I think it is important to consider the motivation of anonymous sources. This new story, which seeks to elevate the role of the ISI, or perhaps just diminish the role of others, appears to have sources with interesting motivations. In particular, Hersh's description of the primary source for this information does not indicate that they would have had access to all of the information described (both the intel process and the raid details, as well as individual negotiation points in the coverup). The amount of love for the ISI in the description almost suggests that he was put up to it by the Pakistanis. For example:
The suggestion that an ISI liaison traveling on the helicopter with the Americans "guided them into the darkened house and up a staircase to bin Laden’s quarters" is ludicrous. SEALs typically don't need someone to lead them up a staircase.
"Aside from those that hit bin Laden, no other shots were fired." This is to support the story that ISI was keeping UBL under house arrest there, and had left him to his own devices, so there were no weapons there. However, outside observers directly after the event showed that the place showed evidence of fighting on all floors.
"Saudi Arabia, which had been financing bin Laden’s upkeep since his seizure by the Pakistanis"
The overthrow of the Saudi govt was one of UBL's objectives. This is nonsense. Given the level of infiltration of the ISI, the idea that they could have kept bin Laden prisoner for six years, without a leak from their side even now, needs a lot more explanation. If that many people in Pakistan knew, we would have known, and we would not have had to rely on a walk-in.
Overall, the sense here is that someone wants to make Pakistan look better. The ISI does work with the US when needs align, but this doesn't make sense.
Hersh clearly misrepresents Sec. Gates comments at one point. He says that Gates wanted to delay the announcement of the raid per agreement with Pakistan so that we could lie about it being a drone attack. He then quotes Gates saying that we didn't want release "operational details". Gates says nothing about a delay. This is not supporting evidence at all. In addition, the anonymous source had previously claimed that a drone attack would not work, as there would be no way to verify the identity. So the whole supposed agreement about a fake drone attack is contradictory with the rest of the piece.
I am not sure that everything the anonymous source said is false, but the one fact that I do have hands on experience with contradicts another element of the story. As such, I know the anonymous source is wrong on that item.
So what's my motivation? It just annoys me to see smart people believe something like this...
The point is, this is not a criticism of Hersh per se, except in that he gives this one anonymous source too much credit. It's a story of non-existent coverup; a story that tells us there was supposed to be big coverup wherein Obama would tell us that bin Laden was killed in a drone strike a week after the fact, but a helicopter crashed and we had to make the Pakistanis look incompetent.
Thanks for the detailed response, I upvoted this one.
> appears to have sources with interesting motivations
The veracity of sources issue has been discussed to death in the very article this post responds to. I agree it is a crucial factor, but we're forced to wait for the truth to out. There are journalists who have already responded that they have some corroborating evidence:
> SEALs typically don't need someone to lead them up a staircase.
This detail, even if incorrect or spun by ISI, doesn't seem like a story killer.
> However, outside observers directly after the event showed that the place showed evidence of fighting on all floors.
Agree that there are several conflicting reports (both from the White House on different days, the SEALs themselves, and now Hersh) on the operational details of the mission.
Some accounts claim that the SEALs needed to breach their way in after the crash.
What you are saying would impact the credibility of the story if true. I haven't been able to find any past references for that. Are you able to point me to an archive.org link please?
Note however that the operational details don't necessarily reflect on the political details.
> Hersh clearly misrepresents Sec. Gates comments at one point...
I agree the context of the quote is confusing and perhaps misleading. It seems the source is making one set of claims, but Gates is saying something else in his memoir (‘Why doesn’t everybody just shut the fuck up?’).
The source's claims are: 1) Gates was the only one actively protesting the announcements, 2) Gates objected to the idea of claiming that information was obtained by torture 3) Gates insisted that the agreements with Pakistan had to be honoured.
While you're correct that the quote from Gates does not back up the source's claim, it does not actually contradict it either.
Re: the drone attack wiping out evidence, the discussion is internal in October, they're discussing what to actually do, versus what to tell the public. The context is quite different, but I agree it's worth paying attention to.
> I do have hands on experience with contradicts another element of the story
Naturally I'm curious, but I understand if you are unable to provide any detail.
> The point is, this is not a criticism of Hersh per se, except in that he gives this one anonymous source too much credit.
I believe he claims two other US sources with corroborating information, "longtime consultants to the Special Operations Command.".
> It just annoys me to see smart people believe something like this...
I certainly don't know that the story is true, but there are a lot of problems with the official explanation. The obvious one is the White House claim that the SEALs managed to fly helicopters 90 minutes over a contested border - bear in mind someone in the neighbourhood tweeted to ask what was up with the helicopter noise and "huge window shaking bang"[1] - and spend 40 minutes shooting up a compound and blowing stuff up without any of the local military doing anything. From what I have read, there were two army bases within a couple of miles of there.
"The local police told me that they received the calls and could have been at the compound within minutes, but army commanders ordered them to stand down and leave the response to the military. Yet despite being barracked nearby, members of the Pakistani Army appear to have arrived only after the SEALs — who spent 40 minutes on the ground without encountering any soldiers — left."
The suggestion that an ISI liaison traveling on the helicopter with the Americans "guided them into the darkened house and up a staircase to bin Laden’s quarters" is ludicrous. SEALs typically don't need someone to lead them up a staircase.
"Aside from those that hit bin Laden, no other shots were fired." This is to support the story that ISI was keeping UBL under house arrest there, and had left him to his own devices, so there were no weapons there. However, outside observers directly after the event showed that the place showed evidence of fighting on all floors.
"Saudi Arabia, which had been financing bin Laden’s upkeep since his seizure by the Pakistanis" The overthrow of the Saudi govt was one of UBL's objectives. This is nonsense. Given the level of infiltration of the ISI, the idea that they could have kept bin Laden prisoner for six years, without a leak from their side even now, needs a lot more explanation. If that many people in Pakistan knew, we would have known, and we would not have had to rely on a walk-in.
Overall, the sense here is that someone wants to make Pakistan look better. The ISI does work with the US when needs align, but this doesn't make sense.
Hersh clearly misrepresents Sec. Gates comments at one point. He says that Gates wanted to delay the announcement of the raid per agreement with Pakistan so that we could lie about it being a drone attack. He then quotes Gates saying that we didn't want release "operational details". Gates says nothing about a delay. This is not supporting evidence at all. In addition, the anonymous source had previously claimed that a drone attack would not work, as there would be no way to verify the identity. So the whole supposed agreement about a fake drone attack is contradictory with the rest of the piece.
I am not sure that everything the anonymous source said is false, but the one fact that I do have hands on experience with contradicts another element of the story. As such, I know the anonymous source is wrong on that item.
So what's my motivation? It just annoys me to see smart people believe something like this...
The point is, this is not a criticism of Hersh per se, except in that he gives this one anonymous source too much credit. It's a story of non-existent coverup; a story that tells us there was supposed to be big coverup wherein Obama would tell us that bin Laden was killed in a drone strike a week after the fact, but a helicopter crashed and we had to make the Pakistanis look incompetent.