"First Reports Are Always Wrong"

NY Times

The Times provides some insight over the changing story about the raid of Osama bin Laden's compound.  Former Pentagon official Victoria Clarke commented that, "First reports are always wrong -- it's a fundamental truth in military affairs," which seems to be emblematic of the evolution of the bin Laden story.  There are details being changed, construing a very smudged illustration of the raid.  This then fosters huge doubts on the legitimacy of the story.  What's just important as killing bin Laden?  Actually shaping the narrative following his death.


The Times points out that a "shifting narrative distracts from the accomplishments of the SEAL team."  There have been two major gaffs in the narrative.  One was the assertion that a woman was used as a human shield.  This has been walked back by the administration.  The other was that bin Laden was killed during the firefight, leaving us to assume he was armed.  It later came out that he was unarmed.  Both may be honest mistakes, and the product of an excited administration anxious to get out info to the press; nevertheless, intentions have less weight than actions in the court of public opinion.


Killing bin Laden has not eliminated the problems he poses the US.  We battled bin Laden as a person which is only one part of the war because it's equally important to battle bin Laden as a symbol.  This whole other battlefront is what is at stake in the narrative following his death.  Bin Laden's death may symbolize that of a resolute freedom fighter now become a tragic martyr. On the other hand, his death may symbolize the demise of a catalyst for terror.


I'm not a fan of propagandists and that's what the Whitehouse looks like right now, but Americans like me aren't the ones the Whitehouse should be worried about deceiving.  Liberal and moderate Muslims are the most impacted by this information.  I might get disgusted, but I'm still gonna support America; whereas, they will be less inclined to forgive.  If the world gets disgusted like they did at the Iraq invasion, then, in short, we're shooting ourselves in the foot in foreign policy.  The world also stopped trusting us after we went into Iraq and said 'trust us - we know what we're doing'.  We should not recast America as the world's bully.


The SEAL team just got back stateside so I hope more accurate information will be coming from their debriefs.  The President's quote about "not spiking the football" by withholding pictures has stuck in my mind because it seems his administration is fumbling the ball all over the place.  

Guardian

This chronicle by the Guardian on Tuesday is a pretty good account of the events leading up to, during, and after the operation where Osama bin Laden was killed.  It talks of details I haven't yet seen elsewhere.  


For instance it states that Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, was heading the assault operation.  An intelligence chief heading an operation of Navy SEAL Team Six, a military unit, is rather unknown to me.  I've heard of ex-pats running missions for the CIA but never them having effective control over active military operations.  The photos released of Obama, Biden, Clinton, and others watching the operation intently may have been at Langley - not the Pentagon or Whitehouse.


Obama gave the green light Friday April 29th for the operation.  The assault was planned for Saturday but apparently bad weather forced a delay of the go-ahead.  Then on Sunday, the President interrupted a round of golf to return to the Whitehouse to prepare for the operation.


It also states that a rocket-propelled grenade was fired upon the stealth helicopters on approaching the compound.  This has not been reported anywhere else.  Then, one of the MH-60 Black Hawks went down after stalling but the pilot was able to bring it down safely.  His body was then taken to the US aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the Arabian Gulf.


Pakistani officials and its spy agency have stated it had no knowledge of the operation; however, the Guardian article casts doubt on this: "some reports on the strike, sourced in Washington, suggest the Seals took off from Ghazi airforce base at nearby Tarbela Dam. If true, that suggests a convenient contrivance so that Pakistan could avoid ownership of an operation certain to rankle with the notoriously anti-American public."

Other noteworthy reports

The original estimated value of the compound bin Laden was killed in was $1 million.  Yet, this is now in question.  It seems the compound may only be half that estimated value.  This detail was important because most people had imagined bin Laden was hiding in some cave.  So the stark contrast of finding him living a comfortable life was very enlightening and also embarrassing for Pakistan.  More importantly, it would be another detail fumbled by the administration.


This AP article tells us the identity of the courier who became the crux of the manhunt -- Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait.  He was supposedly killed in the firefight.


The numbers of the SEAL team vary anywhere between 12 and 80, also apparently included a dog.  Varying estimates are interesting because it relates to how many helicopters there were and address why the team couldn't take other bodies such as bin Laden's son.  Also one chopper went down which limited how much they retrieved.  I don't know about other people, but when I pictured a covert team of Navy SEALs  raiding the compound, I imagined 15 to 25 soldiers.  


I also loved this Times story because my old dog, Maggy (just died last week), was mostly Malinois - one of the likely breeds of dog used in the raid.  The article said those breeds “have the best overall combination of keen sense of smell, endurance, speed, strength, courage, intelligence and adaptability to almost any climatic condition."  Sounds like good ol' Maggy to me!