WASHINGTON/LONDON (Agencies): An expert in national security is challenging the details of the raid that took down the world’s top terror leader in an explosive report.
RJ Hillhouse, a former rum and jewel smuggler, cites sources that contend it was a Pakistani intelligence officer who came forward to US authorities. The officer said he had knowledge of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, and was interested in cutting a deal.
This would dispute the widely published reports that a courier working for bin Laden was the catalyst for the famous Navy SEAL Team Six mission. “Forget the cover story of waterboarding-leads-to-courier-leads-to bin Laden,” Hillhouse writes, referring to the New York Times analysis of the raid.
The agreement included the roughly $25million reward offered by the State Department for information leading to the al-Qaeda leader. The State Department said it would not comment on Ms Hillhouse’s blog. The unknown officer also wished to secure American citizenship for his family, Ms Hillhouse writes. The officer allegedly told US officials the Saudis were paying off Pakistan and their intelligence agency (ISI) to keep bin Laden hidden in the Abbottabad compound, The Daily Mail reported. His information, Ms Hillhouse claims, led to the intelligence gathering that brought the CIA to Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden had been living.
It has been reported that President Obama sought four helicopters to cover the SEALs as they headed out of Pakistan, but were not needed because Pakistani authorities were unaware that the Americans had even entered their airspace.
But Millhouse claims the Pakistani military, as well as the ISI, not only knew about the American raid, but also cooperated. Millhouse asserts that the ‘CIA and friends’ approached the chiefs of the Pakistani military and the ISI “with a deal they couldn’t refuse: they would double what the Saudis were paying them to keep bin Laden if they cooperated with the US. Or they could refuse the deal and live with the consequences: the Saudis would stop paying and there would be the international embarrassment”.
“The ISI and Pakistani military were cooperating with the US on the raid. The cooperation was why there were no troops in Abottabad. They were all pulled out. It had always seemed very far-fetched to me that a helicopter could crash and later destroyed in an area with such high military concentration without the Pakistanis noticing.
But then it seemed even wilder to believe that a US Navy SEAL (DEVGRU) actually shot a woman who rushed them in the leg. Yeah, right. I know these guys. The only way they’ll shoot a woman in the leg is if they are double tapping a head or chest and that leg got in the way. DEVGRU shoots to kill.”
She continues: “The cover story was going to be a drone strike in Pakistan. Things went south when the helicopter crashed. The White House freaked and the cooperating Pakistanis were thrown under the bus.
Although the White House really pissed off the intel and DEVGRU guys with their knee-jerk reaction that tossed the Pakistanis under the proverbial bus, ironically it did have the same outcome as the original CIA cover story: the way they were treated, no one believes Generals Kiyani and Pasha were cooperating with the US.”
According to the profile given at her blog, Dr Hillhouse is a former professor and Fulbright fellow, who earned her PhD in political science at the University of Michigan. Her latest novel, OUTSOURCED (Forge Books) is about the turf wars between the Pentagon and the CIA and the privatization of national security.
“She has run Cuban rum between East and West Berlin, smuggled jewels from the Soviet Union and slipped through some of the world’s tightest borders. From Uzbekistan to Romania, she’s been followed, held at gunpoint and interrogated. Foreign governments and others have pitched her for recruitment as a spy. (They failed.)” Source www.TheSpyWhoBilledMe.com
The theory, if true, would explain how American black hawk helicopters were then able to fly deep into Pakistan territory in May without encountering resistance.
The plan only unravelled when one of the helicopters crash-landed, blowing the cover story.
“The co-operation was why there were no troops in Abottabad,” writes Dr Hillhouse. “It had always seemed very far-fetched to me that a helicopter could crash and later be destroyed in an area with such high military concentration without the Pakistanis noticing.” In the immediate aftermath of the raid, some residents of Abbottabad, where bin Laden had lived for five years, said they had received mysterious visits a night earlier warning them to stay inside with their lights off.
However, a senior Pakistani security official denied that the ISI had sheltered bin Laden.
“We don’t use toilet paper – we wash,” he said. “But toilet paper is all this theory is good for.”
A spokesman for the US department of defense said: “We have no additional operational details, or comments on operational details, to make at this time.” Source www.telegraph.co.uk
Comment: Rj Hillhouse wrote that ISI and Army knew about the American Raid while contradict her own statement that ISI officer leak information led US to bin Laden for money and Visa.Nothing but Attempt to malign ISI and Pak Army.
An America judge has dismissed all charges filed against bin Laden. The US prosecutors in New York had began prosecuting Bin Laden in June 1998.
This closes a 13-year court case against the mastermind of the September 11 attacks. US District Court judge Lewis Kaplan, presiding over the bin Laden case in Manhattan federal court, issued an order called “nolle prosequi,” (“do not prosecute”) a typical legal move on deceased subjects. The timing of the case could not have been better. The New York court order came a month and a half after US Seals killed bin Laden at his hideout in a compound in the Abbottabad, Pakistan.
In about 12 indictments, the prosecutors accused bin Laden of several actions against the
US. That included prompting Somali tribesmen to attack US military personnel in Mogadishu in 1993 and the 1998 car bomb attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people.
Bin Laden was never formally charged with the Sept 11, 2001 attacks that killed almost 3,000 people and
put the US on a decade-long war footing with militants. http://khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/June/international_June694.xml§ion=international
Judge Lewis Kaplan order was issued following a formal request by the US Justice Department to dismiss charges against bin Laden. The affidavit submitted was dated June 16. It said that bin Laden’s death was confirmed by DNA testing. According to the affidavit, one of bin Laden’s wives identified the corpse as her husband’s. The Justice Department’s request included an affidavit by a senior justice department official describing the May 1 military raid on bin Laden’s hideout.
It is an enigma that Bin Laden was never formally charged with the crime for which he was killed by the US Seals. He was not tried in absentia and convicted. There was never any court case against him for the attack in New York. He was not indicted, nor was he ever convicted of any crime. Strange but true!(Rupee News)
Bin Laden’s death will change nothing for the US until the White House engages India and Pakistan in a regional solution.
administration expects that it will be easier to split the Taliban away from al-Qaida now that Bin Laden is dead. As one unnamed American official, who was recently quoted in the Washington Post, put it: “Bin Laden’s death is the beginning of the endgame in Afghanistan, it changes everything.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.
For nearly a decade, the United States has pursued an unfocused war in Afghanistan based on tactics with seemingly no thought about the wider strategy. The Bush administration wandered into South Asia ill-informed and unwilling to think about the big picture; the Obama White House has sadly failed to provide a comprehensive rethink of the problem, disappointing many diehard Obama supporters.
The talk from the military and administration officials has been about “winning hearts and minds” and “talking to the Taliban” and “reducing kinetic operations”. All of this is well and good, but these taglines and the tactics they refer to are about managing symptoms not fixing the problem. Bin Laden’s death does not rectify the strategic problem.
The decapitation of the al-Qaida leadership may result in the collapse of the organisation – I hope that is the case. But terrorist organisations do not always collapse following such incidents. In this case, the death of Bin Laden should be a step in the right direction, given that the real hammer blows to al-Qaida’s ideology have been dealt by the nascent democracy movements across the Middle East. While much uncertainty remains, most experts see these movements in Egypt, Syria and beyond as a rejection of al-Qaida’s call to violence and extreme interpretations of Islam. Again, I hope they are right.
More importantly, however, the problem of a weak Afghanistan is not caused by Bin Laden, al-Qaida or the Taliban. The Taliban provided order to an Afghanistan plagued by internecine violence following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union and American involvement in 1992. Al-Qaida took advantage of the Taliban rule to use Afghanistan as a base for their global operations.
Afghanistan has always been a highly decentralised state, not easily governed by a central authority. This has not changed. This weakness has led other states to take advantage of Afghanistan. During the cold war, the country became the backdrop for a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. But a third player was always in the mix: Pakistan. The US thought that it was using Pakistan to advance the US national interest against the USSR, but Pakistan was working for Islamabad’s interests, not American ones.
Pakistan wanted to settle their border dispute with Afghanistan to Pakistan’s advantage. Furthermore, Pakistan has always viewed Afghanistan as “strategic depth” to be used by the military in a conflict with India. In fact, the Pakistani military and intelligence services actively fomented radical Islamist groups in the last quarter of the 20th century to create a cadre of irregular fighters that could be used in an irregular war against India in Kashmir. Pakistan also backed the rise of the Taliban in the mid 1990s, since they viewed them as a friendly ally. Since the partition of British India in 1947, India and Pakistan have been at odds, and Pakistan still greatly fears India. Whether or not this is a rational view through western eyes is irrelevant. This is the root of the problem – and Bin Laden’s death changes none of it.
In the 2008 US election campaign, Barack Obama spoke about the need for a regional solution to the problem. In office, his administration has failed to pressure India and Pakistan to find common solutions to common problems. Right now, US goals for the region are directly opposed to Islamabad’s goals. The US wants a stable Afghanistan, free of radical Islam. This means India should be involved in Afghanistan. Indian involvement in Afghanistan, however, means that Pakistan would be “surrounded” by “hostile” governments. Elements of the Pakistan military and intelligence will never allow this.
Unless President Obama can work to increase trust, no amount of military tactics or civilian development can change the strategic reality. India does not want to be forced to deal with Islamabad, especially following the Mumbai attacks, but the status quo is simply not tenable. It is not tenable for the US, it is not tenable for India and it is not tenable for Pakistan. The Pakistani polity is imploding: the gap between the Pakistani public and their leaders is wide and deep, not to mention the divisions among the leadership in Islamabad.
It does not matter if the US remains committed to Afghanistan with 100,000 troops or if we withdraw tomorrow; the result – the eventual implosion of Pakistan and chaos across South Asia – will be the same, unless President Obama addresses the imbalance of power and the perception of fear and threat between India and Pakistan.
Source: Michael Williams
“The self-proclaimed supporters of capitalism and democracy … have reached the end of the road and the world is looking forward to a new way, culture and system — a thought that can literally guarantee social and individual happiness of mankind,” Ahmadinejad stated in a ceremony marking Teacher’s Day in Tehran on Wednesday.
Iran’s president highlighted the Islamic Republic’s aptitude to guide the world in its pursuit of perfection. He noted that the enemy’s concerns do not arise from the country’s economic or defense capabilities.
“The only point that concerns them is that the Iranian nation has the capacity and capability to become a role model and a pioneer,” he added.
He recalled how Marxism, despite all the attention it received and promises it made, led to greater oppression than at the time of earlier tyrants.
“Then capitalism took momentum which resulted in poverty, discrimination in more than half of the world, war, massacre and occupation,” he pointed out.
Ahmadinejad did not single out the United States but denounced the September 11 and the events around militant al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a plot by superpowers to save themselves.
“They used it as a pretext; they invaded and occupied and told lies before the eyes seven billion people and killed more than a million,” he regretted.
Ahmadinejad said the West has failed to meet its pledge of a utopia replete with freedom, comfort and human values and that poverty and discrimination plagues people even in the so-called bastions of democracy and capitalism.