4
4
0
Interesting article that does question the narrative. The raid goes bad, the intelligence they were looking to collect is destroyed, a SEAL loses his life and we are unpatriotic if we don't claim success. There is a difference between real after action report and an objective analysis. Spin does nothing to ensure the success of future efforts.
Sean Spicer Is Hiding Behind A Fallen SEAL
Posted from taskandpurpose.comPosted in these groups: 
Yemen
War on Terror
Yemen War on Terror
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
When you are sitting on the flight deck completing a weapons check and securing equipment for the nth time before going ashore, that thousand yard stare is because you and your Marines know that someone may not comeback alive and because you may be called upon to end a human life. Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose your Marines. Anyone who does not understand that unmerciful fact should join the Peace Corps, not the military.
If the death of a service member is the standard by which we judge the success or failure of a mission, D-Day was a colossal failure.
If the death of a service member is the standard by which we judge the success or failure of a mission, D-Day was a colossal failure.
(3)
(0)
Col Rebecca Lorraine
The merit of the operation was the extraction of a vast drove of intelligence, and although it was destroyed, it wasn't retrieved. Something went wrong and unfortunately it resulted in a casualty. So, I agree that loss of life and mission success can't be synonymous and that we would be unpatriotic to say otherwise. The focus should remain on the objective of the mission. Task and Purpose isn't known to be against the president, but the Democratic presidents have preferred the drone approach to warfare. The boots on the ground will result in more casualties and that is the nature of the beast. Splicer should stick to the facts of the mission.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Col Rebecca Lorraine - The act that a mission took place should neither be confirmed or denied until every last iota of actionable intelligence has been acted upon. The enemy should not know if we gathered every scrap of info intact or if every scrap of info was destroyed for months after a mission. They should not know who was captured and who is dead. News of any action should not be known for months. The American citizen has no right to know until knowing does the enemy no good. The very fact that it is discussed provides the enemy some thread to conduct their own intelligence analysis.
Anyone that has read for 15 minutes on asymmetrical warfare knows that the primary weapon of the "flea" is the opposition's press. The 68 Tet offensive was by any operational measure an utter failure for North Viet Nam. Vo Ngyuen Giap stated in his book "How We Won the War" that a Battalion of Marines from I Corp could have marched North and taken Hanoi armed with "pointy sticks" for at least three months after TET. But the US was defeated, even though it took five more year to realize it. The weapon was the press, the militarily significant target was the American will to win.
The modern press has far more investment in embarrassing the Trump administration than it does in the defeat of radical Islamist ideology. So yes, the press focus on the negative is unpatriotic. They should not be allowed in theater. They should be treated like cultivated mushrooms.
Anyone that has read for 15 minutes on asymmetrical warfare knows that the primary weapon of the "flea" is the opposition's press. The 68 Tet offensive was by any operational measure an utter failure for North Viet Nam. Vo Ngyuen Giap stated in his book "How We Won the War" that a Battalion of Marines from I Corp could have marched North and taken Hanoi armed with "pointy sticks" for at least three months after TET. But the US was defeated, even though it took five more year to realize it. The weapon was the press, the militarily significant target was the American will to win.
The modern press has far more investment in embarrassing the Trump administration than it does in the defeat of radical Islamist ideology. So yes, the press focus on the negative is unpatriotic. They should not be allowed in theater. They should be treated like cultivated mushrooms.
(1)
(0)
Col Rebecca Lorraine
I don't know, relationship building begins at home and not by demeaning everyone that isn't fair. Tweeting is pretty dumb strategy for building moral, respect and governing. But that's just me. Someone once said something about keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer....if you alienate half the planet and we look like we are in a civil war, our enemies see great weakness in that. I have confidence that Gen Mattiss is handling the military, but you really have to know that it just doesn't inspire anyone to support a bully. The media are doing there job. We need them to stay on top of the ethics, chaos, and theater operations if we intend to inform the public. It can't be that they just want to embarrass him this is their country too and with the right media strategy, they could be helpful in uniting the country. Maj John Bell -
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Col Rebecca Lorraine - I am not defending President Trumps use of social media. I would prefer if he gave them no more attention than an elephant gives a butterfly. But when it comes to the media - Trump war, neither side is free of guilt. While it may be fair to call President Trump a bully, the media is not a 90lb weakling. Since they control the picture and the volume, I think he is more David and they are more Goliath. They have gone well past the gadfly stage and in my opinion are the opposition party.
The problem with your theory is that journalists are profoundly ignorant of the most basic information about the military. They cannot even keep rank structure right; let alone concepts like tactics, operations, strategy, grand strategy, operational security, deception, information vs intelligence, etc. etc. etc. They could no more differentiate deep interdiction air strikes from close air support than they could differentiate a force beach head line from a line of departure. Their reports from the combat theater are akin to the three blind men describing the elephant.
Imagine the typical journalists' horror if they knew that we lift supporting artillery and mortar fire only when we start to take more casualties from our own supporting fires in the final assault, than from an unsuppressed enemy. In 48 hours, artillery and mortars would be purged from the battlefield, the press would be in the rear echelons congratulating themselves on how many lives they saved while they smoke cigars and drink scotch on the rocks. Meanwhile the American bodies would stack up like cordwood and we wouldn't take 100 meters a day. They just don't get it. Nor do they care to. I had three encounters with the press while on active duty. In each case they put quotes around words that were not mine, falsely paraphrased me, and completely misrepresented what I said. These were not local yokel cub reporters. They were not controversial stories. They just wanted to make the stories "more interesting".
The problem with your theory is that journalists are profoundly ignorant of the most basic information about the military. They cannot even keep rank structure right; let alone concepts like tactics, operations, strategy, grand strategy, operational security, deception, information vs intelligence, etc. etc. etc. They could no more differentiate deep interdiction air strikes from close air support than they could differentiate a force beach head line from a line of departure. Their reports from the combat theater are akin to the three blind men describing the elephant.
Imagine the typical journalists' horror if they knew that we lift supporting artillery and mortar fire only when we start to take more casualties from our own supporting fires in the final assault, than from an unsuppressed enemy. In 48 hours, artillery and mortars would be purged from the battlefield, the press would be in the rear echelons congratulating themselves on how many lives they saved while they smoke cigars and drink scotch on the rocks. Meanwhile the American bodies would stack up like cordwood and we wouldn't take 100 meters a day. They just don't get it. Nor do they care to. I had three encounters with the press while on active duty. In each case they put quotes around words that were not mine, falsely paraphrased me, and completely misrepresented what I said. These were not local yokel cub reporters. They were not controversial stories. They just wanted to make the stories "more interesting".
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
From the story:
"White House Spokesman Sean Spicer introduced a curious new logic into the analysis of American military action in his most recent press conference. If a service member is killed in action, Spicer appears to believe it ceases to be legitimate for anyone to question the value or success of that action."
Actually what I think Spicer is challenging is that a raid somehow is a failure if there is a loss of life. It seems to be the tone/narrative from the media that if someone dies, the raid was a failure or unsuccessful. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The notion from the author in this excerpt is incredible:
"Spicer’s outrageous logic would invert this. From one perspective, any death on a mission is by definition a failure. I know many fine leaders of all ranks, and every single one of them considers the loss of even a single member of the team as a devastating failure that tarnishes even an otherwise glowing success."
If a mission is a failure because of a single casualty then we should never conduct any missions. That is an absurd standard. Certainly after action reports and debriefs that would look to reduce the opportunity for injury or death is always appropriate but the standard that a single death makes a mission a failure is not realistic. You have a lot of equipment, people with hostile intent, often deep into enemy territory. These are by definition high risk.
"White House Spokesman Sean Spicer introduced a curious new logic into the analysis of American military action in his most recent press conference. If a service member is killed in action, Spicer appears to believe it ceases to be legitimate for anyone to question the value or success of that action."
Actually what I think Spicer is challenging is that a raid somehow is a failure if there is a loss of life. It seems to be the tone/narrative from the media that if someone dies, the raid was a failure or unsuccessful. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The notion from the author in this excerpt is incredible:
"Spicer’s outrageous logic would invert this. From one perspective, any death on a mission is by definition a failure. I know many fine leaders of all ranks, and every single one of them considers the loss of even a single member of the team as a devastating failure that tarnishes even an otherwise glowing success."
If a mission is a failure because of a single casualty then we should never conduct any missions. That is an absurd standard. Certainly after action reports and debriefs that would look to reduce the opportunity for injury or death is always appropriate but the standard that a single death makes a mission a failure is not realistic. You have a lot of equipment, people with hostile intent, often deep into enemy territory. These are by definition high risk.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We just need the facts on these operations. Please leave spin out of these stories where we lose brave military members.
(2)
(0)
Col Rebecca Lorraine
I agree. The objective and result. That would be the primary standard, but to say the mission was a failure because someone lost their life and that claim is unpatriotic is a bit difficult to swallow. What happened and why did it happen or not go as planned? Even in the Bin Ladin raid we destroyed the target, lost no lives, but did lose a helicopter. The objective was the target and it may not have been perfect, it was successful. If they had failed to take out the target, lost a SEAL team member, would the operation still be successful because it would be unpatriotic to say otherwise? I think that is the point of this article. Not that the media is saying it is unsuccessful because of a lost life, but because we must say it was successful or a life was lost in vain.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Col Rebecca Lorraine - I glad that we have an adversarial press again; instead of the slobbering, eight year, love affair we just endured. However it would be nice if the press engaged in a little intellectual honesty. That drought is not going to be over any time soon.
My read is that any innocent comment that can be twisted by an anti Trump media will be. Then it will be magnified beyond belief.
If Mr. Spicer had truthfully said "The success or failure of a military mission cannot be judged by the loss of life of an American Sailor" The press would be calling for his callous and insensitive head to be put on a pike at the gates to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
If a Trump spokesman said "Good Morning" and it rained anywhere on the mid-Atlantic seaboard we would be bombarded with "Trump White House Prays for Biblical Flooding death and destruction" headlines.
My read is that any innocent comment that can be twisted by an anti Trump media will be. Then it will be magnified beyond belief.
If Mr. Spicer had truthfully said "The success or failure of a military mission cannot be judged by the loss of life of an American Sailor" The press would be calling for his callous and insensitive head to be put on a pike at the gates to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
If a Trump spokesman said "Good Morning" and it rained anywhere on the mid-Atlantic seaboard we would be bombarded with "Trump White House Prays for Biblical Flooding death and destruction" headlines.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google