By Tyrus W. Cobb
The Reno Gazette Journal, May 8, 2011
The modified MH-60 helicopters lifted off from a US base in eastern Afghanistan last Sunday, bound for a heavily guarded mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just 35 miles north of the capital, Islamabad. Aboard were members of the elite Special Operations Command (SOCOM) forces, the famed Navy “SEAL Team 6”. Their mission—to capture, or more likely, to kill, the long sought leader of Al Qaeda and the mastermind of the 9/11 strikes against the World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden (OBL).
The helicopters were in essence stealth counterparts of the more well known F-22 and F-117 fighters and B-2 bomber. Equipped with advanced radar-avoidance and suppression equipment, the helos ferried the Navy SEALs in undetected by Pakistani air defenses and penetrated the heavily guarded compound. SEAL Team 6 seized the building floor by floor, killing 22 and finding Osama himself on the third floor in bed with a lady who was likely his 5th wife.
Bin Laden resisted and fulminated, unarmed but with an AK-47 and pistol within reach. He was shot twice, once in the head, and the mythical leader of the Islamic Jihad was dead. Presumably by now OBL is with the fabled 72 virgins in heaven.
One helo malfunctioned and had to be destroyed, apparently because it had too much weight to navigate in the narrow compound. There are photos circulating of the heavily modified Blackhawk chopper with highly unusual design characteristics never seen before (except to those who may have seen them in test missions in the Nevada desert!). The SEALs seized numerous computers and associated equipment and at least one hostage, and got them and the team out on the other choppers.
The U.S. considered other alternatives, ranging from a B-2 strike, a cruise missile assault, or a Predator unmanned drone. None would have brought proof of the charismatic leader’s demise. An insertion of DELTA or SEALs could capture or kill Osama, but that was an extremely risky alternative. CIA Director Leon Panetta said many of his Agency operatives worried about a repeat of the disastrous “Desert One” failed hostage rescue operation in the Carter Administration.
The Joint Special Operations Command team, composed of elements from the Army and Navy, carried out the operation without a glitch. They killed or neutralized OBL’s security team and suffered no casualties. Brilliantly conducted!
Did the White House and the CIA want Osama Bin Laden taken alive?
Bin Laden was killed in the assault when he apparently refused capture. Some critics have suggested that the killing was in violation of the laws of warfare. Nonsense, bin Laden was a combatant, there was a fierce firefight in the house—floor by floor encounters—he resisted capture, and was killed. Unless you were in that hostile environment, in the middle of the night, and with confusion reigning—don’t try to second guess the SEALs.
He certainly was given more of an opportunity to surrender than were the nearly 3,000 killed on 9/11! He was certainly given a more proper burial than were many of those killed in the World Trade Center. Shed no tears!.
Some have speculated in the media that this was a “kill only” mission. (One wag said the phrase the team most repeated was, “He resisted!”.) Maybe, makes sense. Can you imagine the circus that would have emanated from a Nuremburg-type show trial? His every word a rallying call for the Jihadists? Either way, we are far better off with OBL dead.
The burial was also run with precision and in accordance with Islamic tradition and traditional decorum. The body was identified, cleansed, and prepared for burial wrapped in white cloth. His personal effects were gathered. The body was transferred to a military vessel and buried at sea.
Deep sea burial was also appropriate and I make no allusion to him serving as shark fodder here. Having OBL buried on land somewhere could have created a shrine, a Mecca for terrorists.
The Administration has also decided, at least for now, not to release the photos of the dead and badly disfigured bin Laden. Another good decision—no sense having revolting pictures also serve as a platform for anti-American sensibilities, especially in the Muslim world.
Where does credit belong for this successful operation?
The much maligned Intelligence community for starters. Yes, we can all say that taking 10 years to locate such a well known figure is a serious black mark. And to have him turn up in a mansion near the capital and next door to the Pakistani military academy, instead of living a harsh life in a dark cave in the tribal areas. Not good.
However, once the intelligence was secured, the cooperation between the CIA, the JSOC, the National Security Agency, and the National Geospatial Agency, was superb. And having gained confidence that we knew where bin Laden was located, the CIA’s paramilitary forces and the Special Operations teams conducted numerous training exercises to hone their skills for the assault, which was conducted perfectly.
So how did we gain the critical intelligence? Well, the trail begins at Guantanamo, where harsh interrogation (yes, including waterboarding) techniques led to information that the key to finding OBL was to track the movements of his most trusted couriers, the top one being Al-Kuwaiti. While some feel these interrogation measures helped but were not critical, I would disagree. The information obtained by these harsh measures was, indeed, critical.
Pakistan—Trusted Ally or Duplicitous Adversary?
It is inconceivable that Pakistani intelligence could be so incompetent not to know that Osama bin Laden had been residing for years in an affluent suburb not far from the capital. Clearly that was the conclusion American officials had reached, since they took extensive measures not to inform the Paks that they knew of OBL’s whereabouts and certainly not that they intended to raid the house he was living in. Leon Panetta was most blunt, saying, “It was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets”.
Such distrust will have important ramifications, for a relationship that had already been subject to numerous fissures. Having said that, the fact is that we remain deeply dependent on the Paks for logistical, intelligence and counter-terrorism cooperation. Our primary lines of communication and resupply to Afghanistan run through the country and we have few alternatives to those routes. We need the Paks to deny safe havens and sanctuaries to the Taliban and other insurgents, a mission Islamabad has undertaken with mixed results. We need the Pak intelligence agency—the ISI—to stop nurturing terrorist groups, whether targeted on India or on US forces. That hasn’t gone real well either.
And we need to consider the consequences of Pakistan, with more than 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, becoming another failed state.
Pakistan, in turn, regards the US as a fickle friend, one that will turn against them as soon as this conflict is over, as we did after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. We dropped them like a hot potato then, and again when they became a nuclear power, and Islamabad feels that we will have no hesitation in abandoning them in favor of a closer relationship with India. They are probably right.
What is the Impact on President Obama and his Counter-Terrorism Policies?
The highly dangerous but very successful operation has provided the President with a major bump in the polls, but then so did Desert Storm for President George H.W. Bush back in 1991. He then lost the 1992 election to the relatively unknown Bill Clinton, because of “The Economy, Stupid”! If gas and food prices continue to rise and unemployment remains high, the bump provided by this incursion will not last long.
The operation also highlighted what many observers haven’t appreciated—how aggressive Obama and his national security team have become in conducting the “war on terrorism”. The “national-building, population-centric, drink three cups of tea” approach to combating the Afghan insurgency has given way to a more “kinetic” and highly risky strategy. Obama, and especially Panetta, have been relying increasingly on special operations and paramilitary forces. The Administration has dramatically increased the number of drone attacks, against militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and has killed more than 1500 top insurgent leaders.
Some critics say the Obama team prefers to kill insurgents rather than capture and interrogate them, and have charged that the use of armed drones against these individuals amounts to “targeted assassinations”.
And there have been civilian casualties, albeit nothing like the Taliban likes to claim. Despite the best efforts of the operators, there have been instances of “collateral damage”—including the deaths of innocent civilians.
Obama has decided to keep the Guantanamo prison open, reversing a campaign promise, a wise choice considering there is really no alternative. The Obama administration also halted what threatened to be a witch hunt against intelligence community interrogators, a move that provided great relief for Agency personnel involved in the “harsh interviews”. Score a big win here for Panetta over AG Eric Holder!
Will the death of Osama bin Laden lead to accelerated withdrawals?
For the short term the operation will defuse the growing frustration with the seemingly endless conflict in Afghanistan. That will be short lived. The removal of bin Laden will be considered a major transition point. On the one hand the operation will enhance US prestige in the region. This will allow the President to argue that the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces can proceed on schedule, because such a drawdown will be conducted “from a position of strength”.
For Al Qaeda, the bin Laden era is over and whatever influence he exerted from his comfortable bedroom will be only a memory. The global Jihadist movement will have lost a charismatic figure, but the truth is that the Al Qaeda that OBL oversaw essentially has been a spent force for years.
The anti-American and anti-democratic forces in the Islamic regions remain strong, however, and while lacking a central controlling organ, are increasingly powerful in the Arab world. The challenge will be to assist the nascent democratic revolutions now taking place, while preventing the better organized and more ideological forces from seizing power as the traditional autocracies fade away.
There will be no respite for the forces of good!
–Tyrus W. Cobb served as Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan for National Security Affairs from 1983-89. COL/Dr. Dick Hobbs also contributed to this article.