How We Found Bin Laden: The Basics of Foreign Signals Intelligence

To expand on this, NSA is located on Ft. George Mead, in the state of Maryland. I have no doubt (as in, this is true) they have locations all over the world.

The government isn't shy about spending on defense, it is shy about spending on people. GS and GG pay scales aren't that great when compared to industry positions. Consider that GS-13 is often the max for SMEs in many engineering disciplines across the fed until you get into PhD territory (to stay technical, management roles more easily go up to GS-14/15). GS-14/15 if you're in cyber and somewhere like the NSA, maybe. And while that's better than GS-13, you're talking about capping at around $200k or a bit better in high cost of living areas with skills and clearances that could make you much more in industry.

They’re not, but they are shy about defying their own regulations around pay scales. The real money in defense is in private contracting.

probably an element to it of not attracting the wrong people, they recruit largely fresh out of college and I think the expectation is that people stay, akin to a career in civil service.

If you had people cycling through one of the most critical branches of US intelligence at startup pace primarily motivated by money that probably creates some issues. Because they probably care where these people wander off to when they leave the agency

Well you would be, by proxy.

There’s lots of terrorist organizations brandishing terrorist tactics the world over, why limit your choices by focusing only on the Israelis? They all kill children, too, like the Israelis did during these last attacks, maybe that’s also down your alley.

I hope they modernize and come to terms with the reality of the 21st century workforce… definitely needs a fed level revamp on the former part. The clearance part sounds like a good thing though…

First, there's an official position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Official_White_House_Pho...

Secondly, why would it be a coincidence? You don't think... the people in the situation room knew something, perhaps a situation, was happening at the time?

Otherwise, why would they _be_ in the situation room? There's usually a situation going on.

The WH photographer is always around taking pictures of whatever the president is doing; it's literally their fulltime job.

And yet

> I wanted to inform you that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) directed in August 2013 that the agency make no operational use of vaccination programs, which includes vaccination workers. Similarly, the Agency will not seek to obtain or exploit DNA or other genetic material acquired through such programs. This CIA policy applies worldwide and to U.S. and non-U.S. persons alike.

The CIA themselves recognizes such an approach as being bad overall.

[flagged]

> 9 years

Given all the resources, I guess we all need to keep our expectations low.

So how did the alternative course of action work out?

EDIT: instead of rejecting the Taliban's offer outright and, say, negotiating and acceptable outcome, we chose to go to war, spend trillions of dollars, kill countless people and ultimately still leave the Taliban in power.

The Taliban saying they need proof is a negotiation. There is no court of law. We could've simply bribed them. Imagine how much cheaper and how many lives would've been saved if we'd simply given them $1 billion to hand over bin Laden.

But no, instead we started a war we could never possibly win. And again, that's not hindisght being 20/20. The US has not won a war since 1945. We watched the USSR, who had far more tolerance for losses, lose a war in Afghanistan. Like in what world did we think we would ever "win"? The outcome was entirely predictable and foreseeable. Irony of ironies, it was our material support to Afghanistan in the Soviet invasion that quite literally created bin Laden.

The invasion of Iraq was sold in part by manufacturing a connection to 9/11. This is confirmed by public opinion [1]:

> In the months leading up to the war, sizable majorities of Americans believed ... that Iraq was closely tied to terrorism – and even that Hussein himself had a role in the 9/11 attacks.

Believing one source is simply looking for justification for what you were going to do anyway. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary, not th eleast of which was the UNSCOM inspections.

Also, it's just plain illogical for Saddam to have WMDs. Let's say he has WMDs. If the US invades, would he use them? Probably not because it wouldn't change the outcome and it would invite further retaliation. So if he's not going to use them, why not give them up to save his regime?

This isn't historical 20/20 hindsight either. These discussions were being had prior to the invasion.

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look-back-...

Error!

Bless your heart.

Sorry can you elaborate on this? What part is propaganda?

He'd still be in custody. How is what we have now better because he wasn't held by a third country?

So what's the goal here? To exact vengeance on one individual? To remove his ability to further act in this capacity?

Because what we chose instead was to spend $8 trillion on a 20 year war killing millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and still to objectively lose militarily, politically and in terms of the ability for the US to project power in the region. The Taliban control Afghanistan once again.

All while doing absolutely nothing agains the actual regime that provided material support to the 9/11 hijackers, the same regime from which the majority of the 19 hijackers (and bin Laden himself) actually came from.