Why Did It Take So Long to Find Bin Laden?
Introduction
Aamir Qureshi/Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images
The house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden had been living for the last few years.
In 2005, when asked why the United States had been unsuccessful in locating Osama bin Laden, President Bush said, "Because he's hiding."
Why did it take nearly a decade to find Bin Laden? Some analysts note that counterterrorism forces were diverted as early as 2002 to prepare for the American war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Others say that American diplomats were too soft on the Pakistanis. Was it the difficult nature of obtaining accurate intelligence that allowed him to elude American forces, or were other factors involved?
___
Why Did It Take So Long to Find Bin Laden?
The Iraq war diverted counterterrorism forces. The Pakistanis were obstructive. Or was it also just bad luck?
Where Luck Comes In
Updated May 3, 2011, 04:51 PM
Paul R. Pillar is a professor of security studies at Georgetown University and the author of "Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy." He had a 28-year career in the U.S. intelligence community; his last position was National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia.
Osama Bin Laden and his supporters had used — at least since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 — all the operational security measures at their disposal to stay out of sight and at large. This has included, especially when he was still in Afghanistan, frequent movements, rarely sleeping in one place more than a couple of nights in a row and always staying at least a step ahead of anyone trying to follow his trail.
It has included, especially when he was in Pakistan, the support and concealment offered by sympathetic local populations. Most important, it has involved discipline in simply not letting out any signals or signatures — visual, technical, or otherwise — that would be collectible by anyone not already in Bin Laden's inner circle. And given the tests of trustworthiness that are required, penetration of such an inner circle is virtually impossible.
The manhunt for Bin Laden was not a straightforward matter of trying hard enough, and using good enough skill, to collect good enough intelligence. Given the nature and impenetrability of the target, it always depended on a lucky break or a slip-up by the quarry, which from our point of view is another form of luck. It was impossible to predict when such a break might occur. It could just as easily have occurred five years ago as this week, but it also could just as easily not have occurred for another five years from now.
Another form of operational security used by Bin Laden and his group was the avoidance of electronic communications that could be intercepted by Western intelligence services. This meant reliance on couriers. Ultimately the identification of a courier was what brought the United States to Bin Laden's hide-out, but that also required luck, as well as several years of trying to develop further information.
The challenges in finding Bin Laden, and the tools and techniques available to try to find him, have not fundamentally changed through the years. What changed since the 1990s is a willingness to use U.S. military force directly to kill him.
QUOTE
The manhunt for Bin Laden was not a straightforward matter of trying hard enough and using good enough skill.
END QUOTE
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
Topics: Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Terrorism, World
__________
70 Readers' Comments
All CommentsHighlightsReader Recommendations RepliesOldest | Newest of 4 Next
1. Jmaximus
Detroit, MI
May 4th, 2011 3:51 am
Dan Rather reported on CBS that Bin Laden was admitted to a Pakistani hospital on 9/10. His mansion was just yards from the Pakistan version of West Point. The CIA admits they watched his home for over 8 months. I feel we knew where he was, or knew how to find him all along. For Bush keeping him alive was very useful as a straw man to further his war ambitions. For Obama this seals his re-election and marginalizes Trump [and any other republican]. Very convenient timing. Not a conspiracy, just a well know fact that government doesn't always tell the truth, or at least all of it.
Now that he is dead though, Bush's claims that he was in league with Saddam, who had WMD's just seems like such an obvious lie, and it is clear the problems in Afghanistan are are a civil war and have nothing to do with terrorism or Bin Laden. There is no reason to keep those 50,00 troops [and 100,00 contractors] in Iraq, or the 100,000 troops [plus contractors] in Afghanistan. If we can't afford helping the sick, old, or poor/unemployed then by all means we can't afford these unnecessary immoral wars one day longer.
Mr. Obama, bring those troops home!
(to be continued .. )
No comments:
Post a Comment