I've read SEAL Target Geronimo by Chuck Pfarrer which was written by him after interviews with SEAL Team Six.No Easy Day is written by someone who was THERE. I've ordered the hardcover but it's available on Kindle for $5.20 less.----------------- A first-hand account of the Navy SEAL mission that killed Osama bin Laden is coming out September 11 - the 11th anniversary of the devastating terror attacks in New York and Washington, DC.The book's publisher announced on today that Mark Owen's 'No Easy Day' will 'set the record straight' on the raid in Abottabad, Pakistan, in May 2011 that led to the terrorist leader's death.'Mark Owen' is a pseudonym for the combat veteran who was one of the first fighters to enter bin Laden's third floor hideout and also witnessed his death, according to Dutton, an imprint of Penguin Group. The co-author, journalist Kevin Maurer, has worked on four previous books - including two in the last year and a half about soldiers in Afghanistan.Maurer spent the last several years embedded with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as a military correspondent for the Fayetteville Observer.<snip>The blog said that Owen's 'blow by blow' account of the raid will begin with the helicopter crash in bin Laden's backyard that almost killed him to the terror mastermind's death.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192217/Osama-Bin-La... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192217/Osama-Bin-La...No Easy Day puts readers alongside Owen and the other handpicked members of the twenty-four-man team as they train for the biggest mission of their lives. The blow-by-blow narrative of the assault, beginning with the helicopter crash that could have ended Owen’s life straight through to the radio call confirming Bin Laden’s death, is an essential piece of modern history.http://www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Day-Firsthand-Account/dp/05259...
U.S. says surprised by Navy SEAL's book on bin Laden raidWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government was surprised by the news that a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan has written a book about the operation in which the al Qaeda leader was killed, U.S. officials said on Wednesday."No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden" was written by a Navy SEAL under the pseudonym Mark Owen with co-author Kevin Maurer and is to be released next month on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.It was not vetted by government agencies to ensure that no secrets were revealed."The book was vetted by a former special operations attorney. He vetted it for tactical, technical, and procedural information as well as information that could be considered classified by compilation and found it to be without risk to national security," Christine Ball, a spokeswoman for the publisher, Dutton, told Reuters.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-usa-security-bi...
Ex-Navy SEAL whose book reveals inside story of bin Laden raid faces death threats from al Qaeda...just one day after his identity was revealed Soldier identified as retired Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette on ThursdayHis photograph and name posted on al Qaeda website on Friday Pentagon says release of his name is a security concernPentagon, CIA and White House among the agencies who have not seen the book, written anonymously by a SEAL Team Six memberBissonnette could face federal charges if classified information is revealed in the bookWill hit bookshelves on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks<snip>Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193458/No-Easy-Day-...
I have no quarrel with writing down the facts of a major historical event for the future generations, but I think he should have waited to publish them until he died ( of natural causes) and not endangered colleagues, national defense or training strategies, and himself.It smacks of seeking glory.And before you quibble about the endangering of "training strategies", please note that on TV he said over and over again how well they'd been trained, the model they worked on, how their timing worked, the importance of hiding the information on the helicopter, their female intelligence operator, .....stuff terrorists would absorb with enthusiasm for their own attacks.Then I have to add, woe is me, that before I saw the guy on 60 minutes, I had already ordered the book....Big Momma
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.I have no quarrel with writing down the facts of a major historical event for the future generations, but I think he should have waited to publish them until he died ( of natural causes) and not endangered colleagues, national defense or training strategies, and himself.Yes, there have been several versions of events put forth by politicians wrestling for the microphone immediately after the event. It's good to have the facts out from someone who was there.Have no fear, I've finished No Easy Day and in the book he talks about training strategies but doesn't describe them in any detail other than what you'd see on an episode of "Cops" or some SWAT movie.It smacks of seeking glory.If it hadn't been for some idiot at Fox News you'd still know him only by his pseudonym "Mark Owen" In the book you'll learn that the extra training was done for the benefit of nervous Nellie higher ups in D.C. and for 'dog & pony' shows for said higher ups. The OBL raid was little different from hundreds of others that SEALs have made since 9/11.I'm a bit of an aficionado of these things and I can truthfully tell you that there was nothing in the book or the on the 60 Minutes TV show (which I watched in its entirety) that I haven't seen or read about before.Our side doesn't kill women and children so any terrorist wanting to know how the SEALs (or other Special Operations units) work would simply have had to interview any of the wives & children of OBL or any of the other terrorists we've taken out over the years since 9/11 with bloody boots on the ground instead of the flash BANG! of a drone fired Hellfire missile.Terrorism vs. counter terrorism is an evolving engagement as the headlines about shoe bombers, underwear bombers and exploding printer ink cartridges tells us.Then I have to add, woe is me, that before I saw the guy on 60 minutes, I had already ordered the book....Good for you! A goodly portion of the profits from the book go to SEAL charities listed in the back of the book which I'm sure you'll enjoy!
Ah, so maybe the administration's objection to No Easy Day ( http://www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Day-Firsthand-Account/dp/05259... ) is based more on his stealing their thunder than any concern that some secret might get out.- - - - -The Obama administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to publicize details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, even as it threatens to file criminal charges against a former Navy SEAL because he provided the same type of mission rundown in his recently published book.An examination by The Washington Times shows that several details in the book “No Easy Day” already have appeared in print based on interviews with administration officials and likely will be included in an upcoming movie and another book.Perhaps the most detailed account of the raid appeared in a 2011 New Yorker article based on authorized interviews with White House officials. A source close to SEAL Team 6, which carried out the May 2011 mission, said unit members were told after the article was published that it was based, in part, on an authorized interview with a mission planner.Internal administration emails released last month in a Freedom of Information lawsuit show extraordinary cooperation between filmmakers working on a movie about the bin Laden raid and Obama political appointees. At least one person who took part in the raid was made available to the movie’s director and screenwriter, the emails show.Read more: Details of bin Laden raid leaked first by Obama aides - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/16/details-of-b... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Oh partisan dave:It isn't "the administration." It's "The Pentagon". There is a difference.The biggest problem isn't that he revealed secret details (although there are surely some in there that the Pentagon would rather have not had released, like the use of infra-red only glow-sticks to mark cleared areas (now the bad guys know to look for those and/or to use them falsely))......it's that if they don't do something to mark the publication of this book, then they have no defense when any other Seal or government worker who has signed a confidentiality agreement decides "Well, I don't have to pay attention to that" and writes their own - with even more damaging revelations.It's called "precedent", and it's a legal issue, and one which plays very well in front of juries.Try not to see everything through your anti-Obama lens, OK? The world is a bit more complicated than that.
... like the use of infra-red only glow-sticks ...http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=p...Gosh, Goofy, you mean the SEALs always used the same color to mark the same meaning? Where did you learn that? But more to the point the glow sticks were left behind. al-Qaeda is a well organized organization do you think they don't do their own after action debriefings? This is basic stuff.Try not to see everything through your anti-Obama lens, OK? The world is a bit more complicated than that.Oh partisan Goofy, if you'd read No Easy Day ( http://www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Day-Firsthand-Account/dp/05259... ) you'd know the author gave credit to the President and went out of his way several times to say the operation was the result of years of work so if you want to blame someone, blame Bush.
if you'd read No Easy Day I've already read it, thanks. How do you think I picked up the part about the glow sticks?Gosh, Goofy, you mean the SEALs always used the same color to mark the same meaning? There is no "color." If you read the book you understand that the glow is only visible through the special lenses the SEALSs use. So to the uninformed they would just look like detritus and waste. Now they know what they're for. Even better, they can acquire them and mark areas as "cleared" when they haven't actually been cleared. Nice job.This is basic stuff.Yes it is. I could have pointed out other things, but chose not to. Why do you think "Mark" didn't want the book vetted? Because the Pentagon would have excised more of it, that's why.BTW, contrary to your review, the first half of the book his largely his personal history. Except for the "pirates of the Arabian sea" rescue, it's pretty mundane stuff. Some scene setting is inevitable, even necessary, but the Bin Laden raid doesn't even begin until almost precisely 50% of the way through the book.you'd know the author gave credit to the President and went out of his way several times to say the operation was the result of years of work so if you want to blame someone, blame BushThere was much moaning about "Washington" and how long it takes to make a decision. (I wouldn't disagree, on a raid of international dimension such as this, it's probably good to be 1) sure and 2) reflective.) It's also inevitable when there are so many different agencies and interests involved, from CIA to State to Military to Special Ops and more. (Also worth noting that the CIA woman said 100%, but nobody else did. Overall CIA assessment was 60-80%, the Red Team which came in and did a last minute "objective" evaluation put it at 40%. Not incredibly confidence inspiring, I would say.)There were several direct swipes at Obama, which I don't care about one way or the other; he's entitled to his opinion. But you could hardly characterize this as "giving credit" or being positive in any way.For the record, there were three options: 1) include Pakistan, 2) smoking hole in the ground via precision bombing or cruise missiles, 3) human insertion raid. By far the most dangerous, both to personnel and to international diplomacy was option 3, and that's what was chosen. I don't fault a few extra days time in considering the option.Had the raid gone awry, or worse, if Osama wasn't there, we would have seriously damaged any relationship with Pakistan which, for better or worse (mostly worse) we need for staging, air rights, transit rights and other things Afghanistan related. And if the raid was unsuccessful altogether, what is the likelihood of another, by any President in the sovereign borders of Pakistan? Close to zero, I suspect.I also note that "Mark" didn't mention that the original plan drawn up by the Pentagon had only two helos involved, and that Obama, himself, told them to put two more in "for backup." (Actually as a "fight your way back out" option.) As it turned out, they were needed to get the mission accomplished, as it went overlong and fuel was low (not to mention the one helo which remained in the compound.) http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/03/obama-pushed-for-fight-...Yes, it was the result of "years of work." The CIA woman was on it for 5 years, which predates Obama, certainly. That said, Panetta is very clear that Obama told him it was the #1 priority, and that significant resources were added at the beginning of the 2008 administration. Did it make a difference? We'll never know. We do know what the final result was, though, don't we?Good book. Not incredibly well written, but good enough for the purpose. I will be curious to see how the Kathryn Bigelow movie treats all of this. It's due out post-election, and it's a bit late to be reshooting if some of the details are ridiculously wrong (like making lots of noise going up the stairwells, where the first chopper landed, or the discrepancies between the official Pentagon version of who got shot where versus what this book says.)
There is no "color." If you read the book you understand that the glow is only visible through the special lenses the SEALSs use. So to the uninformed they would just look like detritus and waste. Now they know what they're for. Even better, they can acquire them and mark areas as "cleared" when they haven't actually been cleared. Nice job.Are you seriously going to contend that the Pakistani government isn't going to read the labels/"CSI" examine the "detritus" left behind? This is basic stuff we're talking about here.Also, are you going to seriously contend that al-Qaeda is going to keep a stash of glow sticks around all their HQ's to be tossed out doors when they think there's an attack underway.As I (and No Easy Day) pointed out the OBL raid was little different from hundreds the special ops troops have carried out in the area since 9/11 so I kind'a think they knew all we're talking about here. you'd know the author gave credit to the President and went out of his way several times to say the operation was the result of years of work so if you want to blame someone, blame BushThere was much moaning about "Washington" and how long it takes to make a decision.Which does not change the fact that the author gave credit to the President. And I do too. I've many issues with President Obama but authorizing the OBL raid isn't one of them. In fact I applaud his authorizing the OBL raid.Had the raid gone awry, or worse, if Osama wasn't there, we would have seriously damaged any relationship with Pakistan which, for better or worse (mostly worse) we need for staging, air rights, transit rights and other things Afghanistan related.And that would have damaged our relationship with Pakistan more than taking out OBL did; how?I also note that "Mark" didn't mention that the original plan drawn up by the Pentagon had only two helos involved, and that Obama, himself, told them to put two more in "for backup."Neither I nor "Mark" faulted the President for that. The President isn't an issue why do you feel the need to keep defending him?The movie will be Hollywooded up with lots of superfluous special effects and stuntman antics. I haven't decided if I'm going to see it in a theater or wait for it to hit the History Channel.Will Will Smith play the President?Who'll play "Mark"?
Are you seriously going to contend that the Pakistani government isn't going to read the labels/"CSI" examine the "detritus" left behind? This is basic stuff we're talking about here.Of course they will. Then there are glow sticks (for illumination) and there are glow sticks (not for illumination,) after you snap one it burns, then goes dark. Maybe they look the same afterwards,cut are different in usage. Doesn't matter now,csince we've told them exactly what they're used for. Of course you're getting hung up in "glow sticks" when there are a half dozen other examples I could use.You keep not answering why he didn't let the Pentagon vet the book. It isn't abut "glow sticks" it's about several things.Also, are you going to seriously contend that al-Qaeda is going to keep a stash of glow sticks around all their HQ's to be tossed out doors when they think there's an attack underway.Nope. Sure would be a dandy trick to take into an offensive operation, however. Have you no imagination?As I (and No Easy Day) pointed out the OBL raid was little different from hundreds the special ops troops have carried out in the area since 9/11 so I kind'a think they knew all we're talking about here.Then I ask - for the third time - WHY NOT LET THE PENTAGON VET THE BOOK? If you can't answer that, you prove my point.And that would have damaged our relationship with Pakistan more than taking out OBL did; how?This is a serious question? Let's see: outcome one. We fly in, Kill Bin Laden as we have put them and the world on notice that we will do if we find him, we succeed, Bin Laden is dead, all other casualties are connected in some way, directly or indirectly with Al Qaeda. Outcome two: we fly in, land in the roof of a wealthy businessman who owns a couple shopping centers, we kill him, his brother, a couple wives, and depart. They have no connection to terrorism, they simply like their privacy, right up until they are murdered by US Special Forcea mile away from Pakistan's military academy.You really think those have the same geopolitical implications? Remind me not to no nominate you for Secretary of State.Neither I nor "Mark" faulted the President for that.Um, Mark didn't even mention it. He acknowledged that there were two other helos, he didn't say where they came from. Ever. Of course he didn't "fault" Obama for that! He didn't credit him for it either. The President isn't an issue why do you feel the need to keep defending him?I didn't make it an issue, you did. The amount of "credit" is swamped by the snarky comments in several places about "how we just got him re-elected" and "how we didn't get invited for a beer', and "that's the change we got' and so on.As I say, he's certainly entitled to his opinion, but I will not allow your ridiculous characterization that gives the impression of a positive attitude toward the President. With grudging tone, he says "We finally got the go ahead" (paraphrase), which I din't think anyone would say is high "credit."Go back and read my first post here. No mention of "credit". No mention of animus. I only responded to your positive characterization of his attitude, which is out of synch with the actual book. I don't know why you chose to mischaracterize his tone, but I set the record straight. People looking for a pro-Obama spin won't find it. People looking for a heavy anti-Obama spin won't find it. They will find a snarky thirty year old, generally anti-everything Washington guy telling the story, and he takes a few swipes at government in general and Obama in particular. This was not a big surprise to me, not did it detract from the book in any way. That's all.
Maybe they look the same afterwards,cut are different in usage. Doesn't matter now,csince we've told them exactly what they're used for.Maybe we did, and maybe we didn't. Ever heard of disinformation?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Disinformation_b...WHY NOT LET THE PENTAGON VET THE BOOK? If you can't answer that, you prove my point.Keeping in mind the fact that I'm not privy to the inner workings of the author or publisher, aside from the answer given above there's also the possibility that the author and/or publisher knew the book would get more free publicity by not vetting the book. In other words it's a marketing ploy.However, until the government actually brings charges I'm going to lean towards disinformation scenario.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |