« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | First Thing We Do, Let's Torture All The Lawyers »

Amateur Hours

It's been said that the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was carried out flawlessly. I tend to agree with that, but it seems that from the instant he was killed, the professionals called it a day -- and the amateurs have been running the show ever since.

In my opinion, once Bin Laden was dead and his body removed, the operation should have one final step: remove all survivors from the compound and then level it. Bombs, missiles, placed demolition charges, whatever -- it should have been left a smoking crater.

Not to serve as an exclamation point. Not as an act of revenge, or a demonstration of power. But simply as a way to tidy up the whole area, to deny the enemy of vital intelligence of just what we did, what we found, what we took with us.

Such as those photos Reuters apparently bought from a Pakistani security official. (No link; they're really graphic. But if you've seen them, you know what I mean -- and if you haven't, you can find them readily enough.) One of them shows one of Bin Laden's companions lying on the floor in a pool of blood -- and there are a bunch of computer cables in the corner of the photo. I'm a bit of a computer hardware nerd, and when I see a grouping of cables like that -- monitor cable, several USB cables -- it says one thing to me: they were hooked up to a PC, and that PC was taken. So we know that there was a PC there, and the US now has it. And, presumably, all the data contained on that PC's hard drives.

Which means that our enemies know that we now have access to all the information that Bin Laden had on his computer. And now that they know it's been compromised, they can immediately get started on damage control.

Plus, destroying the compound would have gone even further towards protecting the secrets of our helicopter that we had to abandon.

But all that would have been moot, because our foes wouldn't have to crawl over the rubble to figure out what we found and what we took.

Because the Obama administration has been telling everyone who would listen just what we recovered from the compound.

We announced we recovered computers, hard drives, flash drives, CDs, DVDs, and all sorts of papers. Which means they can assume that everything that Bin Laden knew is now in our hands.

We announced we found money and phone numbers sewn into Bin Laden's clothing. Those phones can now be assumed to no longer exist.

By making it abundantly clear just what we took from the compound, what we found, we've lost most of the utility of that information. Imagine a thief stealing someone's credit card, then calling up the victim to mock them and brag of all the things they were going to buy on that credit card.

In the intelligence world, one of the most important phrases are "sources and methods." You never divulge the sources of your information, nor the methods you used to get them. It puts those sources and methods at risk, and compromises future operations. It's simply not done.

Here, we've not only compromised our "methods," we've bragged about it -- "taken a victory lap," to coin a phrase -- before we've had the full opportunity to exploit the information we've obtained.

And for the dumbest of reasons -- pride. Hubris. Ego. It wasn't enough for the Obama administration to brag how they had finally done something the Bush administration couldn't do. They had to make sure everyone knew how smart, how tough, how decisive, how manly, how aggressive, how effective they were.

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.


-- Proverbs 16:18

Update: for a few good laughs, go and snicker at George Soros Buttboy Oliver Willis, who ignores all this to point to the REAL breach of national security -- a Senator let slip that Bin Laden dodged the first bullet. Good lord, Oliver -- I understand that smearing Republicans and covering for Democrats is how you pay the bills, but even you ought to be ashamed over how lame this one is.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41536.

Comments (88)

Very well said!!I ... (Below threshold)
cali:

Very well said!!

I am also a bit troubled by the insuatios that the 'Seal Tam' made the decision to kill OBL. They wouldn't attempt to throw the Seals under the bus, would they?!

Meh. Whether the compound w... (Below threshold)
Tom Blogical:

Meh. Whether the compound was leveled or not, they'd assume the worst case scenario as far as what we gathered before we left.

I definitely agree, however, that this administration has divulged way too much information. 'He's dead, here's the DNA evidence and a photo,' would've been enough.

TomAssuming the wo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tom

Assuming the worst and knowing the worst are 2 different things. If you assume the worst than you are apt to take some risks that you wouldnt take when you know the worst.

The WH was in full Amatuer hour mode when blabbing about this intel.

The White House has been on... (Below threshold)
Stan:

The White House has been on full amateur hour since Barry was sworn in. Not just the Bin Laden thing.

Amen JT. ;)What I ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Amen JT. ;)

What I am looking forward to is the information that was gathered showing just how duplicitous Middle East leaders have been. I bet it will show assistance whether monetary or intell, conversations those countries have had with the US, etc.

I wholeheartily agree the compound should have been leveled and maybe that was the plan, but the one copter that went down made them readjust their plan. They were probably going to take everyone in the compound that was not killed as combatants and then destroy the building. Their time was reduced due to the copter failure. ww

So we have Admiral Jay Tea:... (Below threshold)
Chico:

So we have Admiral Jay Tea:

(1) criticizing JSOC/DEVGRU's conduct of a mission deep in another country
(2) which is supposed to be an "ally"
(3) but in fact is very much in the balance of warring pro- and anti- US factions
(4) with nuclear weapons,
(5) in a military city no less,
(6) where a helicopter failed and there was limited time on the ground;
(7) him having no security clearance and no idea if a deeper game is being played.

Pride, indeed.

"What I am looking forwa... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"What I am looking forward to is the information that was gathered showing just how duplicitous Middle East leaders have been. I bet it will show assistance whether monetary or intell, conversations those countries have had with the US, etc.

I'm thinking that info will never see the light of day, unless someone wikileaks it. It'll be too 'embarrassing' to some folks...

For being the smartest man ... (Below threshold)
1903A3:

For being the smartest man on the planet,He sure is Dumb.Bambo that is.

I thought from the beginnin... (Below threshold)
Ron:

I thought from the beginning the announcement was not well timed and trumpeted to much. The death of Bin Laden is not the end of hostilities. Keeping silent about the operation would have been more useful in dealing with the terrorist in the long run on a number of levels. The announcement was made to gain short term personal glory for Obama.

I agree with WildWillie. T... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I agree with WildWillie. The lack of an extra helicopter could have made for a change in plans. Who of us knows. However, I have no doubt that the preparation for this mission by the elite team of SEALs considered every contingency and they were able to act accordingly and with great efficiency. I don't think these guys undertake a mission without very well-defined goals clearly prioritirized of what needs to be done and then what can be done if the situation permits. They did their job and are now happy to fade into the background. It will be very entertaining to see how long the White House thinks it can milk this politically. It is nice to have killed Obama because we will not have the circus of a trial, etc. But in the long run since Obama is dead and there are no pictures/bodies I think the public will be impressed with Obama for only a very short period of time. The first Gulf war was a significant political boost for George H W Bush, but we all know that he was retired after one term.

WW"What I am looking... (Below threshold)
retired military:

WW
"What I am looking forward to is the information that was gathered showing just how duplicitous Middle East leaders have been"

Good luck with seeing that especially with Barack "the Bow" Hussein in charge.


Chico

Ref post 6
1. The left had no problems criticizing Bush's JSOC/DEV GRU conduct of missions. Tora Bora comes to mind

2. The left had no problems criticizing Bush's decisions for Iraq after the war and during the rebuild period (an ally), Afghanistan (same time period) and Pakistan (same time period.

3. The same can be said of Afghan and Iraq

4. Well they dont have nukes but the left wanted to know why Bush wasnt invading NK which does.

5. funny how those were all over Iraq, can we say fallujah. Again, the left had no problem criticing Bush.


6. Gee the war ended in 3 weeks but the left states we lost in Iraq time after time after time.

7. You, Jim X, Bruce Henry, Lee Ward, Woop, war child and numerous others do not have and most likely never had security clearances (you may be the exception) or if you did they are not current and definitely not at the level you need to see the raw intel that Bush saw and have no idea if a deeper game is being played.


Funny how that works for both sides now doesnt it Chico. But you only seemed to mention one side of it. Thanks for playing.

Oh and ChicoTalk a... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Chico

Talk about deeper games being played.
At least Jay Tea isnt a member of the gang who couldnt get their story straight.

) There was a firefight.
2) There was no firefight.
3) Bin Laden was “resisting.”
4) Bin Laden wasn’t armed. (Makes the concept of “resisting” interesting.)
[4.a) And the newest one: the SEALS thought bin Laden was reaching for a weapon.]
5) He used his wife as a shield.
6) His wife was killed too.
7) He didn’t use his wife as a shield. She ran at a SEAL who shot her in the leg, but she’s fine.
8 ) Some other woman — the maid? — was used as a shield. By somebody. Downstairs.
9) That other woman — downstairs — was killed.
10) Maybe not. She was killed unless she wasn’t — and who was she, anyway?
11) Bin Laden’s son was killed.
12) Unless it was some other guy.
13) Bin Laden’s daughter saw him get killed. She’s undoubtedly traumatized, poor dear.
14) They were going to capture Bin Laden until the problem with the helicopter, which was:

A) It had mechanical trouble
B) It did a hard landing
C) It crashed
D) It clipped a wall with a tail rotor, effectively a crash

15.) They were never going to try to capture him; it was always a kill mission.
16.) No, it wasn’t.
17) The chopper blew up.
18) The SEALs blew it up.
19.) Panetta said yesterday the world needed proof and the photo would be released.
20.) Obama said today in an interview he taped with Steve Kroft for “60 Minutes” to be broadcast Sunday that it won’t be released. It’s too gruesome, would offend Muslim sensibilities (something he worries about a lot — I personally do not give a warm fart on a wet Wednesday about Muslim sensibilities), and how would Americans feel if Muslims released pictures of dead Americans?
21.) Kroft — who’s not a total idiot — pointed out that ever since “Black Hawk Down” days, Muslims have been doing precisely that, filming American bodies being dragged through the streets, filming Daniel Pearl’s head being cut off, filming any and everything.
22) Obama gets pissed at CBS, the tape gets cleaned up, that question disappears. (Inside info.)
23.) We got a “treasure trove” of stuff from hard drives, etc.
24.) There were no phone lines, and no internet access at the “mansion,” they didn’t even have TV — what “treasure trove?”
25.) There is obviously in the pictures of the place a large satellite dish. I guess they used it for making salads.
26.) And now, just today: apparently the idea was to capture him, but only if he was naked. There was a suspicion he might be wearing a suicide bomber type explosive vest, or belt. So if he’s not naked and you can’t see if he has a vest on or not – shoot him.
27. The intel was derived from waterboarding
28. no it wasnt
29. yes it was.
30. Pakistan was a full ally in the raid
31. No they werent
32. yes they were.

Jay, if the... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:


Jay, if they were really interested in Inteligence gathering and learning of more secrets of al-Queda, they would have captured an unarmed Osama bin Laden, but they weren´t? The Pentagon´s first choice was to launch a missle on the compound. How many hard drives would they have recovered in that case?


Confronting one lone armed courier and a furious tackling woman with about 40 commandos was the story that the administration and Pentagon didn´t want put out. The real damage may be if it is proved that bin Laden was simply executed and he assumes pseudo martyr status because of that,

The Pentagon, Panetta as the nest secretary says he wants Al Pacino to play him in the movie version-They preferred the more heroic first cut version. The crashed helicopter, with half the team aboard, was dificult to overook though Jay has managed to flawlessly- But unfortunately we have a fourth estate in this country than through or despite experience,- how many times does this have to happen-it doesn't matter who is in charge- and a public, except for a few, would like to know what happened rather than what our officials wished had happened.

We have been denied a look at public enemy number one, and an interrogation and a trial and those revelations. Robert Gates and the Pentagon should be happy enough with that.

Chico, I labeled it all my ... (Below threshold)

Chico, I labeled it all my opinion. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me where.

No, let me restate that. You think I'm wrong. Tell me where.

J.

retired:The lef... (Below threshold)
Chico:

retired:

The left had no problems criticizing Bush's JSOC/DEV GRU conduct of missions. Tora Bora comes to mind

Um, the CIA officer who was in charge at Tora Bora criticized the Bush administration's refusal of his request for troops not "the left." His name was Gary Berntsen, book was Jawbreaker look it up. DEVGRU was not at Tora Bora, there were a few -too few- Army SF there.

Gee the [Iraq] war ended in 3 weeks but the left states we lost in Iraq time after time after time.

The Iraq war ended in three weeks? That will be news to the families of the 4000 or so troops who were killed in Iraq after the first three weeks. Also, tell me, if we didn't lose, what did we "win?" Looks like an Iranian-controlled Iraq to me.

What was that book about the failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq? Fiasco, right. Oh well the Army chief of staff said they needed 250,000 troop to secure Iraq, Rumfart said no, who was right?

JT:

The mission accomplished its objective despite setbacks.

Bombing the compound could have produced a large number of civilian casualties among the rubberneckers who would be expected to show up. Managing the relationship with Pakistan is a very delicate endeavor.

As far as the leaks go, we don't know who leaked this stuff and why, we don't even know if they are true, could be disinformation to stir the pot and produce traffic for SIGINT.

SteveThe coverup i... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Steve

The coverup is worse than the actual deed.

If they had simply come out and said "we went in to kill Bin Laden and we have done so" then very few (except their own base) would have complained.

The left has vascillated so much about the importance of Bin Laden that it is ridiculous. he was important he wasnt important. he was a figurehead, he was a mastermind. he didnt kill anyone, he ordered people to be killed. Yada yada yads.

As I have repeatedly asked you and you have repeatedly refused to answer. how were they going to get information out of him?
THrow donuts at him? Offer him some pork chops? Make him say "Mother may I"? Have Obama bow to him repeatedly?

He wouldnt have said squat unless he was waterboarded. Oh No cant do that (see above where he wasnt the operational head anhy more). That would be torture.

If Bin Laden had stubbed his toe in custody than the US would have been held up worldwide for ridicule for mistreatment. The UN would have came out with a report hitting us with human rights complaints. Again you have repeatedly failed to look at the consequences of his being captured.

You just have that pie in the sky attitude "It would have been so much better if we had captured him"

In a month I doubt anyone will mention his name in the press (except Obama who will remind us constantly that HE was in charge, HE ordered the operation, HE takes responsibility, HE was watching the operation, and a thousand others HEs.

Remember what Bush said after the capture of Saddam? "WE GOT HIM". What did Bush say at the towers after 9/11 "WE WILL NOT FORGET"

"It wasn't enough for the O... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It wasn't enough for the Obama administration to brag how they had finally done something the Bush administration couldn't do."

You forget JT, it's "election time". And the 'best administration, evah!' is in panic mode. So far Barry hasn't had any 'accomplishments' to run on.

Okay, Lucy, 'splain'me why ... (Below threshold)
Rich Fader:

Okay, Lucy, 'splain'me why Teh Awesome isn't releasing the death photos/video. He's pretty much let everything else out of the bag.

ChicoLast I checke... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

Last I checked the war was agsinst Saddam and his army. An army which didnt exist after about 3 weeks. You are talking about the insurgency which still exists today. Lets try to keep them straight.

Also I am sure that there were many many plans for the insurgency. Ever hear of Murphy's law or the 1st rule of combat?

Ref Tora Bora - The left has criticized every thing that Bush did or didnt do for the past 8 years. Name one thing they didnt criticize him for.

The point was and still is you want to knock JT for not having access to classified documents which Obama had but you fail (unsprisingly) to acknowledge the massive amounts of criticizm that Bush endured for everything he did from the left which didnt have access to the same intel that Bush did.

In short, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I cant help it if you dont see the hypocracy in your statement about Jay Tea. It is plainly evident to almost everyone else here.

"As far as the leaks go, we don't know who leaked this stuff and why, we don't even know if they are true, could be disinformation to stir the pot and produce traffic for SIGINT.

'

gee once again Obama gets the benefit of the doubt from Chico. Bush does not. As someone, I think it was Garandfan said yesterday and I paraphrase.

"anything that went wrong for Bush was Bush's fault becuase he was the omnipotent president. Everything that goes wrong for Obama is always someone else's fault." At least according to the left.

Oh and Chico"no id... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Chico

"no idea if a deeper game is being played."

It's pretty bad when the obama administration cant even figure if they are playing a game much less where they are on the board. At least they had the sense to say "no more statements" after totally botching the message.

Only the Obama administration could make the successful killing of OBL look like a Keystone Cops comedy.

retired,Comparing ... (Below threshold)
Chico:

retired,

Comparing Operation Geronimo and Operation Iraqi Freedom?

I don't know how you can compare relatively minor problems with one mission that accomplished its goal with no loss of American life, and massive fiascos in Iraq that dragged on for years, cost a trillion dollars and 4452 American lives, with others maimed, with no benefit to the USA.

Bush's presidency was eight years of incompetence that accomplished none of its goals, despite crowing "Mission Accomplished." The judgment of history will be harsh.

One thing you might not remember, "the General's revolt" - the number of generals, and McCain, who complained about Rumsfart's lack of strategy until he was fired long after he should have been.

Chico, let me remind you:</... (Below threshold)

Chico, let me remind you:

We aren't talking about the Iraq War (over in weeks) or the Iraq Insurgency (still going on). We aren't even talking about events that happened in Iraq.

We're talking about how totally the Obama administration has screwed the pooch in mere days after what should have been a great victory. About how they are pissing away so many of the fruits of that victory.

You wanna stay on topic or not?

J.

Chico, like Nancy Pelosi, l... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Chico, like Nancy Pelosi, lives in an alternate universe, where any criticism of The One is not tolerated.

The raid appears in the end... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The raid appears in the end to have been akin to shooting fish in barrel, except for a courier pulling off one rifle shot. The ride in an experimental helicopter was presumably the most dangerous part of the mission.

Bin Laden's high wall compound loomed over the horizon and was the biggest building around, except for the garrison fort where one hundred American soldiers were training in 2008. I wondered if they jogged around and looked up? The military academy was just as close where every Pakistani comissioned officer is trained.

Bin Laden boasted to Robert Fisk about having useful friends in many places that would protect him. That should have been a tip off. But someone after years of interrogation, traced a courier, to the compound on Obama´s watch so he gets to take the credit, that´s politics.

What would have Obama have said if he had to spend the rest of his life, however brief, in prison. Frankly, I don´t know but I think he would have talked.

I met Osama bin Laden of co... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I met Osama bin Laden of course!

meant... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

meant

JT, retired military and I ... (Below threshold)
Chico:

JT, retired military and I are having a dialogue.
I know you like your own monologue and its echos, but please try to understand.

A question:
how is that when I answer retired military's comment about Iraq

The left had no problems criticizing Bush's decisions for Iraq

you remind me that I'm supposed to be "talking about how totally the Obama administration has screwed the pooch" and that talk of Iraq is banned.

Well, I don't think they "screwed the pooch," and neither do 99% of the American people. I have already pointed out how, despite your great military experience and career holding TS-SCI clearances, the premises that you stand on might be, uh, shaky.

Please try to resist your natural urge to censor, I know it's strong.

Well, I don't think they "s... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Well, I don't think they "screwed the pooch," and neither do 99% of the American people.


Source for your statement?

Garand, you fail Chico Logi... (Below threshold)

Garand, you fail Chico Logic 101.

I said "The Obama administration screwed the pooch," laid out precise examples, and explained just why they were pooch-screwing episodes.

Chico rebutted "no they didn't," and asserted that a whole bunch of people agreed with him.

Ergo, I am rebutted and chastised.

J.

JT a considerable waste of ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT a considerable waste of your time to try to bring Chico into the conversation of your post. The idiot just doesn't understand how a blog topic works.

The CIA did a wonderful job. As did the SEALS. I do believe Obama came kicking a screaming to the command table. This guy has not ever demonstrated leadership traits once. He doesn't have the ability. And I am sure future recollections from staffers after they leave the WH will state that. Clinton has more balls then he does. ww

Because the Obama... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Because the Obama administration has been telling everyone who would listen just what we recovered from the compound.

How exactly do you think Al Qaeda thinks Jay Tea? Do you think it went down like this.

Jihadi #1: You know last time I visited old uncle Bin, he put down our address in his computer so he could send us Christmas cards. Do you think we should worry?

Jiahadi #2 Nahh, I doubt Americans are smart enough to take uncle Bin's computer.

TV Announcer: President Obama announced today he took Bin Laden's computer.

Jihadi #2: Holy cow! I didn't think they'd do it.

Jihadi #1: I told you these Americans are clever. I bet they took everything in the compound.

Jihadi #2: Do you really think so? Well it's a good thing President Obama announced it. Now we know to change up everything in case, they come looking for us. I never would have been smart enough to just assume the worst without this announcement. At least now we know Americans will take any computers top ranking Al Qaeda members leave behind. that gives us an edge.

Really dude. Oh and btw, the same thing happened under bush, it was a non issue then and it is now.

Chico"I have alrea... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico

"I have already pointed out how, despite your great military experience and career holding TS-SCI clearances, the premises that you stand on might be, uh, shaky.

"

" don't know how you can compare relatively minor problems with one mission that accomplished its goal with no loss of American life, and massive fiascos in Iraq that dragged on for years, cost a trillion dollars and 4452 American lives, with others maimed, with no benefit to the USA.

"

Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet Pot. I would throw black in there but I would get accused of racism.

For you simple minded folks out there (listen up Chico), Chico states taht Jay Tea doesnt know what he is talking about because he doesnt have military experience, clearances etc. yet chico turns around and bashes Bush for the Iraq war when he doesnt the nescessary experience (though he does have some military experience) or clearances.

In short Chico. People who live in glass houses shouldnt thrown stones.

Get my point now??

Chico"Well, I don't ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Chico
"Well, I don't think they "screwed the pooch," and neither do 99% of the American people"
If by they if you mean the SEALS and the INTEL community than you are right.

If by they you mean the Obama Admin then I point you to comment number 12.

Irrefuteable proof is hard I know but maybe you will get the message.

Also

I stated

"The left had no problems criticizing Bush's decisions for Iraq"

and you come along and say

"don't know how you can compare relatively minor problems .....with no benefit to the USA."

Thus once again showing that my point has irrefuteable proof.

Thanks for playing Dumbass.

Sorry about the OT, Jay Tea.

warchild, your comments wer... (Below threshold)

warchild, your comments were rebutted hours ago, by retired military in comment #3:

Assuming the worst and knowing the worst are 2 different things. If you assume the worst than you are apt to take some risks that you wouldnt take when you know the worst.

You seem to be saying "they didn't need the help." My point is, YOU DON'T HELP THEM IN ANY WAY IF YOU CAN AVOID IT.

And that's precisely what the Obama administration is doing. I'd almost call it "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

J.

Jay TeaWIth warchi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jay Tea

WIth warchild and chico involved you aptly named this thread.

You seem to ... (Below threshold)
warchild:

You seem to be saying "they didn't need the help." My point is, YOU DON'T HELP THEM IN ANY WAY IF YOU CAN AVOID IT.

And that's precisely what the Obama administration is doing. I'd almost call it "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

J.

If you are to be consistent with you argument then you must acknowledger that George Bush (by your rational) offered comfort to the enemy many times. You must also acknowledge (if you are consistent) that George Bush was also engaging in Amateur hour.

When we missed the terrorist Zarqawi in 2005, we took his computer and a "treasure trove" of information.


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=701049


In fact if you want to be logical then you and RM must admit by the logic of your piece that it was George Bush that tipped Al Qaeda off that we seize all equipment, since this was being reported way back in 2005.

That fact of course, means that Al Qaeda already knew what we do thanks to the Bush administration.

I'm betting that neither of you are willing to go there though.

Assuming the wors... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Assuming the worst and knowing the worst are 2 different things. If you assume the worst than you are apt to take some risks that you wouldnt take when you know the worst.

RM, Al Qaeda already "Knew the worst" because they "knew" a child of ten years old would have "seized" bin Laden's computer. Much less the navy seals. Your rebuttal is frankly ridiculous.

Freudian Slip?... (Below threshold)
mag:

Freudian Slip?

Freudian Slip? ... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Freudian Slip?

Well, I guess with logic 100% against you insults are all you got.

WarchildREf the co... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

REf the computer first.

Source is unnamed in your story vs Very very high level Obama level officials (if not Obama himself). Slight difference there.


Something from an anonymous news source (could be any private that had a microphone stuck in his face - ask Chico about what they tell privates if asked something by a news reporter and becoming a confidential military source) vs something from say the president has 2 very very different levels of authenticity.

"RM, Al Qaeda already "Knew the worst" because they "knew" a child of ten years old would have "seized" bin Laden's computer. Much less the navy seals"

Really. so umm how did they know the computer hadnt been destroyed in the assault? How did they know that someone from the compound hadnt gotten the intel from the compound prior to the assault? how did they know that bin laden hadnt destroyed the material prior to being killed? I will tell you how. Because the Obama admin blabbed it all over the news within a few hours of the assault.

Next question Dumbass!!!

---------------

Chico

Since you are so against torture and treating prisoners IAW Geneva convention than I guess you want Obama tried for war crimes correct?

I mean after all HE stated he directed the mission. He stated he made the decisions. he stated He gave the orders. yet you have an unarmed man shot apparanatly in cold blood who supposedly wasnt even reaching for a weapon even though he had at least 10 minutes or so to get a weapon into his hands. A weapon that was in the same room as he was ( maybe he was busy trying to destroy INTEL). All this was done in violation of the Geneva convention, in violation of murder laws, in violation of international law since the attack didnt have UN sanction, didnt have Congressional sanction, etc. The UN Human rights commission is asking about details as well. So you are all for Obama being frogmarched off to prison correct? After all dying is worse than torture correct?

-------

Jay Tea

As you said. Amatuer hour.


WarchildREf the co... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Warchild

REf the computer first.

Source is unnamed in your story vs Very very high level Obama level officials (if not Obama himself). Slight difference there.


Something from an anonymous news source (could be any private that had a microphone stuck in his face - ask Chico about what they tell privates if asked something by a news reporter and becoming a confidential military source) vs something from say the president has 2 very very different levels of authenticity.

"RM, Al Qaeda already "Knew the worst" because they "knew" a child of ten years old would have "seized" bin Laden's computer. Much less the navy seals"

Really. so umm how did they know the computer hadnt been destroyed in the assault? How did they know that someone from the compound hadnt gotten the intel from the compound prior to the assault? how did they know that bin laden hadnt destroyed the material prior to being killed? I will tell you how. Because the Obama admin blabbed it all over the news within a few hours of the assault.

Next question Dumbass!!!

-----------------------
August 10, 2004
Page Tools


Details have emerged of possible terrorist targets found on captured al-Qaeda computers. They included a downloaded picture of Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, and possible plans to use stretch limousines, speed boats and tourist helicopters to attack New York.

A United States counter-terrorism official said agencies had received information about additional possible terrorism targets across the country.

Information gleaned from the three laptops and 51 computer disks seized in Pakistan led to the warnings issued last week about possible attacks on five financial institutions in the US.


ooops you fucking idiot looks like happened in 2004 as well as 2005. the source this time Cia officials.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/09/1092022408239.html?from=storylhs


Looks like under Bush it happend multiple times.

too bad. Guess you are back to be a fucking idiot. Carry on. retarted military.

Warchildif you wan... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

if you want to know why anonymous sources arent considered as good as Known sources. Look at Post 12 and see the mess that KNOWN sources have made of this story.

Dont bark with the big dogs if you are going to piss with the puppies.

Really. so umm ho... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Really. so umm how did they know the computer hadnt been destroyed in the assault? How did they know that someone from the compound hadnt gotten the intel from the compound prior to the assault? how did they know that bin laden hadnt destroyed the material prior to being killed? I will tell you how. Because the Obama admin blabbed it all over the news within a few hours of the assault.

Well unless they are as stupid as you (not likely) they would conclude that we got computers in 2004, we got computers from zarqawi and they had better assume we got any info they have ever given bin laden if they want to remain safe and free. I don't know I suppose it is possible they are as dumb as you but not likely.

Amateur hour indeed. Bring out the wizbang big guns, I'm tired of dueling with the mentally handicapped.

Warchildif you wan... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Warchild

if you want to know why anonymous sources arent considered as good as Known sources. Look at Post 12 and see the mess that KNOWN sources have made of this story.

Dont bark with the big dogs if you are going to piss with the puppies.

--------
not one of those you listed had anyhting to do with intelligence that could help al qaeda. Now wipe the drool off your face.

Here is Michelle Malkin giv... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Here is Michelle Malkin given comfort and aid to the enemy as she reports a terrorism suspect had his computer seized in 2005.

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/09/16/who-is-mahmoud-maawad/


Looks like when we caught A... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Looks like when we caught Al Qaeda's number 2 guy under the Bush administration, the alledged planner of 9-11 we offered comfort and aid to the enemy by reporting his computer was seized "


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=701049


Man how many is that like 5 examples?

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure you guys still aren't willing to go there.

WarchildAs I state... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

As I stated above. Actions taken if YOU ASSUME something vs actions taken if YOU ARE SURE OF SOMETHING can be 2 very different things. Without BHO telling them we got the stuff it removes all doubt vs your Anonymous source which could be some congressional aide or star struck military guy trying to make points with a female reporter.

Military commanders have to make judgement calls sometimes and sometimes those judgement calls are based on whether he is sure the enemy knows what he is up to or just suspects what he is up to. I know you dont understand the concept and I am not suprised.

That is 3 times this was pointed out to you so maybe just maybe third time is the charm.

If you want the big guns stop shooting with the peashooters.


WarchildGeez. Can... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

Geez. Can yo ureally be this stupid.

Malkin's story is merely pointing out what was already said in a newspaper article. Did Malkin tell the enemy she had first hand knowledge of our getting the computer? no. Did Obama ? umm yes.

And your 3rd example (which you state is 5) is the same as your 1st example. Asked and answered dumbass.

Once again for the mentally challenged. An anonymous source doesnt carry the same weight in INTEL matters as POTUS.

wOOPS3RD should be... (Below threshold)
retired military:

wOOPS

3RD should be 4th. I lose track of replying to idiots.

Warchild"not one o... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

"not one of those you listed had anyhting to do with intelligence that could help al qaeda"

Hey look over there, a shiny strawman.

How about reading WHY I referred you to post 12. It was to show that in the INTEL community Known sources are usually better than ANONYMOUS sources (something EVERY ONE of your BS links have in common). That is unless you have the Keystone cops in charge in which case they could prove to be less valuable.

warchild is just another na... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

warchild is just another name for hyper.

I see the problem is RM. Yo... (Below threshold)
warchild:

I see the problem is RM. You don't understand how logic works. If I make a statement say: "All of Nick's brothers are Irish" and then say "James is nick's brother" that means:

A) James is Irish
b) James is from mars
c) James shot Kennedy.

Answer A of course.

similarly if,

Jay Tea says, a president is an "amateur" and "comforting the enemy" because it came out on his watch that we seized a terrorist's computer and I give 4-5 examples of the same thing happening on Bush's watch then:

A) President Bush is an amateur and comforting the enemy as well.

b) You are the stupidest person alive

c) Both a and b are correct.

WarchildLogic dict... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

Logic dictates that you follow what Jay Tea said

jay Tea did not say
"Jay Tea says, a president is an "amateur" and "comforting the enemy" because it came out on his watch"

Jay Tea instead stated that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION (LIKE OBMAMA, PANETTA, ETC) PERSONALLY STATED THEY GOT THE INTEL.

vs

The examples which you got which are ANONYMOUS which are MUCH LESS RELIABLE than POTUS AND HIS CABINET and which could be ANYONE. An Anonymous military offical could be a FREAKING PRIVATE. An anonymous CIA OFFICIAL could be a JANITOR that works at the CIA. There is ONLY ONE PRESIDENT, ONE CHIEF OF STAFF, ONE CIA CHIEF.

Get it now Warchild. Are you through with totally ignoring the point that JAY TEA made and which I have made REPEATEDLY.


WarchildGeez. Can ... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Warchild

Geez. Can yo ureally be this stupid.

Malkin's story is merely pointing out what was already said in a newspaper article. Did Malkin tell the enemy she had first hand knowledge of our getting the computer? no. Did Obama ? umm yes.

And your 3rd example (which you state is 5) is the same as your 1st example. Asked and answered dumbass.

Once again for the mentally challenged. An anonymous source doesnt carry the same weight in INTEL matters as POTUS.
-----------------------

Really RM maybe Al Qaeda hadn't seen the newspaper but found out about how the fbi seizes terrorist computers from Malkin's headline.

If by your logic giving them information on the painfully obvious fact that we are going to take any equipment we get from a suspected terrorist hadn't occurred to Al Qaeda at that point, BY YOUR LOGIC Michelle Malkin was making it easier for them to become aware.


However my premise, is that Al Qaeda isn't as stupid as you are, and are painfully aware of the-in-your-face-so-fucking-obvious-that-a- retarded-fucking-Rheus-monkey-could-see-it, fact that we would take Bin Laden's computer.

So my thought is that neither Bush or Obama screwed up on this issue. but maybe that's just because I'm billion times smarter than you.

WarchildLogic dict... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Warchild

Logic dictates that you follow what Jay Tea said

jay Tea did not say
"Jay Tea says, a president is an "amateur" and "comforting the enemy" because it came out on his watch"

Jay Tea instead stated that the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION (LIKE OBMAMA, PANETTA, ETC) PERSONALLY STATED THEY GOT THE INTEL.

vs

The examples which you got which are ANONYMOUS which are MUCH LESS RELIABLE than POTUS AND HIS CABINET and which could be ANYONE. An Anonymous military offical could be a FREAKING PRIVATE. An anonymous CIA OFFICIAL could be a JANITOR that works at the CIA. There is ONLY ONE PRESIDENT, ONE CHIEF OF STAFF, ONE CIA CHIEF.

Get it now Warchild. Are you through with totally ignoring the point that JAY TEA made and which I have made REPEATEDLY.

----------------------

First off what proof have you offered that this came from the administration? Who specifically? Give names? If you just show me that it came from "the administration" how is that different from:

"Top U.S. officials in Pakistan"

Or "senior officials in the CIA"

as in the case of two of the ones I listed?

First off what proof have y... (Below threshold)
warchild:

First off what proof have you offered that this came from the administration? Who specifically? Give names? If you just show me that it came from "the administration" how is that different from:

"Top U.S. officials in Pakistan"

Or "senior officials in the CIA"

as in the case of two of the ones I listed?
---
secondly how it idifferent.

Do you think terrorist say things like:

Jihadi #1: "I just read in the new york times they got zarqawi's computer"

Jihadi2: "Nahh, that's an anonymous source we're safe here"

Riiiiiight.

An anonymous source says Ba... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

An anonymous source says Barry will not win re-election.

I have previously commented... (Below threshold)
Oldflyer:

I have previously commented.

This was not a 3AM wake-up call. This built over an extended period of time as the effort to verify the suspicions that Bin Laden was actually in the compound. There were multiple meeting of the National Security Team; the POTUS was present at five according to their own reporting. In other words, the preparation time for the national leadership was more than ample.

Still, when decision time came POTUS was not ready He had to go off alone for 16 hours--or to consult with whom?--while everyone waited on tenterhooks.

During all of the preliminary time, it is obvious that no one coordinated a plausible story to be synchronized amongst those authorized to speak publicly in order to be ready for the biggest news of this Presidency.

The Warriors, the Intelligence Professionals and the operational Chain of Command outside of Washington performed superbly. It is a crying shame, a disgrace, that so much ineptitude at the highest levels of government has tarnished the effort.

Assuming the worst and k... (Below threshold)
fafaroo:

Assuming the worst and knowing the worst are 2 different things. If you assume the worst than you are apt to take some risks that you wouldnt take when you know the worst.

What a ridiculous comment. If someone assumes the worst situation they are going to act as if the worst situation occurred which is the whole point in assuming the worst in the first place.

Right? Otherwise, what's the point?

And if assuming the worst isn't a deterrent to acting anyway, why is knowing for certain the worst occurred any more of a deterrent?

You guys will convince yourself of anything no matter how illogical it is. You're that far gone.

Good post. Spot on.... (Below threshold)
Oldpuppymax:

Good post. Spot on.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.m... (Below threshold)
retired military:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42881728/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

"CIA Director Leon Panetta said, "The reality is that we picked up an awful lot of information there at the compound."

That is just one instance of who said it.

Whats the difference you ask between a known source and an anonymous source.

INTEL analysts look at who said what about what. What clearance do they have? How likely is the information correct? As I stated an "anonymouse high ranking CIA offical" could be a freaking janitor. You dont think reporters dont lie or inflate anonymous sources? Who is going to call them on it? And a thousand other questions are used to link together pieces of data.

Next question is "well that is a lot of credit and work for folks living in caves". True but do you actually think that they they dont get intel from foreign govts who have professional INTEL analysts and who would do harm to the US. Folks like China, Russia, Syria, Iran, etc.

------------

Fafaroo

Do you honestly think that the decision makers dont take into account what they think the enemy knows vs what they know the enemy knows? They will put out false information, expose personell, etc to see if the enemy knows what is going on and how they will react.
Commanders in the field may make one decision if there is a possibility that the enemy knows A VSs if he knows for a fact that they know it.
The bottom line is it is best to let the enemy be in the dark about what we may or may not know. Why tell them we got XYZ instead of letting them guess?

Fafaroo... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Fafaroo

Do you honestly think that the decision makers dont take into account what they think the enemy knows vs what they know the enemy knows? They will put out false information, expose personell, etc to see if the enemy knows what is going on and how they will react.
Commanders in the field may make one decision if there is a possibility that the enemy knows A VSs if he knows for a fact that they know it.
The bottom line is it is best to let the enemy be in the dark about what we may or may not know. Why tell them we got XYZ instead of letting them guess?

How do you know the Obama administration isn't doing that now?

warchild If by you... (Below threshold)
retired military:

warchild

If by your question

Paragraph 1. They could be. I admit the possibility of them putting out false information.


Paragraph 2. Military commanders are both sides are doing this regardless if the administration is doing it.

Paragraph 3. The Obama admin is definitely not doing this.


warinfant-"... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

warinfant-


"How do you know the Obama administration isn't doing that now?"


Given the administrations propensity to F up everything they touch, I'd say odds are good they are not.

warinfant-"... (Below threshold)
warchild:

warinfant-


"How do you know the Obama administration isn't doing that now?"


Given the administrations propensity to F up everything they touch, I'd say odds are good they are not.
----------------

Yeah, but you''re a moron so who cares what you think.

wartoddler-... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

wartoddler-


"Amateur hour indeed. Bring out the wizbang big guns, I'm tired of dueling with the mentally handicapped."


Yes, it must be hell dealing with yourself day to day.


If by your question<p... (Below threshold)
warchild:

If by your question

Paragraph 1. They could be. I admit the possibility of them putting out false information.


Paragraph 2. Military commanders are both sides are doing this regardless if the administration is doing it.

Paragraph 3. The Obama admin is definitely not doing this.

--------------
First off the point fafaroo was making is that when one assumes the worst they act as though the worst happened. That is what assuming the worst is.


So I'm not sure what' up with the red-herring change of subject, but how do you know that's what Obama is or isn't doing? is it your ties in the intelligence community or is it that you think you are the Amazing kreskin?

wartoddler-... (Below threshold)
warchild:

wartoddler-


"Amateur hour indeed. Bring out the wizbang big guns, I'm tired of dueling with the mentally handicapped."


Yes, it must be hell dealing with yourself day to day.
-----------------
Not as much hell as dealing with a mental midget such as yourself.

Warchildi know wha... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Warchild

i know what fafaroo was saying. My point is still valid. There is a difference between knowing and thinking and the actions and risks that military commanders will take with either.

I dont know what red herring chagne of subject you are talking about. I tried to respond to your statement and to fafaroo's .

"but how do you know that's what Obama is or isn't doing?"

I dont. I freely admit it. As I stated it could be a definite possibilty. I am just guessing the same way anyone else on this board is.

I do not have any current ties to the intel community and if I did I damn sure wouldnt be commenting on this board what I did and did not know. That is a good way to lose your security clearance.

I think the amazing Kreskin comment is out of line as I do have some experience in the field. However, isnt that we are all doing? Guessing? Supposing? From the information that we have.

As Chico pointed out above and which I nor anyone else has countered, we dont have security clearances (at least currently) to know what is going on nor have we seen the documents which any President and advisors see to make the decisions they make. I freely admit that. Something neither he nor you nor anyone on the left have done regarding the decisions Bush made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ever think that sometimes senators from the opposing party to the President goes out and makes some claim about how the president is doing this or that and how stupid it is when they have seen that intel and knows that their statements wont be refuted in public because to do so would expose sources or methods or inforamtion which is best left classified? It's called politics and making political points and both sides play it. Does that make it right? Nope. But it is a fact.
Ever wonder what those anonymous officials get in return for thier juicy tidbits of information? Or do you think they give it away for free?

So could the Obama Admin be saying they got a ton of info and in reality they didnt get much or anything at all just to see what kind of shitstorm they can stir up and who does what? Yep it is entirely possible and actually is plausible. Have you or any lefty on this board ever given Bush credit for trying some of the same tricks? I havent seen it.

Warchildi kn... (Below threshold)
warchild:
Warchild

i know what fafaroo was saying. My point is still valid. There is a difference between knowing and thinking and the actions and risks that military commanders will take with either.

I dont know what red herring chagne of subject you are talking about. I tried to respond to your statement and to fafaroo's .

"but how do you know that's what Obama is or isn't doing?"

I dont. I freely admit it. As I stated it could be a definite possibilty. I am just guessing the same way anyone else on this board is.

I do not have any current ties to the intel community and if I did I damn sure wouldnt be commenting on this board what I did and did not know. That is a good way to lose your security clearance.

I think the amazing Kreskin comment is out of line as I do have some experience in the field. However, isnt that we are all doing? Guessing? Supposing? From the information that we have.

As Chico pointed out above and which I nor anyone else has countered, we dont have security clearances (at least currently) to know what is going on nor have we seen the documents which any President and advisors see to make the decisions they make. I freely admit that. Something neither he nor you nor anyone on the left have done regarding the decisions Bush made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ever think that sometimes senators from the opposing party to the President goes out and makes some claim about how the president is doing this or that and how stupid it is when they have seen that intel and knows that their statements wont be refuted in public because to do so would expose sources or methods or inforamtion which is best left classified? It's called politics and making political points and both sides play it. Does that make it right? Nope. But it is a fact.
Ever wonder what those anonymous officials get in return for thier juicy tidbits of information? Or do you think they give it away for free?

So could the Obama Admin be saying they got a ton of info and in reality they didnt get much or anything at all just to see what kind of shitstorm they can stir up and who does what? Yep it is entirely possible and actually is plausible. Have you or any lefty on this board ever given Bush credit for trying some of the same tricks? I havent seen it.


This is the first post where I believe you endeavored to be fair to me. I will return the courtesy and thank you for extending it. So thank you.

Regarding Bush on the same tricks, I will do it now. I think it is entirely possible that those "top officials" claiming in 2005 to have a treasure trove of information regarding Zarqawi's laptop could of very plausibly just have been trying to get the network to panic and expose themselves.

My point is though that has happened ever since the war on terror began. I really don't think it offers any help to the enemy. I don't when it happened under Bush's watch it helped Al Qaeda and I don't think it helps them now.

The bottom line is it is... (Below threshold)
fafaroo:

The bottom line is it is best to let the enemy be in the dark about what we may or may not know. Why tell them we got XYZ instead of letting them guess?
-------------------------------

But there is no "letting them guess." Once the raid and bin laden's death was announced there was only one logical assumption that al qaada could make: That all their intelligence was compromised. They would have to make this assumption the second the raid itself was revealed regardless of what information came out later.

Now, if you want to argue that we never should have announced the raid or bin laden's death in the first place, have at it. But that's not what you're arguing here. You're arguing that there's some possible world in which al qaeda would have continued on with business as usual if we hadn't leaked info about what we discovered. That makes no sense whatsoever.

How smart would it be for al qaeda to decide, "Well, you know they didn't announce that they found anything so we can assume all our operations are still sound."

If that's what they thought, they would be the stupidest terrorist organization on the planet.

It's even dumber if, as you suggest, they thought, "Well, they didn't say they found anything so we'll have to assume they have everything but let's take the risk that they didn't anyway."

To illustrate, if I'm pulling a van into a covered parking garage with a sign that says "Seven foot clearance" and I assume that my van is eight feet but then proceed to drive in anyway, that would be pretty damn stupid on my part, wouldn't you say? Same thing in this case.

On the other side of equation, even if we didn't announce finding anything, we would still have to act as if al qaeda would alter all of its plans under the assumption that they had been compromised. Which is not to say we wouldn't follow up on all the information we did find, but that we couldn't allow that information to guide our follow up intel actions completely. We would still have to be looking for changes in the operation.

Which is to say we wouldn't allows ourselves to guess what they did or did not know about what was found so why would we assume that they would?

The bottom line is that both sides have to assume that the other side knows exactly what was a discovered and is responding accordingly, whether or not any information about the raid was leaked.

That's the only response that makes any strategic sense at all.

You guys are just looking for reasons to bitch and you're turning logic on its head to do it.

warchildI always e... (Below threshold)
retired military:

warchild

I always endeavor to be fair. Sometimes we (notice I SAID WE) dont listen to what the other guy is saying because they dont appear to be hearing what we are saying.

As for your admission. Ummm I dont know if you meant it the way I took it but I will let it go. Time for me to go to the movies.

Do you honestly think th... (Below threshold)
fafaroo:

Do you honestly think that the decision makers dont take into account what they think the enemy knows vs what they know the enemy knows?
----------------------------------

You see, if I don't know what my enemy knows, the only smart decision is to assume they know everything. That way I rule out guessing and I base my actions on the worse case scenario.

If I guess that the enemy doesn't know my plans, and I'm wrong, I'm in a world of hurt and it's my own damn fault.

The only real, viable assumption after the raid itself was announced was that al qaeda would either speed up operations under way in the hopes of executing them before we put all the pieces together or that they would cancel all planned operations and move in different directions.

Do you think al-Zawahiri heard about the raid and figured he could stay put where he was because we hadn't yet announced the discovery of all this information? Hell no. The only smart thing for him to do was split immediately and find another safe house.

If his original hiding place was discovered in bin laden's computers, we would still visit it, but we would be foolish to assume he was still there. We would have assume he had left so as not to overlook other clues as to where he might go.

Like I said, you're turning logic on its head to bitch about the Obama administration but nothing you've said so far makes any strategic sense at all.

farafooI dont have m... (Below threshold)
retired military:

farafoo
I dont have much time.

Yes it would be smart to assume that they got it. However, it could have been put out that nothing was recovered or what was recovered was badly damaged. AQ doesnt know if OBL had time to destory anything or not. The bottom line is we dont know. AQ doesnt know either. But if you say you have something than it gives them (anti US interests) threads to start picking at. True it could be false threads but it could also be good info. One of the basics of intelligence gathering is putting together pieces. Soldiers are taught this and have to take training every year on SAEDA. Sometimes it is the small unclassified bits that give away what you got.

How much the "fact" (in deference to above conversation with warchild) that we got away with a lot of intel matters in the long run we have no idea. As I stated. We are simply guessing.

farafoo A good ex... (Below threshold)
retired military:

farafoo

A good example of what I mean is stuff that is going on with facebook now. Identity thieves pick up birthdays, vacation days, where folks work etc and put together pieces. When they get enough pieces they can do a lot of damage.
Same with robbers who know that you are going on vacatino because you posted pictures of your Hawaii trip and "going to luau tonight"

In my opinion, once Bin ... (Below threshold)
john:

In my opinion, once Bin Laden was dead and his body removed, the operation should have one final step: remove all survivors from the compound and then level it. Bombs, missiles, placed demolition charges, whatever -- it should have been left a smoking crater.

Wow, that would have been galactically stupid. When the police raid a crime scene, they send in a forensics team, not a demolition team. The computers and notebooks out in the open were easy pickings. Who knows what kind of secret passages or hiding places might be strewn throughout that compound? But you just want to go in and level the place right off the bat? Now who's the amateur?

A good example of what I... (Below threshold)
fafaroo:

A good example of what I mean is stuff that is going on with facebook now. Identity thieves pick up birthdays, vacation days, where folks work etc and put together pieces. When they get enough pieces they can do a lot of damage.

Uh, that actually undermines your point.

I don't know when or if identity thieves are mining my information so I always act as if they are. What I would never do is assume they are and then post my social security number online anyway. I assume they are always there and protect my information at all times.

Al qaeda has to assume that we are always after their intel and act accordingly.

In this case, they already know for a fact that we raided the hideout of their leader. They would be incredibly stupid to now assume anything other than: They have everything.

But I'm glad you brought this up because shows just how incredible backward Jay Tea has his thief analogy:

Imagine a thief stealing someone's credit card, then calling up the victim to mock them and brag of all the things they were going to buy on that credit card.

The actual analogy is if I discovered my wallet missing and assumed automatically that someone had it and was charging things on my credit cards. If my wallet is missing I never assume it's lost. I assume it's stolen because it's the only way I can completely protect myself against fraud and I cancel every card in it, change all my passwords and notify my bank.

Al qaeda had its house broken into. It knows this for a fact. It doesn't need the "thieves," as it were, to call up and taunt them with what was stolen. It would automatically assume every thing was taken and now in the hands of its enemies. It would be strategically insane to respond in any other way.

But let's assume that the information about what we retrieved was never announced and that al qaeda is incredibly stupid.

Even in that scenario, we would still have to assume that they were acting as if all their intelligence at bin laden's hideout was compromised. Otherwise, we would be left having to guess ourselves what they thought they knew or didn't know. That would leave us unable to determine any course of action. The only strategic thing to do is to not guess and proceed on the assumption that they would alter their plans in some fashion response to the raid.

So, again, nothing you've said in defense of Jay Tea's typically inane whining makes any sense whatsoever.

But if you say you have ... (Below threshold)
Fafaroo:

But if you say you have something than it gives them (anti US interests) threads to start picking at.

How? How does announcing we have a bunch of hard drives give them any more information than they wouldn't already have had to assume? What "thread" does it give them to pull? Certainly nothing about our operations. The minute we announces the raid they knew how we got bin laden and access to every scrap of intel in his possession. Even if we never announced the raid itself, al Qaeda would have still known about it only the American people and the world would have been in the dark.

If you want to whine about the admins handling of the information release after this raid, fine. The changing stories were clearly an attempt to spin the perception of the raid early on with bin laden returning fire and hiding behind his wife etc. But if you're going to label that incompetence, I don't recall Jay Tea's outrage about the way the Bush administration handles the Pat Tillman tragedy. I don't call a lot of right wing handwringing over the bush administrations initial spin on the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

I do believe the Obama handled the release of information about the raid poorly but certainly not on the grounds that they've given aid to al Qaeda by telling us they found intel at the house. There's no strategically logically reason to think al qaeda is acting any different in response to that news than they would have without it.

There is a difference be... (Below threshold)
Fafaroo:

There is a difference between knowing and thinking and the actions and risks that military commanders will take with either.

I would like to point out that this is a completely different statement than the one you made at the top of the thread about assuming the worst and knowing the worst. Indeed, it again undermines your original point. In the absence of knowledge one either assumes nothing or assumes the worst. In either case the resulting action requires an abundance of caution and care.
In the specific situation being discussed the only way al Qaeda could respond to a lack of knowledge about what we found is exactly the same response if they knew for a fact what we found. That's all there is to it. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

Hey, faf -- I know you wand... (Below threshold)

Hey, faf -- I know you wandered over here from ODub's place. You wanna stick up for his assertion that Senator Chambliss violated national security by revealing Bin Laden dodged the first shot? OR are you content being one of his loyal rumpswabs, and ignoring when he says something so ludicrously hackish and stupid?

J.

Jay Tea, I don't have a pro... (Below threshold)
Fafaroo:

Jay Tea, I don't have a problem with spin or polemicists. I do, however, have a problem with idiots. Chambliss shared information that he got during a classified briefing with the public. Is what he shared a big deal? No. Oliver's spin on the facts is extreme, he is exaggerating for political effect, but that's what he does and most of the time he's spot on.

You, on the hand, operate on only two levels: factually wrong or logically flawed. Most often both. This post is an example of that latter. Your spin on the leaks about the intel recovered from the raid is so brain dead it's a wonder you had the motor skills to type it.

Case in point:

In the intelligence world, one of the most important phrases are "sources and methods." You never divulge the sources of your information, nor the methods you used to get them. It puts those sources and methods at risk, and compromises future operations. It's simply not done.

Here, we've not only compromised our "methods," we've bragged about it -- "taken a victory lap," to coin a phrase -- before we've had the full opportunity to exploit the information we've obtained.

Jay Tea, the methods and sources used to obtain this material were "divulged" the second the news broke: a seal team raided the compound and killed just about everyone in it including Osama bin laden. To suggest that revealing the intel recovered puts the seal team at any greater risk than revealing that they killed bin laden is just absurd.

This on top of everything else I've said in this thread about your clear lack of understanding about how any competent terrorist or criminal organization would respond o the news that their leader had been killed and his home raided. That intel started going stale the second smoke started rising from the compound as any and every al Qaeda operative in the immediate vicinity that saw it or heard the gun fire started backing their bags to disappear.

Al Qaeda already knew we "stole their wallet," jay tea. They didn't need us to announce we found anything to know that their entire operation had been compromised. Just finding bin laden was evidence that none of them were a secure as they they were just hours before the news broke. You might as well be arguing that Obama should have had bin laden tailed instead of killed because once we raided the compound he revealed our "sources and methods."

And announcing ghat we found intel there doesn't change one whit how al qaeda is now responding to this. They were not sitting around wondering if their plans were all safe or not. They were shitting themselves in the knowledge that we now had access to everything bin laden had access to. They would be stupid not to assume this.

Only an idiot would try to argue that al Qaeda didn't know our "methods and sources" for getting bin laden's cache of intel until it leaked. You are that idiot.

Like I said, jay tea. I do not mind spin or polemicists. Its one reason why I read political blogs. But for godsakes man try to be a little smarter about it! Of course, I don't think you can because you've shown yourself incapable of real thought.

Oh, and I forgot this:... (Below threshold)
Fafaroo:

Oh, and I forgot this:

Such as those photos Reuters apparently bought from a Pakistani security official. (No link; they're really graphic. But if you've seen them, you know what I mean -- and if you haven't, you can find them readily enough.) One of them shows one of Bin Laden's companions lying on the floor in a pool of blood -- and there are a bunch of computer cables in the corner of the photo. I'm a bit of a computer hardware nerd, and when I see a grouping of cables like that -- monitor cable, several USB cables -- it says one thing to me: they were hooked up to a PC, and that PC was taken. So we know that there was a PC there, and the US now has it. And, presumably, all the data contained on that PC's hard drives.

Jay Tea Super Spy! Using only he's keen knowledge of computer cables and photos released by a news agency he discovers vital clues to al qaeda's operations!

And Jay Tea, since we know that, based on your stunning forensic analysis, al Qaeda uses computers can we also assume, based on your equally compelling analysis of al qaeda's inability to know that their computers were missing, al Qaeda had no access to the Reuters photos or no way of identifying the cables you so brilliantly identified?

Talk about ego. What kind of a pompous tool could write such drivel?


Strikes by convent... (Below threshold)
Chico:
Strikes by conventional U.S. aircraft would have carried enormous risks, both because Pakistan has invested heavily in air detection and defense systems — to counter any threat posed by India — and because of the perils of an errant strike.

“All it has to be is about 1,000 yards off and it hits the Pakistan Military Academy,” said a CIA veteran of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The city is also home to two regimental compounds, and suburbs occupied by military families.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/cia-spied-on-bin-laden-from-safe-house/2011/05/05/AFXbG31F_story_1.html

Whadda they know? Of course the CIA and JSOC are the "amateurs," Admiral Jay Tea is the professional on targeting. If you don't believe it, just ask him. He's read books about World War II, you know.

faf, you're still the maste... (Below threshold)

faf, you're still the master of the "condescending know-it-all prick" style. But all that flash doesn't change the indisputable facts:

1) You excuse Oliver for his rampant political hackery, far worse than anything I say, because you like him and agree with him. But because you don't agree with me, my pointing out far, far more serious matters than "Bin Laden dodged teh first shot!"

2) There is a HUGE difference between "we must assume that the US now knows everything Bin Laden knew" and "The US says that they got all of Bin Laden's computers, flash drives, and even found the emergency phone numbers he kept sewn in his clothing."

For all your bluster and BS, fafaroo, you can't conceal or change that the Obama administration is shooting its mouth off, saying all sorts of things that should be kept quiet. I can only speculate as to the motives for why they they are doing it, but insecurity, inexperience, and eagerness to exploit this for political purposes.

Obama says he doesn't want to be seen as "spiking the football" or "taking a victory lap." Pity that every single disclosure about the operation they've made so far is exactly "spiking the football."

Now go and tell Oliver that you just adore "spinners" and "polemicists," as long as they're on your side, but like him, simply can't stand sincere people on the other side.

J.

FafarooYour scenar... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Fafaroo

Your scenario isnt quite the same.

What if the raid had taken place say

A. while the AQ in training as pilots for 911 were still in training.

Does their operational leader pull them out of flight school, or leave them in.

He has 4 choices

a. leave them in and hope they arent compromised.

b. try to complete the mission with the training they currently have.

c. Pull them out, try to get new IDs, and get them to finish training elsewhere

d. scrub the mission altogether.

or say they have someone undercover at a nuke facility or the Pentagon.

does their operational leader pull them out, have do what damage they can, or leave them in place and hope for the best.

Those are the type of command decisions that have to be made. If the leader KNOWS for a fact they are compromised then chances are he will either pull them out and wait for another day or have them do whatever damage they could at the time.


@76 - Joining the amateur h... (Below threshold)
Olsoljer:

@76 - Joining the amateur hour John? Operating on a time frame, the team probably got all they could, but the crime scene and forensics would/will be done by who? The very people who had been protecting that POS? SEALS are professionals, blowing the compound would have denied access to what indeed might have been hidden, and it would have been better to blow the compound and create an atmosphere of uncertainty of what all had been comprised. If there was hidden "troves" you can bet someone knows exactly where to look. A few judiciously placed thermite grenades could have created that doubt. As I mentioned, SEALS are professionals, so I would believe they were specifically ordered not destroy the compound - and any soldier knows to destroy any/all equipment that could compromise our intell or technology - SEALS would have blown the downed chopper unless ordered otherwise. These two things alone should prove to anyone with military experience that the hand of an ignorant political hack was exerting control over the mission (re: Obamabots). Just another example of sending troops into battle with one arm tied behind their back - something I have come to anticipate from politicians.
To the SEAL Team(s) - well done!

The raid was conducted in a... (Below threshold)
retired military:

The raid was conducted in a very tight time frame. Getting out of the helicopter, securing the compound, getting the intel, killing the target, blowing the helicopter and getting out in 40 minutes is probably about the right amount of time for a SEAL team. However, if they had had more time on ground who knows what they could have uncovered as far as INTEL goes. If the news on the amount of INTEL hadnt leaked it would would have probably added to that uncertainity factor.

Those are the type of co... (Below threshold)
fafaroo:

Those are the type of command decisions that have to be made. If the leader KNOWS for a fact they are compromised then chances are he will either pull them out and wait for another day or have them do whatever damage they could at the time.

Once more, RM, you keep forgetting: We raided OBLs compound, killed him and announced it on national television to the world.

This is not a scenario in which undercover agents were used to obtain information secretly with the intention of keeping AQ in the dark about our out "sources and methods." In this case, our "methods" were a Navy SEAL team. Our "sources" were OBLs own computers recovered from near his dead body. There was never any secret about the first and if AQ didn't assume the second they would be the dumbest terrorist organization ever.

Al Qaeda knew for a fact we had access to everything OBL had in possession. Even if we bombed the building on our way, AQ have to assume we took everything before doing so.

Try to imagine Jay Tea's insanely stupid scenario in which "our foes [would] crawl over the rubble to figure out what we found and what we took."

Yup! After the dust settled on OBLs compound AQ would send in people to comb through the concrete looking for missing computers! Then, if they didn't find any, they'd decided whether to assume they were taken or assume they were destroyed in the blast. Which do you think is the safest bet for them? The former. And they would come to that conclusion whether we bombed the building or not.

The kind of command decisions AQ had to make in this scenario as it unfolded are exactly the same kind of command decisions it would have to make whether we announced finding the materials or not: Speed up operations in progress in the hopes of executing them before we put all the pieces together or pack everything up and run.

Announcing that we found intel doesn't change that. But it could have the effect of spooking AQ operatives out in the field who don't have direct or easy communication to the AQ command structure. Now they're out there on their own having to make decisions about how to act on the assumption that their cover is blown and they would all have to assume that their cover was blown.

Everything else you guys are suggesting is not only completely illogical, it begins from the assumption that AQ is the stupidest terrorist organization ever.

That's why Jay Tea is an idiot. As I note above, there are a lot of rational reasons to criticize the administration's post raid announcements but he choose the single most illogical, irrational complaint to harp on. Why? Because he wanted to play pretend spy--"I know what computer cables look like!!!"-- and he couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy