Bin Laden’s Murder Payment to Pakistan?

This chart is generated at https://www.foreignassistance.gov/ with counterterrorism assistance as the indicator and Pakistan as the country.

This commentary explores whether the U.S. paid any money to Pakistan for the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. As the graph demonstrates, the U.S. paid over $500 million to Pakistan as counter-terrorism funds in 2011, the year Bin Laden was murdered in Abbottabad, a small city located 75 miles north of Islamabad.  This amount stands out on the chart as compared to the counter-terrorism funds paid to Pakistan before and after 2011.  The chart furnishes an intriguing indicator that something special was cooking in the enhanced partnership between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009

On assuming the presidency in 2009, Barack Obama refocused on the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and agreed to draw in Pakistan more strongly to defeat the Al Qaeda operatives mounting fierce opposition to the U.S. occupying forces, a venture known as the AfPak policy. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the joint leadership of Senators Kerry and Lugar had proposed a significant increase in aid to Pakistan as a quid pro quo for measurable results to root out terrorism in the AfPak region.

In October 2009, Congress passed the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (The Act).  The Act defines counterterrorism “as efforts to defeat al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations … or other individuals engaged in terrorist activity.” The Act recognizes that Pakistan “has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda … but much more needs to be accomplished.” The Act further notes: “Despite killing and capturing hundreds of al Qaeda operatives, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad,” Pakistan remains a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other terrorists.

The Act promises assistance in various fields and for various purposes. Assistance for each purpose is categorized and separated.  For example, the monies allocated for health, girls’ education, civil liberties, and other democratic, economic, and development purposes are separated from monies allocated for counterterrorism. Furthermore, counterterrorism is distinguished from counterinsurgency, a militant phenomenon attempting to overthrow the government and institutions of Pakistan. Accordingly, the security-related assistance provided for counterinsurgency must not be confused with the monies allocated for counterterrorism.

Murder Money

Therefore, under the Act’s classification logic, $500 million for 2011 were allocated exclusively for counterterrorism purposes, such as capturing and killing of al Qaeda operatives, including Osama bin Laden. We do not know how much money the U.S. spent in launching the operation carried out by the CIA and the Navy SEALs. The $500 million were disbursed to the government of Pakistan and this money should not be confused with the money that the U.S. spent in planning and executing the assassination operation, code-named Operation Neptune Spear.

Likewise, the $500 million for 2011 must not be confused with the other assistance provided for the suppression of counterinsurgency and for the displaced residents of Swat and other tribal areas. The successful Swat operation was conducted in May 2009, exactly two years before the May 2011 murder of Bin Laden. Furthermore, the Swat operation falls under the Act’s definition of counterinsurgency, and not counterterrorism, because the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was striving to overthrow the control of Islamabad and establish its own writ in the area.

Questionable Spike in the Chart

As a legal professional, I understand that this commentary does not provide proof beyond reasonable doubt (a criminal law standard) or even with the preponderance of the evidence (a civil law standard) that $500 million were disbursed to Pakistan for facilitating the assassination of Bin Laden. The proof turns even more questionable because the Operation Neptune Spear was supposedly a secret operation conducted to the complete surprise of Pakistan armed forces and the civilian government of Asif Ali Zardari. There was no reason to bless Pakistan with $500 million if Pakistan delivered no help in the operation.

There are many possible (though not probable) reasons to explain the 2011 spike in the chart. Might be, the spike is simply a typographical error or a data provider’s mistake. Might be, there is a reason other than assassination for the extraordinary amount of counterterrorism money given to Pakistan in 2011. Might be, the 2011 counterterrorism money was planned but not actually spent.  There are several other mightbes.

Unless explained otherwise, the chart is eerie. It’s telling. It raises suspicion. It reveals a secret, as money trails do. As a legal professional, I ponder over the spike in the chart. I sit back and see it over and over again. My legal instincts are vexed and I wonder why such a hefty bag of counterterrorism money has not been donated to Pakistan either before or after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

More articles by:

Liaquat Ali Khan is the founder of Legal Scholar Academy, a firm dedicated to the protection of civil rights and human liberties. Send your comments and question to legal. scholar. academy[at] gmail.com

March 21, 2018
Paul Street
Time is Running Out: Who Will Protect Our Wrecked Democracy from the American Oligarchy?
Mel Goodman
The Great Myth of the So-Called “Adults in the Room”
Chris Floyd
Stumbling Blocks: Tim Kaine and the Bipartisan Abettors of Atrocity
Eric Draitser
The Political Repression of the Radical Left in Crimea
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan Threatens Wider War Against the Kurds
John Steppling
It is Us
Thomas Knapp
Death Penalty for Drug Dealers? Be Careful What You Wish for, President Trump
Manuel García, Jr.
Why I Am Leftist (Vietnam War)
Isaac Christiansen
A Left Critique of Russiagate
Howard Gregory
The Unemployment Rate is an Inadequate Reporter of U.S. Economic Health
Ramzy Baroud
Who Wants to Kill Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah?
Roy Morrison
Trouble Ahead: The Trump Administration at Home and Abroad
Roger Hayden
Too Many Dead Grizzlies
George Wuerthner
The Lessons of the Battle to Save the Ancient Forests of French Pete
Binoy Kampmark
Fictional Free Trade and Permanent Protectionism: Donald Trump’s Economic Orthodoxy
Rivera Sun
Think Outside the Protest Box
March 20, 2018
Jonathan Cook
US Smooths Israel’s Path to Annexing West Bank
Jeffrey St. Clair
How They Sold the Iraq War
Chris Busby
Cancer, George Monbiot and Nuclear Weapons Test Fallout
Nick Alexandrov
Washington’s Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen
David Mattson
Wyoming Plans to Slaughter Grizzly Bears
Paul Edwards
My Lai and the Bad Apples Scam
Julian Vigo
The Privatization of Water and the Impoverishment of the Global South
Mir Alikhan
Trump and Pompeo on Three Issues: Paris, Iran and North Korea
Seiji Yamada
Preparing For Nuclear War is Useless
Gary Leupp
Brennan, Venality and Turpitude
Martha Rosenberg
Why There’s a Boycott of Ben & Jerry’s on World Water Day, March 22
John Pilger
Skripal Case: a Carefully-Constructed Drama?
March 19, 2018
Henry Heller
The Moment of Trump
John Davis
Pristine Buildings, Tarnished Architect
Uri Avnery
The Fake Enemy
Patrick Cockburn
The Fall of Afrin and the Next Phase of the Syrian War
Nick Pemberton
The Democrats Can’t Save Us
Nomi Prins 
Jared Kushner, RIP: a Political Obituary for the President’s Son-in-Law
Georgina Downs
The Double Standards and Hypocrisy of the UK Government Over the ‘Nerve Agent’ Spy Poisoning
Dean Baker
Trump and the Federal Reserve
Colin Todhunter
The Strategy of Tension Towards Russia and the Push to Nuclear War
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
US Empire on Decline
Ralph Nader
Ahoy America, Give Trump a Taste of His Own Medicine Starting on Trump Imitation Day
Robert Dodge
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons by Divesting from Them
Laura Finley
Shame on You, Katy Perry
Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography