logo
Netflix's new Osama bin Laden series: Why the US didn't inform Pakistan govt about its mission in Abbottabad

Netflix's new Osama bin Laden series: Why the US didn't inform Pakistan govt about its mission in Abbottabad

Indian Express19-05-2025
A new Netflix documentary series titled American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden recalls how the US government captured the 'Most Wanted' terrorist in the world following the 9/11 attacks.
The three-part series covers the decade between the 2001 attacks and bin Laden's killing at the hands of US forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011. It features CIA officials and key figures in the administrations of US Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama.
It also briefly touches upon why Obama decided against alerting the Pakistan government about his decision to raid what they suspected to be bin Laden's residence on the night of May 2, 2011.
What was the rationale for the US's decision? And what was Pakistan's level of awareness about bin Laden living less than 150km from the military headquarters in Rawalpindi? Here is what officials and reports have found over the years.
The United States began the mission to find Laden even before the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (headquarters of the US Department of Defence). Around 3,000 Americans died in what was the biggest terror attack on US soil.
Bin Laden, who hailed from Saudi Arabia, was known to US intelligence agencies because of his links to funding mujahideen. As far back as 1996, the CIA's Counter-Terrorist Centre (CTC) set up a special unit dedicated to analysing his actions in the Middle East and Africa.
In the late 1990s, he shifted base to Afghanistan and formed al-Qaeda, intending to wage global jihad. The US government had earlier supported mujahideens in the country to push back against Soviet presence (1979-89). However, bin Laden was of the view that the United States was the real enemy that needed to be targeted for its interference in the Middle East, and its supposed incompatibility with Islamic values.
The manhunt intensified right after 2001, with US officials believing that the Taliban government was sheltering al-Qaeda and bin Laden, and ultimately dislodging it from power. However, bin Laden remained at large. Finally, towards the end of the 2000s, his presence in Pakistan was zeroed in on through several clues, including tracking courier movements and satellite imagery.
This information led US intelligence officers to a three-story white mansion in Abbottabad, which had two families going in and out, but seemed to house a third set of inhabitants. It had high walls and a covered balcony, which stood out in a town known for its scenic views of mountains.
However, US agencies still lacked definitive proof. The decision for the US SEAL Team 6, a specialised force, to reach Abbottabad via Afghanistan and not inform the Pakistan government was thus further complicated.
The Obama war cabinet gave mixed opinions on going in without concrete evidence. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lent her support, while Vice President Joe Biden opposed it. Ultimately, Obama decided in favour of it.
John Brennan, who was the chief counterterrorism advisor to Obama at the time of the mission, said in the documentary, 'President Obama was clear that we're not going to inform the Pakistanis, because Pakistani intelligence has worked both sides of the fence for many years, and they had relationships with a lot of the militant and terrorist groups in the areas, including with al-Qaeda.'
In his book A Promised Land (2020), Obama detailed this view. Even during the 2008 presidential campaign, he said during a public debate, 'If I had Osama bin Laden in my sights within Pakistani territory, and the Pakistani government was unwilling or unable to capture or kill him, I would take the shot.'
He criticised the Bush administration for maintaining 'the dual fiction that Pakistan was a reliable partner in the war against terrorism and that we never encroached on Pakistani territory in the pursuit of terrorists.'
A report by Bruce Riedel, a former National Intelligence Officer, is also mentioned in the book. It said that 'Not only did the Pakistan military (and in particular its intelligence arm, ISI) tolerate the presence of Taliban headquarters and leadership in Quetta, near the Pakistani border, but it was also quietly assisting the Taliban as a means of keeping the Afghan government weak and hedging against Kabul's potential alignment with Pakistan's archrival, India.'
However, the US was still dependent on Pakistan for overland routes to supply their Afghanistan operations, and to 'tacitly facilitate our counterterrorism efforts against al-Qaeda camps within its territory.'
Still, Obama was clear that for the bin Laden mission, 'Whatever option we chose could not involve the Pakistanis. Although Pakistan's government cooperated with us on a host of counterterrorism operations… it was an open secret that certain elements inside the country's military, and especially its intelligence services, maintained links to the Taliban and perhaps even al-Qaeda.'
He added, 'The fact that the Abbottabad compound was just a few miles from the Pakistan military's equivalent of West Point (the Pakistan Military Academy) only heightened the possibility that anything we told the Pakistanis could end up tipping off our target. Whatever we chose to do in Abbottabad, then, would involve violating the territory of a putative ally in the most egregious way possible, short of war— raising both the diplomatic stakes and the operational complexities.'
In the immediate aftermath of the mission, the Pakistani government denied having any information about bin Laden's whereabouts. Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's Ambassador to the US in 2011, later claimed that Pakistan would have gained in terms of its credibility on terror-related issues by cooperating on bin Laden, and would have actually helped the US if it knew his location.
Several commentators have questioned the possibility of the Pakistan government being totally unaware. A report in The New York Times claimed in 2014 that over time, US officials would deny any culpability of the Pakistani government to journalists. 'It was as if a decision had been made to contain the damage to the relationship between the two governments,' it said.
One source also told The NYT that the ISI 'ran a special desk assigned to handle Bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior.'
Further, the files collected from bin Laden's house revealed regular correspondence between Bin Laden and leaders such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed, whom the Pakistan government is known to have supported in the past.
On its part, Pakistan set up a commission of inquiry after the Abbottabad raid. Its contents were never made public, but Al Jazeera claimed to have unearthed it in 2014. It said, 'The Commission's 336-page report is scathing, holding both the government and the military responsible for 'gross incompetence' leading to 'collective failures' that allowed both Bin Laden to escape detection, and the United States to perpetrate 'an act of war'.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Did Vladimir Putin prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes startling claim
Did Vladimir Putin prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes startling claim

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

Did Vladimir Putin prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016? Declassified intelligence report makes startling claim

In a twist to the long-running Russiagate saga, newly declassified intelligence documents suggest that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) may have misrepresented Russian President Vladimir Putin 's true preferences in the 2016 US election. Contrary to the widely accepted narrative that Russia aimed to boost Donald Trump 's chances, the reports show that key intelligence indicators suggesting Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton were ignored or dismissed. The ICA's failure to explore alternative hypotheses has been called a "serious tradecraft mistake" with high-impact consequences, influencing top US government decisions across three branches. These revelations are shifting the focus of Russiagate from alleged collusion with Trump to overlooked intelligence about Clinton. Declassified reports: CIA ignored signs Putin may have wanted Clinton to win According to Finding #7 from the declassified oversight report, the ICA failed to perform a systematic evaluation of alternative explanations, a core requirement of intelligence tradecraft under ICD 203. Specifically, it dismissed the possibility that Putin did not care who won, or even had strategic reasons to prefer a Clinton presidency. The overlooked evidence suggests that: Putin might have viewed Clinton as a more vulnerable and predictable adversary, potentially easier to manipulate diplomatically. Russia held back more damaging kompromat on Clinton, suggesting a calculated move to retain leverage over a future Clinton administration, leverage that would not exist with Trump. The ICA authors' insistence on a 'single-track hypothesis' led them to ignore contrary intelligence and attempt to shape weak evidence to support the conclusion that Putin favored Trump. A 'high-impact' intelligence failure with political consequences The report criticizes the ICA's methodology, especially given its massive influence. The document was disseminated across 250 US officials, including members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and heavily influenced public opinion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Understand The Importance Of Steam-Based Sterilization contentcuehub Search Now Undo Analysts argue that the ICA's failure to account for alternative theories misled US policymakers at a critical time. Furthermore: The ICA's narrow focus fueled years of partisan conflict and undermined public trust in democratic institutions. The claim that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump may have lacked solid grounding, while stronger evidence pointing to Clinton as the real strategic choice was sidelined. Intelligence insiders now admit the ICA 'glossed over' the possibility that Putin withheld pre-election operations for future use, particularly against Clinton. Revisiting the narrative, reconsidering the truth The recent declassification of intelligence documents has cast new light on the origins and direction of the Russiagate narrative. While Donald Trump faced years of scrutiny over alleged Russian ties, including investigations, public doubt, and political fallout, it now appears that some intelligence suggesting Vladimir Putin may have preferred Hillary Clinton was known but not given equal attention. If true, this raises difficult questions about the role of selective disclosure and political influence within intelligence channels. For Trump and his supporters, this serves as vindication, not just from the false collusion accusations, but from a broader establishment effort to delegitimize his presidency before it even began. The fact that this evidence was hidden until now suggests institutional bias at the highest levels. As the US enters another election cycle, the importance of transparency and trust in democratic institutions becomes even more urgent. Both sides of the political divide can agree that the public deserves a full accounting, not just of what happened, but of who decided what the American people were allowed to know.

'Prosecute him…': Gabbard reveals stunning details of Obama's role in 2016 election 'Russia hoax' - The Economic Times Video
'Prosecute him…': Gabbard reveals stunning details of Obama's role in 2016 election 'Russia hoax' - The Economic Times Video

Time of India

time2 hours ago

  • Time of India

'Prosecute him…': Gabbard reveals stunning details of Obama's role in 2016 election 'Russia hoax' - The Economic Times Video

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt briefs the media on the 2016 election 'Russia hoax'. DNI Tulsi Gabbard escalated her claims against the Obama-era Intelligence leadership, alleging they orchestrated a conspiracy to delegitimise Donald Trump's 2016 victory. In her new report, Gabbard directly names former President Barack Obama, ex-FBI Director James Comey, DNI James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan.

Modi's Maldives visit is a reset button pressed with patience
Modi's Maldives visit is a reset button pressed with patience

Hindustan Times

time3 hours ago

  • Hindustan Times

Modi's Maldives visit is a reset button pressed with patience

Prime Minister (PM) Modi will be on a two-day visit to the Maldives from July 25 to 26. This will be his first State visit to the island nation in six years, and third once since he took office in 2014. This visit comes in the backdrop of President Mohamed Muizzu's active pursuance of the 'India Out' campaign, premised on getting the Indian military technical staff out from the island nation, who were stationed in Male to help them with operating the India-gifted helicopters and Dornier reconnaissance aircraft. After President Muizzu took office in November 2023. His initial statements and interviews, including a fiery interview to the Al-Jazeera, saying, 'We may be small but that doesn't give you their licence to bully us.' The veiled remark had quickly made headlines in the international media. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Maldives President Mohamed Muizzu before their meeting at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi on October 7. (RAJ K RAJ /HT Photo) From 'India Out' becoming the anthem of Muizzu's presidential campaign, a veiled remark on India as a bully after he entered office and distasteful remarks by the Maldivian legislators, the neighbourhood watchers in Delhi saw it as a major downturn. But during PM Modi's forthcoming State visit where he will also be the guest of honour at the celebrations of the independence of Maldives on July 26, both sides would be looking to restore ties, but more than anything, trust-building will be cardinal as also solidifying the Comprehensive Economc and Maritimne Security Partnership adopted during President Muizzu's India visit in October 2024. While the rise of ultra-nationalism in the Maldives, with an anti-India campaign at its core, has been a significant setback to the friendly relationship between the two countries, it is the the China factor that has been of immense worry to Delhi. Undoubtedly, the Maldives' location in the India Ocean presents Beijing with a greater and closer view of India—posing a threat to India's security and threatening the idea of a free and open Indo-Pacific. And it needs no guessing that China's active manoeuvrings in the Indian Ocean Region are of a dual purpose—one that seeks to secure supply chains and sea lanes of communication for its growing economic, industrial and energy needs, and another that strategically looks at the military presence as a key to dominance—and warrants a response from India which remains the key regional player. Against this backdrop, PM Modi's much-awaited visit to the Maldives is a clear marker of the ease of working in the relationship—something that seemed missing in the early quarters of President Muizzu's presidency and hopes for normalcy remained a looming challenge or to some, it was impossible. President Muizzu's early days in office saw his visits to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and China, but India was a miss on the priority list. And for all good and bad, the foreign policy observers in Delhi were quick to suggest that visits by any newly elected heads of countries in the neighbourhood other than India be treated as a diplomatic loss for Delhi. And this pessimism made sense to the Indian media not just in the context of Maldives, but also on Nepal and Bangladesh, whose current leaders took up their first trips to China, and not to India. But one often discredits the role of geography, which by default puts India back as the closest neighbour—whether neighbours prefer or not. Secondly, India's role as the first responder during freshwater crisis in the Maldives in 2016, earthquake in Nepal in 2016, and 2022 economic crisis in Sri Lanka has proved its reliability. And not to forget, India's recent financial support to the Maldives has not gone unnoticed. Therefore, the Indian foreign policy establishment must be credited for its patient diplomacy, which has tactically limited itself from early reactions. But rapid responses in the media on political developments in the neighbourhood, especially in the case of the Maldives and Nepal, often miss taking the year 2008 into account. After their respective struggles against monarchy and autocracy, both became democracies, and the the rise of a new political opposition was instrumental in shaping multidirectional foreign policy of these countries. While the older guard chose to continue with a pro-India approach, the opposition had to re-invent itself, and China seemed the closest alternative that worked for their political requirements. Now with India attempting to reconfigure its neighbourhood first approach with patience to build natural synergies with the smaller neighbours and their new political setups, Delhi knows that China is a new strategic reality. As PM Modi touches down in Malé, Delhi should not see it as just a ceremonial reset, but an opportunity to reorient its approach with more strategic clarity. In doing so, India will have to de-hyphenate political affection from the strategic compulsion, and graduate from the temptation of favouring one party or a specific leader. India's engagement with President Muizzu must be pragmatic, institutional, and not performative or punitive. Secondly, India must counter Beijing's strategic buildup with strategic presence and not strategic anxiety. China is a hard reality and undoing it must not be a policy option, rather it should be countered through diplomatic posturing, investing in quiet and permanent developmental cooperation would yield results. Thirdly, India's smaller neighbours will continue to reinvent themselves through symbolic defiance using the cancel culture towards India-led projects and initiatives. But this must not be a major obstacle for Delhi as it will always be the case for local political parties and entities in shaping their nationalistic outlook. However, even those opposing India's goodwill initiatives in the Maldives cannot ignore India's cardinal role as a first responder. But this view only gets reflected when those opposing get elected to serve the government. Lastly, bilateral paternalism needs to be shifted to the multilateral leadership. India's regional security architecture in the Indian Ocean Region considers countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives crucial and through initiatives like SAGAR—Security and Growth for All in the Region, which has been upgraded to MAHASAGAR—Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and growth for All in the Region, the multilateral approach gets reflected on several fronts, including security and growth involving maritime. Also, considering Maldives also faces the acute climatic challenge due to rising sea-levels—posing an existential threat to the Maldives—initiatives like SAGAR have evolved into MAHASAGAR reflecting upon the priorities and needs of the smaller maritime neighbors, including the safeguard against traditional threats like smuggling and terrorism through sea routes to building new age digital public infrastructure. The views expressed are personal. This article is authored by Rishi Gupta, assistant director, International Security, Asia Society Policy Institute, New Delhi.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store