LW,
Glad my geography lesson was able to help you out there.
Did you read your post?
How is a US carrier operating off of the coast of Pakistan a violation of Islamabad airspace? Or, is the assertion that the flight did not have standard dip clearance to go from Afghanistan to feet wet?
Not sure our intrepid reporter has it right ... this is confusing.
In Pakistan there is no longer any such thing as a "standard clearance." Even before the bin Laden operation each clearance must be painstakingly secured despite the billions of dollars that we have been contributing to their government (windows did open up temporarily for the humanitarian efforts after the earthquake and floods in recent years). The Pakistan military does not trust the US military (and vice versa!). I guess our uninvited Predator visits don't help much either.
Even if there had been a standing clearance it is pretty obvious that after the public humiliation of the violation of their airspace the night before, any clearance would have been immediately rescinded. As you know from your experience -- mitigating potential 'loss of face' situations is the one item that is on the top of the list for an immediate action response above all others.
...then perhaps our intrepid reporter can show that this flight was done on the sly. All he has done is made a claim, and I am skeptical of his supporting sources.
If you click on the first link of my last post you will see that the original author of the article was Nicholas Schmidle reporting for 'The New Yorker.' He mentions in the full article (9 pages long in the magazine) the names of who he spoke to in the CIA and military. He has some incredibly detailed descriptions about things like which Seal did what, the type of weapons each individual carried, what they encountered along the way, etc (even down to the name of the dog!). So far the only denial coming from the US government about the article is the assertion that the Seals had no intention to take bin Laden alive.
Like you I cannot say how accurate the reporting is, particularly with the experience that all of us have had with reporters in the past -- sometimes it seems like journalists must take a course in 'how to inaccurately report the facts.' But given the direct sources quoted in the article I'd say his reporting does appear to have some degree of credibility. 'The New Yorker'
PR people are claiming that everything was verified, but then again Rupert Murdoch didn't think he had a problem in his organization (or so he says).