Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

-The comments that Bin Laden "went down shooting" came from an unnamed Pentagon official. They also were made a mere hour after the raid.
-The one from John Brennan where he "was cowering behind his wife" has further been clarified to point out that it WASN'T OBL that did it, but one of his couriers who did it.


There's not "varied press contradictory conferences". He made it very clear in the first speech that the statements would change as those involved were debriefed.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.

Look at how that turned out though, sure the Irish people mostly don't like you(especially those alive during the Black and Tan era) but there's not as many Real IRA fellows around now are there? Besides, you use a country as a slave force for so long and they're bound to retaliate.

Orlanth wrote: Once the decision by the (Israeli) politicians is made they sit back and let their military do the job.

Yes, and that's what happened in this case. He didn't plan the operation, at most he issued a kill order with respect to bin Laden, and if he did there is no proof to substantiate that fact.

Orlanth wrote:
2. Totally pissed off and humiliated their Pakistani allies. Thats 100% Obama. If Bin Ladens compound was in Iran or Libya or Afghanistan going in solo with no word to anyone would be the correct thing to do. But in allied territory

Given the degree of distrust within the US regarding Pakistan's intelligence offices, and really just the government in general, this isn't surprising. Pakistan is an ally some of the time, and not others. Presuming that their relationship with the United States is at all secure is not reflected in the history of relations between the two states.

Orlanth wrote:
3. Grossly flounted international law. Not by abusing Bin ladens rights, feth him, thasts a technicality, but by treading all over Pakistani sovereignty. Noone would have gainsayed US forces being the arresting/assaulting force, but this was clearly Pakistani jurisdiction, and even if Bin Ladens 'ass' belongs to the USA all captured materiel should be shared with the national government and they should have been brought in at a late stage.

Yes, but the argument here is that the traditional understanding of sovereignty is not reflective of the contemporary realities in many parts of the world.

Orlanth wrote:
Pakistan pulled it weight for the US in the past, and present, and it costs them to do so. It isn't a distant problem to them, but a very much local one, they have lost senior politicans to assassination amd threat of assassination because they backed the US. Obama's self serving theatrics likely cost a valued ally. The previous US administration trusted Pakistan to arrest active and senior Al Quaeda members before and hand them over Rashid Rauf comes to mind here, and unlike Bin Laden he was a Pakistani national. And at the time of his arrest Rauf was the mastermind behind the most dangerous known Al Quaeda operation since 9/11, the 2006 liquid bomb plot, which if actioned would have brought down seven air liners over the Atlantic in a single coordinated attack.

Pakistan claimed that the Rauf strike infringed on its sovereignty as well.

Sherry Rehman, the Pakistani information minister, told The Sunday Telegraph: “Sources have confirmed to us that Rashid Rauf and al-Masri were the targets and they have been killed. However, it would have been better if Pakistani authorities had been alerted for local action. Drone incursions create a strong backlash.”

Source

This took place under the Bush administration, just like many other drone attacks.

Its also worth noting that Rauf was killed in an air strike because he escaped from Pakistani detention.

Orlanth wrote:
Now the Pakistani government is in gak that wont wash off, and some are outwardly accusing them of collaboration with Al Quaeda.

Where have you been for the last 10 years? This is far from news.

Pakistan: One of the few countries that we pay who doesn't like us.

Anyways, tonights South Park should be interesting.

dogma wrote:
If you're talking about observers, then you're immediately including more than two or three people, given that its unlikey that Zardari would be going on the raid, or directly communicating with the chosen few.

Obama talks to Zardani in person on hotline: gist of conversation we think we have found Bin laden, we request your 'help'.

Official from US embassy or brought in talks to Zardani with a limited brief, no direct information. One or two agreed very senior generals/politicians are brought in on the broader secret.

One the day of the attack the information is actioned and the senior general has prepped two or three military personnel from an agreed shortlist who observe the operation in some capacity. They dont know what they are doing until they are in a helicopter or otherwise surrounded by US military officials, and are thus not counted amongst the two or three persons in the Pakistani government who are 'in on it'. All they know is that they were given a direct order from the very senior general who is.

that is enough to keep Pakistan in the loop officially.


If you want a real life example of how that works in actuality, the Uk released information on the 2006 liquid bomb plot this year and the cross Atlantic cooperation involved. Even though the US and Uk are more matched on the War on Terror than the US-Pakistani cooperation is likely to be because it was a Uk operation only a very small list of person in the US were on the need to know.
From the interviews of US and Uk officials involved who seemingly contradictory details emerge, the Uk drafted in over 200 extra police with surveillance experience to work on monitoring the terrorist plotters, yet when the US Secretary of State informed President Bush he prepared the Powerpoint presentation himself and normally very senior officials ran the slide projector because they has no authority to bring staff into the loop. Thus an operation iknown to several hundred people in the Uk, many of them not senior and only a very slender handful in the US.
This was because it was a UK operation (and I must add on UK soil), I have heard nothing to indicate this was unique, merely a good example of the truism that a grass roots operation from one country might be cleared for access at only the very highest level in another.

Now there are differences, the US was informed because US flights were targeted, wheras this operation was to be carried out in foreign soil. Normally this might entail a higher degree of cooperation, but as security concerns are raised I can see Obama deciding to include Pakistani authorities only at a select level.

To have excluded Zardani himself is an insult, a strong personal implication that he cannot be trusted, or that he is inseperable from persons who cannot be trusted. And from clear example it is possible to have officially included Pakistan in the loop while only informing a very small number of people, who need not know everything or long in advance, or in the case of those junior officials ordered to assist by the Pakistani government know anything at all.

dogma wrote:

Yes, but the argument here is that the traditional understanding of sovereignty is not reflective of the contemporary realities in many parts of the world.

In other words, they are only Pakistanis, feth their sovereign rights.

Might there be a connection between that attitude and a lack of support/trust/cooperation.


Anyway thats enough for tonight.

The difference being that we have an excellent relationship with the UK.

Pakistan is nowhere near that level of confidence.

Orlanth wrote:
Ho hum, English comprehension is not your strong point.

Most governments don't exactly trust each other, but cooperation exists, if you want cooperation to work you break the news late and at a very high level and make sure that only a very small shortlist of people get in on the info.

That has nothing at all to do with the comment you quoted. You said that the refusal to share information with Pakistan represented a tacit accusation regarding their collusion with Al-Qaeda. I said that, no, it merely implies that they have poor information security within their intelligence arm (many former members of which are high-ranking government officials). I understood your point perfectly, its simply that it was nonsense, as I said.

As to sharing information with high level officials: the point that I, and several other posters here, (and the Leon Panetta) have been making is that, apparently, the US government does not feel it can trust Pakistan, even at the highest echelons. If they did, it islikely that they would have shared the information.

You're taking what may have been a calculated choice and chalking it up to incompetence, which is incredibly foolish given that the US has a long, and recently unintentionally public, history of distrust with respect to Pakistan.

Orlanth wrote:
Rashid Rauf, look up his case.

Very prominent and unlike Bin laden active terrorist at the time of his arrest (Bin Laden is important but as a figurehead Rauf was actively controlling operations). the US requested an arrest, Pakistan did as requested.

Yes, then they lost custody of him, and the CIA killed him with a hellfire missile.

Orlanth wrote:
You honestly think there is noone Obama could approach in Pakistan, or think its a good idea to give that impression to the entire fething planet?

No, I'm merely stating that its possible given that such was the conclusion of the administration, at least with respect to the first bit. The issue of giving a certain an impression to other nations is collateral to the initial decision regarding trustworthiness.

I mean think about this, if the Administration approached Zardari and stated that this attack was going to occur, then he is left with two choices: bring in other Pakistani officials in order to cover himself, or let it remain secret, in which case he still has to contend with past allegations that the US violates Pakistani sovereignty. And, of course, that's assuming he ascents at all.

Orlanth wrote:
- The comments that Bin Laden went down shooting came from an 'unnamed Pentagon official'.

And? That certainly wasn't said during a press conference. Simply because an official says something it does not follow that it is an official statement.

Orlanth wrote:
- The one from John Brennan where he was cowering behind his wife.

“From a visual perspective, here is bin Laden ... living in this million dollar-plus compound ... hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield. I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years,"

That's what Brennan actually said. In that context it relates to the fact that he was living with his wives, not that he cowered behind them during the attack.

Orlanth wrote:
- Jay Carney said his wife rushed the soldiers and Bin Laden was unarmed.

Yes, that is the official account I was talking about.

Orlanth wrote:
its not unreaonable to suggest that the spin was mishandled, and we should not discount the manner of Bin ladens death, how he is buried and how that is reported to its propoganda value. I don't blame Obama directly for mishandling the subsequent press releases, but the varied press contradictory conferences, though as the give the initial press conference he has added himself to the list of faces that together do not add up to a single consistent story.

I don't see how this particular bit of spin was especially bad. A senior official said outside of press conference that bin Laden went down shooting, given that his body guard did, apparently, open fire I see no problem with this. It is not uncommon to refer to the entourage of an HVT by the HVT's name, just as Presidential Administrations are often called by the name of the President. Brennan made a normative statement which he probably shouldn't have, though I suspect he was emotionally invested in this particular operation, so that can be forgiven; especially seeing as it could be interpreted very loosely. Carney's story is perfectly fine, and doesn't contradict any of the others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
Obama talks to Zardani in person on hotline: gist of conversation we think we have found Bin laden, we request your 'help'.

Official from US embassy or brought in talks to Zardani with a limited brief, no direct information. One or two agreed very senior generals/politicians are brought in on the broader secret.

One the day of the attack the information is actioned and the senior general has prepped two or three military personnel from an agreed shortlist who observe the operation in some capacity. They dont know what they are doing until they are in a helicopter or otherwise surrounded by US military officials, and are thus not counted amongst the two or three persons in the Pakistani government who are 'in on it'. All they know is that they were given a direct order from the very senior general who is.

that is enough to keep Pakistan in the loop officially.

Its also likely too much to keep the action classified. You severely underestimate how little the US thinks of the Pakistani government, and how much evidence they have to support their position. Seriously, just sorting through the diplomatic cables that Wikileaks brought to light paints a very negative image of that state.

Orlanth wrote:
And from clear example it is possible to have officially included Pakistan in the loop while only informing a very small number of people, who need not know everything or long in advance, or in the case of those junior officials ordered to assist by the Pakistani government know anything at all.

Comparing the exchange of intelligence between the UK and the US is not comparable to the exchange of intelligence between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan has a demonstrated history of failing, due to inability or unwillingness, to maintain either information security, or custody of suspected terrorists.

Note, I'm not disputing that its possible to share information with only a small group of people. I'm explaining to you that it isn't possible, or even desirable, in all cases, particularly if you only trust a very small set of people; as opposed to the majority of them, with secrecy preferred simply for reasons of security, rather than the absence of trust.

Orlanth wrote:
In other words, they are only Pakistanis, feth their sovereign rights.

Might there be a connection between that attitude and a lack of support/trust/cooperation.

No, in other words sovereignty, in general, isn't what it used to be. And, arguably, never was what many people thought it was.

As to cooperation, I've already illustrated how this was the result of many past breakdowns in US/Pakistani relations. It wasn't out the blue, like you seem to be implying.

If all Obama did was authorize not telling the Pakistan government, then he did plenty to help the operation to succeed. As for announcing it, that is his job. He is the Commander-in-Chief. If the mission had failed with loss of US life, he would have had a press conference to announce that.

As for most of the remainder of the discussion...pass.

I will only say the view from the Ivory Tower is always nice, and morals and ethics are easy to parade when you haven't had to challenge them, risk them, and earn the wisdom within.

dogma wrote:
That has nothing at all to do with the comment you quoted. You said that the refusal to share information with Pakistan represented a tacit accusation regarding their collusion with Al-Qaeda. I said that, no, it merely implies that they have poor information security within their intelligence arm (many former members of which are high-ranking government officials). I understood your point perfectly, its simply that it was nonsense, as I said.

You are misunderstanding the point. The US has tried since to claim that it felt it couldn't bring Pakistan in on the mission for the reasons you have given, that was already understtod but sadly irrelevant. because that is not how it is seen, a large question mark over Pakistani government at all levels regardingcollusing with al Quaeda is the result Token cooperation under US supervision was a viable option that avoided the political problems which haver since arisen.

As to sharing information with high level officials: the point that I, and several other posters here, (and the Leon Panetta) have been making is that, apparently, the US government does not feel it can trust Pakistan, even at the highest echelons. If they did, it is likely that they would have shared the information.

dogma wrote:
You're taking what may have been a calculated choice and chalking it up to incompetence, which is incredibly foolish given that the US has a long, and recently unintentionally public, history of distrust with respect to Pakistan.

How does this mistrust occur? Trust is gained by trust.

As for chalking things up to incompetence, that is how I see a barracks town with a military academy very close to Bin Laden's lair not knowing he is there, not collusion. I really doubt Pakistan would have been able to keep that information secret from the US, leaks go both ways. However allowing for the location plus the failure to engage the Pakistani authorities in mission planning at any level raises huge questions that will haunt Pakistan unfairly.

dogma wrote:
Yes, then they lost custody of him, and the CIA killed him with a hellfire missile.

The relevant point is that Rauf was arrested on request held and access to his interrogation was given to the US. Proof that practical cooperation was possible.

While an interesting read pretty much everything afterwards is conjecture, we don't know how Rauf escaped, or where he went to when/if he did or if he was actually killed by any missile strike. It has been suggested that 'escaped' meant handed over to the CIA for rendition, something that would be desired but not formally actionable as Rauf had a Pakistani passport. Both options become plausible, especially in light of the fact that no evidence has been given to support the movements of Rauf while at large, how he was tracked or if he was at the site of the missile strike.

What we do know is that a missile strike occured, in Pakistan by a US drone. Pakistan considered this a violation of sovereignty, and are obviously correct in this regards. further evidence that with regards to building trust between Pakistan and the US, it is not by any means a given that Pakistan is entirely at fault for any breakdown in relations.

dogma wrote:
I mean think about this, if the Administration approached Zardari and stated that this attack was going to occur, then he is left with two choices: bring in other Pakistani officials in order to cover himself, or let it remain secret, in which case he still has to contend with past allegations that the US violates Pakistani sovereignty. And, of course, that's assuming he ascents at all.

I dont think its any stretch to imagine that Zardani would not be in any position to get Obama to call off a snatch/kill operation against Bin Laden himself. Cooperation, and keeping the Pakistani government informed need not include giving them any real say or control regarding the matter.

dogma wrote:
I don't see how this particular bit of spin was especially bad. A senior official said outside of press conference that bin Laden went down shooting, given that his body guard did, apparently, open fire I see no problem with this. It is not uncommon to refer to the entourage of an HVT by the HVT's name, just as Presidential Administrations are often called by the name of the President. Brennan made a normative statement which he probably shouldn't have, though I suspect he was emotionally invested in this particular operation, so that can be forgiven; especially seeing as it could be interpreted very loosely. Carney's story is perfectly fine, and doesn't contradict any of the others.

I would not care about the minor discrepencies at all were this not a case where the method and circumstances of death will hold religious implications that can be exploited. There should have been one story, released at the correct time preceded with 'no comments' until the story was clear and complete and ready for public dissemination. How the press report what you say is beyond your control, but what you say to them isnt.

It is known that this was important which is why the funeral was carefully planned. However the press details regarding the funeral have been handled well. Problems with an Islamic funeral at sea being balanced against the need to avoid a shrine location. The information was given out once with no inconsistencies and all follow up information held back until the authorities concerned know exactly what to say and when.

dogma wrote:
You severely underestimate how little the US thinks of the Pakistani government, and how much evidence they have to support their position.

Allowing for the huge gaffe which was keeping the entire Pakistani government out of the loop on a US covert operation in Pakistan against a common enemy, I doubt that.

dogma wrote:
As to cooperation, I've already illustrated how this was the result of many past breakdowns in US/Pakistani relations. It wasn't out the blue, like you seem to be implying.

It certainly wasn't out of the blue, but aren't you reading trustworthiness the correct way. So far this is an example of Obama not being trustworthy. He initiated operation on foreign soil without any attempt to dialogue with the sovereign nation involved, when the nation was at some level or other an ally of the US.

Allowing for what Obama was doing and where the onus was on him to cooperate at some level or other. There are ways to control the dialogue to avoid security lapses, as indicated before cooperation need only be token and at a carefully controlled level and timing. The Israelis often work this way, and they trust noone. Zardani would be in no practical position to stop the US getting Bin Laden in Pakistani soil, and betraying US intentions to Al Quaeda would have been a colossal mistake.

dogma wrote:
No, in other words sovereignty, in general, isn't what it used to be. And, arguably, never was what many people thought it was.

Evidently, and even amongst 'real' allies. But you keep the realpolitik to the background. The US government has fethed over the UK a few times, but never blatantly and openly, to do so would irreperably damage relations. International political trust is always a carefully measured thing, which is why applying a correct measure to Pakistan is not something that should be alien to the US government. Governments apply a measure of public cooperation with foreign governments on a daily basis.

dienekes96 wrote:If all Obama did was authorize not telling the Pakistan government, then he did plenty to help the operation to succeed.

Presumably you are disagreeing with me. If so why keep proving my point: that this operation raises a grossly unfair moral question over the government of Pakistan.

dienekes96 wrote:
As for announcing it, that is his job. He is the Commander-in-Chief. If the mission had failed with loss of US life, he would have had a press conference to announce that.

As Cartar had to regarding Iran. Perhaps, though so far Obama hasn't shown himself to be the blame sharing sort. Though thats rare in modern politics so perhaps it should let that one slide.

dienekes96 wrote:
I will only say the view from the Ivory Tower is always nice, and morals and ethics are easy to parade when you haven't had to challenge them, risk them, and earn the wisdom within.

When it comes to Obama: Ivory Tower, check. Earning any wisdom within, not checked Obama has a track record of sticking the finger to foreign governments and unnecessarily damaging relations, and he isn't learning. This is business as usual for the current president.
As for parading morals and ethics unearned, who would have the right to say anything under those terms? None here, unless Dakka is populated by ex-presidents; yet the discourse moves on....

Orlanth wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:
I will only say the view from the Ivory Tower is always nice, and morals and ethics are easy to parade when you haven't had to challenge them, risk them, and earn the wisdom within.

When it comes to Obama: Ivory Tower, check. Earning any wisdom within, not checked Obama has a track record of sticking the finger to foreign governments and unnecessarily damaging relations, and he isn't learning. This is business as usual for the current president.
As for parading morals and ethics unearned, who would have the right to say anything under those terms? None here, unless Dakka is populated by ex-presidents; yet the discourse moves on....

Was dienekes96 talking about Obama, or all of the people debating in this thread? I think the case could be made for either.

Careful, large structures made from expensive and rare materials are prime targets.

I was speaking about the absolutism bandied about in this thread about the moralities of the operation and associated decisions. President Obama has had to examine his morals and make hard decisions. While he may be in an Ivory Tower on some issues, this isn't one of them.

And plenty of people can intelligently discuss their beliefs and how they have been challenged. But the majority of this conversation is theoretical for most of us. But the language hasn't really supported that.

halonachos wrote:Pakistan: One of the few countries that we pay who doesn't like us.

That's not really true. We, in part, pay Pakistan so that they will like us, and in part pay them so that the people there who do like us can maintain power. If you ever look at the US foreign and military aid budget, you'll see quite a few nations just like this.

Orlanth wrote:
You are misunderstanding the point. The US has tried since to claim that it felt it couldn't bring Pakistan in on the mission for the reasons you have given, that was already understtod but sadly irrelevant. because that is not how it is seen, a large question mark over Pakistani government at all levels regarding collusing with al Quaeda is the result Token cooperation under US supervision was a viable option that avoided the political problems which haver since arisen.

Two points:

1. That's how you see it. There is an important distinction between the conclusion that you are drawing, and the conclusion that must be drawn based on what has occurred. Since the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, we must conclude that the United States does not trust Pakistan. That means, minimally, that there are significant information control concerns regarding the Pakistani state. It does not mean that the Pakistani state is in collusion with Al-Qaeda in any official sense. Going further an assuming that this is an indictment of the Pakistani state as a body which is in collusion with Al-Qaeda is an inferential leap that you are making, not a necessary deduction according to the rules of logic; which means it isn't necessarily the way any other observer will perceive these events.

2: If the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, even in a token sense, it does not follow that they were incorrect to do so. If Pakistan, or significant parts of Pakistan, are in collusion with Al-Qaeda, then it makes no sense whatsoever to treat them as though they are not.

Orlanth wrote:
How does this mistrust occur? Trust is gained by trust.

Yes, and the US has a history of having its trust breached by Pakistan. This began under the Bush administration, and carried forward into the Obama one. It isn't that Zardari and his allies aren't willing to cooperate, its that in most instances they aren't able to do so. No amount of trust in the world is going to make the Pakistani executive's control over his armed forces and intelligence services any stronger.

Orlanth wrote:
However allowing for the location plus the failure to engage the Pakistani authorities in mission planning at any level raises huge questions that will haunt Pakistan unfairly.

You can't call a state incompetent, and then say its unfair for them to be treated as though they are incompetent. You can say its unwise to expose their incompetence, but I would argue that, with respect to Pakistan, it was hardly a secret.

Orlanth wrote:
The relevant point is that Rauf was arrested on request held and access to his interrogation was given to the US. Proof that practical cooperation was possible.

While an interesting read pretty much everything afterwards is conjecture, we don't know how Rauf escaped, or where he went to when/if he did or if he was actually killed by any missile strike. It has been suggested that 'escaped' meant handed over to the CIA for rendition, something that would be desired but not formally actionable as Rauf had a Pakistani passport. Both options become plausible, especially in light of the fact that no evidence has been given to support the movements of Rauf while at large, how he was tracked or if he was at the site of the missile strike.

There is also no evidence that Rauf was questioned by either American, or British personnel.

Orlanth wrote:
What we do know is that a missile strike occured, in Pakistan by a US drone. Pakistan considered this a violation of sovereignty, and are obviously correct in this regards. further evidence that with regards to building trust between Pakistan and the US, it is not by any means a given that Pakistan is entirely at fault for any breakdown in relations.

Of course not, but using the example of Rashid Rauf, and then claiming that there is concrete evidence to suggest that cooperation is possible, when the available information allows the opposite conclusion as well, is dicey at best.

Orlanth wrote:
I dont think its any stretch to imagine that Zardani would not be in any position to get Obama to call off a snatch/kill operation against Bin Laden himself. Cooperation, and keeping the Pakistani government informed need not include giving them any real say or control regarding the matter.

Which makes your entire argument regarding the provision of information trite. If Pakistan would not be given a say in whether or not the operation would be permitted, then they could just as easily have claimed this particular event as another in a long line of sovereignty violations.

you're making a mountain out of molehill. I suspect because you aren't fond of the current President.

Orlanth wrote:
I would not care about the minor discrepencies at all were this not a case where the method and circumstances of death will hold religious implications that can be exploited.

Any possible set of circumstances involving the death of this particular target could be exploited by means of religion.

Orlanth wrote:
It certainly wasn't out of the blue, but aren't you reading trustworthiness the correct way. So far this is an example of Obama not being trustworthy. He initiated operation on foreign soil without any attempt to dialogue with the sovereign nation involved, when the nation was at some level or other an ally of the US.

I fail to see how the fact that the Obama Administration chose not to trust a government that it has not trusted at any point in the past is in any way significant. It wasn't like he snatched the guy out of Britain without notifying David Cameron.

Orlanth wrote:
International political trust is always a carefully measured thing, which is why applying a correct measure to Pakistan is not something that should be alien to the US government.

I doubt that it is, I imagine its merely that what they consider to be the correct measure of trust is very different from what you consider it to be, and given that they possess information which neither you, nor I, do I consider it appropriate to afford them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the erosion of trust has extended beyond the auspices of one administration.

Keep in mind that certain elements of the Pakistani government are just as anti-American as AQ, if not moreso. And not all of these elements have revealed themselves.

That does not mean that ALL of the government is. Just keep in mind, it only takes on leak to create a disaster.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?

I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.

To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.

Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.

You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.

Is it your opinion that Al Quaeda would have shut up shop if Bin Laden had been captured?

I see the UN is rather upset with us now for 'illegaly' taking Bin Laden out. We'll see how that works out.

Orlanth wrote: Trying Obama would have been a far better prize, for a start you get to find out what he knows,

Typo of the week.

Early hustling to fill becks slot eh ? Sly boots you !

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You are misunderstanding the point. The US has tried since to claim that it felt it couldn't bring Pakistan in on the mission for the reasons you have given, that was already understood but sadly irrelevant. because that is not how it is seen, a large question mark over Pakistani government at all levels regarding colluding with al Quaeda is the result. Token cooperation under US supervision was a viable option that avoided the political problems which haver since arisen.

1. That's how you see it. There is an important distinction between the conclusion that you are drawing, and the conclusion that must be drawn based on what has occurred.

If only that were the case. Within a day of the operation the Afghani government were directly accusing Pakistani government of colluding with Al Quaeda based on Obamas decision not to include Pakistan at any level of the operation. Karzai did not mince his words on Tuesday, and one of his generals is now spouting off.



[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/afghanistans-ministry-of-defence-openly-accuses-pakistan-of-knowing-bin-ladens-whereabouts/article2009725/
[/url]

Its a bit off for Afghanistan to accuse Pakistan of having Al quaeda members in the woodwork, but i suppose that is part of the fallout from Obamas gaffe. But I suppose he is alright with that.

dogma wrote:
Since the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, we must conclude that the United States does not trust Pakistan.

Tell thast to Afghanistan, Obamas actions speak louder than the occassional word spoken since not accusing Pakistan of collusion.

dogma wrote:
2: If the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, even in a token sense, it does not follow that they were incorrect to do so.

Actually it does as the US is conducting illegal military operations (no permission sought) on foreign soil to the direct detrement of the country operated in. Very clearly incorrect of them.

dogma wrote:
It isn't that Zardari and his allies aren't willing to cooperate, its that in most instances they aren't able to do so. No amount of trust in the world is going to make the Pakistani executive's control over his armed forces and intelligence services any stronger.

Good reason for the level of cooperation sought to be token.

dogma wrote:
You can't call a state incompetent, and then say its unfair for them to be treated as though they are incompetent. You can say its unwise to expose their incompetence, but I would argue that, with respect to Pakistan, it was hardly a secret.

Shouldn't that also be applied to Obama's foreign policy. Incompetence in this regard is 'no secret' either.

dogma wrote:
Of course not, but using the example of Rashid Rauf, and then claiming that there is concrete evidence to suggest that cooperation is possible, when the available information allows the opposite conclusion as well, is dicey at best.

Not dicey at all, if token cooperation to be sought. All operational control would continue as normal, noone would gainsay Bin Laden/his body going straight into US custody, he wasn't a Pakistani citizen for a start, and its clearly a special case. Bin laden could not escape as Rauf allegedly did if he is dead shot on sight by US troops or chained up in the Carl Vinson one hour after the raid. Operationally, no change, no worries.

dogma wrote:
Which makes your entire argument regarding the provision of information trite. If Pakistan would not be given a say in whether or not the operation would be permitted, then they could just as easily have claimed this particular event as another in a long line of sovereignty violations.

The

dogma wrote:
you're making a mountain out of molehill. I suspect because you aren't fond of the current President.

I am not fond of Obama, but I can think beyond that. Perhaps you cant see past the concept of like or hate the person equals like or hate the policy, perhaps this may be the limit of your thinking but if so speak for yourself, it is no reflection of my own. I am actually in support of one of his policies in another simultaneous thread here.

As for making a mountain out of a molehill. Sorry, its a mountain. Obamas refusal to deal with Pakistan has been used to further damage third party relations between Pakistan and other counties. An avoidable fact.

Remember this is on the back of other ugly incidents such as Raymond Davis' shooting of two Pakistanis in very suspicious circumstances. Incidents like this soiled cooperation between the US and Pakistan, but they would have soiled cooperation just about anywhere. If it happened the other way around you wouldn't be very happy about it. Pakistan is justly concerned about events within its borders.

At first Pakistan assisted with joint operations and helped target airstrikes, however they became increasingly of the opinion that airstrikes do not stop terrorism. A point of view reinforced by experiences elsewhere current and historical (Gaza, Vietnam etc) and due to influence of other armed forces doctrines which also concur with the point of view that airstrikes are largely counterproductive in policing operations (strongly held by most NATO partners outside the US, especially UK and France). Nevertheless the US conducted bombing in Pakistan unilaterally and without warning. Yes this started with Bush, but Obama has reinforced the policy, and you wonder where the trust has gone and question the reliability of the relationship.

Also Pakistan has had to carry the cost of a lot of what Al Quaeda was doing, it ought not to be forgotten that many Pakistani officials pay a heavy price for their assistance. Benazir Bhutto former premier and wife of the current premier was killed in 2007 by Al Quaeda operatives. Zardari is no friend of Al Quaeda, is a target of them and now Obama gives room to indicate that even he cannot be trusted. An unbeleivably stupid gaffe.

dogma wrote:
I fail to see how the fact that the Obama Administration chose not to trust a government that it has not trusted at any point in the past is in any way significant. It wasn't like he snatched the guy out of Britain without notifying David Cameron.

Well you got some bit right; you fail to see. Take a look at the evidence presented right in front of you this week. For a start since the attack some in the White House have been trying to paint Pakistan in a different light. An example:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Clinton-Stresses-Pakistan-Cooperation-After-bin-Laden-Killing--121092289.html

Now either information was given, in which case there is room to say Pakistan is trying to help. Or Obama was 'correct' Pakistan has not been trying to help and Clinton is now lying through her teeth to cover his back.

dogma wrote:
I doubt that it is, I imagine its merely that what they consider to be the correct measure of trust is very different from what you consider it to be, and given that they possess information which neither you, nor I, do I consider it appropriate to afford them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the erosion of trust has extended beyond the auspices of one administration.

Why give Obama the 'benefit of the doubt'? According to the US Secretary of State there is no doubt, Pakistan has assisted the US. They at least have seen what you failed to see, Obamas decision not to involve Pakistan has severely damaged relations. It de facto accuses Zardani of lack of trustworthiness, which has been capitalised upon by opponents, and has reinforced opinions around the world that Obama cannot be trusted either. This is hardly the first time Obama has gained the reputation of having pissed on his allies, and its proabably tiring for people like Clinton to have to constantly mop up after him.

Clearly there is a case to answer, or the White house wouldnt have so much to say on this matter since Monday.

halonachos wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.

Look at how that turned out though, sure the Irish people mostly don't like you(especially those alive during the Black and Tan era)

Which is pretty much no-one, certainly no-one old enough to remember it. And they seem to like us just fine, at least, that's how it seemed when I was there the other week. Couldn't have been friendlier.

In short, you may have hurt feelings that other people don't see Osama's assassination as cause for joyous merry-making, but that isn't reason to go spouting off about a country, and situation, you clearly know absolutely feth all about.

halonachos wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.

Look at how that turned out though, sure the Irish people mostly don't like you(especially those alive during the Black and Tan era) but there's not as many Real IRA fellows around now are there? Besides, you use a country as a slave force for so long and they're bound to retaliate.

You have a talent for overshooting the point in posts. Retaliation is the problem, yes..but many attacks were caused in retaliation to the nature of the retaliation for the retaliation.... That is to say that the treatment of suspects (ie not the guilty per se) by the authorities caused the militants to become more aggressive, not less so. The current peace was not brought about by executing IRA members in their homes with SpecOps. And relations with Irish people on a day to day basis are currently reasonably cordial...as much because the Republic doesn't want the lead weight of a unified but heavily protestant North stuck to it as anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?

I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.

To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.

Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.

You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.

Is it your opinion that Al Quaeda would have shut up shop if Bin Laden had been captured?

No, because that would be a gross over-simplification of the way these things work. And I don't think they will shut up shop because he's been killed either. Its possible that they have been side-lined by recent events in arab nations though, which occurred unrelated to this operation anyway. Finding and "dealing with" Osama may well have done very little on an international scale other than annoy the militants, really annoy the Pakistanis, and damage the view of the USA by outsiders in a different way.

Again its a perspective matter. This event as it has played out simply reinforces the belief that America has one rule for itself and another for everybody else, that America considers the peoples of other nations as unworthy of respect or the rule of law, and makes a mockery of statements that American forces are in various nations to create democracy. These can hardly be a positive result of the event, even if the death of Osama himself is positive for American morale.

reds8n wrote:

Orlanth wrote: Trying Obama would have been a far better prize, for a start you get to find out what he knows,

Typo of the week.

Early hustling to fill becks slot eh ? Sly boots you !

I've seen the same mistake made a lot on the news (I think one of the CNN reporters had a gaffe last night), from both sides of the spectrum.

Plus, who can forget Ted Kennedy's famous "Osama Obama" quote.

Evidently Europe is a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys (who stole my line!)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383802/Cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys-U-S-bloggers-slam-Europeans-muted-reaction-Bin-Laden-killing.html

More linkages of support from within Pakistan for the Now Dead One
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322804576303553679080310.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

How come it is always the US that gets frowned upon for stuff like this? I don't remember Europe making too big of a deal when people were cheering in the streets over 9/11. But of course that was awhile back and my memory isn't what is used to be. And seriously people are complaining about Osama's funeral not being correct? I don't remember him or Al Qaeda having appropriate memorial services for the people they beheaded.

I guess it is more of "we shouldn't go to their level", but it still bother me.

"99 problems but a Bin Laden ain't one".

Europe and the USA, while close allies and all part of the western democratic world, are different cultures.

A lot of people in Europe were as shocked at the “U-S-A! U-S-A!” celebrations as a lot of Americans found it natural to go out and do it. It doesn't mean that everyone in each nation is exactly the same.

Let’s not say that either group is right or wrong about it.

I really think collectively we face great problems and we should be pulling together, not blaming each other for minor annoyances.

On that excellent advice I will close the thread.