Pakistan Not Notified Before Attack


Obama chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan laid out the key detail that contrary to some reports (including here at TWN), Pakistan was not informed about the raid before it took place.
According to the Washington Post, Brennan also said it was “inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system” in Pakistan.
Fascinating and disturbing implications.
— Steve Clemons


11 comments on “Pakistan Not Notified Before Attack

  1. Kathleen says:

    Last night on the Rachel Maddow show she said Pakistan around 30 times in 15 minutes. She seemed to be paving the way to beat up Pakistan as much as possible
    Amazing to hear how many times MSNBC


  2. Cee says:

    Afghanistan, (or Pakistan) is an unstable, undependable and duplicitous “ally” with nuclear arms, and a lengthy history of self-serving, double-dealing and regional trouble-making.
    Replace Afghanistan with Israel. There are people who say that Israel hasn’t notified the US when we needed help, threatened and attacked, so when do people start talking about ending foreign aid to them?


  3. David Noziglia says:

    Pakistan my ass.
    The real source of the funding and ideas for the global jihadist movement is Saudi Arabia, and we are still not talking about this.


  4. Jay C says:

    “Fascinating and disturbing implications”
    Which we hope will get more fully-explored in future pieces here! I notice that one word you don’t use here is “surprising”, Steve: and for any who follows the news even cursorily, it really is “old news” that Pakistan, ostensibly our main “ally” in the “War on Terror” (scare quotes deliberate), and the principal source of local “support” for our misguided adventure in Afghanistan, is an unstable, undependable and duplicitous “ally” with nuclear arms, and a lengthy history of self-serving, double-dealing and regional trouble-making.
    And the most disturbing “implication” here, is that there is, thanks to a decade of insane US foreign policy, no easy way for us to disengage from either Pakistan, or worse, Afghanistan, without causing even more instability and bloodshed.


  5. Warren Metzler says:

    I suggest that, given the Obama repeatedly demonstrated capacity to lie, that that the response to any utterance of the a senior Obama administration official be “not true until proven otherwise”.
    Further. Steve, you stated that you contacted two officials who are knowledgeable to confirm and they presented what they did to you. How does that match the report that very people knew what was happening? If very few people knew what was happening, wouldn’t these two sources have to say “don’t know what occurred” if they were honest? Is it possible that more than very few knew and that claim was another whopper from Obama and his crew?
    And do you really believe that Obama has the ability to give an order to kill Ben Laden, and go the White House Correspondent’s dinner and act as glibly as he did? I for one don’t.


  6. JohnH says:

    Why would Brennan be telling the truth? Why would this be any different than the toppling of the statue of Saddam, which was a staged media event?
    The logic of the situation points in an entirely different direction–
    1. The Pakistanis had to know he was there, and they kept him as a negotiating chip.
    2. Obama desperately needs to show a significant draw-down to keep his base from sitting on their butts. And he needs to neutralize a hot-button conservative issue, so that the draw-down can happen without hysteric right-wing media coverage. And the military needed to have some face saving victory, which they got by staging this dramatic assassination.
    3. The air is full of rumors of negotiations.
    4. Connect the dots. Could OBL have been the big kahuna that the Pakistanis were holding in return for something? Else, why was he in Abbotabad? If so, what did Pakistan get? Iron clad guarantees that Afghanistan would remain part of their strategic back yard, not India’s? A strategic partnership with the US? Time will tell.
    Let’s hope that the military declares victory and comes home, leading to a significant reduction of military spending and redirects it to rebuilding the economy.
    But unfortunately, the hunt for a new “most wanted” bogeyman has surely begun. Ahmadinejad seems like the most likely candidate until some other obscure terrorist can be adequately promoted to fill the role.


  7. Don Bacon says:

    Pakistan knew about the raid.
    from USDAToday
    Sadik Aale Mohammad lives about a mile from the massive compound in Abbottabad, the middle-class city about an hour’s drive north of the capital of Islamabad where Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces Sunday. . .He said the power in town went out a couple of hours before the raid, which was unusual as was the way in which unidentified troops were hustling about prior to the raid. The power was restored 15 minutes after the raid.


  8. jonst says:

    Steve, with all due respect, and I do respect you, it is “fascinating and disturbing” that anyone is “fascinated or disturbed” by this information. How could you be when the evidence was all around you?


  9. Paul Norheim says:

    How will Obama use the political capital he earned after killing bin Laden? Will he push harder for a withdrawal from
    Afghanistan? Or will he somehow try to keep the promise Bush gave after 9/11: going after “those who harbor them”
    (read: Pakistan)?
    Secondly: Osama bin Laden was a useful bogeyman not only for the US on several occasions, but also for the autocrats in
    the Arab world. How will his ghost present itself in the current political realities in the Middle East? Will it first and
    foremost erode their raison d’etre, and thus speed up the revolutionary process, or will there be other unforeseen
    And finally: How will this injection of self confidence in a somewhat weakened and insecure America affect foreign policy?


  10. Kunio D Kikuchi says:

    It also raises the question of Pakistani sovereignty. After all, someone, presumably under Pakistani territory was killed, removed and “buried” at sea.
    One aspect that raises my curiosity is that over time, the time line of the raid and the disposal of Osama Bin Laden’s remains require some further clarification. He was killed on May 2 Pakistan time while CNN was announcing the imminent Obama TV appearance at 10:30 p.m. of May 1 Washington time (7:30 a.m. May 2 Pakistan time).
    If indeed Obama died on May 2 Pakistan time, then the raid had to be in the early hours, shortly after midnight. The body had to be transported on helicopter from Abbottabad (very far from the ocean) to aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, examined and “buried at sea” by 7:30 a.m when President Obama’s speach was being announced. This is too hectic, and moreover, there was no need to hurry since Islam requires burial by sunset (not sunrise). Hence, there are two possibilities: a) Osama was killed perhaps a day earlier, and/or b) his remains are still on Carl Vinson. DCGuru


  11. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “According to the Washington Post, Brennan also said it was “inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system” in Pakistan”
    Well, duuuhhhh. Therefore, lets issue orders “to kill, not capture”, and kill everybody that may provide us with the intelligence that would outline ISI complicity.
    Makes sense, eh?
    What a clusterfuck. Lindsay Graham is already questioning the wisdom of this “buried at sea due to consideration of Muslim burial traditions” horseshit. And it SHOULD be questioned. Lemmee get this straight…
    We’ll incarcerate these people indefinitely with no charges and no representation. We’ll render ’em out for torture. We’ll hook ’em up to leashes and pile them up naked like cordwood. We’ll water board the bejesus out of ’em. We’ll murder a few hundred thousand of ’em in Iraq based on lies and bullshit….
    But we won’t violate their traditional burial protocols???? Uh huh. Gads. You gotta be kidding me.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *