What We Know So Far About Incompetent Trump Sending SEAL Owens To Die

[Machismo]

Why should it get any?

Why not? Benghazi got several. You'd think that people would want to get to the bottom of everything, right?

[Mad_Murdock]

Not at all what I was saying. In fact I agree sometimes missions go bad, but when that happens and people start blaming you, you don't instantly start blaming the military.

Well then, Good that we can agree in part. I thought it was low class of him to shrug the blame off on the generals. It doesn't completely surprise me, because that is his style. He put someone in charge of a task and when the task fails, he blames them. That may work in business, but doesn't work so well with the Presidency.

[Stormspellz]

The President has no purpose in micromanaging a tactical military operation, period. The failure is not his (nor would the glory had it succeeded).

considering your comment I wonder what your take on all the Benghazi "investigations"

- - - Updated - - -

Why should it get any?

Since Benghazi had more investigations then 9/11, then certainly this is "worth" at least 10 congressional committee's under the same reasoning.

[halflaloafofkungfu]

After the major success of the raid, when his presidency is over Trump will take a place on the top CSGO team for having the most leet strategies. /s

[AlphaOut]

And the mission was a total failure. Feel free to have an open investigation (or several) and find out exactly who is to blame for everything. This is as big of a screw up as Genghazi, so it should be investigated.

Do you really believe it should be investigated? Why? Missions fail, that's the honest truth about war. You can have all the intel in the world, but the effort and moving parts that go into an OPORD, coupled until the time the mission takes place, the intel could change. You can try and predict movement, assume reinforcements, but from the moment you have all the information you need, that information generally changes by the time the mission is current.

If you wanted an investigation for every single failed mission during war, we'd be in for a long and impossible ride. Was there a call for an investigation when James Foley was killed after a failed mission in Syria? Or how about the hostage rescue attempt last year in Yemen that failed - where only 2 hostages were left alive, the rest were killed. How about in Kenya where US SF failed to capture their target, thus bolstering attacks during later days? Oh and lets not forget about Operation Red Wing - how many SEALS and US SF were killed on that horrific mission? See my point?

You don't go into special forces with the intent that you'll be surprised if your brother dies. You're in that specialty because you have the training and capability to overcome extreme odds, while understanding you or your team may not always be successful. I'm very sorry, but its just naïve to think there should be some form of an investigation from a failed mission, when in fact they aren't all that uncommon. And honestly, the casualty rate for this mission was extremely low so I don't see what the issue is.

The OP's article claims that they took little time in the war room. There is no need to discuss a mission that's been through how many hands? And you already know the MCPON as well as the USSOCOM command had reviewed it, not to mention the SEALS are generally given a WARNO prior to their OPORD. So even they knew, and can draft themselves.

I find this article highly uninformed of how the military actually works and conducts missions.

[Machismo]

Do you really believe it should be investigated? Why? Missions fail, that's the honest truth about war. You can have all the intel in the world, but the effort and moving parts that go into an OPORD, coupled until the time the mission takes place, the intel could change. You can try and predict movement, assume reinforcements, but from the moment you have all the information you need, that information generally changes by the time the mission is current.

If you wanted an investigation for every single failed mission during war, we'd be in for a long and impossible ride. Was there a call for an investigation when James Foley was killed after a failed mission in Syria? Or how about the hostage rescue attempt last year in Yemen that failed - where only 2 hostages were left alive, the rest were killed. How about in Kenya where US SF failed to capture their target, thus bolstering attacks during later days? Oh and lets not forget about Operation Red Wing - how many SEALS and US SF were killed on that horrific mission? See my point?

You don't go into special forces with the intent that you'll be surprised if your brother dies. You're in that specialty because you have the training and capability to overcome extreme odds, while understanding you or your team may not always be successful. I'm very sorry, but its just naïve to think there should be some form of an investigation from a failed mission, when in fact they aren't all that uncommon. And honestly, the casualty rate for this mission was extremely low so I don't see what the issue is.

The OP's article claims that they took little time in the war room. There is no need to discuss a mission that's been through how many hands? And you already know the MCPON as well as the USSOCOM command had reviewed it, not to mention the SEALS are generally given a WARNO prior to their OPORD. So even they knew, and can draft themselves.

I find this article highly uninformed of how the military actually works and conducts missions.

Of course it should be investigated. We spent millions of dollars, and several investigations looking into Benghazi. I figure this one deserves a couple of its own.

I get that most of this is taken care of in after action briefs, or internal investigations. Which is why it seemed so ridiculous to push several for Benghazi. I figured that if we're going to be highly politicized, we may as well be consistent with them. Now, on with the microscopes.

[judgementofantonidas]

I'm gonna go with this too. I doubt the president has anything to do with military operations, other than accepting/denying them.
And tbh, if you are a soldier, you risk your life. It's very simple. If you don't like to risk your life and act as a chesspiece for some dickwad, then don't join the army. Simple as fuck imo.

Yep. This. The President doesn't micro manage every military action any more than he knows my rank and unit.

[Kellhound]

Again, your unverified opinion is completely irrelevant.

Ok, find me a person in the Pentagon saying they wanted their mission overseen by the President.

[IIamaKing]

Since Benghazi had more investigations then 9/11, then certainly this is "worth" at least 10 congressional committee's under the same reasoning.

Why not? Benghazi got several. You'd think that people would want to get to the bottom of everything, right?

Reasoning the left called faulty is now OK? Benghazi was a witch hunt, decried by the left and rightfully so. Now you want to start another, for no good reason? Is the left actively trying to destroy itself?

[ParanoiD84]

They do this kind of missions all the time so no wonder it goes wrong once in a while, they are still the best of what they do and we never hear about the 99% of missions that is a success. Misstakes happen.

And i very much doubt Trump had anything to do with this more then maby pick up a phone and get informed.

[Kellhound]

considering your comment I wonder what your take on all the Benghazi "investigations"

- - - Updated - - -



Since Benghazi had more investigations then 9/11, then certainly this is "worth" at least 10 congressional committee's under the same reasoning.

Benghazi is a different matter , though one investigation would have sufficed. Clinton was "responsible" (as the senior State Dept person) but did nothing wrong as far as I have ever seen. Again, there is a difference between being responsible and being at fault.

[AlphaOut]

Of course it should be investigated. We spent millions of dollars, and several investigations looking into Benghazi. I figure this one deserves a couple of its own.

I get that most of this is taken care of in after action briefs, or internal investigations. Which is why it seemed so ridiculous to push several for Benghazi. I figured that if we're going to be highly politicized, we may as well be consistent with them. Now, on with the microscopes.

Benghazi was entirely different. Simple as that. You're talking about a military mission versus an attack on a US embassy. Not even related at all.

[Annoying]

Reasoning the left called faulty is now OK? Benghazi was a witch hunt, decried by the left and rightfully so. Now you want to start another, for no good reason? Is the left actively trying to destroy itself?

Eh, the first Benghazi was a reasonable investigation. The 2nd through nth ones were stupid wasteful witch hunts. I'm not saying we should be doing an investigation for this, as a failed military operation is quite different from an attack on an American diplomatic compound, just saying that if an investigation is deemed reasonable, we should keep it at one unless that one has major problems.

[Machismo]

Reasoning the left called faulty is now OK? Benghazi was a witch hunt, decried by the left and rightfully so. Now you want to start another, for no good reason? Is the left actively trying to destroy itself?

I'm simply asking for some consistency. If we're going to let one party push ridiculous bullshit narratives, you may as well let them both do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Benghazi was entirely different. Simple as that. You're talking about a military mission versus an attack on a US embassy. Not even related at all.

They are related. Both involve a failed mission. Both involve what appears to be a lapse in oversight and judgement. Both involve lies and a cover up in order to mitigate the fallout.

I guess we won't know how different they are until after the investigations.

[Pipebomb]

What's there to report? Are you basing the legitimacy of the story on the article sourced from facebook and tabloids?

Well, it'd be nice to know what they stole and if they're leaking information to Hezbollah in Yemen. But you're right there's nothing to report yet. Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki declined this week to provide an update on the status of the criminal investigation saying “We do not comment on ongoing investigations”.

[Deleted]

Anyone remember this little sign?

[Yvaelle]

I'm gonna go with this too. I doubt the president has anything to do with military operations, other than accepting/denying them.
And tbh, if you are a soldier, you risk your life. It's very simple. If you don't like to risk your life and act as a chesspiece for some dickwad, then don't join the army. Simple as fuck imo.

Sending special forces to go murder the citizens (terrorists or civilians) of a foreign country, with whom we are at peace (Yemen), is an act of war.

So yes, the POTUS is abso-fucking-lutely involved in making those decisions: it's his shot to call, and nobody else in the chain of command has the authority to take this action except the POTUS (Mattis could not have done this raid without Trump's approval, for example).

Diminishing the significance of that act to a 3-person dinner conversation between when he orders and when his steak arrives, is gross negligence. There was no time or professionalism given to the task, to ensure it was a success: failure was ensured the moment he put fork in mouth.

[Berengil]

Owens was a soldier sent to kill our enemies. Sometimes in war, even the good guys die. It's regrettable, but 1 of ours and a plane for a couple dozen terrorist and terrorist sympathizer/collaborator filth is acceptable.

"But but civilians!"

If you don't want to die, disown the butchers in your family and stay away from them.

The reaction to his widow's appearance in Congress by the hard Left disgusts me.

[Orbitus]

Owens was a soldier sent to kill our enemies. Sometimes in war, even the good guys die. It's regrettable, but 1 of ours and a plane for a couple dozen terrorist and terrorist sympathizer/collaborator filth is acceptable.

"But but civilians!"

If you don't want to die, disown the butchers in your family and stay away from them.

The reaction to his widow by the hard Left disgusts me.

You mean the dumb idiot that doesn't realize that Trump used her for minor political gain? Yeah, its a good thing the father of the SEAL wasn't that stupid.

Also, you think killing children is entirely OK? Talk about making fucking excuses.

[Berengil]

You mean the dumb idiot that doesn't realize that Trump used her for minor political gain? Yeah, its a good thing the father of the SEAL wasn't that stupid.

Also, you think killing children is entirely OK? Talk about making fucking excuses.

Thank you for proving my point about how the Left talks about Mrs Owens.

A woman who obviously believes in God, and was happy to appear at the POTUS's invitation? the Left's reaction = BURN HER! STUPID PERSON! etc, etc, etc

His father allowed his grief to blind him to the fact that his son signed up for a job that had a good chance of getting him killed.
And frankly, once a man is an adult and married, what his parents think about his life choices is meaningless.

As for the children, it's regrettable, but terrorist filth can't be allowed to hide behind human shields.

I don't like a lot of things about Trump. As for myself, I have positions that can be characterized as Left (social issues mostly) and centrist (economics usually).

But on national defense and immigration, I'm as hard Right as they come. Frankly, I've never been able to find any 1 party that fully satisfies my positions.