From : No Easy Day...these weren't the restrictions the SEALs and other soldiers had under prior leadership...Why are we still over there?
0

tl;dr

TedSheckler;1263825 wrote:tl;dr

WASHINGTON DC IS FUCKING ITS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IT PUTS IN HARMS WAY

bases_loaded;1263861 wrote:WASHINGTON DC IS FUCKING ITS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IT PUTS IN HARMS WAY

So don't put them in harm's way. Problem solved. Our Muslim president is in 7 Muslim countries...killing Muslims. Pretty impressive, ain't it? Muslim countries that are no threat to us I might add.

But these operations only cost a few hundred billion a year to operate....no big thing. It's not like we have a national debt to worry about.

Footwedge;1263868 wrote:So don't put them in harm's way. Problem solved. Our Muslim president is in 7 Muslim countries...killing Muslims. Pretty impressive, ain't it? Muslim countries that are no threat to us I might add.

But these operations only cost a few hundred billion a year to operate....no big thing. It's not like we have a national debt to worry about.

I agree, if you are going to have them there like this...get them out.

When talking about a mission in 2005 his squad of 6 took out a base camp of 17 with 0 casualties. Can't expect to do that with a bull horn and the enemy knowing the "rules".

SEALs do not publish books. There is a reason why this guy did this, either for fame or money. Because of that, I have some doubts about most of his "facts". I think is over selling a lot of what he did.

I fully agree with Joint Chief when he said about the military:
"And one of the things that marks us as a profession in a democracy, in our form of democracy, that's most important is that we remain apolitical. . . . That's how we maintain our bond and trust with the American people."

http://news.yahoo.com/top-us-general-blasts-ex-officers-attacking-obama-230325628.html

bases_loaded;1263861 wrote:WASHINGTON DC IS FUCKING ITS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IT PUTS IN HARMS WAY

that story wouldnt have changed if it would have been written during revolutionary times. its the nature of military business.

Glory Days;1264472 wrote:that story wouldnt have changed if it would have been written during revolutionary times. its the nature of military business.

I remember all the history books teaching us the "rules" written in Washington that those revolutionary soldiers were following...

ptown_trojans_1;1264435 wrote:SEALs do not publish books. There is a reason why this guy did this, either for fame or money. Because of that, I have some doubts about most of his "facts". I think is over selling a lot of what he did.

I fully agree with Joint Chief when he said about the military:
"And one of the things that marks us as a profession in a democracy, in our form of democracy, that's most important is that we remain apolitical. . . . That's how we maintain our bond and trust with the American people."

http://news.yahoo.com/top-us-general-blasts-ex-officers-attacking-obama-230325628.html

I suggest you read the book and tell me what he is overselling or taking credit for that you suggest he didn't do. I imagine he wrote the book because he knows how impossible it has been made to do his job and is tired of watching suits in washington pat themselves on the back over what that job.

bases_loaded;1264559 wrote:I suggest you read the book and tell me what he is overselling or taking credit for that you suggest he didn't do. I imagine he wrote the book because he knows how impossible it has been made to do his job and is tired of watching suits in washington pat themselves on the back over what that job.

Sure, I have read portions that were released to my old bosses. It also contradicts some portions of the story told by others.
I'm not saying he is wrong or right, just saying I would not take it as absolute faith.
It is just military personal are not supposed to do that.

[video=youtube;BD75KOoNR9k][/video]

[video=youtube;JsrSAqRrCc0][/video]

ptown_trojans_1;1264570 wrote:Sure, I have read portions that were released to my old bosses. It also contradicts some portions of the story told by others.
I'm not saying he is wrong or right, just saying I would not take it as absolute faith.
It is just military personal are not supposed to do that.

He isn't taking credit in the book for anything. I'm 11 chapters in and he has yet to pat himself on the back once. I think he just got tired of others exploiting them and in return fucking them.

Ok, I agree that the President should not be using his as a campaign slogan.
But, he is the CINC. He made the final decision to go or no-go. He did not go on the raid, but it was up to him to make the final decision based on sketchy intelligence, the odds of failure were 50%, and the fall out of failure would have been Operation Eagle Claw all over again.

But, the other ads saying he had no role makes no sense, as the guys behind it all whackjobs and have their own personal agenda.

Again, I go back to the Join Chiefs quote: Military members should be quiet. Politics has no role in the military.

ptown_trojans_1;1264578 wrote:Ok, I agree that the President should not be using his as a campaign slogan.
But, he is the CINC. He made the final decision to go or no-go. He did not go on the raid, but it was up to him to make the final decision based on sketchy intelligence, the odds of failure were 50%, and the fall out of failure would have been Operation Eagle Claw all over again.

But, the other ads saying he had no role makes no sense, as the guys behind it all whackjobs and have their own personal agenda.

Again, I go back to the Join Chiefs quote: Military members should be quiet. Politics has no role in the military.

Two things.

1. Can you give me a link to "sketchy intelligence"? Everything I have read says they were 90-100% sure Bin Laden was in there. Everything I have read says they had everything but blue prints of the building. The only thing they didn't know is the layout of the rooms on each level. They had exact dimensions of each part of the complex and knew what level of the building Bin Laden typically was on.

2. Please give me a link to the 50% chance of failure, I would love to look at that statistical analysis.

jmog;1267270 wrote:Two things.

1. Can you give me a link to "sketchy intelligence"? Everything I have read says they were 90-100% sure Bin Laden was in there. Everything I have read says they had everything but blue prints of the building. The only thing they didn't know is the layout of the rooms on each level. They had exact dimensions of each part of the complex and knew what level of the building Bin Laden typically was on.

2. Please give me a link to the 50% chance of failure, I would love to look at that statistical analysis.

They were closer to 100% than 90% sure he was there and had full scale models setup both in North Carolina and on the West Coast that the team practiced on for a few weeks. They observed "Geronimo" tending is plants daily and noticed he wasn't phased by Pakistani helicopters that flew over the compound daily en route to the nearby Pakistani military base. This is why they were confident they could fast rope in because the sound of helicopters wouldn't set off any panic.

jmog;1267270 wrote:Two things.

1. Can you give me a link to "sketchy intelligence"? Everything I have read says they were 90-100% sure Bin Laden was in there. Everything I have read says they had everything but blue prints of the building. The only thing they didn't know is the layout of the rooms on each level. They had exact dimensions of each part of the complex and knew what level of the building Bin Laden typically was on.

2. Please give me a link to the 50% chance of failure, I would love to look at that statistical analysis.

Most of my knowledge comes from a book released a little bit ago by Peter Bergen, one of the foremost experts on Bin Laden, and his book "Manhunt."
He was one of my old bosses, and got a manuscript of the book.

A NYT review on the book:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/books/manhunt-by-peter-l-bergen-about-the-bin-laden-killing.html?pagewanted=all

He has interviews with all the major players, Gates, Mullen, Raven, etc.
Gates was the one who said it was 50/50, as they had no actual intelligence that it was him. Only circumstantial evidence.
The NGA also produced a good amount of the intelligence, but as a friend of mine who is familiar with the techniques used, the intelligence is good, but not foolproof.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/in-raid-on-bin-laden-little-known-geospatial-agency-played-vital-role-20110505

That is where most of my knowledge comes from off the top of my head.

bases_loaded;1267293 wrote:They were closer to 100% than 90% sure he was there and had full scale models setup both in North Carolina and on the West Coast that the team practiced on for a few weeks. They observed "Geronimo" tending is plants daily and noticed he wasn't phased by Pakistani helicopters that flew over the compound daily en route to the nearby Pakistani military base. This is why they were confident they could fast rope in because the sound of helicopters wouldn't set off any panic.

No intelligence analysts will ever say 90% with the evidence they had. Given Iraq and the typical methodological process of the IC, it wouldn't fall in the % range.
The intelligence was good, but not solid.
They had good reason to say it was him, but could not prove absolutely sure.

I watched the 60 Minutes interview. It was alright. Nothing too revealing.

ptown_trojans_1;1264578 wrote: Again, I go back to the Join Chiefs quote: Military members should be quiet. Politics has no role in the military.

Your quote above says they should be apolitical. Not quiet. Big difference.

ptown_trojans_1;1267350 wrote:No intelligence analysts will ever say 90% with the evidence they had. Given Iraq and the typical methodological process of the IC, it wouldn't fall in the % range.
The intelligence was good, but not solid.
They had good reason to say it was him, but could not prove absolutely sure.

I watched the 60 Minutes interview. It was alright. Nothing too revealing.

Here's the full 60 minutes interview- very riveting.

http://www.therightscoop.com/60-minutes-full-interview-killing-osama-bin-laden/

Nothing political that I saw in that interview (although one commenter wondered if CBS and 60 Minutes would devote a full hour of their show, two months before an election, to such an event if GW Bush were president, but I digress).

He said the female CIA officer had been tracking Bin Laden for 5 years and was 100% certain he was there.

Also the Pentagon is saying he is violating some sworn secrecy agreement, and he says he's absolutely not. Interesting to see how it unfolds.

ptown_trojans_1;1264578 wrote:Again, I go back to the Join Chiefs quote: Military members should be quiet. Politics has no role in the military.

I guess that explains why the Bammer Team is doing everything it can to suppress the military vote. :rolleyes:

After the helicopter crash, the assault went just as planned. The 4 men were exactly where the CIA said they would be(including Bin Laden). I finished the book last night and his last chapter he explains why he wrote the book. No one was supposed to know who performed the mission and before they could touch back down in Virginia Beach the whole world knew it was SEAL team 6. From there everyone had there own "first hand account" of how it all went down, at first it was amusing but when they started pulling Richard Marcinko out for "expert" interviews and turning the whole thing into a Hollywood firefight scene, this SEAL wanted to record to reflect what really happened. It wasn't a 40 minute fire fight ending with Bin Laden dead with a rifle in his hand. They were in and out in less than that time and Bin Laden, even though he had plenty of time to arm himself(he was on the top floor and last taken down), was unarmed and died from a bullet wound through the right side of his skull when he peaked out of his bedroom.