Reviews - Books I Read - DRJG: January 2023

................................................................................................

OPERATION GERONIMO: THE BETRAYAL

AND EXECUTION OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

AND ITS AFTERMATH,

by Shaukat Qadir.

................................................................................................

After one has watched Zero Dark Thirty, it's difficult to imagine what else one could be told by anyone about capture of OBL or UBL.

But this account begins way before, and goes through problems the organisation faced, in regard yo him and his leadership, to begin with - and the need of shifting him.

Thereafter, author spends a good amount of space giving descriptions of just why nobody in government of Pakistan had a clue that this was right under their nose, making it seem reasonable.

Fact remains that if this is true, intelligence in Pakistan remains completely incompetent regarding security of home ground, and amounts merely to conducting terrorism against neighbours, but cannot protect the nation'sown children - as obviousby, not only Malala shot by terrorists, but a far bigger example, namely, the massacre of over a hundred and fifty schoolboys and teachers in Peshawar, and that in a schoolthat had children of Pakistan Military personnel as students.

................................................................................................

The main contention of the author seems to be to the effect that US and CIA couldn't possibly have found OBL, without assistance - which, according to him, includes not only cooperation from paki intelligence, but active betrayal by a woman of the OBL household, specifically, a wife OBL had discarded (but neither divorced nor refused permission to stay in the house with him)!

This he presents as not merely a guess but as a proven thesis, except - it's not proved, at all, much less beyond all possible other alternatives.

His reasoning is limited, chiefly, to questioning why all adult males of the OBL household were killed, why adult females were not killed, nor house swept clean of all weapons.

Needless to say, his reasoning can only make a watertight case for the limited readership contained within his own nation and creed.

................................................................................................

"While the official account states that all Americans in the Black Hawk which crashed escaped unscathed. There is however, an eyewitness account, by a Muhammed Bashir, who (reportedly resided opposite the house where OBL was executed and his cousin was (supposedly) employed as a gardener by Arshad (Bara Pathan), which contradicts this[45]. Readers will note that this version is in accord with Pfarrer’s version (and my view) in that, the Blackhawk crashed while taking off, not landing----a former Navy SEAL, who claims to have “the inside track”.

"According to this eyewitness who granted this interview on the evening of May 4th, he witnessed the entire event and saw the only helicopter that landed and that it actually crashed, not while landing but on takeoff, after taking on board all the SEALS that had landed. He claims to have seen the helicopter catch fire with all passengers inside and bits and pieces of human bodies lying around. Not only does Pfarrer’s version bear this out; it is also a more probable explanation based on simple aerodynamics; as I explained earlier."

Is this an attempt by author to provide some balm to the injured pride of pakis in solidarity with Islamic jihadists and consequent global terrorism inflicted thereby? To them, US personnel escaping unscathed must have been a major affront, and a helicopter crash killing all SEALs within would obviously be a balm, as evidence of punishment by their God, even if not a retaliation by any muslims.

Obviously if his contention were correct, US personnel must have spent time fetching the dead US SEALs, and transporting them off, after the said crash. That this happened according to him after they had finished the execution, and were leaving, leaves a question - fid the execution finish within five minutes of landing?

Obviously that's ridiculous. But equally obviously, bodies of US SEALs were not left behind, nor were any body parts thereof, so the whole operation being executed swiftly enough to thereafter leaving time for collecting and carting off bodies of SEALs could only mean that US SEALs were handed over what they were looking for as soon as they landed, and the actual attack was by paki personnel, whether of military or intelligence - or paki terrorists such as taliban!

................................................................................................

"This version of numerous small charges also explains why, while the Blackhawk was destroyed, it did not take much effort to put the fire out, even before the arrival of the fire brigade. Locals neighboring Arshad’s house all agree that within minutes of the crash, while other helicopters were departing, a mobile police van was the first to arrive at the scene, at around 1:00 am May 2nd. The timing also seems consistent with my conclusion that the helicopter crashed while taking off, not on landing. Moreover, if the Blackhawk crashed before the actual operation commenced, and the operation lasted 20 minutes thereafter, it is unbelievable that patrolling police vehicles in this close vicinity of the military academy, and/or the QRF located in the academy would have failed to reach the location, in response to the sound of the crash, while the operation was still in progress and, surely, some sort of fire-fight would have been inevitable; which did not occur."

On the contrary, it's the Zero Dark Thirty version that's most consistent. The crash at arrival was only damaging enough to guarantee no possible liftoff, hence its scuttling before SEALs left, with time enough for a separate helicopter to be called for and it's arrival in time to depart with the other helicopter and SEALs.

................................................................................................

"As expected, the domestic fury broke. Irrespective of the international furor, the people of Pakistan and the domestic media was baying for blood. Understandably, the focus was on the army chief and the ISI. All that Kiyani achieved between 2007 and 2011 was lost in those few hours. Needless to say, the western media, led by the US was also having a field day. Kiyani and his team decided to accept the accusation of “incompetence” rather than “complicit” and the army chief accompanied by the DG ISI went before parliament to accept full responsibility. If they thought that this would put an end to the domestic furor, they were mistaken. While the uproar has diminished with time, Kiyani still has a long climb to the pedestal he was on, till before the early hours of May 2nd and, in fact, may never get there again!"

Does the author intend to imply that reality was complicity, rather than ignorance?

And in that case, was this complicity in the terrorists as usual, this time amounting to awareness of OBL’s whereabouts in Abbottabad, and the implied implicit protection, under the assumption that US wouldn't look at, much less dare do more, to a nondescript house, with no visible security, situated within walking distance of paki West Point?

................................................................................................

"It might also be worth narrating an incident which, though not directly connected to this narrative, might provide further insight and lend credence to my contention in the article quoted above. Sometime back, probably June 2011, I posted an article on Facebook by the British Analyst, Anatol Lieven, it was the one titled, “A mutiny grows in Punjab”[49]. I know Anatol slightly and consider him a very balanced individual; among those few analysts who try to understand the psycho-social environments and the dynamics of the peoples and country he writes about. His article essentially suggested, quite politely, that US policies towards Pakistan and Afghanistan needed to be changed."

Of course, pakis would "consider him a very balanced individual", the more so the more he inclines towards a blind pro-paki world-view.

"Among those who posted a comment is an American analyst who will remain unidentified because I am indebted to him and refuse to embarrass him. He is usually a level-headed, sensible person. However, on this occasion, while admitting that he had not actually read through the article, he posted an astonishing remark which read something like this, “let me put this in the simplest possible language for you to understand. The American administration has reached the conclusion that the Pakistan army is a part of the problem, not the solution. That the Pakistan Army’s interests are not identical with those of Pakistan and, therefore, the US has decided that it (Pakistan Army) must be cut to size. And, if in doing so, it is destroyed, so be it; and I agree with this conclusion”! This arrogance was so uncharacteristic of the author, that I was astonished: The US has decided…..that Pakistan Army has to be cut down to size”! And, therefore, the US will do this favor to the Pakistani people by cutting it down to size and destroying it, if necessary, so as to secure the interests of Pakistan, which are not identical with the interests of the army!"

It's perfectly acceptable when US paid hundreds of billions of dollars, while pakis cheated on every possible decent expectation such as accounting or honesty, but the moment US decides that pakis must change, it's suddenly not kosher?

"His comment also serves to lend credence to my contention that the US decision to undertake Operation Geronimo unilaterally was also a deliberate attempt to undermine and embarrass GHQ/ISI. Maybe he really knew what he was talking about! Op Geronimo almost succeeded in destroying the army’s image; and explaining why it failed to ultimately achieve this end would require another lengthy analysis; ... "

As usual, pakis overestimate their importance to US, and think that execution of OBL was only to embarass pakis!

................................................................................................

"From the moment I heard Obama’s speech on May 2nd, I was convinced that if the person executed in Abbottabad that fateful day was OBL, he had to have been sold out; it was a set-up! However, my conclusion at that time was based on erroneous premises; since it was based on the Obama announcement that he was killed “after a brief firefight”. The statement implied armed guards. I found it unimaginable that OBL with armed guards could remain undetected in Abbottabad, for any length of time, without coming to the attention of intelligence agencies (since, unlike many other Pakistanis, I did not buy the refrain of “complicit or incompetent”) ... "

Because a betrayal would prove that pakis were neither, somehow?

" ... and, I found it inexplicable that OBL, if he needed armed guards, should expose himself so far from his safe haven(s) among tribal Pashtuns; which is the more natural habitat for him. Following the American media and the numerous official flip-flops of the “official” US versions,... "

What "flip-flops of the “official” US versions"?

Were there some just for pakis?

Remaining world got just one, of course - the US marines (or SEALs) went in, in low-lying helicopters, executed the mission, and left before the pakis vould apprehend them; the world watched as pakis were too shocked to react when informed, and the world understood - perfectly - just why!

Paki embarrassment at being caught with OBL in paki military backyard, not tribal wilderness, and being seen as both complicit with terrorism but incompetent at protecting them from swiftly executed action by US forces, was no different from that of Goebbels telling Molotov in midst of a bombing raid by RAF that Berlin was perfectly safe, and an exasperated Molotov asking point blank "so why are we hiding in this shelter, and whose bombs are these that are falling around us?"

" ... I began to be increasingly skeptical as to whether it was OBL who was executed or that, in fact any “high value target” was executed. There was no body; no photograph; merely an assertion shortly after the event that DNA tests confirmed that it was the body of OBL."

Yes, pakis have for now over a decade asserted - on internet - that there's no evidence OBL was there, much less dead.

But then, by the commonly and aggressively asserted - on internet - paki logic, the only possible knowledge for anyone is number of one's digits! All else, as per paki aggressive stance on internet, is questionable as someone else's testimony, or matter of faith and thus either defended via killings if theirs, or horribly abused if that of others'.

................................................................................................

"There are also numerous skeptics in the US who assert that OBL died in 2001; others that no DNA test could have been conducted in such a short interval. Then, of course there were the flip-flops in the “official” US version of all that transpired that night. And, please remember that we all saw the media showing Obama, Clinton et al, watching the actual raid (supposedly) live as it was occurring. How come so many contradictions? There was a firefight; there wasn’t. He was armed; he wasn’t. He hid behind his wife; he didn’t. His son was killed; he wasn’t. OBL was shot in the head; he was shot in the eye. He had been photographed and those photographs of his dead body would be shown; they wouldn’t be shown. And the biggest one of them all: after his capture, CDs and the desktop recovered from his house indicated that, not only was he active but was, in fact planning further attacks on American citizens; soon after, though; no, he wasn’t; actually Zawahiri had been in command of Al-Qaida for some years past[50]!"

A list of disagreements and bickering of a couple prior to conception of a child foes not negate the existence of the child after its birth, does it? The author's logic above suggests it does!

................................................................................................

"And finally, why the unseemly haste with which he was buried in the sea? Even if it was out of respect for Muslim traditions that he be buried within twenty four hours and it was not desirable to bury him on land, lest he be glorified, there were enough hours available for western journalists to be flown in to photograph him and witness his burial? Everything seemed to have been done in a manner so as to ensure that there were too many questions left unanswered; leaving as much space for conspiracy theorists as possible."

No, it was deliberately done so as to make any public claim and exhibition of martyrdom out of question.

................................................................................................

" ... Khalid, OBL’s son, was highly suspicious of Khairee’s joining them in Abbottabad. Apparently, he repeatedly asked her why she had come and, finally on one occasion, Khairee responded with a smile, “I have one final duty to perform for my husband”.

"According to Amal, when Khalid heard Khairee’s comments, he rushed to his father, repeated Khairee’s words, and expressed the concern that she would betray him. Since they were speaking in Arabic, a language in which many words have diverse meanings and, therefore, difficult to translate, OBL’s response can only be a rough translation. Apparently he gazed into the distance, sightlessly for a few moments and then articulated slowly and emotionally, “so be it. It would be a favor, wouldn’t it; putting me out of my misery? And that is a wife’s duty[51]”!

"Following this incident, he frequently asked Amal and Seeham to leave, taking the children and grandchildren with them, but they refused repeatedly and insisted on staying[52]."

This, to the author, constitutes proof of betrayal by a wife.

................................................................................................

"I also learnt of the critically important role played by the gentleman called Shakeel Afridi and his female assistant. In the process of the investigation following OBL’s execution, the ISI discovered his role. And, of course, I also learnt of the only visitors who came to Arshad’s house in the summer of 2010."

"Shakeel Afridi was a doctor by profession and had been the Medical Superintendant of the Khyber Agency, to which he belonged. He was later sacked for inefficiency and recruited by CIA. He was initially told to run a fake campaign for testing people’s blood to find out who was suffering from Hepatitis. He was told to start this campaign in February/March 2011 (at about the same time that Khairee, OBL’s eldest wife, arrived in Abbottabad) and was told to focus on Bilal Town and Nawan Shehr area. Bilal Town is where OBL was residing and you might recall that Nawan Shehr was where Al-Libi was hiding in 2004. This makes it obvious that, in March 2011, the CIA had no idea of exactly where Al-Kuwaiti (or Khairee) was. If that is who they were looking for, though Shakeel had no idea of whom or what he was looking for. He was merely paid to follow instructions."

On the contrary, Zero Dark Thirty makes it clear that this campaign was just to get evidence that the house they had zeroed on, due to the courier and secrecy, indeed did house OBL, and wasn't another as some US personnel questioned.

................................................................................................

Author discourses again over his thesis, extensively.

"• I start with the incident which initiated the investigation (according to my narrative); the voluntary disclosures by Arshad, which initiated MI investigation and started the ball rolling. I just cannot understand why he should do so, unless he wanted OBL found. If so, he could not have done so, without a definite go-ahead from Zwahiri and the Shoora. I again remind you of Obama’s words, when he announced OBL’s execution, now long forgotten; “It is important to note that our counter terrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound he was hiding in”!

"• Then there is the appearance of the mysterious car in summer 2010. Who should visit OBL when he was in such successful isolation for five years, and why? Now the following bit is pure conjecture, based merely on the question I have raised and the embarrassed and irritated response of the ISI officer I asked about it! Is it possible that when Arshad’s voluntary disclosures did not elicit the reaction expected by Al-Qaida, someone in the hierarchy decided to visit and check on whether OBL was improving and, having ascertained that he hadn’t, decided to consult the Shoora on whether and how the process of OBL’s discovery and elimination by CIA could be expedited?"

So the author's idea, thesis, et al, amounts to a single contention - that US, CIA, was merely used by pakis and islamic terrorists organisations as no more than a tool, you execute their own mission, namely, getting rid of a now senile leader?

Was it so inconvenient to use medical knowledge and let word slip that he had, say, a deadly cancer? There are, after all, well trained doctors within the organisation, even apart from indigenous knowledge. Why the convoluted route of using US and CIA, which could have resulted differently?

................................................................................................

"• If the latter question could be answered in the affirmative; then could it also be that the release of Khairee and her children was a later addition to the release of Ghaith, in return for the Iranian diplomat, Atherzadeh? And, as I stated earlier, was Khairee retained by Attiya to reassure OBL and, when he asked that she be allowed to join him, could it be that she was taught a simple code in English, a code that was (perhaps) leaked to the CIA?

"• If this question can also be answered in the affirmative, even partially and conditionally; everything else falls very neatly into place. After all, given his mental and physical deterioration, it is possible that OBL might not even have been aware of the kidnapping of the Iranian, Atherzadeh, or of the negotiations for his release in exchange for Ghaith. He might even have been unaware of where Khairee and her children were."

Why is betrayal by a discarded wife more acceptable, to the author, than a nation, US, victimised by terrorists, capturing the criminal? Is the former more manly, along lines of a pet biting inexplicably?

................................................................................................

"• Shakeel beginning his investigative research, for DNA comparison in February/March 2011, just after Khairee rejoined OBL, but he was given a broad area to research in----- a huge area; which clearly indicates that the CIA was still digging, without knowing Arshad’s (Al-Kuwaiti’s) actual location. Suddenly, in late April, he was told to focus on just one house and, on the 26th of April, he was provided a cell number but instructed to ask his female assistant to make the call and speak in English. Obviously, the CIA was aware that the only female in the house who could converse in English was Khairee."

No, that's not obvious at all, unless there's a law that only women at home can speak with a female caller on telephone, even if the conversation is about medical check-up for the whole household. It's far from obvious that males in Pakistan wouldn't speak to females, especially over telephone, in particular regarding important decisions such as medical check-up for the household, and leave the decision to a female just because the caller is female.

................................................................................................

"• Whether or not, Khairee transmitted in code, it is more than likely that CIA had her voice tape available for a voice match. Far more likely that they had hers than Al-Kuwaiti’s. And the cell number they had obtained was Tariq’s not Arshad’s (Al-Kuwaiti’s); a fact confirmed by Arshad’s wife. In which case, the “trusted courier” who led the CIA to OBL’s lair was indeed Khairee, not Al-Kuwaiti."

No, the consistency of Zero Dark Thirty is far more believable, chiefly due to its being free of prejudice, including the deadly misogyny this author presents.

"• So, on April 26th 2011, the CIA could have located the house where Khairee was hiding, but with considerable help. Even if all that her conversation with Shakeel provided to the CIA was a “voice match”. With the high-tech ELINT available to them, it would be a matter of just a few hours for the CIA to determine the number of residents, the layout of the house, and who slept where. Since OBL was probably immobile, they may not have been able to get a glimpse of him, but could identify his bedroom by identifying where Amal slept."

All those matters are far more satisfactory in Zero Dark Thirty.

................................................................................................

"• It is possible that if the operative Al-Qaida leadership did actually decide on a more permanent “retirement” for OBL, that they could have found a way of communicating directly with the CIA. However, and once again, this is pure conjecture based on the relatively more active intelligence contacts that ISI has, particularly among Afghan Taliban than does the CIA, it would be far more likely, convenient, and less time consuming for Al-Qaida to route its “leaks” through Taliban contacts to the ISI, for onward routing to CIA, than attempt to create links with CIA."

In short, US couldn't have done it unless willed by- and even then only as tool of - islamic terrorists?

"• That would explain why Tariq’s cell number was provided to them, rather than Arshad’s. Tariq was by far the more visible of the two brothers and the ISI was unaware that Arshad was Al-Kuwaiti. From Tariq to Khairee, to Arshad (Kuwaiti) and (perhaps) OBL. Thus the CIA uncertainty even as Operation Geronimo was launched, that the “high value target” in Arshad’s house was actually OBL or some other important Al-Qaida operative."

One, a shortfall of ISI need not necessarily imply one in CIA, and CIA might have known better. Two, the lack of certainty about identification of OBL can only indicate lack of an actual mole.

................................................................................................

"• This also fits in with my earlier explanation as to why Arshad and Tariq did not pick up their weapons. Perhaps they expected that when Arshad’s voluntary disclosures began to result in the ISI/CIA closing in, they would be warned. Perhaps the passage of almost three years since Arshad’s disclosures lulled them into believing that Pakistani intelligence had failed to pick up the lead. Perhaps the visitors in 2010 also reassured them, while having decided that the two brothers were also expendable now. And, if Khairee was the one who actually led the CIA to OBL’s hideout, something I find increasingly convincing, in all likelihood, Arshad was aware of the role she was to play. Consequently, even while checking on the low sound of a hovering helicopter, neither brother chose to arm himself, because they were expecting an attack but were confident that they were safe."

Or something far more natural, namely, they were not used to waking suddenly and unexpectedly, and were sleepy, not instantly alert.

Now author uses terminology meaninglessly.

"• I therefore conclude that: a) neither ISI nor CIA had any knowledge of who was residing in that house till early March 2011. ... "

It's hardly a conclusion from above, even if the previous points were valid in the first place!

And again, he implicitly affirms the conjunction he's set up in his mind, entirely due yo his own prejudices.

" ... While the ISI was vaguely suspicious by mid to late 2010, it had no idea of the significance of their suspicions. Further that b) in February/March 2011, Al-Qaida approached the ISI through ISI’s trusted Taliban contacts, regarding the sell-out of OBL and, after consulting GHQ and CIA a deal was struck in which the reward would be shared by all conduits with a sizeable portion trickling through to Al-Qaida; c) in late April, the exact house was pointed out through the same conduits, along with Tariq’s cell phone number; d) the call on April 26th, confirmed Khairee’s presence in the house in question thus, by implication, confirming OBL’s presence along with Al-Kuwaiti’s; e) the CIA spent the period between April 26th and May 2nd to keep the house under surveillance, find the location of each resident, and establish any pattern that might exist to the life-style of the residents; ... "

None of which is justified as a conclusion, or anything except an unfounded prejudice.

" ... f) the probable agreement between ISI and CIA was for a joint operation but the CIA decided to go it alone with the dual purpose of embarrassing GHQ/ISI and ensure the execution of OBL, Khalid, Al-Kuwaiti, and his brother. Bushra and the injured females; Amal and Maryam were “collateral damage."

Again, author overestimated importance of pakis in US.

................................................................................................

"OBL’s death may have left numerous questions unanswered as far as Americans were concerned, but created no domestic upheaval. On the other hand, in Pakistan, this incident has created an upheaval which is ongoing and only time will tell where, when, and how it will end. On October 19th 2011, Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American business tycoon, wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times, FT, titled, ‘Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadist Spies’. In this op-ed, essentially building on Admiral Mike Mullen’s testimony before the US Senate, he indicted Pakistan’s premier spy agency, the ISI. However, his indictment was based on the fact that immediately following OBL’s execution, he was contacted by a “senior diplomat known to have close ties with Zardari (Pakistan’s President)”, and was asked to convey a memo to Admiral Mullen for the US President, Obama which, in effect made numerous promises of how far Zardari, who apprehended a military coup in the blowback from OBL’s execution, was prepared to go to obtain assurance of US exerting pressure on Pakistan’s military chief to prevent a possible military take-over[56]! ... "

How exactly was he going to or planning to do that, is left unsaid by every link of that chain!

" ... Now, the “senior diplomat known to have close ties to Zardari” was generally accepted as implicating Hussain Haqqani, our Ambassador to the US, whose wife is certainly a US citizen, and he is popularly believed to be one also; which he denies. Even if he isn’t, during his tenure, Haqqani was fondly referred to in DC circles as “The US Ambassador to Pakistan, in DC”."

"In his op-ed, Mansoor Ijaz, did not specify all that the memo promised, except for two items: that the ISI’s “S Branch”, an unknown branch which is supposedly titled “Strategic” and is allegedly the one that runs anti-US operations in Afghanistan, would be disbanded and that a “new Security Team” emplaced; one more pliant to US, manned by those “known to have close ties to the US and its intelligence agencies”! ... "

Notice the important part of that - an admission, however inadvertent, but explicit, that there has existed an "ISI’s “S Branch”, an unknown branch which is supposedly titled “Strategic” and is allegedly the one that runs anti-US operations in Afghanistan", and not merely an inability of Pakistan regime to control the terrorism in Afghanistan and deadly assaults against US personnel.

" ... Furthermore, the undisclosed additional promises made by Zardari in that memo intended for Obama, the existence of which was denied by all and sundry, including Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, and, initially, even Admiral Mullen, were generally believed, by Pakistani analysts, to include a voluntary roll-back of its nuclear program. Similar overtures of assurance to the US had (allegedly) been made in the ‘90s by his wife, Benazir Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, but had been shot down by the then army chief, Gen Waheed Kakar[57].

................................................................................................

"It is also worth pointing out that in the wake of numerous official denials of the allegations made by Ijaz (denials that no one in Pakistan believed), during a political rally in Lahore by Imran Khan, an emerging political force on the Pakistani horizon, Khan also sought a judicial inquiry of Ijaz’s allegations; since, if true, Zardari’s actions certainly border the seditious, if not treasonable acts under Pakistani law. This immediately resulted in a demand from Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, that proof of these allegations be produced. Mansoor Ijaz responded to this challenge with alacrity. His response was detailed and very powerful and effectively silenced all government spokespersons[58]."

Is the author saying that ISI not attacking US is against Pakistan law?

................................................................................................

"Then suddenly Admiral Mullen regained his memory! He had received the memo but had ignored it. Gen James Jones also spoke up. He had conveyed the memo, personally to Mullen and, then the memo in its entirety was leaked to a blog run by the highly respected journal, “Foreign Policy”[59]. Following this exposure, Mansoor Ijaz met with Pakistan’s top spook, Gen Pasha, and handed over transcripts of all his phone conversations, email exchanges, and everything else that he had with him. One cannot but wonder why?

"Not only did Ijaz quote his “friend” Hussain Haqqani as having told him that if the contents of this memo ever became public, the result could be “devastating”; he also is on record as having stated that the reason he had agreed to being the interlocutor was to help his “friend”. What is more, his original op-ed really targets the ISI and is titled, “It’s time to get rid of these Jihadist spies”! In an interview accorded to Fareed Zakaria, when asked why he wrote the article, he responded that he was still of the view that these Jihadist spies should be exposed and got rid of. When he was asked why he found it necessary to say anything at all about the Top Secret Memo, Ijaz responded that it was necessary to give his op-ed greater credibility and/or authenticity!"

Author seems to imply that being against jihadists is the incorrect stance!

................................................................................................

"In my view, his op-ed would have been considered worth carrying without any mention of the Memo; everyone likes to carry anything that targets the ISI! The Memo certainly made it more explosive, but the FT is not a “rag” and, if mention of the Memo was to be included, they would certainly have sought supportive evidence that it existed so as to ensure it is not culpable for slander. The proof of which is self-evident since, despite threats, Haqqani has not sued the FT or Ijaz. And then, Ijaz not only met the ISI chief, he handed over all the evidence to the very individual he was demonizing, so as to land his “friend” Haqqani in hot soup, but went so far as to publicly announce that he was prepared to travel at his own expense and testify before the Pakistani Supreme Court?

"It had been obvious from the outset that Ijaz’s accusations were based on facts. The only question, therefore was why he should opt to make this disclosure? After all, he is a successful businessman in the US, reportedly a millionaire, he might have dubious credentials, which was probably one of the requisite qualities desirable in such a conduit---it afforded Haqqani/Zardari the luxury of deniability, but he hardly needs to establish his sphere(s) of influence. He has the reputation of having been an interlocutor in other sensitive matters, but on behalf of his adopted country; the USA, not Pakistan. Furthermore, the utility of such a conduit lies in his anonymity, not his publicity. By this disclosure, he has lost any future as a conduit, which also served to provide him entry to the corridors of power in the US.

"Later, he fired off another salvo, saying that Zardari and Haqqani were aware of the US decision to undertake Operation Geronimo. Frankly, this seems highly unlikely. I doubt if Obama would trust Zardari with this information. But he has been joined by Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the UK, and another Zardari crony! Has Wajid been bought by the ISI? Then he went further to allege that the DG ISI met some Gulf leaders to obtain support for a coup; then withdrew that allegation too. Really, what is going on? But to attempt to answer understand Ijaz’s convulsions, one has to pick up the thread from his first op-ed."

No, the whole thing is the usual ridiculous paki somersaults.

................................................................................................

"As stated, Ijaz is an American citizen, a very successful businessman with no ties to Pakistan. For him to work for or on behalf of any Pakistani agency, even if it was as innocently as Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai was found to be doing, would put him and his wealth in danger. And I am certain that risk is one he would not take. On the other hand, if he was acting on behalf of any organ of the US government i.e. White House/Capitol Hill/State, or the “Shadow US Government” at Pentagon/Langley or even on behalf of a rogue element within the latter, he could be tempted or induced to leak.

"We can safely conclude from the foregoing that if he leaked under temptation or inducement, it could only come from official or semi-official American sources. We can also safely conclude that he was tempted or induced, since by doing so, he has lost whatever utility he had as a conduit for the US government, if indeed he ever was one. Having got thus far, I must admit that I am again forced to conjecture. Perhaps whoever managed to make Ijaz leak thought it would rebound on the army/ISI; or that GHQ would find an excuse to intervene in Pakistan’s political field and thereby embarrass itself again. Maybe when the exposure backfired on the Haqqani/Zardari duo, they decided to let it run its course again hoping for a condemnable military intervention in Pakistan. And finally, when it began to spin out of control, they cut Ijaz loose to let him create whatever chaos he could in the politico-military front in Pakistan and, I have to admit that it has been successful; at least partially so.

"Relations between the elected government and GHQ hit an all-time low. Many analysts and media personalities are firmly of the view that GHQ/ISI are pushing the Memo issue to oust Zardari and/or Gillani, or the entire government so as to force an early election; and rumors of “establishment support” (read GHQ) for Imran Khan’s party are running rife! I have already concluded (with sufficient reason, I hope) that Uncle Sam is out to undermine the Pakistan army, its COAS, and the ISI by any means possible, as I noted in the article quoted earlier, “Who is gunning for Pakistan’s top generals”."

Seriously, "Uncle Sam is out to undermine the Pakistan army"?

Isn't this the army that cannot function without US - because Pakistan cannot do so?

................................................................................................

"I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we are witnessing a meticulously planned Psychological-War operation to achieve that end, though admittedly, it picks up on opportunities offered. After all, no one in the US or CIA could have predicted Zardari’s response to OBL’s execution by authorizing such a memo! When it happened, the possible potential was obvious, were it made public and so, Mansoor Ijaz, the faithful interlocutor for his country duly and obediently “leaked”.

"Perhaps Haqqani has cast iron guarantees that the US will not permit Pakistani courts to take punitive action against him. His wife is, after all, an American citizen and a la Raymond Davis, he will be rescued! And Uncle Sam is not concerned if Zardari becomes “collateral damage”; after all Zardaris are a dime a dozen in every country. Dozens of Zardaris must have registered themselves by now in Washington as possible replacements. But perhaps, in this case the US miscalculated. While the army and the ISI were also tarnished but it seemed that Pakistan was focusing more on Zardari and Haqqani. The resultant political insecurity in Pakistan is of no real concern to the US, but this was not the result they were seeking. The Army still managed to survive; something else needed to be done."

Wonder if this author has thought, since?

................................................................................................

Wonder if this author has thought, since?

................................................................................................

"When this incident occurred, an American friend (not Pakistani-American or as dubious a character as Mansoor Ijaz), well connected in circles which are “in the know” of things, inquired what I thought and I responded with the view that the attack was very deliberate. He disagreed. After making his own inquiries through his connections, he wrote back to acknowledge his error. According to him, “the attack had been ordered and planned well in advance”!

"Now let me make myself unequivocally clear. There was really no room for error. These posts were recently constructed a couple of months before the attack in the Mohmand Agency occurred for the express purpose of preventing members of the TTP, who cross over into Mohmand to foment unrest and return to Afghanistan. These posts are located about 2 ½ kilometers inside the Durand Line, on the Pakistani side. As per our agreement(s), when these were planned to be constructed, the Afghan government, ISAF/NATO/US had all been informed and provided map coordinates (six figure grid references). During and after their construction, NATO/ISAF helicopters had flown over them during daylight to confirm that we were constructing these according to specifications we had provided them. So, there really was no room for error.

"The contention that NATO (read US, since none of the other members of NATO are even suspects) troops were fired upon from these posts makes no sense. The only weapon at these posts that could be used to engage helicopters or aircraft(s) was a 12.7 mm Machine Gun. No idiot would use such an ineffective weapon, being fully conscious of the firepower with which the enemy (yes; the enemy) could respond. The 12.7 MG was used in defense, however ineffectively, when they were engaged by hostile aircrafts. According to survivors in the Military Hospital in Peshawar, a helicopter initially fired a few flares. However, a few minutes later, helicopters and aircraft began to target them under light from more flares. The soldier who responded with the 12.7 MG was targeted by a helicopter. Major Mujahid took position behind the 12.7 MG and he too was killed by a rocket, which also destroyed the 12.7 MG. After which, they were targeted at will, like shooting ducks in a pond."

The only thing author hasn't explained is why US helicopters etc were being shot at from within Pakistan, and whether it was with consent of the government of Pakistan, tacit or otherwise.

................................................................................................

"There were a total of 40 soldiers on these two adjacent posts, including two officers; one for each post. The attack left 26 dead, including both officers and 14 wounded. Not a single individual survived unscathed. To me, it looks perilously akin to a well planned and deliberate massacre.

"As far as the proposition that Taliban escaping from the Afghan side were trying to cross over and were the ones that began the exchange of fire, resulting in the subsequent confusion that was responsible for this “tragic incident” is concerned; it is nonsense. Anybody knowing anything about how Taliban operate is aware that they travel from different points in ones and twos; gather at a point to carry out their attack, and immediately disperse. The idea that any sizeable “group” would be found on a ridge top seeking succor, is (or should be) ludicrous even to the meanest military mind."

"The obvious question that should occur to some readers is why? Why should the US be interested in destabilizing Pakistan? After all, every supposedly sane analyst in the US and the west is continuing to press the point that the security of Pakistan is far more important than the security of Afghanistan; that was the point Anatol Lieven was also making in the article of his that I quoted earlier. It’s a country of 180 million people, it has a huge standing army (which means a huge store of munitions of war) and, it has a strategic location, because of which, its destabilization will reverberate, not only in South Asia, but all the way north to Central Asia and Iran to the Middle East."

Delusional megalomania there.

................................................................................................

"I have to admit that I have not been able to find conclusive evidence to support all my conclusions. ... "

................................................................................................

"Consequently, I for one do not find the US’ official grounds for unilateral action satisfactory. I intend to discuss other possible covert reasons; however, I think I have to table a proposition here which is, admittedly, conjecture[39]. Since I do not accept the official version offered by the US for unilateral action in undertaking Operation Geronimo, my only alternative overt explanation for this decision is that, if the US had taken GHQ[40] into confidence and again tasked GHQ/ISI to take necessary action against a “high value target; possibly OBL”, they would have captured OBL not executed him. That was not what the US wanted. His capture and trial could have been too much of an embarrassment; they wanted OBL dead! Let me clarify here; I am not saying that the Pakistan army is not willing to kill or commit atrocities, nor is the ISI innocent of numerous extra judicial killings. However, neither GHQ nor ISI would have bloodied their hands with OBL. Pakistanis are as good or as bad as any other army or intelligence agency and, in the case of the army, I speak with considerable experience of counter insurgency operations wherein I have been as guilty as some, though less than many. Pragmatically though, domestic repercussions of executing OBL might have been worse than what the US unilateral action subjected Pakistan to! Consequently, GHQ would have been willing to capture, not execute OBL."

No, it's far more believable that if any pakis had a clue, OBL and co. would have been spirited away, even if only gor the duration of the drama, replaced with some perfectly innocuous individuals of another family, and US would have not only had egg on its face as a laughingstock in plain view of the whole world, but unlikely to ever succeed in another attempt to locate OBL.

What's more, it's not believable that, with his house and family located in Abbottabad, Pakistan regime was unaware of exactly where he was.

That US succeeded in the said capture was only due to secrecy they maintained, informing no one in Pakistan.

................................................................................................

"• With the sole exception of the attempt to use the walled-up door in the drive by mistake and blowing it up, the operation by the SEALS was almost clinical in its efficiency. In fact, having viewed it all, it is almost certain that they knew the details of all grown male members and, perhaps, even which bedroom belonged to whom."

That last bit is unlikely at best, in reality probably out of question.

Unless author is harking snidely back to spurned wife bit?

................................................................................................

"• Then there is the greatest mystery of all. Having killed Tariq through the window, no one entered the guest house; not even to search it for weapons. Nor did the SEALs remove the AK-47 in Arshad’s bedroom, nor the four pistols or three grenades! Admittedly, all grown up male occupants had been killed and the oldest male child left alive was only 10, Abdullah, OBL’s grandson, but even a 10 year old grandson of OBL could be expected to be able to use a weapon. The survivors also included five grown up ladies: two of OBL’s wives, Khairee and Seeham (though shot in the arm), Tariq’s wife Maryam, and two of OBL’s daughters from Seeham; Maryam aged 20 and Summaya aged 18. Were the SEALs so confident of the fact that none of them was familiar with the use of weapons? Were they assured of the fact that none of them would pose a threat? Or were the SEALs careless or indifferent?"

Presumably they were as aware of need to do it all swiftly as the main objective, and did, after all, do both - without conducting a sweep for weapons hidden around the house.

................................................................................................

"• The last above, seems highly unlikely, given the efficiency of the operation. I can only conclude that they were indifferent to the weapons they left behind only because, for some reason, they were confident that none of the survivors posed a threat. It also seems likely that while Al-Qaida might have assured Al-Kuwaiti that he, his brother and their families would not be harmed, but had, in fact, decided that the two brothers also needed to be silenced."

This is just pushing of his own narrative by the author, but he presumes that everyone behaves and thinks as terrorists trained by pakis do, killing indiscriminately.

The SEALs did their job competently and left without casualties of their own, task perfectly executed. They did not inflict unnecessary injuries, such as on children and women. This wasn't careless or due to a guarantee of no retaliation due to betrayal, but usual judgement exercised by a moral army.

Allies in WWII or WWI had not, unlike German army, inflicted injuries personally against civilians either, other than in bombing raids.

................................................................................................

"There is only one conclusion that one can arrive at, which reinforces the view I held at the outset of this investigation; OBL was sold out/betrayed."

Author is pushing his personal and, one must say, vindictive misogynistic, view typical of his creed, but has failed to establish it as a reasonable conclusion, much less an only one.

................................................................................................

"There is one other question that also needs to be addressed at this stage. If both brothers appeared unarmed, why did the SEALs kill them, instead of capturing them? Numerous answers come to mind: a) they were told to treat all male members in the house as “armed and extremely dangerous” and so they shot first and saw “unarmed” later, is the foremost; b) the “sell-out” of OBL included instructions to kill the two brothers so that Al-Qaida is not embarrassed by their disclosures; c) CIA did not want more Al-Qaida captives, particularly those, like these brothers, who had obviously been inactive for years!"

This is the strange double twist of the said misogynistic mindset created by the creed of the author, whereby females are treated vindictive and punished without even flimsy evidence, while males - especially those of 'the faith' - are treated as deserving of every consideration above and beyond all others! So unless the US produces handwritten confessions from those after males signed before being killed, author will treat them as innocents killed for no reason, while the females left alive is seen as undue risks SEALs incurred, only justified as evidence of betrayal by one of them!

It doesn't occur to him that they left alive, not just one but all, females; which, if it points to betrayal, must then point equally to betrayal by every uninjured female in the household! And too, it must have been priorly established, not instant judgment, which is nonsense.

Reality is that author sees the US SEALs as not humans trained to think and act swiftly but as no different from paki terrorists, trained ss latter are to kill all those 'not of the faith', and with all humanity as drained out as that of nazis.