Slain SEAL’s dad wants answers: ‘Don’t hide behind my son’s death’

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
excuse me but if i recall correctly, the seal team made the decision to continue the mission after they were told that it had been comprised.

The SEAL team is always a go. Seal Team Operators rely on the the Chain of Command and the President to determine risk and potential return.

Interestingly, according to Pres. Obama's former security advisor, this mission was never given a "go" by Pres. Obama...even on a "moonless night". The reservations were multiple.

(1) Pres. Obama's team wanted more intelligence to support the risk of putting boots on the ground in Yemen for the first time in over two years. I believe the last time was an attempted hostage rescue.

(2) Pres. Obama was also concerned about having United Arab Emirates Special Forces joining the operation and raid. This was a first and introduced unknowns.

It is within the realm of possibility that UAE Spec Ops is leaky. Maybe that is how the mission was compromised.

Either way..What is telling is that the Trump Admin shared "Bad Facts" about the Obama Admin reviewing and approving the mission in early January with the caveat of "moonless night". The Mission was never up for final approval or "go" but was rather sent back to Spec Ops command pending more intelligence to reduce risk before final consideration.

I am also not comfortable that the "go" decision was made during Trump's dinner with Bannon and Jared Kushner weighing in. When people's lives are the line, it seems a casual and flippant setting and involved two people whose role is political agenda. This might be an example of precisely why everyone found it shocking that Bannon would have a role on the National Security Counsel....Security and Military Missions should never have a man in the room thinking about political wins and appearances.

Everything about this decision process was amateur, unusual and unprofessional in my opinion.

This soldiers father (Now a Gold Star father, like the one Trump attacked relentlessly during the campaign) is fully entitled to accountability and answers.

As the General in Charge of Spec Ops said recently..." "Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil. I hope they sort it out soon because we're a nation at war."
www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I realize weak people have difficulty handling grief but somone should tell this guy he is dishonorong his dead son's service greatly.

It is likely due to leaks from Obama's left-behinds, particularly those Paki brothers in IT who tipped off the terrorists.

I would think that, as his father, he has more knowledge of what honoring his dead soon looks like than some random internet commentator.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I've been on many missions in my former career.

The reason the "people" at large don't get a say is because civilians typically do not understand these things. They don't understand the mentality, the logic, or the structure of the military. From the planning phase, intel gathering, and operations. The military isn't a democratic process. We don't deliberate and discuss things ad nauseum. We plan the mission and execute. Losses are part of the planning. Risk assessments are made at every stage and decisions are made base on those assessments.

Despite the mitigation and planning, sometimes # goes wrong. We can argue the politics all day long. The optics too if you want, but war is a messy business. While we are using ops like this as a political football to beat each other over the head with, decisions are going to be made for similar missions without our input.

and if Trump had not shown up everyone would bitch about that

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Despite the mitigation and planning, sometimes # goes wrong. We can argue the politics all day long. The optics too if you want, but war is a messy business.

Left of bang and right of bang.

Right of bang (after)...Military deaths will be discussed in a political context...and it will at times be bias and political in the conclusions.

Left of bang (Before)...THIS is what I find most relevant here. Politics and Optics should never be involved in planning and weighing risk and return. That is the precise reason so many experts and former Joint Chiefs and Security Advisors found it horrifying that Trump would assign his Chief POLITICAL STRATEGISTS to the Joint Chiefs making these strategic security decisions and giving mission approval. Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon had no business weighing in on approving the Yemen decision. Having Principle Campaign/Political Strategists making the go decisions that put soldiers lives on the line is shameless sociopathy IMO.

I believe this mission was approved because Trumps team wanted a flashy victory for appearance purposes it's first couple weeks in office. I would feel less sure and my concern would be less credible in that concern if political strategists like Kushner and Bannon weren't in on the decision process. This is essentially the same concern as this soldiers father.

a reply to: Indigo5

Only answer you will get is the script and narrative National Insecurity puts forth----No such thing as truth anymore.--Maybe never was.

Thank you for your service projectvxn. I believe you hit the nail on the head. The President relies on the mission planners for strategic assessment. Trump didn't force this mission, he gave a green light. It sucks that a Seal is dead, and that is why our service men and women deserve to be held in the upmost respect. Their job is often lethally risky, yet they are willing to do what others won't. Their patriotism and self sacrifice is what allows all these arm chair strategists to squawk and peacock around at every opportunity.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Despite the mitigation and planning, sometimes # goes wrong. We can argue the politics all day long. The optics too if you want, but war is a messy business.

I believe this mission was approved because Trumps team wanted a flashy victory for appearance purposes it's first couple weeks in office. I would feel less sure and my concern would be less credible in that concern if political strategists like Kushner and Bannon weren't in on the decision process. This is essentially the same concern as this soldiers father.

And there you go, 'you believe' something without access to any real mission specifics. You believe that because of your own confirmation-bias. The military planned the OP, and submitted the OP for approval.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the plan over dinner at the White House, on 25 January 2017, to President Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his political strategist Steve Bannon.

President Trump approved the plan then and there.[7]
Michael Flynn, National Security Advisor to President Trump, was also at the dinner, but the decision did not go through the normal National Security Council (NSC) channels, through which heads or deputy heads of all agencies with a stake in the operation would be convened.

US military officials stated that the assault went forth “without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations."

en.wikipedia.org...

US military officials: Trump-ordered raid in Yemen that killed US Navy SEAL was approved 'without sufficient intelligence'
www.businessinsider.com... -2017-2?IR=T

a reply to: Indigo5

That's all conjecture based on your own political bias.

Which is all fine with me. But it doesn't make it a reality.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Indigo5

That's all conjecture based on your own political bias.

Which is all fine with me. But it doesn't make it a reality.

^This

originally posted by: lambs to lions

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Despite the mitigation and planning, sometimes # goes wrong. We can argue the politics all day long. The optics too if you want, but war is a messy business.

I believe this mission was approved because Trumps team wanted a flashy victory for appearance purposes it's first couple weeks in office. I would feel less sure and my concern would be less credible in that concern if political strategists like Kushner and Bannon weren't in on the decision process. This is essentially the same concern as this soldiers father.

And there you go, 'you believe' something without access to any real mission specifics. You believe that because of your own confirmation-bias. The military planned the OP, and submitted the OP for approval.

I believe because of the facts I have stated.

This mission was not approved by the Joint Chiefs as is standard.

It was approved with the input from two of Trumps chief Campaign/Political Strategists...over dinner.

My opinion is shared by non-political Military and Security advisors...And my own and others beliefs can be validated or disproved with simple transparency and details about the decision making process. Instead what we have gotten from the Commander and Chief is spin and outright BS (Pres. Obama approved the Mission).

My opinion is shared by non-political Military and Security advisors...And my own and others beliefs can be validated or disproved with simple transparency and details about the decision making process.

Tell that to all those who received "an unfortunate training incident" excuse.

The "facts" you sited are not exactly such.

a reply to: Indigo5

Every time a service member is killed in battle, there was "something" that didn't go as planned, or hoped for. How often did this happen under President Obama, Bush, Clinton.....?

originally posted by: Indigo5

Secretary of Defense James Mattis and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the plan over dinner at the White House, on 25 January 2017, to President Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his political strategist Steve Bannon.

President Trump approved the plan then and there.[7]
Michael Flynn, National Security Advisor to President Trump, was also at the dinner, but the decision did not go through the normal National Security Council (NSC) channels, through which heads or deputy heads of all agencies with a stake in the operation would be convened.

US military officials stated that the assault went forth “without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations."

en.wikipedia.org...

US military officials: Trump-ordered raid in Yemen that killed US Navy SEAL was approved 'without sufficient intelligence'
www.businessinsider.com... -2017-2?IR=T

You see, this is the kind of crap "reporting" that people base their opinions on.

What military officials? Is this military official even connected to the unit in question? There is no way for us to know if this is even legitimate and we're supposed to take business insiders word for it.

I don't think so. I've been on a ton of missions that got media coverage. One mission in particular with tragic results. The misreporting and BS that the media(in that case CNN) based on the word of people who weren't even connected with the incident created a certain fear and outright disservice to the fallen. They even reported on certain details before the families were even informed.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Indigo5

That's all conjecture based on your own political bias.

Which is all fine with me. But it doesn't make it a reality.

It is also facts? Not bias..

Why were Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon ..Campaign and Political Advisors in on the decision? (Insane...having political strategists making military decisions)

Why was it made over dinner and not at a Joint Chiefs of staffing meeting?

Why did the Trump Admin falsely claim this mission was approved by the Obama Admin?

Why was the "go" given despite things like this?

One of the three US officials said on-the-ground surveillance of the compound was "minimal, at best."

www.businessinsider.com... -2017-2?IR=T

"confirmation bias" does not answer any of those questions..

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Indigo5

Secretary of Defense James Mattis and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the plan over dinner at the White House, on 25 January 2017, to President Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his political strategist Steve Bannon.

President Trump approved the plan then and there.[7]
Michael Flynn, National Security Advisor to President Trump, was also at the dinner, but the decision did not go through the normal National Security Council (NSC) channels, through which heads or deputy heads of all agencies with a stake in the operation would be convened.

US military officials stated that the assault went forth “without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations."

en.wikipedia.org...

US military officials: Trump-ordered raid in Yemen that killed US Navy SEAL was approved 'without sufficient intelligence'
www.businessinsider.com... -2017-2?IR=T

You see, this is the kind of crap "reporting" that people base their opinions on.

What military officials? Is this military official even connected to the unit in question? There is no way for us to know if this is even legitimate and we're supposed to take business insiders word for it.

If you research the Yemen raid, there are over a dozen military sources, both named and unnamed saying the same thing...From multiple outlets.

You can cherry pick one unnamed source and claim BS...or you can take a real look at the evidence...I have provided multiple links for that purpose..

You obviously know what the word "confirmation bias" means. I would be honest with yourself if you are going to use that description to dismiss a tonnage of reporting and evidence.

originally posted by: fruiteater
Any military op involving ground forces is possible to have casualties. This is what military personnel sign up for.

So any "military op involving ground forces" should be approved?

No one is disputing that Active Military is a dangerous occupation..

That seems obvious enough to be classified as a red herring to the discussion.