

Getting Bin Laden: What happened that night in Abbottabad - AngryParsley
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all

======
davidw
"The owner of the house, who we reached for comment, had been residing in the
UK, and was not aware of current events, and was distraught to discover the
state of the home on his return. 'Between the crashed helicopter, burned
animal stalls, and bullet marks everywhere, I can safely say I will not be
utilizing AirBnB again - the place is completely trashed', Haddad told us"

------
gwern
Points of interest to me:

\- distrust of Pakistan runs high

\- the article is almost coy about how OBL's safehouse was so close to a
military academy and the contacts with another group tightly linked to ISI;
this says to me the sources did not want to discuss anything more than was
already public. (And do keep in mind that this sort of article is usually a
tissue of deliberate leaks, so what is not said is almost as interesting as
what is said. If one were particularly cynical, one might read this into the
general downplaying of the downed chopper, the one major flaw of the
operation.)

\- the Pakistani retaliation with the newspapers was very interesting indeed

\- the dumping-the-body-at-sea thing had precedent! I had not known that. The
Saudi refusal to take the body was also interesting, but in line with the
general public/private dichotomy of their behavior.

\- the bombing suggestion would have been... interesting. All things
considered, the SEAL team does seem like a better idea.

~~~
nate_meurer
I'm also impressed by the lack of trust in the Pakistanis.

By far my favorite MSM reporting on the raid is the WSJ article by Siobhan
Gorman and Julian Barnes, "Spy, Military Ties Aided bin Laden Raid". Google
for the title and you can read the full version from Google's cache.

If the article is to be believed, Barack Obama's role in the planning is quite
impressive. He choose the riskiest of the options offered to him; the military
consensus was leaning toward heavy bombing that would have guaranteed civilian
casualties, but would minimize exposure to U.S. personnel. Apparently, Somalia
still looms large in the memories of military leadership.

Obama took the bombing option off the table completely, and told them to do it
the Hard Way -- sending commandos 128 miles into Pakistan's interior. But the
best part is that Obama explicitly equipped the SEALs to blast their way out
if the raid went bad and Pakistanis showed up shooting. That as opposed to
throwing up their hands and surrendering, and then letting the diplomats try
to arrange their release in the ensuing months (or maybe years; it took us
months to get back one single CIA contractor arrested earlier this year). From
the article:

"Mr. Obama directed Adm. McRaven to develop a stronger U.S. escape plan. The
team would be equipped to fight its way out and would have two helicopters on
stand-by in case of an emergency."

Now that, my friends, is risky. The ways in which this thing could have gone
bad are almost too ugly to contemplate. How could Obama & co. possibly not
have crapped their pants watching the raid live from the white house?

~~~
mturmon
Just to take one of your points farther, I think the beefiness of the escape
plan illustrates how little Obama values the Pakistani relationship. And how
much he wanted OBL, and how much he trusted DEVGRU.

------
arjunnarayan
Amid all this collective celebration, I would like to point out one excerpt
(that nobody seems to have mentioned here) that leaves me disgusted:

"The C.I.A. intensified its intelligence-collection efforts, and, according to
a recent report in the Guardian, a physician working for the agency conducted
an immunization drive in Abbottabad, in the hope of acquiring DNA samples from
bin Laden’s children. (No one in the compound ultimately received any
immunizations.)"

From a global health policy perspective, doctors and campaigners in third
world countries already face huge uphill battles in education and decreasing
fears about vaccinations. It probably isn't amiss to say that in helping fuel
the FUD about vaccinations being a CIA plot, more people have been killed due
to these fears than in acts of terrorism in the last decade.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fallout-from-
the-...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fallout-from-the-cias-
vaccination-ploy-in-pakistan/2011/07/15/gIQASu12GI_story.html)

~~~
yid
There's a huge difference between _vaccinations_ themselves being a CIA plot,
and a _vaccination drive_ being a CIA plot. I have no problem with the latter.

~~~
Goladus
Slightly more important (which isn't saying much) is the difference between
the vaccination drive being a CIA plot and the CIA exploiting its existence.

------
quattrofan
Great article and well written, the thing that struck me the most was the
references to god, he was killed for "god and country", well Osama thought he
was doing his gods work, whose god is right?

Religion is such a giant fail.

~~~
rezaprima
well, both sides claim to protect their own land and people from invasive
other. I don't think there is any religion/ideology that discourage things
like "defending property and people".

~~~
noahc
There is a strain of Christianity called Anabaptist that are pacifist, and do
not believe in using violence or coersion.

~~~
gaius
... And have the freedom to practice their religion because there _are_ people
willing to defend their right to do so, on their behalf.

~~~
wensing
Not true. They practiced it when they were being slaughtered, too.

------
throwaway628
really interesting article, but a few questions:

1) when did it suddenly become ok for the military to shoot unarmed
combatants?

2) if "no one wanted detainees" why weren't the women with usama killed?

3) Is freezing no longer considered a form of surrender (seems especially
relevant when no commands/orders were given to him?

4) why did "no one want detainees"?

~~~
Volpe
When did it come "okay" for governments to send kill squads into another
country?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
When said country is harboring (whether intentionally or ignorantly) an
international terrorist and mass-murderer.

~~~
mcantelon
We believe in rule of law (when convenient).

------
lawnchair_larry
_"For God and country-Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo."_

 _"We should all go to Mass tonight," he said._

That definitely ruins it for me.

~~~
timsally
That's some awfully selective quoting. The Vice President made the comment
about Mass as the troops were getting out of Pakistan safely. Regardless of
whether you agree with the mission, seem's like a pretty reasonable thing to
be thankful for. Religious ceremonies are one way that billions of people
express such feelings of thanks.

~~~
rezaprima
this. And they are thankful for been chosen as the victor side.
Understandable.

~~~
rezaprima
I don't understand. Honest question. Why am I modden down? I'm not an American
nor am I a Christian. Is it just because I understand their point of view even
though I don't agree? FWIW, I am a Muslim, born by a Protestant.

------
martinkallstrom
As a non-native English speaker, I wonder: what's the story behind using
umlauts in the word "coöperating"? Never seen it before.

~~~
philwelch
Technically it's a diaeresis, not an umlaut. It indicates the syllable break
in the word "cooperate". It's not a common thing in written English, but the
New Yorker has a certain writing style that calls for that sort of thing.

~~~
martinkallstrom
You're not joking, here's an extract from the Wikipedia entry [1]:

"Nowadays in English, the diaeresis is normally left out (cooperate), except
by The New Yorker, or a hyphen is used (co-operate). It is, however, still
common in loanwords such as naïve and Noël."

This made me smile. Thanks! :)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus_(linguistics)>

------
zwieback
I was a little surprised that they used wire-link fence in the simulated
compound. Regardless of whether it caused the first helicopter to crash it
seems to me a real wall would have made the training more effective.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that defense contractors have already come up
with quickly deployable simulated walls.

~~~
runjake
I think the article's a bit wrong on that part. DEVGRU, Special Operations
outfits, and even conventional US forces have access to walls and don't use
chain-link simulations.

~~~
bdunbar
Chain-link can be taken down and moved quicker than a standard wall.

This used to be an important factor when you didn't want 'stuff' to be seen by
satellites, needed to setup and take things down quickly.

I don't know if it's still a factor today.

~~~
runjake
It's not. And modular walls are quicker than chain-link. Army SF commonly uses
framed plywood walls with locking, thick metal drop hinges on each side,
roughly how a ranch gate works.

They're modular so that they can be quickly re-arranged, not to hide from
satellites.

------
shawndumas
print version --
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?printable=true&currentPage=all)

------
joejohnson
I'm disappointed in the discussion here. Any comment that remotely alludes to
any information that might contradict the US gov official story is being
downvoted. Why are people resistant to entertain opposing viewpoints on this
story? It seems unscientific (and bad journalistic practice) to rely only on
one source.

~~~
mcantelon
Especially given the number of times the US military has lied to the public.

------
vinodkd
Great article.

I _had_ to comment on this bit, tho:

"ordered sandwich platters from Costco"

Nice to see the White house doesn't splurge willy-nilly :))

------
vegai
"At one point, Biden, who had been fingering a rosary, turned to Mullen, the
Joint Chiefs chairman. “We should all go to Mass tonight,” he said."

Not to ask forgiveness for breaking a commandement, I would wager.

------
pointyhat
We will never know what really happened, just what people want us to know.

~~~
pointyhat
I've been watching this post and the karma on it is up and down like mad.
Peaking at 5, and a low of 1.

It's surprising how many people think that what they are told is the full
picture.

Having worked for a couple of nefarious defence-related organisations over the
years, I've observed that it's quite simply true that propaganda is just as
easy to get into people's minds as facts.

~~~
joejohnson
I am surprised there aren't more comments like the parent comment. Are people
really going to swallow this whole thing without any corroboration by another
source? I guess I can understand that; it's easier to believe what you read.
However, when people (in the comments here) raise objections or have opposing
views than the picture being painted in this article, they are being harshly
downvoted. I would have hoped for more skepticism on HN. :(

~~~
pointyhat
Spot on. I don't get the whole "we dumped the body in the sea" crap. That's
not proof. My children tell better lies.

------
shalinmangar
From the article: "They observed that residents of the compound burned their
trash, instead of putting it out for collection, and concluded that the
compound lacked a phone or an Internet connection."

How do you go from burning trash to lack of phone or internet?

~~~
sambeau
They didn't. Note the use of 'and' not 'therefore'.

------
flipbrad
the US military invades Bin Laden's compound, calmly shoots him, searches the
place, takes his body, disposes it at sea, whilst america's top brass
follows... and the only recording of any of this is two DNA shots and a video
taken from a drone 5km above it all - not even one photo of the face? He's not
even recognisable to the soldiers sent in on the mission, so one has to lie
down next to him as a human ruler (yep - about 4 inches bigger than your are,
Joe!)

Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen.

Also: this article is gloating, snuff pornography that betrays a total lack of
journalistic instinct. When a journalist explicitly makes excuses for
discrepancies in the story he is reporting, rather than examining them, you
know that an article was not worth your time and attention.

~~~
nate_meurer
> "Bollocks. Pics or it didn't happen."

The Obama administration doesn't care whether you or anybody else believes
them. They are clearly not milking this for PR. They said it very simply: we
killed him, we dumped his body in the ocean, no you may not see pictures. Go
ahead and forget about the whole thing.

Edit: grammar

~~~
mcantelon
>The Obama administration doesn't care whether you or anybody else believes
them.

True, they behaved like an unaccountable empire given that 1) Americans have
paid a lot of money to exact revenge on Bin Laden and 2) the hit squad
operation was illegal under international law.

