Osana bin laden - The spies in the sky that helped catch Osama bin Laden

American special forces who descended on Osama bin Laden's
compound relied on a constellation of satellites to collect moment-by-moment electronic intelligence for the mission, according to leaked documents.
Details of America's secret intelligence budget - which were given to The Washington Post by Edward Snowden, the fugitive whistleblower - offer new insights into how the US cornered and killed the terrorist leader. The documents show how America's 16 spy agencies worked in unprecedented coordination on everything from tracking al-Qaeda operatives' mobile telephone calls to quickly identifying bin Laden's body.
Only small portions of the 178-page "black budget" were published by the newspaper, which said it was withholding details at the request of the government. While the CIA's role in locating bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is well known, the documents show the major part played by the National Security Agency (NSA). It tracked the movements of senior al-Qaeda lieutenants using the few mobile phone calls that they made to each other.
The tracking was partly led by the NSA's Tailored Access Operations group, which plants spyware and homing devices on mobiles and computers. The al-Qaeda lieutenants' movements supported growing suspicion at the CIA's Langley headquarters that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad. In an effort to get definitive proof, the National Reconnaissance Office, which has responsibility for satellites, took hundreds of photographs of the compound. But despite the huge resources of the US intelligence community, which has more than 100,000 staff and a budget of $52.6 billion , spy chiefs were still unable to give President Barack Obama definitive information.
At meetings shortly before the May 2011 raid, intelligence officials told him they could say with only 40 to 60% certainty that bin Laden was inside. As US Navy Seals moved through the night they were watched overhead by reconnaissance satellites, tuned to pick up any electronic sign that al-Qaeda knew they were coming or that the Pakistani military had detected their incursion. The mass of data allowed the US to monitor what was happening in the surrounding area as commandos went from floor to floor, killing three of bin Laden's guards and then the terrorist leader. The spy agencies' coordination continued even after bin Laden's death.
Before his body was dropped from a US warship into the Arabian Sea, samples of his DNA were sent to the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon's in-house spy organisation. The DIA was able to make a "conclusive match" and confirm that the body was bin Laden within eight hours of the raid, the newspaper reported.
As they left the compound, the Navy Seals gathered five computers, which were taken back to the US for analysis, as well as 10 hard drives and CDs and USB sticks. The budget documents show that $2.5 million was allocated to analyse them, buying 36 work stations and paying for the services of outside examiners and linguists.
The analysis led to the discovery of significant amounts of pornography, a surprising find for a terrorist organisation that castigated the US for its attitudes towards sex.
The computers also showed evidence that bin Laden's inner circle had been looking at secret diplomatic and military files published by WikiLeaks. The issue was raised in the court martial of Bradley Manning, the US soldier who leaked the files and is now known as Chelsea Manning after declaring an intent to live as a woman.

UN inspectors leave Syria as US weighs 'limited act'

UN inspectors investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria have left Damascus.

They crossed into neighbouring Lebanon just hours after President Barack Obama said the US was considering a "limited narrow act" against Syria.

Citing a US intelligence assessment, Secretary of State John Kerry accused Syria of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, including 426 children.

Syria said the US claim was "full of lies", blaming rebels for the attacks.

The UN inspectors - investigating what happened in the Damascus suburbs on 21 August - left their hotel in the Syrian capital in a convoy of vehicles on Saturday morning and later arrived in Lebanon.

During their visit, they carried out four days of inspections.

It could be two weeks before their final report is ready, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has told diplomats.

Their departure from Syria removes both a practical and a political obstacle to the launch of American-led military action, the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Beirut reports.

Any attack that might have placed them in danger was unthinkable and would have seemed premature before their work on the ground was complete, our correspondent adds.

Russia - a key ally of Syria - has warned that "any unilateral military action bypassing the UN Security Council" would be a "direct violation of international law".

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said his country will defend itself against any Western "aggression". French President Francois Hollande has reaffirmed his support for the US stance.

World's 'obligation'

Speaking on Friday, President Obama said the alleged attack in Damascus' suburbs on 21 August was "a challenge to the world" that threatened America's "national security interests".

"We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale.

"The world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons."

But the US leader stressed that Washington was "looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act", and there would be "no boots on the ground" or "long-term campaign".

Mr Obama comments came shortly after Secretary of State John Kerry laid out a raft of what Washington said was a "high confidence" intelligence assessment about the attack.

Analysis

Kevin ConnollyBBC News, Beirut

The departure of the United Nations weapons inspectors from Syria removes both a practical and a political obstacle to the launch of American-led military action.

Any attack that might have placed them in danger was unthinkable and would have seemed premature before their work on the ground was complete.

Their task isn't over now that their convoy has crossed the Lebanese border - they still have samples to analyse and reports to prepare. But it's been clear all along that American planning has been based on its own independent intelligence.

Syrians living near military installations thought likely to be attacked are continuing to lay in extra supplies of food - or to move their families to safety where they can.

Everyone appears to believe an attack will go ahead, not least because America has to demonstrate the credibility of the red line which it has said the use of chemical weapons would represent.

How US Strike on Syria may be

US officials hope that any military assault on Syria will be surgical and limited. But what does the US do after the missiles or bombs have fallen?

It could go either way. The US may attack - or may not. "I've not made a decision," US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday.

Mr Obama has maintained that if the Syrian government uses chemical weapons, the US will act militarily.

And last week, according to US officials, President Bashar al-Assad's forces deployed poison gas against rebels in a Damascus suburb. More than 1,000 people, including women and children, were reported killed.

Syrian government officials say they did not use chemical weapons, but the US is ready to act.

'We are prepared'

UN inspectors are looking for evidence of a gas attack in the Damascus suburb, and plan to finish their work on Friday.

Meanwhile officials in Washington DC are laying the groundwork for military operations.

"We are prepared," Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel told the BBC.

If US officials proceed with military operations, they will likely be supported by Turkey and France, at least in some fashion. They will not have the backing of the UK, where Parliament on Thursday night rejected a government motion supporting intervention in Syria.

Nor is the UN Security Council expected to support an attack, because the Russians are opposed.

The US military would most likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles for an attack on the Syrian government forces. These missiles are now stored on destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean.

The missiles would not be fired at places where chemical weapons might be stored, since poisonous gas could spread or chemical agents could fall into the wrong hands.

Instead, military facilities would be targeted - radio centres, command posts and missile launchers, says Douglas Ollivant, who served as an operations officer with the Army's Fifth Cavalry Regiment in Iraq.

The initial military operation would be fast.

Public opinion

"It would be a fairly short, sharp action - much like Operation Desert Fox," a 1998 military operation in Iraq, says Peter Mansoor, an Ohio State University professor of military history who served as executive officer for David Petraeus, a retired US Army general, in Iraq.

Mr Obama has been looking for a way to retaliate against the Assad regime for the chemical weapons. If he proceeds with a missile strike, he will follow a long line of US presidents who have tried to avoid bloody ground battles.

The missiles would likely be deployed from the sea, without putting Americans in danger.

This option is more palatable to the US public than the deployment of ground troops. Most Americans do not want the US to get involved in the Syria conflict, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

Yet roughly half of the Americans polled said they were open to military action - if the operations were done from a distance.

Indeed, remotely controlled attacks such as air strikes have been called "the American way of war" by the authors of an article in Foreign Affairs magazine.

Unfortunately, the notion of effective and pain-free distance warfare is illusory.

In March 2003, the US "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq did not on its own bring down Saddam Hussein.

"It still required a ground force invasion," said Kalev Sepp, a former special forces officer who is now a senior lecturer at the US Naval Postgraduate School.

Besides that, bombs and missiles are only as effective as the intelligence targeting them.

In 1998, US cruise missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, because intelligence analysts had believed it to be a chemical weapons factory.

An earlier military strategy based on remotely controlled strikes, the Nato air war in Kosovo, has reportedly been discussed during high-level Obama administration meetings about Syria.

Not everything went smoothly during that bombing campaign, either - the US blew up the Chinese embassy.

"There's these mistakes - shortfalls - and they have counterproductive value," says Mr Sepp.

'You failed'
Mr Obama says that the objective of any military strike would simply be to warn the Assad regime not to use chemical weapons again.

"The Assad regime, which is involved in a civil war trying to protect itself, will have received a pretty strong signal," Mr Obama said.

What happens afterwards, though, is anybody's guess.

"They don't want to do something that could look like an empty gesture," says Suzanne Nossel, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of state during Obama's first term.

"They'll wait for a reaction. Does Assad step it up with the rhetoric - 'you failed in Iraq, you failed in Vietnam'? Or does he take the beating?"

If the Assad regime decides to ratchet things up, Mr Obama has an array of options - none of them good.

"The range is, you do nothing - all the way up to large-scale air and ground campaigns to remove the Assad regime," says Mr Sepp.

"You can send in special forces to train and organise the rebels. But it's impossible to do that clandestine. So then you have to have Americans on the ground - and they're being killed. Is that worth overthrowing the Assad regime for?"