. So an altitide of 50ft wasn't sufficent.
Does it mean that to avoid the problem, the helo would have had to have been much higher before the SEALS could fast rope down ? say 100ft or maybe even higher.
It would mean fast roping from a height of a 10 storey building if not more.
"It would mean fast roping from a height of a 10 storey building if not more."
Maybe. After-the-fact in any case but it's all about the rope. You need more rope than altitude.
The rest is just practice and SEAL badness.
"...Will we ever get an official confirmation...?"
Not likely.
"...The second question is what rationale did they use to kill him ?
- war,
- self-defense,
- major objective of the Afghan war..."
All the above would be accurate if, perhaps, incomplete. He's an enemy target. What rationale is needed for your satisfaction? Are you squirmy this worm was eliminated for God and Country with uber-extreme prejudice?
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Apparently the trail began with the courier Al-Kuwaiti. I doubt Pakistan contributed any intelligence.
As for justification to kill bin Laden rather than capture him alive... I have little doubt the decision was made months before the raid for the obvious reasons. Does the international community really feel there needs to be a "legitimate" reason to kill and not capture?
If an excuse is needed (it's not), consider that 15 to 20 minutes of gunshots and multiple explosions occurred before the team mounted the stairs to find bin Laden. Time for him to arm himself. Even if not obviously brandishing an AK, he might have a pistol, or a grenade with the pin pulled. I'd not risk a team member. Shoot on sight. He was an enemy combatant in a military operation.
What rationale is needed for your satisfaction? Are you squirmy this worm was eliminated for God and Country with uber-extreme prejudice?
No, just looking to get the story straight, as well as a way to counter all sorts of spurious comparisons & conclusions by motley columnists worldwide.
War & self-defense give you strong reason to justify deadly force. Cannot immediately see ways to challenge those reasons.
mmm, heard ppl mention this in the OBL thread but then why bother with due process for any enemy foreign or domestic in that case ?
Why bother putting Saddam on trial ? That was a war too but it was felt more important for the future of Iraq that this be done. In the end its was not the US that sentenced Saddam to hang but the Iraqi's.
There was some legislation in the early 80s that prevented assasination of head of state. OBL isn't a head of state. But this distinction can get very blurred in the event of war or self-defence.
From a foreign perspective, I see you & ACLU as the same team with the only difference being you'd put your life on the line to defend said values.
Apparently the trail began with the courier Al-Kuwaiti. I doubt Pakistan contributed any intelligence.
Their intelligence wasn't required. I'm referring to tips. You then follow through on them. How else do you find a person in a country of 180 million ppl ? One that does not want to be found. With the Pakistani administration publically denying any knowledge whatsoever. What gets said privately is anybody's guess.
It suits the Pakistani regime to publicly claim they were caught with their pants down in this whole affair as it keeps their own extremists off their back. So as not to be seen as complicit in any way further implying they are american stooges and not representative of public sentiment.
As of now they're taking heat for not being able to defend the country from a foreign incursion, which is a lot better than being seen as illegitimate to rule the country.
As for justification to kill bin Laden rather than capture him alive... I have little doubt the decision was made months before the raid for the obvious reasons. Does the international community really feel there needs to be a "legitimate" reason to kill and not capture?
No, just that there is a difference in the accounts between journalists & the administrations line. This article maintains that difference as well.
(The Administration maintains that had bin Laden immediately surrendered he could have been taken alive.)
If an excuse is needed (it's not), consider that 15 to 20 minutes of gunshots and multiple explosions occurred before the team mounted the stairs to find bin Laden. Time for him to arm himself. Even if not obviously brandishing an AK, he might have a pistol, or a grenade with the pin pulled. I'd not risk a team member. Shoot on sight. He was an enemy combatant in a military operation.
That's self-defence.
SEALS are trained to be effective killers, one assumes they are also capable of taking ppl alive if ordered to do so. If you can send in as many ppl and get them back alive, its not to hard to bring one more in an incapicitated state but alive as well. That is if the orders stipulated it.
Because this did not happen, maybe one can conclude it wasn't that important to take him alive, rather thanconcluding that this was explicitly a kill mission.
Another question i've long had is did the US find this needle in a haystack the size of Pakistan all by themsleves or was it by a series of tips from the Pakistan establishment. And then narowed down the list by a process of ellimination. This process being all american legwork.
Part of Pakistan's complaints about the US that have ramped up enormously since OBL's killing is that the CIA have developed an extensive network of spies within Pakistan. They are probably better informed than the ISI.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Part of Pakistan's complaints about the US that have ramped up enormously since OBL's killing is that the CIA have developed an extensive network of spies within Pakistan. They are probably better informed than the ISI.
That is exactly true Pari, otherwise OBL would not have been killed had they known. ;)
And again, Pakistan has made great play of the fact they were openly sharing intelligence with the US, including many claims on this forum that it was Pakistan intelligence sharing that lead to OBL being caught.
Why then would some of those providing that intelligence be arrested by the ISI and apparently subsequently 'disappear'?
It was this line of yours a while back that tripped me up about any initial Pakistani tip.
It would appear then that this was an american op right from the start.
See, what i thought was somebody knew he was there, they weren't going to give him up. Later, something changed and they decided he wasn't worth holding onto anymore or they did a trade.
But if you look at he odd turn relations took after the op, then something is wrong with this picture.
If they gave him up why would the US cut aid, they should actually be rewarding Pakistan. US does not seem to have done anything approaching appreciation, in fact quite the contrary. no wink wink at all. Cannot see what Pakistan could have gained if there ever was a trade. They cannot do a trade in the first place because its self-incriminating.
Part of Pakistan's complaints about the US that have ramped up enormously since OBL's killing is that the CIA have developed an extensive network of spies within Pakistan. They are probably better informed than the ISI.
US had to do this because there was nothing forthcoming from the other end otherwise why bother.
Comment