How the official US position of supporting destabilizing rebels clashes with the position of rogue agents that support stable governments

An Electrifying Investigation of White House Lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQxpceTPPg

A very interesting watch. 

So it seems that Pakistan (ie ISI) did know Bin Laden was in their country. Not only did they know, they actively protected him because the Saudis gave the ISI money to keep him alive (wanting to keep him as a living symbol of morale to their terror groups in the region). The US knew, or had high suspicion, that the ISI knew, or even possibly even protected, OBL in Pakistan.

The likely reason that Pakistan looked the other way and allowed the US to operate uninterrupted in Abottabad, was perhaps due to the fact they know the US could shut down their nuclear program without much effort or time, and tried to make up for not telling the US that they had OBL contained in their own country. Pakistan received a sped up nuclear weapons program as a deterrent in the proxy war with the Russians in that region (USSR copycatted this in Cuba years later in 1962) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Soviet_Union_relations#Cuban_Missile_Crisis).

So Pakistan begrudgingly played ball and the US decided to covertly engage OBL, hoping that they would not initiate an uprising in a country with massive corruption and possible unaccounted nukes that could have casually fallen into the laps of current fundamentalist rebel groups.

(Sidenote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Military_dictatorships_.281958-1971.29)

When the UK/US coalition was able to install their govt in Pakistan, USSR grew jealous and refused any contact with the country, as they followed in the steps of India, and India in the steps of the US. The USSR, eager to collect another ally, decided to extend an invitation to Pakistan's new founding govt to visit the USSR, after India made an announcement to pay the US a state visit. However, Pakistan snubbed the Soviet Unions invitation due to differences in religion and perceived freedom, or lack thereof, of USSR's ally-colonies.

India felt the USSR was too unreligious and decided to visit the US as their first official state visit, as they thought they were more compatible to Islam than the USSR would be, and also because they perceived the US could provide more economic and military assistance to speed up national progress in India. In order to keep Pakistan from following in India's shoes, the Russians set up their own rebel faction to get rid of the new founding govt and install their own puppet govt. After the next election cycle, a sympathetic left wing leader was sworn in, and the relationship grew stronger between Pakistan and the USSR, even to the point of the federation dangling and floating the idea of giving nuclear weapons to Pakistan.

After the next election, a more moderate leftist govt was installed. However, the CIA decided it was too much and they had had enough. They attempted to court a right wing military leader by the name of Ayub Khan, who decided to try and play both sides (US and USSR) to determine who to join. Ultimately, due to a failed secret U2 recon mission (with the knowledge and consent of Ayub) that was shot down by USSR, the CIA decided to finally invest more for Pakistani allegiance and allowed them the capability of a comprehensive nuclear program.)

*****

Extra historical context

(Because the US was focused on Pakistan, India felt slighted and offended that the US was not paying attention the bigger regional power in the region.The Soviets capitalized on this unintentional slight, swooping as a white knight, providing India the capability to become a well-equipped adversary against Pakistan. The next Pakistani election with leftist Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as elected leader, sought out improved relations with the Russians, thereby effectively reversing the then-current allied stance India had with the USSR (forcing India to become an ally of the US). 

After about a decade of good times with Pakistan and the USSR, the CIA decided a regime change was due. They decided to overthrow the communist leader Bhutto by way of his general, a right wing general named Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Haq basically broke off ties with the USSR by arresting and charging (then executing) Bhutto with the the murder of one of the fathers (Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan) of Bhutto's political opponents from years earlier, who was from a group called 'Muslims League', a British backed conservative political party. (It is possible that because the son, Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri, was more of a disillusioned idealist than the pragmatic realist Bhutto, he might have used his father's death as an event to help oust Bhutto- with Haq's help.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Raza_Khan_Kasuri) )

In order to maintain a communist stronghold in that region, USSR decided to support the fractured govt of Afghanistan against right-wing rebel groups in the country. (Afghanistan was split by the aggressive Takari and the passive Amin, that the USSR disliked due to him weakening the military- maybe they possibly thought he was a US supporter because of that. However, Amin actually believed in communism until the end, even blaming "imperialistic propaganda" for a report he received from his own Afghan intel agency detailing Russians overthrowing him. Unknowingly, he would die at the hands of Soviets that he so admired.) Haq, along with other right wing military leaders suggested arming sympathetic local Islamic natives in order to counter the Russian military interference next door. Obviously the CIA was interested and provided support for ISI and local rebels against the Soviet Union, who supported the ruling established govt at the time. (Almost like what is going on in Syria now. Take notice of who supports who.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan#Amin_and_the_Soviet_intervention:_1979)

Haq meet with Soviet officials at a funeral of Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the USSR,  while the conflict was still going on in Afghanistan. They decried Haq and reprimanded him for supporting the rebels against the Soviets. Haq somehow convinced the USSR that Pakistan really wanted great relations with them. Turns out he was a conniving opportunistic leader and shortly after that statement, he welcomed the Mossad into Pakistan, allowing them to join up with the rebels, CIA, ISI, and other factions against the Soviets. This would essentially ensure a small victory for "American democracy", yet somehow lead the way for US support for Benazair Bhutto to be elected as a centrist-leftist PM, despite her left-wing socialist father being overthrown by the same US govt interests decades earlier. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan%E2%80%93Russia_relations#Military_dictatorship_.281977-1988.29)

 *****

Moving on the the next part of he video, we have Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who apparently has learned the error of supporting rebel terrorist factions in any conflict (a good recent example being Afghanistan I listed in the extra section above) and had opted to secretly support Bashar Assad, contrary and independent of US political policy. It became a sentiment popular with the other Joint Chiefs because of intel that came from James Clapper (head of the DNI at that time) that said Assad was actually turning some of the more moderate rebels inside Syria to his side and winning the war. The Joint Chiefs decided that supporting the recognized govt in a nation will provide almost immediate stability to that area, as opposed propping up the rebel factions.

We have the Saudis supporting ISIS, and Turkey supporting Al Nusra, in which their fight is to destabilize any moderate Islamic govt, and install puppet nations under their control for their own geo-political or religious purposes. Both the KSA and Turkey gave crappy chemical weapons to their respective rebel groups to use inside Syria. In addition to that chaos, Assad also had an unknown stash of chemical weapons, meaning there were a total of three crucial players battling it out in Syria.

Then we have the issue of Michael Flynn, a right wing neocon, who thought Obama (whether accurate or not) wasn't doing enough to curb the threat of loose chemical weapons in Syria. So Flynn aggressively voiced his opinion, again accurate or not, and was fired for it.

Flynn then founded his own company (that happened to do PR and intel for Turkey and Russia) and possibly privately supported giving resources to Turkeys own rebel groups, in hopes that they might be more receptive to America's interest in controlling the outcome the war in Syria. (This might be due to the fact that since the EU has cast aside Turkey as a loner, the US has picked them up as a cheap consolation ally to make them feel useful).

Both Flynn and Dempsey could have been right, just as much as they could have been wrong. Is it the duty of the military to act independently of the Executive Branch? Is that treason or adhering to the Constitution? Does it matter if the outcome benefits the US or not? Is it about the real life consequences which affect the day to day lives of a countrys population but may border on insubordination and the destruction of an ideal which would ultimately lead to the dismantling of the Constitution they say they are trying to protect? or is it about a tradition to obey the levels of authority, (even if they are misled, misguided, or incorrect, and would cause devastation among the populace), just in order to protect the ideal of the Constitution while failing the protect the real people of your nation that you were recruited (or signed up) to protect?

Sounds like a very difficult position to be in. How tough and stressful it must be to know people may die or live because of decisions you may or may not (or can or cannot) make every day. A very daunting task indeed.