Down the rabbit hole: Bin Laden raid was staged after extensive Pakistan-US negotiations – report

 

Washington fabricated several key claims regarding the 2011 mission in which a US Navy SEAL team killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to legendary journalist Seymour Hersh in the latest challenge to the White House’s narrative of the raid.

Hersh, writing in the London Review of Books, has alleged that the United States government and Pakistani officials in fact worked closely–attempting to smooth political and financial concerns between the two nations–prior to the May 2011 assault on bin Laden’s Abbottabad, Pakistan compound.

“The White House still maintains that the mission was an all-American affair, and that the senior generals of Pakistan’s army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) were not told of the raid in advance. This is false, as are many other elements of the Obama administration’s account,” Hersh wrote.

“The White House’s story might have been written by Lewis Carroll: would bin Laden, target of a massive international manhunt, really decide that a resort town forty miles from Islamabad would be the safest place to live and command al-Qaida’s operations?”

Contrary to US claims, bin Laden was not located through tracking of his couriers but through a “walk-in,” Hersh wrote in the piece, which was sourced mainly by a “retired senior intelligence official,” among a handful of anonymous others.

In August 2010, a “former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad” approached the CIA’s station chief at the US embassy in Islamabad to report bin Laden’s whereabouts. Once deemed reliable, the unnamed source — later moved to Washington to work as a CIA consultant — collected the outstanding $25 million reward offered by the US for information about bin Laden.

Bin Laden, Hersh wrote, was captured by Pakistan in 2006 and kept warehoused at the expense of Saudi Arabia, which wanted to keep the Al-Qaeda leader under wraps based on Riyadh’s close ties to the jihadist group. In addition, bin Laden was also considered a bargaining chip for Pakistan against Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

“The ISI was using bin Laden as leverage against Taliban and al-Qaida activities inside Afghanistan and Pakistan,” the retired official told Hersh. “They let the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership know that if they ran operations that clashed with the interests of the ISI, they would turn bin Laden over to us. So if it became known that the Pakistanis had worked with us to get bin Laden at Abbottabad, there would be hell to pay.”

Once confronted by the US about bin Laden’s location following the “walk-in” source’s information, Pakistan sought increased military aid and a “freer hand in Afghanistan” from the US in exchange for bin Laden.

 Pakistani Army Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of Pakistan’s ISI, negotiated and facilitated terms surrounding the raid, including the assurance that “Pakistan’s army and air defence command would not track or engage with the US helicopters used on the mission.” The Pakistani officials operated under the assumption that President Barack Obama would not trumpet the killing in public for at least a week — which was not the eventual result.

“Then a carefully constructed cover story would be issued: Obama would announce that DNA analysis confirmed that bin Laden had been killed in a drone raid in the Hindu Kush, on Afghanistan’s side of the border,” Hersh wrote.

 

Upon reaching the facility in Abbottabad, Navy SEAL Team Six encountered no resistance, as an “ISI liaison officer flying with the Seals guided them into the darkened house and up a staircase to bin Laden’s quarters,” Hersh wrote.

The “invalid” bin Laden “was cowering and retreated into the bedroom. Two shooters followed him and opened up. Very simple, very straightforward, very professional hit,” the retired official said. Bin Laden was not, as the White House said, killed by the SEALs out of self-defense amid a firefight.

The SEALs had so much clearance, Hersh wrote, that after the raid – which included the crashing of a Black Hawk helicopter – they were able to wait several minutes unimpeded for additional air transportation outside the compound in a resort town very near Pakistani military installations and rife with armed personal bodyguards at private residences.

During the raid, bin Laden’s body was torn to pieces by rifle fire, according to the account, and parts of his body were later “tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains.” His burial at sea consistent with Islamic custom — a claim made by US officials — was also fabricated, Hersh wrote.

  The supposed cache of intelligence material taken from the compound was another lie, Hersh reported, used to justify the raid.

‘US allies against ISIS are actually ISIS’ main allies’

October 28, 2014  

This US Air Forces Central Command photo released by the Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) shows a formation of US Navy F-18E Super Hornets in flight after receiving fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker over northern Iraq (AFP Photo/ US Air Force / Staff Sgt. Shawn Nickel)

The way the US is carrying the anti-ISIS war is a total failure because the countries that initially supported, financed and armed ISIS are within the US coalition right now, Talal Atrache, an expert on Jihadist and Islamist mentality, told RT.

RT: A leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security has shown that since 2010, 13 men with terrorist ties have entered Canada through the US. Why is America ignoring the terrorist threat at home?

Talal Atrache: Since 9/11 the US has dramatically toughened its anti-terrorism laws in order to prevent attacks on its soil. It has increased its security and intelligence cooperation with many countries around the world and it has strongly lobbied the UN Security Council in order to favor anti-terrorist laws. Now the problem is that it’s difficult to draw a clear line between, for example, those who hold violent religious ideologies and those are simply pious and not Islamist terrorists. The states should not discriminate against them just because they pray and go to mosques. It’s not easy to track terrorists because… they are present worldwide, and the US policies in the Middle East have led to an increased number of failed states that have become safe havens for different terrorist groups. These groups have now bases everywhere, and with a progress of technology and means of communication they have found new ways of expanding their worldwide network and to diversify their financial sources. So this is just to say that you can’t create failed states worldwide and separately fight terrorism in the US or other individual countries.

RT: Why has Canada taken no action to stop these crossings of people linked to terrorist cells? Do you think Canada was notified about this?

TA: I don’t know whether Canada was really notified. I suppose there is a strong and very close coordination between Canada and the US in regard to security measures, and they should have been notified. Canada has taken many measures in order to counter terrorism, it has recently toughened its citizenship and immigration laws, it has increased its financial intelligence measures designed at tracking suspects. But many politicians believe that more should be done and there is a project…right now on the table that gives the Canadian security intelligence service more power to probe terrorism and to track suspects. Again, it’s not a domestic problem only; it’s an international issue that has to be dealt with proper international policies.

This image from a close circuit video shown during an October 23, 2014, press conference at Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in Ottawa shows supected shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (circled) running towards the Canadian Parliament. (AFP Photo / Peter Mccabe)

RT: Is there a connection between the events at Parliament Hill and Canada’s involvement in the US led anti-Islamic State coalition?

TA: Apparently yes, there is an indirect link, because the terrorist who did the attack apparently has some links with ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups, according to what ISIS is claiming right now and according to the profile of the terrorist. But this connection has to be yet proved in a more effective way, and definitely Canada’s involvement in this war has transformed Canada into target for ISIS. In another way, let’s say, even before Canada’s involvement in the US war against ISIS, there were already approximately 100 Canadian jihadists fighting in Syria in the ranks of ISIS. This is just to say again that this terrorism threat is international and not just local, domestic issue in Canada or the US.

RT: Do you think that the idea of anti-IS coalition led by the US is good? Would this policy be successful?

TA: The way that the US is carrying this war is a total failure. Why? Just because the main US allies against ISIS are ISIS’ main allies at the same time. The countries that supported initially and still financed, armed and supported ISIS are within the US coalition right now. And this doesn’t make sense. Turkey, for example, has become a jihadist highway; this is the main place, platform for jihadists. Jihadists are coming all over the world, transited in Turkey and going into Syria with indirect help of the Turkish government – Erdogan has not yet fired a single shot against ISIS. On the contrary, it has even helped, facilitated logistically the ISIS network in order to achieve its goals in Syria which is to topple the Syrian government and to destroy the Kurdish self-administration that has been recently announced. At the same time Saudi Arabia and Qatar have played a strong role since the beginning of the Syrian war in promoting, helping and financing [jihadists]. The US is allied with these countries to fight ISIS, and the main thing would be, the main policy or attitude, is to fight these countries’ policies that consist of supporting indirectly ISIS or Al-Nusra, which is the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, and other extremist groups.

Reuters / Stringer

RT: What are the main problems with this US-led coalition fighting ISIS?

TA: The problem now is that, unfortunately, the US is unable to deviate from their dogmatic policy that consists of boycotting the Syrian government, and the US really needs boots on the ground. The only viable option would be to coordinate with the Syrian army, to promote and to help the Syrian army who is the only force willing to pay the heavy price of fighting tens of thousands of ISIS and other jihadists. They estimated that the Syrian army has lost more than 70,000 soldiers fighting mostly the jihadist groups since 2011. It’s unimaginable that any other army in the world would be willing to pay that same price. This is on one side.

On the other [side], the US has done everything to reduce the influence of Syria during the past few years, it did everything it could to reduce the influence of Syria, Iran, BRICS group, including Russia and China, which happens to be the most qualified potential partners for the US campaign on terror. The main problem is that the US should change its allies if it really wants to fight terrorism, and to join forces with Russia, China, Iran, Syria, that is the principle, the main country concerned in this war. And on the other hand, to implement all the anti-terrorist laws against Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are in the US coalition.

There are many UN resolutions that have been passed in 2001, and here I can recall mainly the resolution 1373 that punishes any country that directly or indirectly supports terrorism. In this aspect the countries that should be targeted for supporting terrorism are Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries like Kuwait at the same time. So it’s a matter of changing alliances and stopping this dogmatic policy that leads nowhere except [to] failing states all over the Middle East from Syria to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. American policy in the Middle East has been a total failure, it just created safe haven for terrorists.

Saudi Arabia to supply Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles – report

Frustrated by the deadlock of the second round of Geneva 2 talks, Saudi Arabia has reportedly offered to supply the rebels with anti-aircraft missiles. Meanwhile Russia has accused the US of once again hijacking peace talks and pushing for regime change.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Russian-made antitank guided missiles and Chinese man-portable air-defense systems are up for grabs, already waiting in warehouses in Jordan and Turkey.

An Arab diplomat and several opposition figures with knowledge of the Saudi efforts have told WSJ that these supplies are likely to tip the battlefield scales, as the rebels will become capable of taking on the government’s air power and destroying heavy armored vehicles.

“New stuff is arriving imminently,” a Western diplomat with knowledge of the planned weapons deliveries told the American publication.

Leaders of the Syrian opposition said they don’t yet know the total amount of military aid that will be shipped. The new weapons are expected to reach southern Syria from Jordan while the opposition in the north will get arms from Turkey, the Western diplomat said.

Raising fears that civilian aircraft may eventually become targets, last June several media outlets suggested that Saudi Arabia had already begun supplying anti-aircraft launchers and missiles to militants in Syria. But so far Saudi Arabia, as well as the US, has been officially opposed to arming the rebels with big guns and antiaircraft missiles as they could fall into extremist hands.

According to the WSJ report, rebel commanders struck a deal on the new armaments shipment during a meeting with US and Saudi intelligence agents in Jordan on January 30. During that meeting, rebels allegedly claimed that their new military gains would help force official Damascus consider President Assad’s ouster and bring forward a political solution to the conflict.

Mercenaries on US payroll?

The Wall Street Journal also reports that their rebel sources claimed the US government is paying their salaries to fight the Assad forces. The Southern Front brigades allegedly received $3 million in cash in salaries during the two meetings in Jordan, one held on January 30 and the other late last year.

Meanwhile, congressional aides told the WSJ about scheduled meetings with Syrian opposition leaders next week. The Syrian delegation will allegedly seek extra armaments in order to battle al-Qaeda and al-Nusra elements.

“We’re trying to assure the international community that they can support moderates without the threat of arms falling into the hands of al-Qaeda,” said Oubai Shahbandar, a senior adviser to the Syrian opposition. Saudi Arabia and US have so far refused to comment.

Geneva 2 stalemate

As the second round of Geneva 2 talks so far fails to produce any results, the Russian Foreign Minister has criticized the American stance at the negotiations accusing it of hijacking the talks for the purpose of “regime change” in Syria.

“The only thing they want to talk about is the establishment of a transitional governing body,” Sergey Lavrov said Friday after meeting with the German foreign minister in Moscow. “Only after that are they ready to discuss the urgent and most pressing problems, like terrorism.”

“I am very worried about the systematic attempts to disrupt the political settlement in Syria,” therefore “forcing the (Syrian) government to slam the door.”

Lavrov recalled that talks were kick started to implement the original Geneva communique, position of which Russia and Syria solemnly defend. The June 2012 document stipulates the creation of a transitional political body, holding of free and fair elections, the start of a national dialogue, a review of the constitution and legal system. Nowhere does it mention removal of president Assad.

“Now they are saying that to keep talking is senseless, because the government (of Syria) doesn’t want to agree about the makeup of a transitional governing body. We are going in circles,” Lavrov said.

The Syrian government’s position remains that stopping terrorism and bloodshed should be the priority at the negotiations that started last month. The second round of negotiations between government and opposition representatives began on Monday but no progress has yet been made. The opposition, backed by the US and its allies, insists on forming a transitional authority with “full executive powers,” thus ousting Assad.

After five days of negotiations the opposition has accused the government’s team of “belligerence,” while the government delegation said that the opposition have an “unrealistic agenda.”

“The negotiations are not moving toward a political solution,” said Louay Safi, a spokesman for the Syrian opposition delegation, accusing the government side of adopting a hostile stance.

“I deeply regret to say that this round did not achieve any progress,” Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said. “We came to the Geneva conference to implement Syria’s declared position to reach a political solution. … Unfortunately the other side came with another agenda, with an unrealistic agenda.”

The UN’s Lakhdar Brahimi, curator of the talks, plans to meet the sides on Saturday, the final day for round two of the negotiations, but it remains unclear if he can offer any prospect of drawing the warring parties closer together.

Contractors flood into Iraq to give Al-Qaeda a run for the money

RT 04,02.2014
The rapidly developing Al-Qaeda incursion is forcing the Iraqi government not only to buy more American weapons and supplies, but also to payroll an army of mercenaries and private contractors, previously hired by the US Defense Department.

According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 5,000 specialists have been contracted by the Iraqi government. They are currently working in the country as analysts, military trainers, security guards, translators and even cooks. Some 2,000 of them are Americans.

“You have a situation where the government has become dependent on contractors,” Allison Stanger, a political-science professor at Middlebury College, told WSJ. “It’s a real quantum shift.”

“The military task has, in fact, been outsourced in Iraq,” confirmed analyst Steven Schooner, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

Washington’s relationship with Baghdad has undergone a major transformation. Officially, the US has just several hundred troops in Iraq and the US Defense Department does not contract private security companies to operate in Iraq.

Yet the major shift in US-Iraq relations now is that Washington is no longer allocating budget money on operations in Iraq. It is Baghdad that spends money on American weaponry, vehicles and equipment, while American defense companies are earning money in Iraq by placing military contractors there.

Private defense companies, such as Triple Canopy and Dyncorp International, have multibillion contracts in Iraq for years to come.

Washington is actively assisting the Iraqi government in fighting terrorism, supplying Baghdad with drones and is considering training some of the country’s elite military forces in neighboring Jordan.

An assault operation against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), a faction of Al-Qaeda currently occupying Fallujah, is promising to be a serious undertaking implying the use of the utmost in firepower, so Baghdad is buying $6 billion worth of military equipment from the US, including 24 Apache attack helicopters and nearly 500 Hellfire missiles.

A group of top US lawmakers attempted to block the Apache deal, expressing concerns that providing Iraq with helicopters and other arms to help battle Al-Qaeda, would also mean that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki might use them against his rivals. But the deal has nevertheless been finalized and the first batch of helicopters is expected in Iraq soon, along with the Hellfire missiles. This also means that 200 more contractors will come to Iraq to ensure the helicopters operate properly.

In the meantime violence in Iraq is at a record high. Al-Qaeda militants are advancing in the country’s south and are staging regular terror acts. It seems the Iraqi government has little choice but to come down on the insurgency with deadly force.

History repeats itself

It is probably no exaggeration to say that the war in Iraq is as far from being over as it was in 2003, with two major differences though. First: in the absence of Saddam Hussein his troops have been replaced with Al-Qaeda mujahedeen. Second: the US regular army has been supplanted by thousands of contractors, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The rest remains the same: English-speaking mercenaries are expected to choreograph the storming of Iraqi cities defended by Arab-speaking fighters of Al-Qaeda, exactly as it was back in 2004 during the Battle of Fallujah. Today Fallujah, occupied by Al-Qaeda, remains the primary target for the Iraqi government forces to assault backed by mercenaries.

US troops entered Iraq in 2003 and officially withdrew from the country in 2011. At the peak of war there were 157,800 American military personnel in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman, Navy Commander Bill Speaks, reported that there are only 250 American troops in Iraq. These servicemen are either advisers assigned to the Office of Security Cooperation overseeing the US military interaction with Iraqi national forces, or Marine Corps security guards securing US diplomatic facilities.

After the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq, the duty of protecting US interests in the country was relegated to thousands of contractors from the US Defense Ministry and other security agencies.

According to the US State Department and Pentagon, it is estimated there were over 12,500 contractors in Iraq, working for the US government as of January 2013. By October, according to a quarterly report, their number had decreased to 6,624 specialists. Less than a quarter of them (1,626) were American citizens, the rest were Iraqis (2,191), with 2,807 civilian experts from foreign countries.

Bill Speaks said that the last major US Defense Department contract in Iraq ended on December 15 and now there are zero contractors in Iraq hired by the US Defense Department.

Where did all those contractors go? They are still in Iraq, maintains the Foreign Policy magazine.

The FP asked Triple Canopy, a huge private defense company and sanctuary for the US Special Forces veterans, for details and learnt that “Recently all US government agencies have reduced their reliance on contractors due to budget cuts and have de-scoped contracts across the board, including in Iraq,” the company said a statement.

“Contractors will continue to remain engaged in Iraq in the near future. However, the majority of these personnel will likely be working on commercial extractive and construction projects,” the company said.

Contractors from America’s biggest defense companies are providing maintenance for the equipment and vehicles previously bought by the Iraqi government from the US, such as helicopters, C-130 transport aircrafts, surveillance planes, drones, communication equipment and more.

Over the years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan there have been multiple cases of contracting fraud.

The US Congress’ Independent Commission on Wartime Contracting determined that at least $31 billion in US funding had been wasted due to “poor oversight, fraud, waste, and abuse,” said FP’s former US Representative, Christopher Shays, who used co-chair the Commission.

“When the military had to leave, it made us even more dependent on contractors for security,” Shays said, adding that “The one thing that’s a given: We can’t go to war without contractors and we can’t go to peace without contractors.”

The US has allegedly spent over $200 billion on contractors in both Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade. Now that the US administration has transferred these expenditures to the Iraqi government, the American military industrial complex and private security companies are ready to make a fortune in Iraq.

The U.S. Senate has blocked the transfer for rent of helicopters “Apache” to Iraq

13.01.2014 military parity

In connection with the capture of the city of Fallujah and Ramadi by insurgents ” al-Qaeda “, in the U.S. there are voices to help the government of Iraq by the application of American air strikes on rebel formations , janes.com reports January 7.

Republican Adam Kinzinger criticized the U.S. government for ” short-sighted political decisions and hasty withdrawal of troops from the region.” He also said that the U.S. Air Force and intelligence agencies should assist the Iraqi security forces to regain control over these cities in Anbar province