The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 

     

     

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Tuesday
      May032011

      Question: Why was bin Laden so lightly guarded?

      The compound of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.Before the war fever grows towards Pakistan for “sheltering” bin Laden, I want to add a speculation of my own for further investigation. Why was bin Laden’s fortress-compound so lightly guarded, given his reputation as a fierce warrior determined to bring down everything around him if captured?

      There was some security, but not much, according to accounts so far. There was a “firefight”, we are told, but it was brief. According to the quasi-official New York Times [May 2], 79 American commandos hit the compound in an operation lasting 40-minutes, during which, in addition to having enough time to find, identify, and kill bin Laden, the raiders were also able to obtain a “treasure trove” of computer hard drives, discs, papers, and potential communications from high ranking members of Al Qaeda.

      The Times reported that besides bin Laden, three men and an “unidentified” woman were killed, and two women wounded. One of the deceased was bin Laden’s son, Hamza. Another was a courier and his brother. Bin Laden was found in a third floor living quarters and, according to the top U.S. counter-terrorism official, whether he resisted with a weapon or not is unclear. What was emphasized was that bin Laden was “killed by U.S. bullets,” with a shot to the head. A wife of bin Laden was alive to identify his body. Nine children, ages two to 12 years old, were turned over to Pakistani authorities.

      The compound, in other words, was not exactly Hitler’s bunker, nothing like a military stronghold at all. Why wasn’t there a major self-defense unit? Why wasn’t an Al Qaeda cadre hidden in the neighborhood ready to protect their leader? Why weren’t there escape tunnels under the compound?


      It’s preposterous to believe that the U.S. unit took bin Laden “by surprise,” as if his security apparatus retired every evening at midnight, or went out strolling in the “quiet, affluent area,” said by one Pakistani to be “the closest you can be to Britain.”

      What then explains the lack of any serious defense for the world’s most wanted man?

      We may never know, but one scenario leaps out of the evidence at hand: Osama bin Laden had gone to ground and was operationally de-activated except for sporadic communications. He was a symbol, detached from Al Qaeda and the insurgencies around him. He simply became too hot.

      Apparently, there was no Internet service at the compound, so online meetings with other Al Qaeda leaders or cadre were difficult or impossible. A courier was bin Laden's slow mode of communication, not Skype.

      Perhaps this suggests a different role by Pakistan. What were they to do? They could not hand bin Laden over to the Americans. They could not arrest him, jail him, try him, convict him. They could not or would not kill him. But they could shelter him in exchange for an unknown agreement on the parameters of his behavior. They could offer him a life in semi-retirement, perhaps with dialysis treatment. If so, the rent bin Laden paid must have been significant. This might have been the most pragmatic arrangement at which the Pakistani military could arrive.  

      Then, last July, the Americans found the trail of the courier and, shortly after, the compound was targeted. This may be the back story of the growing antagonism between the U.S. and Pakistani governments, militaries and spy agencies, even the recent blow-up over the CIA contractor Raymond Davis, arrested and finally released after killing two Pakistani nationals in March. President Obama lied about Davis’ CIA affiliations and American diplomats put on enormous pressure before Davis was released. Davis was investigating Pakistani militants in a top-secret operation, which could mean he was on the trail of bin Laden.

      In this imagined scenario, the Americans became certain that bin Laden was hidden in the compound, and possibly made Pakistan an offer it could not refuse. We know you have bin Laden under protective custody, they might have said, and now you must give him up or face the consequences. It remains to be investigated further, but how could it be accidental that the Pakistani military didn’t begin “scrambling their forces,” according to the Times, until the very time the Americans had finished the job, packed up the body, and turned over the women and children to Pakistani soldiers who were conveniently present?

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (6)

      Is it necessary to state that we have become the kind of nation we were warned against as we were growing up: summary executions without trial, torture instead of Miranda rights, undeclared warfare on a massive scale, massacre of innocents, all accompanied by hugely degraded natural landscapes and an economy based on 'wealth-always-wins", even in a disastrous downturn like the past 3 years.

      So, when Fox News is congratulating the administration and the Presdent is crowing about "Unity" I finally have to admit that I am ready to hand-off to the next generation and wish them all the best... and when the finances of televised sporting events begins to rival the military budget I am slowly accepting the comparison of this country to the decline and fall of every empire.

      Today I had a long conversation with an acquaintance who literally had to go underground for several years because the CIA wouldn't let him quit working for them back in the '80s. He talked about his work in the region where Russia, China and N.Korea come together while he was based in Taiwan. Today he travels around in an RV because its cheaper than owning a house even with the gas prices what they are...and he says that there is no leader in the world any worse than many of our own politicians, and that while Bin Laden deserved what he got, our own nation's highly-paid villians of power deserve at least the same. (His words). He also says that the bottom has fallen out of the basket as far as this nation's future is concerned, but heck, who knows, right?

      Humanity is always at the crossroads and if you live long enough everything turns into its opposite. Let's pray for peace...and be ready to defend our freedom, each in our own way, if those prayers aren't answered.

      ..Or maybe their was no 'bin laden' there to defend

      May 4, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLV

      Hi Tom,

      Likely this email will alienate you, but I am compelled to tell the truth as I see it. Osama was a CIA
      operative, and his power was sanctioned by the US all along, from the beginnings in Afghanistan to all
      the other actions. I have asked at least 50 people to read David Ray Griffin's book THE NEW PEARL HARBOR,
      in which he discusses this matter a bit. Other sources have established that when Osama was in a hospital
      in Yemen for kidney trouble, he was visited by a CIA operative. I am of the firm opinion that 9-11 was the
      Bush regime's Reichstag fire, their Gulf of Tonkin incident. THAT IS WHY BIN LADEN WAS SO LIGHTLY
      GUARDED. He was set up by the CIA-ISI in that compound in the first place. Now out of the 50 people whom I requested to read Griffin's book, only ONE read it. All the others claimed they didn't "believe in conspiracy theories" - but they are perfectly willing to "believe in the essential good intentions of their government leaders"...

      there's a bogus theory for you.

      RESPONSE:

      Dear Lynn,

      I read Griffin’s book and have followed the 9/11 discussion. I don’t believe we have the whole story either. You don’t alienate me. I wish I could turn the attention of the “truthers” like you to the immediate issues at hand. I agree with you that bin Laden was a CIA asset [not an operative] in the battle against the Soviets. The mistake is concluding that bin Laden therefore was an operative of the CIA while carrying out 9/11. Or that he was an operative while in the compound. Or that he was an operative when he was shot in the head. Or that dumping his body at sea “proves” that he actually wasn’t killed and is alive somewhere still as an operative.

      To me, it’s best to stay within the bounds of the clearest evidence in making these red-hot arguments, at least if you are trying to reach undecided people and expand the movement. Your concerns should be kept alive as well, but not as the fundamental explanation of everything. Wherever I speak, in groups of 25 to 200, I sense the audience turning off when you go on too long with your case. Does that matter to you? Or does the public reaction bring a sense of being proudly different? Is that why you started your note by saying you were going to alienate me? Has it happened before? What conclusion do you draw?

      Please share this with your friends. I will not be writing more on this, unless new evidence emerges from the bin Laden hard drives and paperwork. I don’t want the movement to get lost in conspiracy theories at the moment we need first and foremost to be pressuring for a maximum withdrawal of troops. But I will post your letter and my answer for others to read.

      Sincerely,

      TOM HAYDEN

      May 6, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLynn Feinerman

      I also believe there is a huge mystery behind 9/11 from the demolished 3 buildings to dropping Osama's body in the ocean. Unfortunately, any theory that differs from the "official" account is automatically branded as "conspiracy theory" which has been "officially" connected to foolishness since the Kennedy assignation. While I agree we need to bring light to 9/11 in order to re-establish faith in our government and our country I must agree that the spotlight must focus on the immediate situation: Bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP because that is where people are dying, where corruption grows, where our debt goes- now. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is circulating an online petition to set a date for troop withdrawal. But to me, it 's so full of holes I have not signed it. i.e: "We are not suggesting our government spell out every stage of U.S. troop redeployment -- specific decisions should be up to commanders on the ground and avoid giving the enemy a potential propaganda tool. Nor should we change the protection for our troops and flexibility for our mission that has been agreed upon in previous agreements." To me,. this sounds like they're leaving in an escape clause the size of Texas in order to allow for those on the fence to hopefully sign on. But what good would their signing such a statement be? So, for now, I say we must continue to put the pressure on bringing the wars to an end.

      May 12, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLarry Arsenault

      Maybe Bin Laden wasn't guarded because...

      http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/final-word-on-bin-laden-hoax.html

      A Final Word on the Bin Laden Hoax
      Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
      Activist Post

      Bangkok, Thailand May 7, 2011 - The "Bin Laden" hoax is consuming our time and energy even as the global corporate-financier oligarchs flee forward cashing in on the political capital they presume they have gained by making this announcement. Even a superficial examination of mainstream media's headlines and interviews with the CIA director himself calls into question the official narrative with mind numbing contradictions and faulty logic even a child could spot.

      The CIA itself is only 95% sure, based on facial recognition, that they bagged their rogue agent. A London Guardian report compounds this uncertainty stating that the CIA compared the alleged DNA of this man they claim to have shot dead in Pakistan, not with a previous sample from Osama Bin Laden, but against a Bin Laden family member. If we are to believe any of this at all, the CIA is not even saying they are 100% sure, so why should we be?


      "We were never really certain about whether or not Bin Laden was there."

      Stripping further credibility away, was CIA Director Leon Panetta's interview on PBS where he begins by saying the CIA had no evidence and were entirely uncertain Osama Bin Laden was even in the compound to begin with. According to a Washington Post article, the CIA claims to have had a nearby safe house from which they observed the alleged compound for months. They also confirm that not a single photo or shred of evidence was revealed throughout the course of this lengthy surveillance mission that the elusive, bearded mastermind was present.

      But debating the minutiae is self-defeating. Bin Laden has been long dead, according to a myriad of government officials both in America and abroad. We must look at how this stunt is being exploited at home and abroad, rhetorically and geopolitically.

      May 13, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBARBBF

      I am not happy for his death - Bin Laden's - or for his children's destiny or for USA people celebration, it makes me sad! but I think that there's more and I mean way more in all of this. Many secrets ..... Many lies ..... and involves Bush and his personal interes ($$$$). I don't buy any of the government's "truth " about any subject , especially when we are the marthyrs...... I was born in USA and my people before my time and so on, so on and proud of believing in GOD, thanks for your post and take care.........

      May 14, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAlicia
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.