Posted on Jan 10, 2015
Why the flack for former enlisted on the Bin Laden raid following the example of former officers?
2.98K
2
4
0
0
0
I've noticed a lot of flack from the SEAL team that killed bin Laden speaking out about their participation. Why is there an issue with Enlisted making money off their service when officers have been doing it for centuries? I understand the quiet professionals aspect but absolutely NOTHING is TRULY sacred in this country anymore. Taboo has been purposefully wiped away. Why is everyone shocked when they get what they asked for?
Posted in these groups: 
Osama Bin Laden
Tradition
Osama Bin Laden Tradition
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Think this question has a few different variable that should be considered.
- Conventional vs unconventional forces. No issue with either former officers or enlisted from conventional forces talking about or writing about their experiences since this does not give much to our enemies and helps the 99% of Americans who have no clue about the military. Big issue with either former officers or enlisted from unconventional side doing this, however, since this can give a lot of help to our enemies. Same advantage to US population.
- Former vs current Soldier. Current Soldiers have our rights limited for good reasons (good order and discipline, civilian control of military, keeping military apolitical). While former Soldiers (officers and enlisted) have the right to speak out, they should keep their mouths shut more often. Good example is former Soldiers endorsing political candidates. The only reason their endorsement might carry weight is the "rank (R)" in front of their name. If they want to endorse then do it as a private citizen without the "rank (R).
- "My friends do it so I should be able to do it". What kid has not used this argument with their parents. Everyone knows their parents response as well. My point is that bad behavior by former officers should not be used as a justification of bad or ill advised behavior by anyone else. Wrong is wrong.
- Bin Laden raid. Great execution by Seal Team 6 but several post event screw ups at all levels. The details of this operation should have been secret for 50 years. Political leaders, military leaders, and former military members all talked when they all should have shut up. Negative impacts include a Pakistani doctor who may never see the light of day again, a nation that is less inclined to work with and let alone support the United States, and other nations who are less hesitant to share intelligence or with the United States because of our collective and individual proven inability to keep our mouths shut.
- Conventional vs unconventional forces. No issue with either former officers or enlisted from conventional forces talking about or writing about their experiences since this does not give much to our enemies and helps the 99% of Americans who have no clue about the military. Big issue with either former officers or enlisted from unconventional side doing this, however, since this can give a lot of help to our enemies. Same advantage to US population.
- Former vs current Soldier. Current Soldiers have our rights limited for good reasons (good order and discipline, civilian control of military, keeping military apolitical). While former Soldiers (officers and enlisted) have the right to speak out, they should keep their mouths shut more often. Good example is former Soldiers endorsing political candidates. The only reason their endorsement might carry weight is the "rank (R)" in front of their name. If they want to endorse then do it as a private citizen without the "rank (R).
- "My friends do it so I should be able to do it". What kid has not used this argument with their parents. Everyone knows their parents response as well. My point is that bad behavior by former officers should not be used as a justification of bad or ill advised behavior by anyone else. Wrong is wrong.
- Bin Laden raid. Great execution by Seal Team 6 but several post event screw ups at all levels. The details of this operation should have been secret for 50 years. Political leaders, military leaders, and former military members all talked when they all should have shut up. Negative impacts include a Pakistani doctor who may never see the light of day again, a nation that is less inclined to work with and let alone support the United States, and other nations who are less hesitant to share intelligence or with the United States because of our collective and individual proven inability to keep our mouths shut.
(1)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
I hear you sir, but those consequences were set in motion by the political leadership. In my opinion that makes them irrelevant. What makes something wrong, or taboo, as a matter of culture. I dare say all of the cultural restraints of honor are gone and you can't have it both ways. This is likely the new normal. If someone can twist the meaning of a rule, regulation, or law to support them,then they'll do it. if there is no legal prevention to stop someone from doing something, they won't. Simple tradition no longer holds value. I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact it breaks my heart.
Note: Any usage of the word 'you' is rhetorical.
Note: Any usage of the word 'you' is rhetorical.
(0)
(0)
I don't think this has anything to do with enlisted versus officer. I am certain that if an officer from the Bin Laden raid would have written such a book, he would have gotten a similar response.
The "flack" is about writing books or going on talking tours revealing potentially classified material. I don't think that has anything to do with being enlisted or officer.
A lot of people see military ranks as divided by enlisted and officer, but in reality 99% of the media would barely know the difference... so I think blaming something on rank here is not accurate.
The "flack" is about writing books or going on talking tours revealing potentially classified material. I don't think that has anything to do with being enlisted or officer.
A lot of people see military ranks as divided by enlisted and officer, but in reality 99% of the media would barely know the difference... so I think blaming something on rank here is not accurate.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I think the flack is from said soldier breaking his NDA. And not submitting his manuscript, initially, to the censors at the Pentagon. Which, I feel is mandatory in these types of situations. Many of the missions ST6 runs are classified. I don't feel the public has a need to know. Just my two cents.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google