5 ms·

There were a total of 4 helicopters (including the Chinook), from what I've read. Two went in, while two others hovered nearby. Apparently, Obama himself asked

• hugh3 15y ago
  Obama himself asked them to have a backup plan: [blah blah url] Do you really think that the US Navy Seals don't bother to think "Hey maybe we should have a backup plan for this hugely important and very risky mission" unless the President comes up with the idea? The linked article does smell a bit like the President trying to insert himself into the story. Mr Burns: You, Strawberry, hit a home run! Daryl Strawberry: Okay skip! (hits a home run) Mr Burns: I told him to do that. Smithers: Brilliant strategy, sir.
  • dkarl 15y ago
    The President might have known something the Seals didn't about the possibility of resistance from the Pakistani military. Other folks pointed out that forty minutes was plenty of time for Pakistan to scramble jets, etc., and much has been made of the precarious nature of power in the Pakistani military. Perhaps Obama had intelligence that the incursion might provoke a group of Pakistani military officers to defy their government's orders and launch an armed response, possibly because of the location of the strike, or possibly as a prelude to a coup. He wouldn't necessarily have shared that with the SEAL team, he would have just told them to be prepared to "fight their way out" if necessary.
    • hugh3 15y ago
      Perhaps this, perhaps that, or perhaps like any other politician Obama pushes himself into the limelight when things go well and blames someone else when things go badly. I don't hold it too far against him because it's what all politicians do, but I reserve the right to call him out on it too. * Perhaps Obama had intelligence that the incursion might provoke a group of Pakistani military officers to defy their government's orders and launch an armed response, possibly because of the location of the strike, or possibly as a prelude to a coup. He wouldn't necessarily have shared that with the SEAL team, he would have just told them to be prepared to "fight their way out" if necessary.* The operation was under the direct control of the CIA, and I think we can assume the CIA has just as much intelligence knowledge as the White House does. And now personally, if I had reason to believe that men under my command were likely to be entering into actual hostile contact with the military of the sixth largest country in the world (and a nuclear power to boot) then I'd probably actually have shared that information with them. They're big boys, they can handle it, and if they see the Pakistani Army showing up then they need to know whether they're allowed to shoot.
      • dkarl 15y ago
        And now personally, if I had reason to believe that men under my command were likely to be entering into actual hostile contact with the military of the sixth largest country in the world (and a nuclear power to boot) then I'd probably actually have shared that information with them. When he (purportedly) said "fight your way out," who else could he have been talking about fighting? I think it's safe to assume they got a lot more specific than speculating about fighting undefined hypothetical resistance that might happen to materialize outside this compound in the middle of Pakistan.
    • lucasjung 15y ago
      "The President might have known something the Seals didn't about the possibility of resistance from the Pakistani military...The President might have known something the Seals didn't about the possibility of resistance from the Pakistani military." If the president knew such critical information and didn't share it up-front with the operators planning the mission, that's a big fail on his part. Given the sensitivity of this operation, if he didn't trust the people involved with all of the critical information about the situation, he shouldn't have trusted them to execute the mission, either. I can see how he might not want to share the details about which generals were in league with who, but that doesn't preclude the pre-planning intel brief from including a warning that the Pakistani military might interfere with the operation. There is absolutely no excuse for the operators to not have such critical information before they start planning their mission, rather than "Oops, we forgot to mention..." after they have already built a plan. In practice, high-level leaders often get much less resolution in their intel than those below them: they need to know the big picture, not necessarily all of the little details. I somehow doubt that the President was micromanaging the planning process and intel dissemination in this way. I think that a far more likely scenario is that two or more plans were developed and presented to the President and his national security team, with the strengths and weaknesses of each plan. For example: Plan A: Minimum number of helicopters. Reduces our exposure and the chances of detection, but sharply limits our options for dealing with contingencies. Plan B: Back-up helicopters loiter a few miles from the target area. Increases our footprint and the chances of detection, but gives us far better options for dealing with contingencies. I could easily see how the reality was that the President said, "Let's go with plan B: I want you guys to have the backup if you need it," which then went through the "telephone game" and ended up being reported as "President Saves the Day by Reminding SEALs to Bring Spare Helicopter."
      • dkarl 15y ago
        Telling them they need a plan to fight their way out IS sharing that information. Who else would oppose them but the Pakistani military? The SEALs don't need to know the political details. They just need a heads-up: "Hey guys, you need to be aware that because of the political situation in Pakistan, you might end up fighting the Pakistani military as well Bin Laden's personal security. Let me lay out the nature of the resistance you might face." Those concerns could easily have been raised so late (ten days before the raid) because the President himself didn't have it earlier.
  • ajays 15y ago
    You are forgetting Eagle Claw, and the fiasco at Desert One. Look, neither of us can prove our claims, since we weren't there. But I have read several news reports along these lines, that Obama pushed for more redundancy. One might ask: why didn't the SEALs think of it? The answer can be (and here again, this is pure speculation just like yours) that the SEALs wanted the smallest possible contingent, to avoid being detected (2 helis are less likely to be detected as 4) and risking the Pakistanis' ire. But at some level, diplomatic considerations creep in; and Obama could have said (or thought) "I'll take care of the fallout; but I want you guys to be double-extra safe". While it is easy to dismiss this news report as you did, I don't think that is the case here. For example: in the photograph released by the WH (where everyone is huddled, watching the monitor), Obama is in a corner, and the military guy is centre stage. Don't you think if Obama was so self-promoting as you claim he is, that he would have maneuvered into a better shot? Maybe placed himself front-and-center, to show he's "in command" ?? In comparison: do you remember how Bush flew a jet onto the carrier, "Mission Accomplished" ? That is self-promotion.
    • bugmenot 15y ago
      There's heavy precedent set for pure-SEAL ops to be devised by SEALS, not their higher-ups. Fun stories of SEALs telling people of much higher rank, "No, we're going to it our way, or we just aren't going to do it." Hasn't always gone over well, but they're SEALs for a reason, and tend to understand what they can and can't do better than anyone. Now, the UBL op was under the auspices of JSOC and I'd be surprised if that were the case in this instance, but I'd be shocked if a man whose prior training consisted mostly of community organizing, had much--if any--operational input, his current rank notwithstanding. He may have had concerns about helo redundancy, as would anyone familiar with the disaster on the way to and at Desert One, but I just can't imagine that he had anything substantive to add to the operational planning aspects of it, in terms of execution. And: before I get anyone's undies in a bunch, it's not to say that he wasn't responsible for getting the right people for the job, and deserves ample credit -- but there's this unrealistic view circulating in the press that the person most of them voted into office to end the wars most of them didn't like didn't like suddenly became the new Clausewitz and that's why this operation played out as it did. Hardly.