According to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, the U.S. never informed Pakistan about the operation to assassinate al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden because it thought the Pakistanis could "jeopardize the mission" by tipping off the target.
Maybe, and maybe not. This is, after all, the ground over which the 19th century "Great Game" was played, the essence of which was obfuscation. What you thought you saw or knew was not necessarily what was.
The "official" story is that three CIA helicopters - one for backup - took off from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and flew almost 200 miles to Abbottabad, most of it through Pakistani airspace. Pakistan scrambled jets, but the choppers still managed to land, spend 40 minutes on the ground, and get away.
Is it possible the helicopters really did dodge Pakistani radar? During the Cold War a West German pilot flew undetected through the teeth of the Soviet air defense system and landed his plane in Red Square, so yes. Choppers are slow, but these were stealth varieties and fairly quiet. But at top speed, the Black Hawks would have needed about an hour each way, plus the 40 minutes on the ground. That is a long time to remain undetected, particularly in a town hosting three regiments of the Pakistani Army, plus the Kakul Military Academy, the country's equivalent of West Point. Abbottabad is also 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad, and the region is ringed with anti-aircraft sites.
Still, it is possible, except there is an alternative scenario that not only avoids magical thinking about what choppers can do, but better fits the politics of the moment: that Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) knew where Bin Laden was and fingered him, estimating that his death would accelerate negotiations with the Taliban. Why now? Because for the first time in this long war, U.S. and Pakistani interests coincide.
Gen. Hammad Gul, former head of the ISI, told the Financial Times on May 3 that the ISI knew where he was, but regarded him as "inactive." Writing in the May 5 Guardian (UK), author Tariq Ali says that a "senior" ISI official told him back in 2006 that the spy organization knew where bin Laden was, but had no intention of arresting him because he was "The goose that laid the golden egg." In short, the hunt for the al-Qaida leader helped keep the U.S. aid spigot open.
Indeed, bin Laden may have been under house arrest, which would explain the absence of trained bodyguards. By not allowing the al-Qaida leader a private militia, the ISI forced him to rely on it for protection. And if they then dropped a dime on him, they knew he would be an easy target. As to why he was killed, not captured, neither the U.S. nor Pakistan wanted him alive, the former because of the judicial nightmare his incarceration would involve, the latter because dead men tell no tales.
As for the denials: the last thing the ISI wants is to be associated with the hit, since it could end up making the organization a target for Pakistan's home-grown Taliban. If the ISI knew, so did the Army, though not necessarily at all levels. Did the Army turn a blind eye to the U.S. choppers? Who knows?
What we do know for certain is that there is a shift in Pakistan and the U.S. with regards to the Afghan war.
On the U.S. side, the war is going badly, and American military and intelligence agencies are openly warring with one another. In December the U.S. intelligence community released a study indicating that progress was minimal and that the 2009 surge of 30,000 troops had produced only tactical successes: "There remains no clear path toward defeating the insurgency." The Pentagon counter-attacked in late April with a report that the surge had been "a strategic defeat for the Taliban," and that the military was making "tangible progress in some really key areas."
It is not an analysis agreed with by our NATO allies, most of which are desperate to get their troops out of what they view as a deepening quagmire. A recent WikiLeaks cable quotes Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, saying "No one believes in Afghanistan anymore. But we will give it 2010 to see results." He went on to say Europe was only going along "out of deference to the United States." Translation: NATO support is falling apart.
Recent shifts by the administration seem to signal that the White House is backing away from the surge and looking for ways to wind down the war. The shift of Gen. David Petraeus to the CIA removes the major U.S. booster of the current counterinsurgency strategy, and moving Panetta to the Defense Department puts a savvy political infighter with strong Democratic Party credentials into the heart of Pentagon. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the war but could never get a hearing from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican.
The last major civilian supporter of the war is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Gates, her main ally, will soon be gone, as will Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The shuffle at the top is hardly a "night of the long knives," but the White House has essentially eliminated or sidelined those in the administration who pushed for a robust war and long-term occupation.
A surge of sanity? Well, at least some careful poll reading. According to the Associated Press, six in 10 Americans want out of the war. Among Democrats 73 percent want to be out in a year, and a USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 72 percent of Americans want Congress to address an accelerated withdrawal. With the war now costing $8 billion a month, these numbers are hardly a surprise.
Pakistan has long been frustrated with the U.S.'s reluctance to talk to the Taliban, and, from Islamabad's perspective, the war is largely being carried out at their expense. Pakistan has suffered tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties in what most Pakistanis see as an American war, and the country is literally up in arms over the drone attacks.
The Pakistani Army has been deployed in Swat, South Waziristan, and Bajaur, and the U.S. is pressing it to invade North Waziristan. One Pakistani grumbled to the Guardian (UK), "What do they [the U.S.] want us to do? Declare war on our whole country?" For the 30 million Pashtuns in the northwest regions, the Pakistani Army is foreign in language and culture, and Islamabad knows that it will eventually be seen as an outside occupier.
A poll by the New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan's northwest - home and refuge to many of the insurgents fighting in Afghanistan - found some 80 percent oppose the U.S. war on terror, almost nine in every 10 people oppose U.S. attacks on the Taliban, and three quarters oppose the drone attacks.
The bottom line is that Pakistan simply cannot afford to continue the war, particularly as they are still trying to dig themselves out from under last year's massive floods.
In April, Pakistan's top military, intelligence and political leadership decamped to Kabul to meet with the government of Harmid Karzai. The outcome of the talks is secret, but they appear to have emboldened the parties to press the U.S. to start talking. According to Ahmed Rashid, author of "Taliban" and "Descent into Chaos," the White House is moving "the fledgling peace process forward" and will "push to broker an end to the war." This includes dropping "its preconditions that the Taliban sever links with al-Qaida and accept the Afghan constitution before holding face-to-face talks."
Given that in 2008 the Taliban agreed to not allow any "outside" forces in the country and pledged not to pose a danger to any other country, including those in the West, this demand has already been met. As for the constitution, since it excluded the Taliban it will have to be re-negotiated in any case.
While there appears to be a convergence of interests among the major parties, negotiations promise to be a thorny business.
The Pentagon will resist a major troop drawdown. There is also opposition in Afghanistan, where Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities are deeply suspicious of the Taliban. The Karzai government also appears split on the talks, although recent cabinet shuffles have removed some of the more anti-Pakistan leaders.
Then there is the Taliban, which is hardly a centralized organization, especially since U.S. drone attacks and night raids have effectively removed more experienced Taliban leaders, leaving younger and more radical fighters in charge. Can Taliban leader Mullah Omar deliver his troops? That is not a given.
Both other insurgent groups - the Haqqani Group and Hizb-i-Islami - have indicated they are open to negotiations, but the Americans will have a hard time sitting down with the Haqqanis. The group has been implicated in the deaths of numerous U.S. and coalition forces. To leave the Haqqani Group out, however, will derail the whole process.
The U.S. would like to exclude Iran, but as Rashid points out, "No peace process in Afghanistan can succeed without Iran's full participation." And then there is India. Pakistan sees Indian involvement in Afghanistan as part of New Delhi's strategy to surround Pakistan, and India accuses Pakistan of harboring terrorists who attack Indian-controlled Kashmir and launched the horrendous 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.
Murphy's Law suggests that things are more likely to end in chaos than reasoned diplomacy. But self-interest is a powerful motivator, and all parties, including India, stands to gain something by ending the war. India very much wants to see the 1,050-mile TAPI pipeline built, as it will carry gas from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Fazilka, India.
A lot is at stake, and if getting the peace process going involved taking out Osama bin Laden, well, in the cynical world of the "Great Game," to make an omelet, you have to break eggs.
Back in the Victorian era the British Army marched off singing a song:
"We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do/
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too"
But in the 21st century most of our allies' armies don't want to fight, ships are useless in Afghanistan, there aren't enough men, and everyone is broke.
For 33 years the people of Afghanistan have been bombed, burned, shot, tortured and turned into refugees. For at least the moment the pieces are aligned to bring this awful war to an end. It is time to close the book on the "Great Game" and bring the troops home.
Originally published at Dispatches From the Edge.
Photo: Afridi picket near Jumrood, Khyber & Rotass in distance, 1878. With the spread of Russia's sphere of influence in Central Asia, British foreign policy in the 19th century was motivated by fears of their Indian Empire being vulnerable to Russian moves southwards. The Anglo-Russian rivalry in Asia, termed the Great Game, precipitated the Second Afghan War. The British were trying to establish a permanent mission at Kabul which the Amir Sher Ali, trying to keep a balance between the Russians and British, would not permit. The arrival of a Russian diplomatic mission in Kabul in 1878 increased British suspicions of Russian influence and ultimately led to them invading Afghanistan.
The Afridis were a powerful, independent Pashtun tribe inhabiting the Peshawar border of the North West Frontier Province, who defended their mountainous strongholds with tenacity and courage, impressing the British who took them on as troops. They had a reputation for being first rate soldiers and particularly good skirmishers. The Afridi soldiers are pictured with their jezails, long and heavy Afghan muskets, with which they were excellent sharpshooters. (John Burke/Wikimedia Commons/British Library)