Maggie's Farm

I agree with this scenario.
I think what makes it hard to believe is the relative ease with which it was pulled off. So much of what the US has attempted along these lines has, over the last 30 years, turned into a hot mess.

Now I know how professional SEAL teams are, and how prepared they are for unusual scenarios (such as the downed chopper). So, up to a certain point, they can deal with adversity and make it seem like it's "part of the job". But we're used to hearing about missions gone awry (Blackhawk Down, Iran, etc.) rather than simple missions that go smoothly. Remember the Ranger drop into Afghanistan back in October 2001? Very few people do because the bad guys were already gone and it amounted to not much of anything. But it was successful in some respects, and very meaningful.

The parts I wonder about, and this isn't conspiracy stuff, it's just typical wonderment, are how long have we really known and if it WAS last summer, why did it take so long? What role did political expediency play? Why a kill mission (well now we're told it wasn't a kill mission, but who shoots an unarmed man?)?

Not complaints, mind you. Not criticisms. Just questions. All in all, it was a good win.

Being unarmed hasn't got much to do with anything - if you don't want it to. That's my point.

It's odd for an armed individual to indiscrimately shoot and kill.....no, let's put this in correct terminology...."Double Tap" an individual UNLESS it was a "hit". This kind of shooting is mob style killing.

I'm not saying I'm opposed or questioning why it was done. But it's time for the administration to be flat out honest and say "Yeah, we had no intention of bringing him back alive." and leave it at that.
The manner in which this has been explained leaves alot for the imagination. As I heard this morning "it seems the raid was extremely well planned but the post raid PR wasn't even considered."

Again, I'll reiterate - I don't care if he was armed or unarmed. I don't even care that he was killed.

But:
1. There are ALOT of people who will care about both things. Call them sappy sentimentalists, but regardless of what you call them, they matter. They matter because they vote. And most of them who care about this stuff vote for people like Obama. So the story has to be prepared properly in order to make sure he doesn't show that he's a bloodthirsty leader hellbent on vengeance. Because some people will not vote for him if they think that. To that end, it does matter if he was armed, or if he could've been taken into custody. Not to me. But to some people. You can't just discount them as "unworthy of notice".

2. It shows some major flaws in the administration's management. Oddly, flaws that are more fitting of the Bush presidency - the inability to take a decent story and make it work 100% the way it should. Obama has the benefit of the press being his toadies. That there are any questions regarding this shows their lack of preparation for success.

My points have nothing to do with the mission or its outcome. They have to do with PR and style management. It's lacking. But it's also telling. Because they haven't been able to get their story straight. It doesn't mean the story is wrong, bad or didn't happen. It shows that this administration isn't used to the use of force....and it also gives some idea that political expediency was at play here.

I'm not opposed to political expediency - every president uses it to their advantage when they can (Bush happened to be pretty bad at it, though).


In addition, I will add that I don't think this was a necessity. It's just a "nice to have". If the ONLY thing we got out of this was joy over the fact that "we got him!" - well, it's hardly worth it. It won't stop terror, it won't stop Al Qaeda, it's unlikely to push the Taliban into any meaningful talks, and he's been marginalized for a LONG TIME. The longer we thwarted events, the more irrelevant and impotent he showed himself to his followers.

In the end, political events trump the succesful raid. We'll see where this goes.....