The U.S. government hadn't had a solid lead on al Qaeda's leader since the battle of Tora Bora in winter 2001. Although there are informed hypotheses that today he is in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province on the Afghan border, perhaps in one of the more northerly areas such as Bajaur, these are essentially guesses, not "actionable" intelligence.
A longtime American counterterrorism analyst explained to me, "There is very limited collection on him personally."
That's intelligence community shorthand for the fact that the usual avenues of "collection" on a target such as bin Laden are yielding little or no information about him. Those avenues typically include signal intercepts of phone calls and e-mails, as well as human intelligence from spies.
We have "limited collection" on him. The general assumption has always been--for some--are we doing enough to find bin Laden? Shouldn't we be sending more UAVs over Pakistan and more special ops people into the place?
I wonder about that:
Why do we assume this? I'd think that after seven years we'd have gotten a solid lead. Maybe taken a shot even if we missed. But apparently we've had nothing.
So what if Osama is long gone from Pakistan? Doesn't that make far more sense than assuming that a tall Arab has managed to disguise himself and move around inside Pakistan?
Maybe he really is dead.
Maybe he's in Iran.
Heck, maybe he's in Russia. Maybe the Russians decided to store Osama away in case they need him.
I don't assume Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. Perhaps he really is. But I don't assume that is the only explanation for our failure to capture him eight years after 9/11.
