3 ms·

> In Marcus Luttrell's original after-action report, he stated that he and his teammates were attacked by 20–35 insurgents, while his book places the number at

> In Marcus Luttrell's original after-action report, he stated that he and his teammates were attacked by 20–35 insurgents, while his book places the number at over 200....military journalist Ed Darack cites a military intelligence report stating the strength of the Taliban force to be 8–10. > Luttrell's book and the film both suggest that the SEALs decision to release the goat herders led to their subsequent ambush - yet according to Gulab, people throughout the area heard the SEALs being dropped off by helicopter, and the Taliban proceeded to track the SEALs' footprints. Yeah, I'm going to go with the reason these details are "emerging" (aka published in coordination with the DoD) is the aforementioned "unclear factual accuracy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Survivor#Historical_accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Survivor#Historical_accur... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Luttrell#Operation_Red_Wings_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Luttrell#Operation_Red_...

stogot 1y ago
Honestly, I’m not inclined to believe the NYT reporting here either. Those leaking the “facts” necessarily must obscure and change details to avoid being caught as the leaker. But after a few paragraphs, it becomes clear someone leaked this to harm the current administration. Their motive can also mean they left out detail. For example, Obama may have done a similar successful operation but that will not be leaked here. As OP said, usually you need decades to get the truth vs the little reporters can harvest
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > it becomes clear someone leaked this to harm the current administration Did you think that about Watergate too? Unless the entire story was manufactured I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion.

3 ms·

> In Marcus Luttrell's original after-action report, he stated that he and his teammates were attacked by 20–35 insurgents, while his book places the number at

by magicalist 1y ago

stogot 1y ago
Honestly, I’m not inclined to believe the NYT reporting here either. Those leaking the “facts” necessarily must obscure and change details to avoid being caught as the leaker. But after a few paragraphs, it becomes clear someone leaked this to harm the current administration. Their motive can also mean they left out detail. For example, Obama may have done a similar successful operation but that will not be leaked here. As OP said, usually you need decades to get the truth vs the little reporters can harvest
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > it becomes clear someone leaked this to harm the current administration Did you think that about Watergate too? Unless the entire story was manufactured I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion.