I just read a bunch of the reviews, and there is so much hate for Obama from I guess the author of the book, and also many of the reviewer who say they are former military. I just don't understand the hate for the president, he seems to be doing a lot for returning service members, he got us out of Iraq, and Afghanistan seems to finally have an end date. He's worked the drones overtime over there in Pakistan, and he ordered the raid on bin Laden. But all it is is hate from the military. Could someone please explain. Thanks.
First, I am not military, never have been, and never will be --- I am a seventy year old retired woman. Second, I do not hate Obama, I just find that I am over whelmed with disappointment in the conduct and the lack of productivity of the man I helped elect to the office of the president of the USA. And I could not be more proud of the Navy Seals, not just the ones mentioned in this new book, but all of the navy seals. They are my heroes. And I thank God everyday for them, because this country needs heroes when all the politicians in Washington do nothing of any merit.
Robert. I have served my country for more than 28 years. So therefore you can see how many presidents I have served under. In my 28 years of service never have I seen the hate that has been directed against any Commander-in-Chief as it has been for our current President. He has done for us no less than any other president. I thank God for having a president that isn't concern about fating his own pockets or his friends pockets with monies that come at the cost of the lives of our Armed Forces men and women. Take a close look at who has gained the most from the wars. The writer of this book most likely got or is getting his pockets fat from writing this book. Duty, Honor, Country!!!!! I am neither a Republican or Democratic I'm a Soldier serving my country. Seems funny that this book is on the streets just months before the president election. Believe me the Soldiers are behind our Commander-in-Chief. Bottom Line: The world is full of disgruntled/racists' people and the Armed Forces isn't an exception.
I am not a very good "hater" but I am relieved that bin Laden is dead and at American hands. The president on who's watch 9/11 occurred had bin Laden in his cross-hairs and failed to take him out. He didn't seem too interested in defending Americans in spite of all the flag-waving and "support our troops" and the made up yellow-cake to justify a war in Iraq. We already had a real enemy to bring to justice; The mass murderer of 9/11 and his band of mercenary zealots. Remember, the towers were full of international citizens, and Americans. Our current President has kept Al-Quida on the run since he took office, hunting them down wherever they tried to hide. Bush wasn't "too concerned" about it. I also am suspicious of the timing of the release of this book. The President had a commitment to the citizens and returning veterans of this country and the determination to keep the hunt going until bin Laden was located. Why is this bad? Why is he a target of criticism over giving the order to take out our proven enemy? This President has cleaned up Walter Reed and put a capable veteran general in charge of the VA, with constantly improving results. I frequently speak with veterans who are receiving care at my local VA Hospital ( I do not work for the VA) and I have yet to hear anything but praise for the new management. The lack of concern for returning vets by the previous administration was a scandal and a shame on this country. To turn this incident into political fodder is also shameful. We should be nothing but proud of these brave, committed individuals, for completing such a dangerous task for us and righting a terrible wrong. There is no justification for mass murder. Bin Laden had to be brought to justice and we finally have a president who is willing to risk a political career to do the right thing for the victims and for our freedom. It's beyond "low cunning" to try to turn this victory over an organization that stands for such evil (mass killings in the name of God) into a political negative for our Commander in Chief during an election year. The author of the book should just celebrate the victory and be proud of making history and prevailing in a just cause. I'm proud of him for doing his duty on a mission that he knew was No Easy Day. I'm saddened by the insertion of politics into it. Seems like we just can't catch a break from the vitriol. Or celebrate a righteous killing for the sake of the victims and our freedom.
You can just tell that Obama could never have done what these seals did, and yet now he's trying to take credit for what they did. I don't know if that makes me hate, but I can't respect someone like that.
My point exactly. Doesn't matter what president was officially "on watch" at the time, the credit goes to the Navy Seals 100%. Just giving out an order doesn't qualify you for the credit of doing the job. And as I recall, Bush actually gave the order. So how any credit goes to Obama, I can not understand and refuse to give him any credit. Again, I am not military and have never been. Just a seventy year old woman that has made a lot of observations in this lifetime.
Robert D. Magee, Obama is scarcely mentioned in the book. To the extent that he is mentioned it is mostly when the team actually met the CIC at Ft. Campbell, KY. Prior to that there was a reference that most of the SEALs hadn't voted for him but they thought if the operation was successful it would ensure his reelection. There was also one reference after the Ft. Campbell meet where the author asked a fellow operator whatever happened with the president's mention that he was going to have them all to the 'residence' for a beer.
With regards to so-called 'hate' from the military that is a larger discussion and one that is hard to appropriately cover here. It's hard to earn the respect of a volunteer and mostly patriotic force when the president's actions seem to contradict their values. I say mostly patriotic because some choose to serve simply for benefits or to escape a poor economy. That doesn't diminish their service but it demonstrates that not all who choose to serve do so for mostly patriotic reasons.
It's suspicious to me that this has now turned into a discussion about the president. I think that's what the author has turned this into, conveniently two months before the election. How do his brothers feel who do not share his political views? Should they ALL turn it this way and that to try and help their political parties?
@ Robert W. Neal and June...Thank you for your post. The most painful and hurtful thing you can do to someone doesn't necessarily involve deception; it usually involves telling the truth. The failure or success of the mission rested with the Commander-in-Chief.
June, the book is apolitical. I outlined the extent of Obama's presence in the book in my previous post. The only thing referenced less might be the classified nature of the helicopters that carried them to UBL's compound. That wasn't discussed at all. The thing I find most suspicious is that because a SEAL on the mission felt the need to set the record straight we are to somehow infer that that is anit-Obama. So if that is true then the next logical inference would be that to leave the record skewed and obscured would be more to the President's benefit. If you prefer to think of this matter in those terms then I think you might need to do some introspection.
Really! Are You really! When Bush gave the order? You're seventy maybe You need get a new eyewear, earpiece or have somebody read to You because my mother is 72 yrs old and She knows that Bush never gave any order to capture Bin Laden matter of fact, HE SAID that He wasn't interested anymore going after him, LOL!
June, I appreciate your post but my point is that any inferred political spin in the book is incidental to the story. I guess if you want to hear the political opinions of other members of the team that got UBL you would have to expect them to subject themselves to even worse criticism than Owen has subjected himself to. His book's not political. You want another SEAL to write a book that is political that paints Obama a certain way? That would be political and inappropriate. Take this book for what it is and read it if you care to learn the actual facts of the mission. If you don't care, don't worry about it. The facts in the book aren't anti-Obama. They just dismiss the misinformed versions that have been floating around since the night of the mission.
You are right that it is a bit off the point that this person does not like Obama. Let's chalk that point up to you. But I still do not like that he and his team repeatedly shot a man who was down and unconscious in front of his small children, all BEFORE making a positive ID that it was OBL. That isn't consistent with his own account that this was not to be an assassination. I can't help but feel that his teammate who tried to get the women and children to safety....he would tell this story with less swagger. But now we are stuck with this as the inside account...because his brothers, I bet, will not go out and write books about what was supposed to be classified.
June, I really appreciate your posts. I'm not entirely sure you have read Owen's account but it seems that you might have. If you haven't, I would encourage you to do so.
Let's discuss a bit the scene you mentioned. The SEALs engaged UBL when they saw him peer into the hallway. As they went to clear the room, one SEAL grabbed the women and drove them to a corner. An act we are told was selfless because they might have worn suicide vests that could have killed them all. Two other SEALs entered the room and put additional rounds into a presumably dead UBL.
Considering the time on target and the commotion created it is reasonable that the operators on station would assume those on the top floor on the compound had already been alerted to the activity. It is also a known tactic for the enemy to wear suicide vests to execute 'kamikaze' style attacks. Taking all of that into account, it seems rational that the SEALs getting to the primary area of the objective had reason to be on heightened alert.
Now I want to oversimplify something a bit. Let's say you are living in a country at war. Let's say enemy forces are moving along a road to your town. Friendly forces have established an ambush along that road to kill the enemy force. Most of the friendly element lines up fifty feet from the road and a few take up position at advantageous terrain to initiate the ambush with machine gun fire. The enemy patrol enters the kill zone and the machine guns open up. After the enemy patrols seems to be down, they shift their fire from the objective. Then, the friendly soldiers lined along the road, that might have already engaged enemy, assault across the road, shooting any enemy they might see laying on the ground. After they cross and all are accounted for, they secure the area and inspect the enemy casualties.
You see, US soldiers are trained that as you are crossing the objective, it is appropriate to shoot fallen enemy. They are still in the process of assaulting and you can't assume an enemy is down because he's on the ground. After the assault is complete, however, it is a different story. Fallen enemy are to be treated as if they were friendly.
In the case of the SEALs in the book, assaulting through the objective they routinely ensured the enemy was dead. It might have been shocking in the matter of fact way the author stated it but it wasn't less appropriate. Notice that the author never stated that they went back to shoot someone after the fact. I paid attention to that.
War sucks. These guys are expected to do things that would give most of us nightmares. Truth is, despite the bravado, it might give most of them nightmares as well.
I still can't understand, standard procedure doesn't explain it to me, why you shoot an unarmed and unconscious man several more times to make sure he is dead if you were told this isn't an assassination, and if you don't yet have a positive I'D that he is OBL.
You are right that it was selfless to clear the woman, since she could have had a suicide vest, though.
But, yes, I read the account.
I guess for me...standard procedure ...at least in this case....does not seem right, and it seems like an assassination..even before a certain I'D.