"No Easy Day" - Book revealing details about Bin Laden Raid (Neptune Spear)

[Hacker]

Halfway through it, and is better than I thought it was going to be. Surprised at some of the content, though.

The interesting part is in the foreward, where "Owen" speaks of only writing about people, events, and organizations that are previously discussed in open sources. Just a reminder to all of us: having something discussed in open sources never relieves us of our own NDAs.

[Guest]

Just a reminder to all of us: having something discussed in open sources never relieves us of our own NDAs.

Fact.

[Batman]

"The Brass are pretty hard-up about it" I think is an understatement. Apparently McRaven recently talked with some of the team guys who are still active duty to confirm the details of the raid were since the book contradicts the official story in some ways. Source.

There are two story lines being told; one--from someone who was there--that the hallway shots hit their mark and left UBL laying on the floor and getting additional rounds. Two--from weak-kneed, civilians, who've never had to run towards gunfire--changing the story to a more ROE-friendly, easier to sell, self-defense fabrication. As we saw on several occasions in Iraq, civilians and politicians want to Miranda terrorists, provide them with U.S. courtrooms and will second-guess our warriors on the battlefield based upon a few seconds of videotape or misleading testimony from untrustworthy witnesses..all with no understanding of the timeliness of decisions nor expertise in our adversary that our guys have. I have no doubt that this author's version is 100% correct on how the raid went down and that others hearing it decided to change the story to avoid second-guessing from arm chair, MSNBC viewers.

[snafu]

Read it. I really enjoyed it.

Sure the brass is pissed. They will cry foul and reiterate to their troops this is wrong. Why? Because it goes against the big boss Obama which makes the brass look bad. This book jabs at the leaks many times and gives the point of view that his story is more accurate. Lots of articles out recently how his SEAL buddies are not allowing him back to gatherings etc.

[nsplayr]

I have no doubt that this author's version is 100% correct on how the raid went down and that others hearing it decided to change the story to avoid second-guessing from arm chair, MSNBC viewers.

That may be true. Legitimate questions, do you think there's any harm in telling the uncensored truth about an operation like this so soon after it happened? On the one hand there's been a lot of rightful criticism of the administration for leaking details to benefit them politically, but then shouldn't this guy leaking many more details also be bad? Would there be a reason to keep it on the DL if they just went in there and killed him on sight if the orders were in fact "capture/kill" and to follow standard ROE?

Edited September 9, 2012 by nsplayr

[Fud]

do you think there's any harm in telling the uncensored truth about an operation like this so soon after it happened? On the one hand there's been a lot of rightful criticism of the administration for leaking details to benefit them politically, but then shouldn't this guy leaking many more details also be bad? Would there be a reason to keep it on the DL if they just went in there and killed him on sight if the orders were in fact "capture/kill" and to follow standard ROE?

Should they keep this on the downlow? Absolutely. I say this because of possible legal ramifications that can come from second guessing our troops in the field. While it is a different story, I remember reading a while back about Seals who were prosecuted for allegedly abusing a detainee. They were all acquitted, but their careers could be over [emphasis on "could"], but I don't know.

I do remember hearing people criticizing the raid because they thought a woman had been killed in the compound, which is why I bring up the trial above. If the ROEs are shoot to kill even if you feel threatened, then the seals performing in Neptune Spear did the right thing. However, American public opinion could try and lambaste these guys for any collateral damage inflicted. The best thing to do is keep quiet about all of this stuff and let the administration give details as they see fit. Everyone is criticizing our president because he seems to be or is taking credit for the raid. I don't see what the big deal is here, because he is the one who gave the go ahead, and I applaud him for making the tough decision. He deserves part of the credit since he is in charge, but the timing was also right.

While the operation would be great to hear about, I'd rather not subject anyone to being outed by such a book as this. The author more than likely signed an NDA and was aware of the consequences. I'm glad it's a good book, but I don't see the blowback from this being over for a while.

[Batman]

That may be true. Legitimate questions, do you think there's any harm in telling the uncensored truth about an operation like this so soon after it happened? On the one hand there's been a lot of rightful criticism of the administration for leaking details to benefit them politically, but then shouldn't this guy leaking many more details also be bad? Would there be a reason to keep it on the DL if they just went in there and killed him on sight if the orders were in fact "capture/kill" and to follow standard ROE?

I think the WH and Pentagon should have kept this operation mum until AQ chatter caught up with the fact that UBL was dead. And, as for Pakistan, I would love to know in 20/20 hindsight if they would have ever opened their rusty sheriff's badge to tell the world they were hiding him for years. And at the time of our nation's choosing, have the President come out and say that "On May 2nd, Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces east of Kabul near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. No Americans were injured or killed in the operation. Our nation will forever be grateful to all the men and women who defend our freedoms." Period. And never discuss it again. No political lies told. No informants found. No TTPs leaked. No books written.

[Day Man]

and no votes garnered.

which is why your plan is unrealistic.

[guineapigfury]

I think the WH and Pentagon should have kept this operation mum until AQ chatter caught up with the fact that UBL was dead. And, as for Pakistan, I would love to know in 20/20 hindsight if they would have ever opened their rusty sheriff's badge to tell the world they were hiding him for years. And at the time of our nation's choosing, have the President come out and say that "On May 2nd, Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces east of Kabul near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. No Americans were injured or killed in the operation. Our nation will forever be grateful to all the men and women who defend our freedoms." Period. And never discuss it again. No political lies told. No informants found. No TTPs leaked. No books written.

That's all well and good except the conspiracy theorists would have gone full retard. Also, the President would be accused of delaying the announcement for his own advantage since there is an election coming up. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Guest]

We lost the stay quiet option when we left some rather conspicuous evidence of our trespass behind.

[HerkFE]

We lost the stay quiet option when we left some rather conspicuous evidence of our trespass behind.

Sometimes it's the obvious things that get ya.

[nsplayr]

"On May 2nd, Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces..."

Friendly forces identification fail. SF not the same as SOF and SF did not play a role in the raid. To be fair the media and civilians make this error all the time (Biden did in his DNC speech) but I'm assuming you're military so don't make the same mistake.

...east of Kabul near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Geography fail.

That's all well and good except the conspiracy theorists would have gone full retard. Also, the President would be accused of delaying the announcement for his own advantage since there is an election coming up. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yea, I definitely think going on the news as soon as it happened and was confirmed was the right call. Hiding things or manipulating the timing other than to ensure it was a success and the troops were on the deck safely would have smelled funny no matter what the reason. To me, the initial disclosure was as it should be other than messing up some of the details, but further leaks, books, etc. etc. are not needed.

Edited September 9, 2012 by nsplayr

[Cap-10]

Geography fail.

Ssooo...East of Kabul is NOT a border with Pakistan?

Cheers,

Cap-10

[nsplayr]

Ssooo...East of Kabul is NOT a border with Pakistan?

Abbatobad where the op when down is neither near the boarder with Pakistan nor close whatsoever to Kabul as a point of reference.

Referencing the location of Abbatobad based off of Kabul is like referencing the location of Quantico, VA based off of New York City. Anything in the world on the same latitude of Kabul is east if you go far enough I guess...

Edited September 9, 2012 by nsplayr

[Duck]

What about all the potential intelligence we could have exploited by keeping this a secret? At least going through all the computers/papers first before releasing that we got him. To me that seemed dumb.

[M2]

Not a lot of notable landmarks in that area that the majority of Americans would know of, heck I would be surprised if many people in this country could even find Afghanistan or Pakistan on a map.

I think it was just a general reference for those types, as I doubt Jalalabad or even Islamabad would register. But for the most part Abbotabad is about 230 miles due east of Kabul...

[nsplayr]

But for the most part Abbotabad is about 230 miles due east of Kabul...

Yep, just like Quantico is about that close to New York. I was mostly critiquing the idea that the op took place near the boarder, which it didn't, and that A-bad's location lends even more potence to the fact that these guys were pretty damn bold in flying all the way in there to give bin Laden the good news.

[SocialD]

Lots of articles out recently how his SEAL buddies are not allowing him back to gatherings etc.

My guess is that he really doesn't care.

Friendly forces identification fail. SF not the same as SOF and SF did not play a role in the raid. To be fair the media and civilians make this error all the time (Biden did in his DNC speech) but I'm assuming you're military so don't make the same mistake.

...and not a single fuck was given. I'm willing to bet that a good majority of the military population doesn't know, or care about the difference. There are people in the AF that don't even know what kind of planes are based at their base.

Not a lot of notable landmarks in that area that the majority of Americans would know of, heck I would be surprised if many people in this country could even find Afghanistan or Pakistan on a map.

+1

I'm amazed at how little some Americans know about the geography of the U.S.A!

Edited September 9, 2012 by SocialD

[Fud]

SF not the same as SOF and SF did not play a role in the raid.

Don't be too sure about this statement. If there is one thing I know about SEALs, they usually have more bravado than most in their brothers in the other services. This had to have been a joint op from the get go (SEALS/160th SOAR/etc...). SF does not usually run their mouths about this type of thing as their training is different in that regard it seems. I'm not saying they aren't proud of what they do, but you rarely see these guys writing books about it.

I finished a book about the 160th SOAR not too long ago while on leave, and it was fascinating. It was called "Nightstalkers" and exhibited capabilities from numerous conflicts past through present. Their humility was also noted, and can even be seen by the way their former members write their books (i.e. CWO4 (RET) Mike Durant). One significant difference in the Blackhawk Down raid is mentioned in the book in regards to one of the AH-6 "Little Bird" missions. When the pilot saw that some of his buddies were down, he landed his bird on a narrow street and sent his copilot to gather the wounded and pinned down personnel. With RPGs firing past him, and through a hail of gunfire, the pilot leveled his weapon, while simultaneously keeping his foot on the pedals. They rescued Rangers and Task Force Delta personnel that day, and were ordered specifically not to land. The sad part was that the pilot, on the way back to home station, was worried he was going to get NJP for disobeying a direct order. There were many other stories in that book, that were simply amazing.

What about all the potential intelligence we could have exploited by keeping this a secret? At least going through all the computers/papers first before releasing that we got him. To me that seemed dumb.

I heard most of what was found on those computers was pornography. All of UBL's credibility as a religious zealout went out the window for me at that point.

My guess is that he really doesn't care.

I want to know what his buddies thought of him that brought them to the point of not wanting him at the SEAL reunions if there is anything factor besides this book. Something stinks and I hope that aspect of it comes out in the end. I hope he is a stand up guy, but it is very telling when people come out from the woodwork to try and discredit you en mass (i.e. Scott O'Grady, Sen. John Kerry).

[nsplayr]

Don't be too sure about this statement.

As you rightly pointed out, the Army played a role in the raid as well but I highly, highly doubt SF was involved. Those dudes are bad ass as well but what they do best isn't quite the best fit for what took place.

[Guest]

As you rightly pointed out, the Army played a role in the raid as well but I highly, highly doubt SF was involved. Those dudes are bad ass as well but what they do best isn't quite the best fit for what took place.

Shows how much you know.

[nsplayr]

Shows how much you know.

Yep, sure does. Generally what people say is a reflection of what they know.

Pissing contest aside, the original point was that using SF and SOF interchangeably is incorrect and if you're in the military you should strive to know your own trade well enough to get it right.

Edited September 10, 2012 by nsplayr

[Danny Noonin]

if you're in the military you should strive to know your own trade well enough to get it right.

Seems to me that's the point Rainman was making to you

[Guest]

Yep, sure does. Generally what people say is a reflection of what they know.

Pissing contest aside, the original point was that using SF and SOF interchangeably is incorrect and if you're in the military you should strive to know your own trade well enough to get it right.

I wasn't talking about the original post. I was talking about the post I quoted. Your response cements my point.

[nsplayr]

I wasn't talking about the original post. I was talking about the post I quoted. Your response cements my point.

I know what you were talking about, my statement that SF was not involved. No need for a pissing contest, you know what you know and I know what I know and that's all that needs to be said about it.

Whether I'm right about it or not, it's imaterial and I shouldn't have said anything about who or what was involved at all, it's unnecessary. The reason I even touched on the topic of SF in the first place was to point out to the OP that SF does not equal to SOF.

Edited September 10, 2012 by nsplayr