Obama aides were divided on bin Laden raid

President Barack Obama listens during one in a series of meetings discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White House May 1, 2011. REUTERS/White House/Pete Souza/Handout

President Barack Obama listens during one in a series of meetings discussing the mission against Osama bin Laden, in the Situation Room of the White House May 1, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/White House/Pete Souza/Handout

WASHINGTON | Tue May 3, 2011 1:23pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama held a crucial meeting last week in which his advisers debated three options for dealing with top-secret information about a luxury compound in Pakistan where they thought Osama bin Laden might be hiding.

At a two-hour meeting in the ultra-secure White House Situation Room, the team discussed the pros and cons of a raid on the compound by a small group of elite U.S. forces, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The two other alternatives were to conduct a strike or to wait for information that might lend greater clarity on whether the al Qaeda leader was indeed holed up at the fortress-like compound outside of Islamabad, the official said.

Obama's advisers were split at the Thursday meeting and the president took a night to think about the decision, the official said.

On Friday morning, just before leaving to visit tornado-hit Alabama, Obama revealed to a small group of aides that he had decided in favor of an immediate raid, the official said.

"It's a go," Obama told his advisers, as he ordered the operation that led to killing of the mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Information about the Abbotabad compound had surfaced last August but it was not until March that U.S. officials felt convinced enough of bin Laden's potential presence there that they began to develop a list of options.

U.S. intelligence analysts had been monitoring the complex, observing that there was a million-dollar home there owned by someone with no apparent source of income. There also appeared to be a family living there, including a man who never left the compound, according to the official.

NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE

The family seemed to fit a profile of bin Laden's family. Still, right up until the end, no one in the Obama administration, including the U.S. president, knew for sure.

The discussions over what to do took place over a period of weeks in meetings that were so closely held, no photographers were present and the sessions were not given titles, the official said.

Because the person who was believed to be bin Laden seemed always to remain at the compound, that removed some of the pressure to act immediately on the suspicions.

Still, Obama and his aides feared delaying action too long would increase the risk that word of the surveillance might leak out and their target might flee, the official said.

The timing of Obama's Friday order of the raid was driven in part by that concern. Also playing a role in the timing was the fact that the U.S. Navy SEAL team had carried out a number of rehearsals of the operation and was deemed ready to move ahead by its commander.

On Sunday afternoon, Obama convened a meeting at the White House where the mood was "tense" and "anxiety-ridden" as the group monitored the unfolding operation on a screen, the official said.

Those present included Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.

"We got him, guys," Obama said in reaction to the news of bin Laden's death.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (10)
Eideard wrote:
Tunnel vision never helps.

Glad to see there was a broad discussion. That’s what advisors are for in a democracy – not rubber stamps.

The military accomplished what they are trained to do. The only important decisions were of how and when and where – and why. Everything but “how” was decided in the White House. As it should be.

May 03, 2011 8:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sheffboyrd wrote:
@hustuhvoter

Your type hate mongering is the reason we are at war in two COUNTRIES our sons and daughters have no reason to be fighting and dying in…this was a good thing for our country; don’t ruin it by inciting more violence and hate. Thank you.

May 03, 2011 8:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:
@justuhvoter….Yes Pakistan should have known, but look how long it took us to get the Unabomber and he lived in our borders. I am not trying to defend them but you need to have a little perspective when you talk about how to deal with Pakistan. They are a NUCLEAR armed nation, now that we have gotten Bin Laden, are unquestionable top priority is insuring the stability of this government. Yes we need to review our aid, but that has already been happening in the last 6 mos.

As sheffboyrd (funny name btw) said, do not incite more violence and hate when you do not know that whole situation. There are bigger concerns here then you realize. Thankfully we have a CIC that obviously sees the bigger picture. This can be elucidated by how he has handled the information and planning of the raid that killed Bin Laden, all the while with the crazies on the right accusing him of not being an American and trying to purposely ruin the country. This man, Obama, has shown what true leadership is, if anything this is a ‘mission accomplished’ moment, but do you see him chest thumping like Bush did with a big banner? No you do not, because he is a true leader instead of a sycophant.

May 03, 2011 10:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.