[Infowarrior] - more on (1): Defense Industry Shill: Give Lockheed Credit for Bin Laden Kill

[Richard Forno]

Loren's rebuttal to the outcry from his first blog post yesterday.    -- rick


LexingtonInstitute.org
June 25, 2012

Early Warning Blog

Obama Backers Give Short Shrift To Industry In Bin Laden Takedown Tale

Author: Loren Thompson, Ph.D.

Supporters of President Obama's reelection apparently have decided that when
it comes to discussing his record as commander in chief, Exhibit A has to be
the takedown of Al Qaeda kingpin Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan last year. A
coterie of current and former Pentagon officials has been making the rounds
at think tanks and on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, lauding Mr. Obama's
courage in undertaking what by all accounts was a risky mission.

And why shouldn't they? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney spent seven years
looking for the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, and never managed to corner
him. That didn't exactly send the right message to other extremists who
might have sought to imitate Bin Laden's example. If you read the published
accounts of how he was finally killed, it is clear most of the relevant
action occurred on President Obama's watch -- from the tracking of a key
courier to the identification of Bin Laden's compound near Islamabad to the
daring raid by Navy SEALS.

So I'm not going to criticize Obama's backers for highlighting a clear-cut
victory in what used to be called the global war on terror. But I am going
to complain about the player that wasn't invited to their victory
celebration: the defense industry. No doubt about it, the president took a
big risk that paid off, the SEALS deserve their commendations and the
intelligence community regained its reputation for world-class sleuthing.
But would any of this have been possible without the secret technology
provided by the defense industry?

Probably not. According to the New York Times, intelligence analysts spent
weeks poring over satellite imagery of Bin Laden's compound once his courier
was tracked to the area making certain they had enough hard information to
justify a raid into Pakistan. They also began monitoring the compound using
sensitive eavesdropping equipment. Sophisticated software was needed to fuse
together all the telltale indications of Bin Laden's presence. And those
pictures of the president's security team watching the operation unfold on a
monitor in the White House situation room -- that wasn't a feed from the
KCBS news copter, it was coming from a stealthy surveillance drone that the
Washington Post later reported had conducted dozens of missions in Pakistani
airspace to help nail down Bin Laden's location.

Based on published reports, the satellites and surveillance drone were
probably built by Lockheed Martin, using sensors and other gear developed by
Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Raytheon probably led development of the
network that processed and disseminated key imagery. The Sikorsky unit of
United Technologies probably modified Blackhawk helicopters so the SEALS
could fly into Pakistan undetected by local forces and Bin Laden supporters.
And Chinook helicopters made by Boeing were vital to the initial staging of
the operation.

Obviously, there are compelling reasons why the government can't discuss
much of this in public. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of whole
constellations of eavesdropping satellites, most of which are apparently
built by Northrop Grumman. But is it really asking too much for some sort of
official acknowledgement of the role that private enterprise played in the
Bin Laden raid?

The Bin Laden takedown wasn't just a smashing success for the Obama
Administration and the Joint Force, it was the latest victory for
cutting-edge American technology. There really should be some mention in
public discussions of the Bin Laden operation of the role industry played in
making the mission work. If you don't know that part of the story in the
global campaign to defeat al Qaeda, then it's hard to explain why the
military is now able to move on to an "Asia-Pacific" posture. 


---
Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.