OPERATION NEPTUNE’S SPEAR
Here’s the picture that’s been painted for us of Operation Neptune’s Spear (formerly identified as Operation Geronimo):

On April 29th, President Barack Obama approved a special forces raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. On the night of May 2nd (late afternoon May 1st US EST), two Black Hawk helicopters departed from Afghanistan (either Bagram or Jalalabad) for Abbottabad, carrying a team of over two dozen special forces operators from the Navy SEAL’s elite detachment, Team 6. According to the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, the helicopters used “advanced equipment”, terrain hugging techniques and “blind spots” in Pakistani radar coverage to evade detection. Once at their target location, the operation commenced, during which time, one of the helicopters crashed due to a malfunction. (Wreckage from the crashed helicopter indicates that the Black Hawks were modified variants with stealth features and radar absorbing paint.)

One of the two Chinook helicopters that were also in Pakistani airspace to provide backup to the Navy SEAL team, arrived at the scene of the operation following the crash one of the Black Hawks. On completion of the operation, which lasted about 40 minutes, the two helicopters flew to the North Arabian Sea where they landed on the USS Carl Vinson – a U.S. aircraft carrier. The Pakistani army chief and the chief of Pakistani intelligence were informed of the mission by their respective U.S. counterparts shortly after the U.S. helicopters were clear of Abbottabad. Allegedly, Pakistani jets were scrambled before then.

AWARE OF ABBOTTABAD?

The operation lasted 40 minutes, was relatively noisy (people were tweeting about it as it happened) and concluded with the explosion of the inoperable Black Hawk. This was followed by the long transit time of at least 4 hours from Abbottabad to the Arabian Sea, which required travel down the length of Pakistan, passing by six major Pakistan Air Force bases. (The distance from Abbottabad to the Pakistani coast is roughly 740 miles as the crow flies. The top speed of a Black Hawk helicopter is 183 mph. Traveling at a top speed over that distance would take just over four hours.)

It appears impossible that the helicopters, especially the Chinook, which was likely not stealth modified, could go undetected by the Pakistanis under the circumstances.

Could the Americans have been jamming Pakistani radar? Unlikely. An individual intimately familiar with USAF electronic warfare operations informed the Insider Brief that jamming a sovereign nation’s radar systems is technically an act of war. We are told that the best the U.S. could have hoped for in a situation like this was to be granted general autonomy in the region’s airspace by Pakistan. This, however, would imply a degree of cooperation from Pakistan.

Two possible scenarios emerge:

1. The Pakistanis were aware of the operation in advance and had authorized it.
2. The Pakistanis did not have advance notice, but detected the incursions and decided not to engage.

The first scenario can be written off. If the operation was authorized, why would the U.S. dispatch stealth helicopters for the mission? Secondly, if Pakistan had advance knowledge of the operation, the response by the Government of Pakistan wouldn’t be as delayed, confounded or mishandled as it has been. The Pakistan Army only just released a statement to the press nearly five days after the raid.

The second scenario is most likely. On both detecting the raiding helicopters and being informed by the Americans, the Pakistanis likely decided against confrontation (e.g., firing on the Black Hawks or forcing them to land). Avoiding confrontation with the U.S. despite violations of sovereignty has been a policy articulated by the Pakistani military in the past. Last month, the chief of Pakistan’s Air Force stated to the media that despite Pakistan’s ability to shoot down CIA operated Predator drones, Pakistan could not risk escalation or conflict with the U.S. given the United State’s vast technological and quantitative superiority.

With what “facts” that we have, it can be safely reasoned that Pakistan did not have advance knowledge of the operation. The U.S. claim that it acted alone and without authorization is likely accurate. However, the biggest question remains: who in Pakistan, if anyone, knew of Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad?

Radio: The John Batchelor Show
Earlier tonight, I appeared on the John Batchelor Show to discuss the continued volatility in Pakistan’s northwest, the assassination attempt on Hamid Karzai, as well as Senator Barack Obama new conciliatory tone towards Pakistan.

John’s show airs on Sundays, WABC 770AM in New York from 7-10pm EST (webcast), and KFI 640AM in Los Angeles from 7-10pm PST (webcast).

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Hillary Clinton is many things, but one thing she is not is unintelligent. Nor are those she surrounds herself with. Her foreign policy team — which includes former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and of course, her husband, former President Bill Clinton — is painfully aware of how impractical her proposal for joint oversight is. After all, it was under President Bill Clinton’s watch that Pakistan defiantly tested its nuclear weapons, despite the threat of new sanctions when its economy was teetering on the brink of collapse.

So then why did she issue such an undeniably flawed policy statement?

The answer is right in front of us in the media’s response. Following her third place finish in Iowa at the hands of Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards, Sen. Clinton’s policy appears to be a ploy designed to attract attention to her campaign on the eve of the crucial New Hampshire primary. With a media that thrives on soundbites, it’s a ploy that in the past has proven effective.

NUCLEAR FALLOUT
Not convinced that the proposal is a campaign tactic? Assume for a moment that Clinton is serious in proposing joint US-UK stewardship of Pakistani nuclear weapons. Implications abound, the proposal would risk severe fallout for Pakistan as well as US interests in the region:

Violent and Vocal Reaction in Pakistan. It’s safe to say that any sitting government in Pakistan that would agree to US oversight of the nation’s nuclear weapons would be overthrown either in a military coup or by an overwhelming response from the Pakistani public. President Pervez Musharraf is afraid to openly acknowledge American boots on the ground in Pakistan’s northwest, let alone American oversight of Pakistani nukes. (Just today, Pakistani spokepeople were bristling at alleged deliberations by the Bush administration to give the CIA expanded powers to operate within Pakistan.)

Spike in Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Muslim world. Pakistan is currently the world’s only Muslim nuclear weapons state. US supervision of Pakistan’s nukes would be viewed as a continuation of the American “crusade” against Muslims. Pakistanis in general have long been convinced that the US is seeking to destablize their country in the hopes of an excuse to defang its nuclear capabilities. Many average Pakistanis are convinced that the US had a role to play in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto for that very reason. Sen. Clinton’s proposal is a sure fire way of stoking anti-Americanism and bringing Islamists to power in Pakistan.

Disruption of Sino-US relations. China was heavily involved in helping facilitate the funding and technical expertise towards the Pakistani nuclear program. China’s involvement reflects a long-standing strategic relationship between itself and Pakistan. The Chinese will not take pseudo-US control of nuclear weapons in their backyard lying down. The US government should be prepared for a severe reaction from the Chinese govement including aggressive behavior around Taiwan, Central Asia and the support of a military coup in Pakistan.

Loss of Credibility for the Democratic Party in Pakistan. The Pakistani establishment has long favored the Republican Party given the party’s record of, more often than not, engaging Pakistan. Many in Pakistan have not forgotten the treatment meted out to them by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office. If Hillary Clinton pushes her policy proposal, she would be helping ensure a poor working relationship with the government of Pakistan anytime a Democrat is in office.

The aforementioned are only a handful of the potential (frightening) outcomes from the promotion/imposition of Sen. Clinton’s proposal. It’s unlikely that the likes of Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, or Hillary Clinton herself would have overlooked these.

LESSONS LEARNT
The buzz generated by Clinton’s statement lasted a heartbeat and as of now, she trails behind Barack Obama by 9 points in New Hampshire. It’s a poignant lesson for all presidential candidates who seek to use controversial statements as a short term means of boosting their respective campaigns. Instead of formulating strong messages backed by well thought out policies, they end up right back where they started while looking, well, unintelligent.

Obama has taken some rather hardline stances in the past when it has come to Pakistan. He’s stated in the past that:

• the US should unilaterally send troops into Pakistan if there is actionable intelligence re: high value terrorist targets. (He later revisited this statement.)
• US Vice President, Dick Cheney, who currently manages US policy towards Pakistan, should visit Pakistan and ask President Musharraf to step down.
• Pakistan has many problems — including an anti-democratic president and an Islamist extremist movement that operates freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Without having made substantive statements with regard to Pakistan since his botched comment over invading Pakistan (see above), it’s clear that Obama doesn’t have a detailed Pakistan policy the way Senator Joe Biden did. In fact, now that Sen. Biden has quit his election bid for president, there are few, if any remaining candidates, with legitimate Pakistan related policies. For instance, Senator Hillary Clinton’s latest proposal that Pakistan share oversight of its nuclear weapons with the US and Great Britain is ludicrous — not legitimate policy.

There is an opening here for the Pakistani foreign ministry.

With a stunning win at the Iowa Caucuses and real potential for a win in New Hampshire only days away, Barack Obama’s chances for the White House continue to grow. It’s in the interest of the Pakistani foreign office, particularly the Pakistan Embassy, to be as accessible and as engaged as possible with US presidential candidates, particularly those such as Obama, in the hopes of shaping future US foreign policy towards Pakistan for the next half decade.

Campaign donations wouldn’t hurt either.