Posted on May 31, 2014
Bergdahl freed: Releasing too many details again?
3.96K
48
26
8
8
0
Once again the Navy Seals are in the news. There were the team that picked up SGT Bergdahl in Afghanistan. Do we need to know this? Should we know this? As the hours go by we learn even more about who picked him up, where, what type of aircraft will transport the detainees, etc.
After Bin Laden was killed they said Americans, then a flood of information of the Navy Seals, type of helicopters and what was special about them, how he was hunted down up to and including books written and helping Hollywood producing a movie about it.
Why do some people feel the need to release all this information and just let it all out there? Is it helpful? Is it hurtful to our defense and their capability?
Where are the other special operations teams being given credited for their missions? Is it just because the Navy Seals did the Bin Laden raid that they are in the new again or is it that they are the ones selected for these types of high profile missions and not other forces?
What are your thoughts of this and their affect on our elite forces.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/31/wh-us-solider-held-in-afghanistan-bergdahl-is-released-after-five-years/
After Bin Laden was killed they said Americans, then a flood of information of the Navy Seals, type of helicopters and what was special about them, how he was hunted down up to and including books written and helping Hollywood producing a movie about it.
Why do some people feel the need to release all this information and just let it all out there? Is it helpful? Is it hurtful to our defense and their capability?
Where are the other special operations teams being given credited for their missions? Is it just because the Navy Seals did the Bin Laden raid that they are in the new again or is it that they are the ones selected for these types of high profile missions and not other forces?
What are your thoughts of this and their affect on our elite forces.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/31/wh-us-solider-held-in-afghanistan-bergdahl-is-released-after-five-years/
Bergdahl
Social Media
Navy SEALs
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
OPSEC is definitely not being followed, by the same groups of people that design the laws. So youre telling me if I wanted to know about my enemy all I have to do is watch TV, listen to the radio/internet? Wow
(6)
(0)
1SG David Niles
I used open source information all the time in real world operations for actionable intelligence.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
There is no such thing as OPSEC with the media involved. It should be a "need to know" basis, and the media does not need to know those details. I think it puts the spec ops troops in danger when such details are readily given out by the media. Further more IMHO, OPSEC went in the toilet when we started embedding the media into combat operations. When do we begin to comprehend that the enemy is intelligent, has computers, and also watches the same media? On a side note, I am always telling/reminding fellow deployed Airmen to turn off their location services on Facebook because their direct deployed location is right there for everyone to see.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sir, I agree and think most of it is coming from staff officers, NCOs, enlisted, or coming from other agencies involved. I do not think it is the Seals broadcasting it on their RallyPoint discussions. I really would like the "need to know" to be followed within the military and agencies so that unless you need to know you do not. It disgust me to see this as most of the time it is probably someone looking to gain favor with a reporter or make a name for themselves to move up the ladder and not someone who should be involved (in my opinion) with any of this to begin with. And once again there will be nobody held accountable for leaking this information out.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I don't think its really coming from the military side, at least not the operational side. These things are just photo-ops for the civilian side of the house and the big whigs. Nothing looks better than saying, "I made that decision to use our highly trained super awesome warriors because I'm the boss and I can do that" (insert crazy old man laughing murmur sound).
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I concur with much of what has already been said. The sad fact is the "we" talk too much about things we shouldn't. Politicians failed to grasp that our enemies are watching and listening to everything we say and do. We're have been for years giving away that which makes us strong.......and somebody needs to be smart enough to put a stop to it.
(3)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
According to the report, it was DOD officials that were spilling information, although they had to have permission from higher up. Fox news and other news outlets are just as negligent for giving the names. Some of the details given did not change the story except give the Terrorists operational procedures. I am sure they probably already knew, but why confirm it to the whole world.
(3)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
Isn't the main stream media just the propaganda branch of the government anyway?
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Sir I am happy they retrieved him. I am not happy with the fact that many SF's can write books about their experiences and get wealthy while those of us who performed classified missions in support of special forces are upholding our secrecy oath. All we need to know is that we have him back and in what condition.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I found this to be an interesting follow up:
http://www.oafnation.com/guests-pieces/2014/6/2/oaf-exclusive-the-truth-about-bowe-bagdahl
http://www.oafnation.com/guests-pieces/2014/6/2/oaf-exclusive-the-truth-about-bowe-bagdahl
OAF Exclusive: The Truth About Bowe Bergdahl
Lies were told and servicemen were lost and wounded in efforts to find a man that had no desire to be found.
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
The way I look at it, if true, he could easily be found being guilty of treason due to desertion and aiding the enemy. Then again, trading five strong Taliban fighters for this guy could also be considered treason when operating unilaterally.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It's a mixed bag, on the one hand you need secrecy and security to protect those conducting the operation, but in a free society information leaks out over time that risks that security. Look at a few years ago after we had a successful Saudi joint mission which prevented a terrorist attack, yet those around the President gave up details that exposed the Saudi agent's role which prevented him from continuing to infiltrate Al Qaeda.
The people think they have a need to know and feel if they don't know what's going on they think the government is acting underhanded or isn't effective because they don't see or hear results.
The people think they have a need to know and feel if they don't know what's going on they think the government is acting underhanded or isn't effective because they don't see or hear results.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree, that's the WHOLE problem nowadays. We are providing too much info for the rest of the world to know. What the hell happened to OPSEC that we instill into our soldiers everyday? Doesn't that goes for EVERYONE so that our military forces stay safe and strong? I don't see any other country providing details on their missions...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Some politico with an inside scoop needed to let the press know how important he is... Until Congress is willing to police their own and imprison these traitors in the same way they expect the military to do it to theirs for such egregious breaches, we might as well broadcast everything in the open.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google