Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LaSalleAve, May 17, 2011.
You forgot to add "Ugh!".
They would have tried something different in that case. This was the surest thing given the circumstances.
But if the choppers were out due to pakistani vigilance, then the CIA could have driven them in in bread trucks, taken the compound a lot more covertly, without any explosions and only silenced shooting. Then driven them out of there and to a safe retrieval area near the border before anyone knew the compound had been breached. In that case they would have had to kill all of the witnesses or take them out.
It was both. These type of high risk operations have to meet certain criteria, and certain conditions have to be right before being greenlit. There are redundancies in place just in case (such as the hard landing), but up to a specific point, it still could have been scrapped had conditions changed.
The reason it was successful was because those guys analyzed detailed intelligence, planned meticulously, and trained constantly.
I watched a CNN show on the operation and they were saying something like we knew about this place for over a year, and even had a full scale model built to practice on.
Regardless, that wasn't the point of this thread. The question is, how bad does the United States need Pakistan as an ally. And do we in fact need them to supply our people in Afghanistan? And if they refuse to work with us and kick us out, will we need to pull out of Afghanistan?
i wonder the same thing. i can't wait until the full story comes out. according to CNN, we had military aircraft ready to provide air support for the SEALs and the Black Hawks if they were attacked, and we were actively monitoring Pakistani military installations for any indication of a response:
then after we brought bin laden's body to Afghanistan, we had to fly back across Pakistan to reach the Arabic Sea, where the US carrier was. for this, the US called Pakistan and asked for permission:
U.S. was prepared to fight Pakistani forces, officials say - CNN.com
The US needs Pak for more than just the logistical train into Afg, a train that constantly raided, anyway. If that supply line was cut, it would not end our Afg involvement, though logistics would take a hit in the short term.
Not all of Pak is militant. There is a strong secular population, and many in Pak have endured significant losses against fundamentalists. There is a Pak Taliban and AQ presence in the mountains near the Afg border, but the terrain is difficult to operate in. The Pak govt has been embarrassed, but in the end, they will do what the US wants.
We need them to supply over 100,000 men in Afghanistan. We need the roads and we need the air routes over Pakistan. We have access to bases in the 'stans but they are much more expensive to use and to get to. Plus the rulers there are subject to pulling permission under Russian pressure. Once we get the numbers down, there are alternatives to Pakistan.
They won't kick us out anytime soon, they need military supplies and spare parts from us right now, but they have been steadily replacing US equipment with Chinese equipment because they know that we will pull support some day.
my question is, will they continue to try to play both sides while doing so?
my opinion on that doesnt reflect highly on them.
for some reason i fell that your sentiment is shared by quite a few of us here.
They'll hem and haw out in the open as they try to save face, same as the US. Behind the scenes, though, we're already seeing the results of the US pushing them (interviews, tail rotor return, etc.). Diplomacy is what happens behind closed doors. There may have been some who tried to hide UBL, but we can't lay that all on the Pak govt.