The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Current Crisis
Print Email
Text Size

The Current Crisis

The Mystery of the Second Helicopter

By on 5.12.11 @ 6:09AM

How to account for the baggage left behind in Abbottabad?

WASHINGTON — It seems to me that our government had vastly more intelligence on what was going on in Osama bin Laden’s ghastly hideout before sending SEAL Team 6 in last week than they are telling us. President Barack Obama told CBS that the odds in favor of Osama being in the compound were “at best” 55 percent. My guess is that they were closer to 100 percent. We know that from satellites overhead our intelligence officers thought they had bin Laden spotted in the complex. A man that they concluded was Osama was seen pacing regularly inside the compound grounds. Called “The Pacer,” he was tall, and they figured he might very well be the 6’4” terror leader. So the order was sent to our SEAL Team to go in.

Yet why did they need a second helicopter? They were only after one man. They could have popped him or snatched him, and been off. The answer is obvious. They wanted to take his entire entourage with him and they knew who composed it. Instead after one of the choppers suffered some sort of difficulty the SEAL Team was left with just one chopper to take some two dozen warriors and the body out. So they left bin Laden’s family for the Pakistanis to debrief. Now we shall be squabbling with this insufferable ally interminably over our lost baggage. The mission was a great success, but it was not perfect.

Today our intelligence community is dribbling out just the information it wants the world to know, and I am all for it. The amateur show we saw last week orchestrated by the White House was what one would expect from the presidency of a community organizer with almost no executive background. It was embarrassing, but now the professionals are back in charge. The revelations over the weekend are eerie, but somehow satisfying.

The man who enlisted a team of terrorists agents to get on four commercial jets a decade ago and turn them into missiles cruelly killing 3,000 people lived his last days like a cult leader with a pretty mangy cult. He sat in robes and blankets peering at himself in an old television atop a broken-down piece of furniture. The audio was withheld by our intelligence people lest bin Laden get his message out to the outside world, but I do not think it would have raised his stature in the minds of most viewers, at least most civilized viewers.

It is said that he was a “hands on” leader even in the end. He sent his courier out — we are led to believe he had only one — periodically to deliver orders and home videos of himself groaning on. On the videos he dyed his beard for with time it had whitened. What do you suppose his agents hunkered down in various hideouts throughout some of the least inhabitable parts of this orb thought of him? If you were his number two in command you might be too busy hoofing it from one hideout to the other. His lieutenants have a way of being vaporized. Others might feel they had received a celestial order from a prophet, but are apparently not real quick to execute such orders. The fact of the matter is that al Qaeda is not doing too well these days. Kaboom, there goes another one.

Not much is known about the workings of bin Laden’s mind except that he liked things to blow up, smash into things, and go up in flames. Presumably, he could have directed action films brilliantly in Hollywood had his life taken a different turn. Oddly he seems to have come to Al Gore’s position on “climate change.” This makes him the second dubious figure in two months to come to Al’s side. Last month Charles Manson broke years of silence and from California’s Corcoran State Prison — no relation to Washington’s Corcoran Gallery of Art — rumbled, “Everyone’s God, and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the environment.”

I do not know if bin Laden had any helpful hints lately on the environment because intelligence officials blocked out the audio, but I do know that in October he urged his followers to get active in the Pakistan flood relief for, “We are in need of a big change in the method of relief work because the number of victims is great due to climate changes in modern times.” Mr. Gore could not put it better, but what al Qaeda might do to improve relief work I do not know. Maybe they could blow up a bridge.

Actually bin Laden sounds like just another American progressive in talking about Iraq and “big corporations.” In 2007 he chided our Democratic Congress for not concluding the war in Iraq, which he attributed to the massive influence of “big corporations.” In another bull he lauded Jimmy Carter for his book advancing Palestinian rights and commented knowledgeably on the works of Noam Chomsky, whose books I had not known are apparently available in Arabic. Congratulations Jimmy and Noam.

Yet in the end, Osama was a lonely has-been — a leader of a cult with only three women and some goats, and the women he had to marry. Somehow even the Rev. Jim Jones of the People’s Temple exited more gloriously.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (171) |

Red Bubba| 5.12.11 @ 6:35AM

Speaking of the greatest military mind since Napolean, is obama going to be this visible the next time a military operation does not go so well? The current campaign is like seeing obama, secure in the mainstream media compound, watch tapes of himself making the "gutsy call".

Con Chef (NB) | 5.12.11 @ 7:53AM

You're right. I HIGLY doubt that he would've been so out in front had this turned into another Mogadishu moment. And we all know that Garrison, the general in charge of Task Force Ranger in Somalia, was hung out to dry even after his requests for light armor & Specter gunships was denied by the Clintonistas. The same would happen in this instance. Take it to the bank.

post*tenebras*lux| 5.12.11 @ 9:23AM

RB, little Bammy's ego has super inflated on this one. If the next one, and there will be a next one, fails, it will be someone else's fault, that's how little Bammy's adjustment reaction to adolescent disorder works. Even the medication for depression wouldn't help him out on that one.

Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 11:39AM

If it fails we will never hear about it. In fact we don't know if previous missions have failed.

JP| 5.12.11 @ 4:14PM

Of course not. Obama has no inner Lincoln (Lincoln appointed his share of military incompetents), or FDR (Remember General Friedenal and Kasserine?). Both Lincoln and FDR took thier lumps and did not pass the buck. Come to think of it, President Bush43 took the blame for about every military mis-step in Iraq and Afghanistan. He too didn't pass the buck.

I have a sneaking suspiscion that if some operation went very wrong, the CO of the op would be hung out to dry.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 11:43AM

Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

Appleby| 5.12.11 @ 6:41AM

Obama belongs to the class of kids who do not believe anything actually happened unless they see it or read about it on a screen.

Robert| 5.12.11 @ 6:43AM

You must not be very familiar with military operations to make the naive comment about the number of helicopters used in the raid. While there were only 2 helicopters that were on the compound there were other helicopters nearby with reaction forces. These other helicopters were used to extract the force just as was mentioned in numerous news articles. May want to do a little research on military tactics before making these silly statements.

Mark MacInnis| 5.12.11 @ 8:51AM

The first precept of military tactics. "Redundancy." The second is, "Redundancy." The third is....well, you get the idea. NFW they had less than 4 helos in this op....and those are the slicks. With Cobra gunships for escort, probably more like 8. Almost certainly a high-flying AWACS electronic reconnaisance plane overhead.

Losing that helo, while expensive, was certainly a contingency that was certainly planned for. Our military planning is the finest in the world. Little is left to chance or not thoroughly planned out and anticipated. No way could this have ever turned into an 'Operation Eagle Claw.'

So, Obama's claim of "55%" chance of success speaks only to his level of anxiety. No way an op of this magnitude goes down without a probability of success in excess of 90%....Obama and his team of political advisors would NEVER gamble the presidency on an op with a 'real' 45% chance of failure, which would be an epic foreign policy and military failure fatal to his re-election hopes. He overstates the risk to enhance John Q. Public's perception of the size of his balls. In reality, he simply overstates their real size, which is certainly smaller than his ego.

Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 10:49AM

Re: gonads. Michelle has 'em and keeps them in a box. ;)

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 1:33PM

LOL...you are sooo right! Now you know where his went... (assuming he ever had any in the first place).

Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 11:41AM

And losing that helicopter was inexcusable.

Ron | 5.12.11 @ 5:19PM

As a former helicopter pilot and Ranger I can tell you things break. Pushed hard in the dark over mountains in a rough country mechanical failures happen. The Nightstalkers are the best damned pilots in the World. But it's just a machine, the crew and SEALs all came home. Thats all that counts.

baseballguy2001| 5.12.11 @ 6:11PM

I agree with Ron, Bin Laden is dead, and everybody came home, THAT is what counts. Wayne, you better be ready to take that attitude to the mechanics and maintenance people. Still, complicated flying machines break, even under the best of conditions. Lucky for us, the planning people thought ahead and had a backup. (probably many) I suggest you and the author of this article get off your high horses and concentrate on the goal of the mission. Was every goal met? Certainly not, but the most important goal of eliminating a HVT with no American casualties was.

Wayne | 5.13.11 @ 9:08AM

Keep you head buried in the sand then.

buckeyeman| 5.12.11 @ 1:32PM

Then please explain why they were unable to extract Obama's, sorry, Osama's family members and others for questioning. They (Osama's, sorry, Obama's administration) have publicly stated their intention to remove these individuals but that the loss of the critical helicopter prevented such removal. Why didn't they just pop them onto one of the four or eight reserve helicopters hovering over the marijuana patch out back?

BTW, did anyone notice that, despite months of apparent surveillance, the SEAL team still tried to go through the false door. I guess the crack intelligence team didn't notice that NO ONE EVER went through that door.

I love the SEALS and rejoice in Osama's reunion with Obama, sorry, I meant Satan, but this whole operation stinks to high heaven. From the prolonged timetable, to the failure to secure valuable interrogation prospects (including you-know-who, who should have been water boarded while having raw bacon stuffed up his nostrils), to the assassination aspect, to the el quicko Muslim burial at sea to the utterly and totally mangled reporting by Satan, sorry, I mean Obsama, sorry, I mean Obama, this will go down as one of the most expert military strikes in our history but one of the strangest and smelliest administrative mysteries of all time.

jdb| 5.12.11 @ 2:43PM

Time and need. They didn't have either. The more time spent in the AO the more chances it could go sideways; the other family members were just icing.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 1:49PM

A mystery to you, a farce to me. How much more of these games can we Americans tolerate?

'They" are so certain of our (USA) inability to think at all (the dumbing of America prevails) that we get fed the most outlandish, outrageous garbage, void of rhyme or reason, and we accept it. We had Osama so many times and were given orders to back off (do your research)...just why in hell would anyone kill him now? The Bush family and the Bin Ladin family (and other politicians, I'm sure) are heavily invested financially (oil) with eachother. That's enough to guarantee his life, unless his family grew tired of him ... do you think? C'mon...those photos of Osama look like wax figures to me. How can America buy into the farce?

Richard H. Davis| 5.12.11 @ 2:49PM

I would suggest that all of the estimates of probability of success/failure are at best flights of fancy. Even if you KNOW that the guy inside is OBL, are you 90% sure that he will be inside at the moment that you enter the building - that there's no doomsday device? I think that the whole probability thing is arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin - interesting academically, but useless in the real world.

Sandy Todd| 5.12.11 @ 5:56PM

Obama didn't say 55% chance of success. He said 55% change OSAMA WAS ON THE PROPERTY. They did not know for certain. Period. There are so many inaccuracies in this entire thread, starting with the original article, that it isn't worth my time correcting them all, especially since HATE is at the root of it all anyway.

Patrick in AZ| 5.13.11 @ 2:37PM

Baaahhhhh! Just another sheep bleeting out brain-dead talking points

criolle johnny| 5.12.11 @ 11:59PM

AGREED on redundancy! You don't go into a firefight with one gun, or into an extraction mission with one helo.
Someone has been watching too many movies.

Patrick in AZ| 5.13.11 @ 2:42PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've only been on Hueys, but wouldn't you require at least 2 blackhawks to carry a force or 24 anyhow?

JIm from Virginia| 5.16.11 @ 11:18AM

@Robert. I agree fully that the author conducted little research and made silly statements (the number of which makes me think he is paid by the word!). I disagree with others calling for more information; the less said the better for the Seals' next operation. I read with amusement so many commenters spouting their expertise on the mission’s success rate, number of support aircraft, their allegation that the mission was simplicity (would you say such to the Seals?). Everyone has the right to express his own opinion, but it would far healthier for future discourse if more facts were introduced into discussions

bobf| 5.12.11 @ 7:27AM

Typo in first sentence Osama/Obama

Frekki| 5.12.11 @ 9:32AM

I thought that was on purpose (sic).

Chalkdust| 5.12.11 @ 7:41AM

Ironic to think our CinC (creep in charge) might spend his remaining days pacing his own courtyard, staring into the night sky, trying to spot "American Spectator" satellites spying on him. Nothing to keep him company but wifey Misscellulite munching on a tamale.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 1:52PM

"Ironic"? ... please read my post ... more like believing that elephants pick their noses.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 7:58AM

Bob,

The administration may have had a higher degree of confidence that bin Laden was in the Abbottabad complex, but they did not get it from satellite photos. Our current generation satellites have a resolution of about 0.3 meters (1 foot) for monochromatic (black-and-white) images and 1 meter for color images. In black and white, a human being would be a blob of 6 pixels by 2 pixels--if he was stretched out on the ground. Overhead, he's be about 2 x 1 pixels--though his shadow could be used to estimate his height.

Persistent observation of the compound probably involved high altitude unmanned air vehicles such as Predator or Global Hawk, combined with human intelligence sources that could check out the compound by eye.

As to the number of helicopters, I believe there must have been a minimum of four involved: one for the team that assaulted the compound; one or two to insert teams in blocking positions around the compound to ensure nobody got out, or that a relief force could not interfere; and one spare to be used either in the event of a helo being lost (as happened) or to extract prisoners and casualties.

This is pretty much standard operating procedure. To engage in a raid of this sort with just one helicopter is asking for failure. Helos are nowhere near as reliable as fixed wing aircraft, and one must always provide a margin of error. Given the low speed of helicopters, having a spare bird on the ground in Afghanistan would be unacceptable--it would take the better part of an hour to get to the compound, at a time when seconds count.

I will say this: our special operations capabilities have improved immeasurably since Operation Eagle Claw, Jimmy Carter's debacle in the desert--which was, by the way, the subject of my first article for the American Spectator more than three decades ago.

LMajito| 5.12.11 @ 12:04PM

after spending many years in the us amry aviation section maintaing AH-1 and UH-1 helicopters, your tidbit about 'less reliable' is a bunch of bs sir...

a hanger queen will never be choosen for this type of task...it'll be a well maintained, crewed and a bird with not too much maintenance (other that PM) on its log books.

by the photo of the chopper's vertical fin and tail boom it was probably either a pilot's miscalculation that hit the fence on its approach or perhaps pilots momentarily lost the horizon in the darkness that they were with night googles and perhpas some bright light...

then there is the hot dog/adrenaline laden pilot that likes to come hot for a landing and lifts too much the collective to slow down the descent and gets a compressor stall.

i don't know about you but the last bird i maintained (a '67 model UH-1) never failed even when we flew missions in death valley in august or fairbanks alaska in november...never a problem, engine started just fine and we were airborne in minutes...

only issue ever encounter was a condition crossing the rockies at 13k feet with sub-zero oat and our blades became covered with ice (pilot error flying at that altitude/temp) and we lost lift dropping like a ball of metal from the sky...however at soon as we hit 10k ft and the oat arose above 32 degress, ice left and instant lift daddy...

so yes i take issue with that statement about less reliable...not in military aircrafts selected for special ops...can't have equipment malfunctions

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:34PM

Really? That will come as a decided surprise to the authors of an IDA/SURVIAC study of helicopter losses that found the loss rate from mechanical failure over the past eight years of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to be four times higher than for fixed wing aircraft. Apparently you are not aware of how harmful the operating environment in both theaters is for all types of vehicles, but especially for rotary wing aircraft.

"a hanger queen will never be choosen for this type of task...it'll be a well maintained, crewed and a bird with not too much maintenance (other that PM) on its log books."

In all likelihood the helicopters were MH-60G Pave Hawks, which are of course scrupulously maintained by their SOCOM ground crews. However, when one considers that a critical mission involving fixed wing aircraft usually lays on two or three spare birds, the idea of having a spare for a critical rotary wing mission isn't unreasonable.

"i don't know about you but the last bird i maintained (a '67 model UH-1) never failed even when we flew missions in death valley in august or fairbanks alaska in november...never a problem, engine started just fine and we were airborne in minutes..."

That's something of an apples-to-oranges comparison. A UH-1H is practically a toy compared to an MH-60G, with its all-weather sensors and avionics, SATNAV system, secure communications, etc.--the failure of any one of which could result in a mission scrub.

So I fail to understand your beef, especially as I have looked at the reliability/availability figures for our helicopters in Afghanistan, and you have not.

LMajito| 5.12.11 @ 3:52PM

it's all about pm and what's the crew doing with the bird when is on the ground...a well maintained bird will not fail unless it is hit by enemy fire(which was not the case in the paki mission)...for your information weather never stopped us from flying neither night time (and back in the 70's night vision goggles were not heard) but i did saw quite a bit of mishaps of birds for crews that sat around the tent telling 'there i was stories' while their birds sat outside...it never failed these crews were constantly having 'incidents'...and the cause of the crash was not sensors, avionics, secure communications and such...in these birds as long as the main rotor is turning and a half decent pilot is at the controls, the bird will not crash...regardless of satellite navigational systems or weather sensors...

not apples to oranges...when i saw the bird laying over the wall like that, i have lotsa misgivings accepting your electronics premise...

but then again, the pilots i flew with were well seasoned Viet war vets that knew what emergencies were and always landed the birds safely (read no hard landings)...

JP| 5.12.11 @ 4:21PM

The aviation unit, the 160th SOAR, is about as elite as you can get. They normally provide most of the air transport for these kind of ops. They also use cutting edge technology. The choppers supposedly had "stealth'" capabilities. IMHO, this is what the CHICOMS were after - the composite materials of the Pave Lows.

In any event, I cannot imagine the ground crew not having the finest equipment, technicians, and supply chain at thier disposal. But, like Stewart said, a lot can go wrong with helicopters.

Mike| 5.12.11 @ 5:28PM

I am with you JP. Helicopter: 10,000 aircraft parts flying in close formation.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 7:27AM

" The choppers supposedly had "stealth'" capabilities."

As far as I know--and I've crawled over one--the MH-60G Pave Hawk (the Pave Lows were MH-53s) are standard Black Hawks with a lot of special kit--terrain avoidance radar, FLIR, GPS navigation, extensive ESM/ECM and IRCM gear, secure SATCOM, aerial refueling probe, etc. They weren't made of composites, and if anything, their radar cross section was greater than that of standard Blackhawk because of all the bumps and antennae sticking out. IRCM was reduced by a "Black Hole" exhaust defuser, but that was about it. What I saw of the downed helo in the compound indicated it might have been fitted with a shrouded "fenestron" in place of the standard tail rotor, which would reduce its acoustic signature. However, fenestrons have been around since the 1970s and are not secret--they have been exported to China on myriad Aerospatiale and Eurocopter helos.

The sensitive part of a Pave Hawk is the avionics, not the airframe. If the Chinese wanted anything it would be that, particularly the secure comm gear. But that stuff is fitted with destruct switches, and all the crew have to do is flip a switch and small explosive charges turn it into slag.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 1:55PM

I do so love a truth now and then... thank you!!! :")

Bohemond| 7.7.11 @ 1:17PM

"a well maintained bird will not fail unless it is hit by enemy fire(which was not the case in the paki mission)"

Then explain operation Eagle Talon (Desert One)- unanticipated sandstorms did for two of the birds, causing a mission scrub.

You ALWAYS plan in redundancy, because nothing is EVER 100%

Nick| 5.12.11 @ 7:46PM

LMajito,

I also worked on helicopters during my time in the Army ('88-'92.) My job was Prop & Rotor, and I worked on 58s, Hueys, Cobras, and Blackhawks. And, I was in Operation Desert Storm.

Before the ground war started, we had a Cobra, after doing a run-up check, go into a hover at about 50 feet, and then lose tail rotor. It buried its skids a foot into the sand. It only takes one mistake.

Mr. Koehl's main point was that it would be foolish not to have a back-up bird waiting. Mechanical failure being just one reason. Susceptibility to small-arms fire would be another.

Also, Blackhawks kick-up a lot of dust when they land in the sand. After ODS, at NTC, we had veteran pilots still land very hard in the California desert. They did this in the clearness of day, not at night with NVGs.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 8:54AM

Loss of visibility and lack of situational awareness are the two largest causes of helicopter crashes in Iraq and Afghanistan, accounting for something like 60 percent of all Class A accidents, as well as the majority of helicopter-related fatalities. In contrast, enemy action accounts for less than a quarter of all helicopter losses.

Slingshot| 5.12.11 @ 3:38PM

My father flew airplanes in WWII, then both helicopters and fixed-wing in Korea, then both fixed-wing and helicopters during Vietnam. He told me emphatically that he didn't trust helicopters--too much machinery, transmissions, blade controls, etc., too many things to go wrong, and often did. If something failed on a helicopter, he said, you might get one chance to save your life (autorotation) but that was easy to flub. He was awarded the Army's Master Aviator wings before he retired. "Give me those big wings out there holding me up," he used to say. "I want to see those wings. Not rotors, wings." And if there was engine failure in a fixed-wing aircraft, the airplane could GLIDE for a long time and give plenty of chance for a safe landing. I think Dad knew what he was talking about after all those thousands of hours of flying helicopters. He never trusted them, and only flew them because he had to.

LMajito| 5.12.11 @ 3:58PM

back in the 40 and 50's he? no improvement in technology since then right?

Mike| 5.12.11 @ 5:35PM

LMajito

No one is questioning the professionalism of the Army Aviation Guys. These guys are the best, as is their equipment. No doubt meticulously maintained.

It is, however, a fact that a perfectly maintained helicopter with fail at a higher rate that a perfectly maintained fixed wing. Just like an Abrams tank will fail at a higher rate than a jeep. It is a mechanical complexity issue.

If memory serves Eagle Claw's failure was initiated by equipment failure. Just don't quote me on that.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 9:44AM

Eagle Claw did indeed fail because of a helicopter malfunction (I wrote an article, "Why the Rescue Failed", for AmSpec way back in July 1980), but those were Navy RH-53D minesweepers, never intended for special operations. The Air Force wanted to bring in the MH-53 Pave Lows, but the Navy objected because they were not equipped for carrier operations. Mayhem ensues.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 11:47AM

The last entirely new helicopter design fielded by the U.S. was the Blackhawk, way back in 1977. The last real innovation in helicopter technology was the introduction of the turboshaft engine, back in the 1960s. Since then, we've been piddling on the margins.

Bill| 5.12.11 @ 9:14AM

I thought this was going to be a commentary on the helicopters and what they were going to be used for. After a couple of paragraphs, it turned out to be just another rant about Osama bin Laden. A disappointment.

Besides, I thought there were four helicopters involved in the operation. What happened to the other two?

SpiralArchitect| 5.12.11 @ 1:04PM

This reminds me of birthday when dad used to hold the wrapped present out and make me guess what was inside...three guesses of course.

So, how many helicopters in the box...

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:37PM

As I said, one to insert a team into the compound (crash-landing in the compound might have been deliberate; a similar tactic was used during the famous Son Tay raid in the Vietnam war); two to insert blocking teams to prevent fugitives from getting out of the compound, and enemy forces from getting in; and a fourth helo serving as a spare, medevac or prisoner extraction bird (consider we might not have wanted to bring Osama back to Baghram or other main operating base).

post*tenebras*lux| 5.12.11 @ 9:20AM

2nd helicopter was a gift left for China. That's how the "machine" in Washington works.

LMajito| 5.12.11 @ 12:08PM

yep...no wonder not a word from the far east...and these birds were super secret up to this point...ain't lefties grand? spend millions in new technology and then in a jiffy they give it away to our enemies...but then again, did not bush wimped out when the chinese struck one of our navy planes when he first got into office?

all of these guys in dc are prostitutes and do not care about the us, regardless of how much country music the listen to...

Anthony| 5.12.11 @ 9:45AM

RET, I agree with Robert, your knowledge of military operations is inadequate to say the least. Did you want Obozo to order this operation like Carter did in Iran, with a minimum of assets, with no margin for error?
Our military performed brilliantly. Obozo performed like the preening narcissistic peacock that he is, with a slobering media in tow.
If Obozo was a real leader that his sycophants in the LSM are telling us that he is, he'd tell the Pakastani president, if we don't get the wreakage of the 2nd helicopter back ASAP, your hovel is next.
But Obozo will let the Chicoms take back the helicopter that they loaned us the money to build.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 1:57PM

Applause...another pseudo intelligent mind bites the dust!

Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 10:48AM

It's a shame we couldn't torture information out of him until there was no more, and then put him in a container, start the lard flowing, and show him the broken "off" valve.

That would have been a more fitting end, and if Guiliani was President, that's the way it would have gone down.

buckeyeman| 5.12.11 @ 1:39PM

I might like that idea more that stuffing raw bacon up his nostrils.

BTW, did you see that they release the death photos? No wait, that was Hairy Reed from his jogging accident.

Dan| 5.12.11 @ 11:27AM

No our military didn't perform "brilliantly," their performance was superior, but not brilliant.

They LEFT behind significant portions of a brand new STEALTH helicopter, which the Pakis are clearly intending to deliver over to the Chinese.

Which means SOMEBODY screwed up big time, SOMEBODY didn't destroy that thing down to cinders, SOMEBODY left the compound BEFORE KNOWING for sure that the helicopter was thoroughly, comprehensively destroyed.

So no, they didn't perform "brilliantly."

Ramage| 5.12.11 @ 2:45PM

Right, this is inexcusable. Unless we are being conned about this helicopter (which is always a possibility), you never leave equipment behind.

And if the small det grenades and other incendiaries don't do the job, you call in fast movers to obliterate the object/equipment/copter.

If need be, a man remains on the ground to laze the target (the helicopter) so there is 1) no chance of the missle going off target, 2) to assess accurately the full destruction of the helicopter after impact and burning.

This is inexcusable. And a massive failure.

I am tired of all the praise; they put a bullet in a man who should still be alive for prolonged, detailed, painful questioning (so we can root out his financial backers, those who equip him, and where his sleepers are).

Shoot him, yes, but with a tranquilizer like when putting down a jungle beast.

This is FAILURE. No goddamn military man needs to be beating himself on the chest in pride over this one.

They have massively slowed what could have potentially been a much faster roll up of AQ, Taliban, terrorism cells, bankers, Pakistan generals, Afghan govt. officials, Saudi Arabian leaders, Iranian-Tehran fools, and yes Chinese collusion in all of this war on terror on us.

If Bin Laden was in a right state of mind (brain still functioning), he'd have a treasure trove of actionable intelligence for us to mine.

All gone? All wiped out in an instant. For what?

And please don't tell me that the Seals expected return fire. Really? If so, then they don't know how to execute a decisive, debilitating, devestastingly swift raid.

I would like to read/hear/see the military leader in our nation that is now resigning in protest (the famed letter of resignation) because he argued to the hilt that O. Bin Laden needed to be 1) taken alive, and 2) this is so doable as to be possible for a small precinct SWAT team.

Wanna bet we'll have no generals or admirals with any fortitude who'd do so?

All so the "War on Terror" (just like our border everyday incompetence) can go on, and on, and on, and on....

Perpetual jobs, hand wringing, claims and clammoring for more federal dollars, more infrastructure.

We are a nation of incompetents.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:44PM

"Right, this is inexcusable. Unless we are being conned about this helicopter (which is always a possibility), you never leave equipment behind."

Certainly not true. Equipment gets left behind all the time, especially if it is not operationally practical or prudent to extract it. During the Vietnam war we left thousands of helos behind, including an HH-3 that crash landed in the POW compound at Son Tay in North Vietnam.

No effort was made to recover the helos lost in Somalia during the Blackhawk Down incident, and of course, we left three intact MH-53 at Desert One during the botched Operation Eagle Claw.

All classified systems on U.S. aircraft are equipped with self-destruct charges, and whenever possible, in addition to setting off those, downed aircraft will be stripped of sensitive equipment, then further trashed with demolition charges. On occasion, air strikes have been called in to destroyed down aircraft in danger of falling into themy hands.

Personally, looking at the pictures of the wreckage, I did not see anything that seemed even remotely sensitive. The tail section appeared to have a modified tail rotor which might have been shrouded like the fenestron used by Eurocopter designs since the 1960s (it reduces acoustic signature), but everybody knows about that. In fact, there is very little happening in the world of helicopter design that could even be considered sensitive. It's been stagnant since the 1970s.

JP| 5.12.11 @ 4:27PM

Stuart,
If I am not mistaken, the Pave Lows were constructed of very stealthy composite materials. Yes, the electronics could be destroyed. But the airframe remained intact.

A phone call from the President to the Pakistan PM would have been in order. President Obama could have pulled a George Bush, and threatend the Pakistani President with severe retribution if his army didn't stand-down while we dissembled and removed the helicopter. The CHICOMs now have samples of the materials. And it won't be too difficult for them to reverse engineer the process.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 9:52AM

There is no such thing as "very stealthy material"--there are a variety of materials that are radar-absorbent to varying degrees. Radar absorbent composites only work well when applied in the right shape, because they do not absorb ALL RF radiation, and the residual needs to be reflected away from the enemy radar. Radar absorbent paint, such as so-called "iron ball", can be applied to conventional aircraft, but the advantage is miniscule.

Making a low observable helo has to be done from the drawing board up, which is why the RAH-66 Comanche looked so different. Everything was done to minimize corner reflectors and frontal area, at the same time using faceting to reduce radar cross section from the side.

The biggest contributor to helo RCS is the rotor and rotor hub, but if you look at a Pave Hawk (all the Pave Lows were withdrawn from service some time ago), the rotor and rotor hubs are pretty much standard issue.

Regarding what sort of low observable materials the Chinese have been able to obtain, my guess is they get a lot more through industrial espionage and perusal of scientific journals than they do from salvaging downed stealth aircraft.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 2:01PM

Nahhh...just a nation of FOOLS!

Drunken Sailor| 5.12.11 @ 3:43PM

Dan,

2 of Murphy's laws of Combat.
•No OPLAN ever survives initial contact.
•There is no such thing as a perfect plan.

Dan| 5.12.11 @ 11:28AM

So save terms like "brilliantly" when ops are carried off flawlessly.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:46PM

But they never are, and never can be. Something about "friction". Brilliant is therefore a relative term. Wars are won not by armies that are 90% efficient over those that are 85% efficient, but by armies that are 15% efficient over those that are 10% efficient.

As Clausewitz wrote, "In war, only the simple succeeds, but even the simplest thing is very difficult to accomplish, in a way that only those familiar with war can comprehend".

Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 3:52PM

Stuart,

so true, so true. And what people don't realize is that Clasewitz's comment also applies to providing medical care in an NHS.

Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 3:52PM

Clausewitz. Sorry.

Wayne | 5.12.11 @ 11:37AM

Unless you have a top secret clearance and a "need to know", you will never know the truth. No sense wasting your time.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:47PM

Not entirely true. Most of what you need to know can be winnowed from open sources and the application of informed judgment.

Wayne | 5.13.11 @ 9:09AM

Much is the operative word here isn't it? And you don't "need to know" anything so you wont.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 9:58AM

My job is to know as much as possible about as much as possible. I can say, without revealing any secrets, that one can rapidly deduce classified information from unclassified sources. Partly this is due to sloppiness on the part of our military and intelligence personnel in sanitizing information for public release. In at least two instances, I was able to obtain the complete (classified) performance characteristics of guided weapons because the classifying agency decided to remove the values from one axis of a chart, but not from the other. In another case, I was accused of having unauthorized access to classified information about strategic reconnaissance systems, and had to prove how I deduced my information from open sources, mainly NASA research programs.

In the case of special operations, having been studying not just U.S. but British, Israeli, German and French special forces since 1979, one recognizes the existence of a standard repertoire of operational methods, with national preferences and variations. In reading about an operation in the open press, one can determine the general type of operation, then fill in the template, then look for nuggets of information that fill in the blanks.

WilliamInWien| 5.12.11 @ 12:22PM

I seriously doubt any intelligence professional would go to their boss with analysis that was rated at 55% accuracy and advise him/her to act on it. The 55% number was made up to allow for the "gutsy" terminology to be used and then echoed by the compliant MSM. At a 90% accuracy estimation, the failure NOT to authorize the mission would have been dereliction of duty. Besides, wasn't there a safe house in the area that was being used for observation and reporting? Perfect Postscript: We said we would get him and we did! Now on to Anwar Al-Awlaki!

benny havens| 5.12.11 @ 1:47PM

I heard Hillary say that the enemy was firing at her when the helicopters landed.

Woodley | 5.12.11 @ 2:32PM

What about the (widely reported) backup helicopters? Chinooks are bigger than the Blackhawks that took the SEALS in. So if a pilot botches a drop in an unfamilliar dark place, they can still take everyone (if they want to). This makes AmSpec look bad, unless the intelligence officers mentioned here say the Chinooks weren't there.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:49PM

Do you know the size of a Chinook footprint? Where would you bring it down in the middle of a crowded city? Not to mention that something the size of a barn makes a great target. I really doubt MH-47Es would have been used in the assault.

Woodley| 5.12.11 @ 4:47PM

The press had it being Chinooks. Might have been Blackhawks, Hueys or Robinson 22's. Whichever the backups were, they could have rescued all the SEALS and removed as many people from the compound as desired . Not having checked (or cared) if more than two helicopters were used, then deducing the intention must have been to kidnap everyone from the compound, is not only wrong but comic.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:08AM

True about the intention. My guess was the main intent was to kill bin Laden, kill or capture any high-ranking subordinates, let everyone else go, then sweep the compound for documents, videos and computers and boogie.

As for the type of helo used, I know you were being facetious, but a look at the range/payload curves would allow us to rule out the Huey and Robinson 22, not to mention the AH/MH-6 Little Bird. So that leaves Pave Hawks and MH-47E Chinooks. The latter, as I noted, are way too big for use in urban areas, and are over kill on the payload side. I might have put one down in a remote LZ with a backup team in case the whole operation went south, but I would never bring one into the city itself.

Thom| 5.12.11 @ 2:43PM

RET,
The next time you want to write about military hardware/missions give Al C a call first or drop me a line....
Serious problems with your knowledge here....

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:50PM

I'm sure Bob still has my phone number. I haven't changed it after all these years.

Thom| 5.12.11 @ 5:35PM

Has he ever used it?

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:09AM

Not for a while, now. I'm over at Weekly Standard's blog, though.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:18PM

That is a good mag.

Grumpy Grandma | 5.12.11 @ 2:47PM

Sorry. Bin Laden died of Marfan disease in a CIA hospital, I think in 2001 and Dr. Steve Pieczenik signed his death certificate in a CIA hospital. Check Fox News and Madeline Albright's statement. It's all over the internet. For one, I don't believe anything about this except maybe the intrigue about the helicopter tail.

WakeUpAmerica| 5.12.11 @ 7:41PM

And Elvis still walks the earth. Really.

georgeofcourse| 5.12.11 @ 11:09PM

Elvis is up on the Mothership hangin' with the Grays.

Paul McGrath| 5.12.11 @ 2:54PM

These comments raise an interesting point. Pakistan is our ally, right? So why in the world are they giving our helicopter to the Chinese? Why are they not giving it back to us? In fact, why are we not DEMANDING that they give it back to us? This is really bizarre.

Drunken Sailor| 5.12.11 @ 3:51PM

Because they are also China's allies and a major buyer of Chinese hardware.

Paul McGrath| 5.12.11 @ 2:54PM

These comments raise an interesting point. Pakistan is our ally, right? So why in the world are they giving our helicopter to the Chinese? Why are they not giving it back to us? In fact, why are we not DEMANDING that they give it back to us? This is really bizarre.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:20PM

Pakistan is not really our ally. We also aren't Mubarak's friend either. This is around the area of the world that coined the term "Byzantine," I believe.

Randy Shackleford| 5.12.11 @ 2:55PM

That is appallingly childish and immature to refer to the President (...Obama bin Laden's...) in such a manner. That is shameful, regardless of ones differences with the Presidents policies, such a display of disrespect of the office is never called for in what I would think was supposed to be an intellectual conversation. You expose yourself as an immature boor.

Ramage| 5.12.11 @ 3:09PM

Mr. Shackleford, what the writer above is clearly alluding to is just this: Just as O. Bin Laden has been a clear and dangerous enemy toward this nation (and the West in general), so to is the current POTUS.

Just ask a few of the NATO or ANZUS allies who try to remain strong and beat back the demise of very useful military might.

We can all phrase it in different ways, but the current occupier of 1600 Penn. Avenue is a national security nightmare for you, me, our neighbors, our grandkids, and the hopes that America will have a solid, strong FULL 21st century.

And, no, Obama Hussein is not alone in this category of incompetents/enemies of the good of the nation. He is, sadly, in great company. VP Biden surely comes to mind. But this group is widespread and in both major parties.

If you doubt this, spend time reading what goes on behind the scenes (what the MSM does not report) on support for miscreants in Latin/South America while leaving true libery-minded, capitalism-focused would-be leaders in that part of our hemisphere hanging.

We can -- in ways -- disrepect our elected public servants (note my wording on 'servants'). We can disrespect them in full (and should with great vigor) when they are clearly 1) incompetent, 2) aiding the enemy, 3) self-serving.

Peter McGrath| 5.12.11 @ 5:40PM

Well said. I would add that Obama pays only lip service to, and has no apparent respect for, the rule of law and the institutions which have undergirded this nation for hundreds of years - including our military and civilian police. Why would anyone supporting the rule of law, and such institutions, have any respect for him? I certainly have none for this unaccomplished, narcissist poltroon.

It goes way, way beyond "politics."

WakeUpAmerica| 5.12.11 @ 7:44PM

Were you guy this outraged about Bush/Cheney/Rove and their abuse of power? Just wonderin'. Seems to me that just the treasonous act of outing a CIA agent who served our country well and risked her life for us is agregious enough to be outraged. That is but one example. Go ahead. Spin that.

Stuart Koehl| 5.14.11 @ 1:32PM

"Seems to me that just the treasonous act of outing a CIA agent who served our country well and risked her life for us is agregious enough to be outraged."

Snort! Valerie Plame risked her life for us. . . how? Risking cirrhosis of the liver from attending too many cocktail parties? Terminal tendonitis of the elbow from knocking back too many martinis? A deadly fall from her designer heels?

C.K. Amos| 5.12.11 @ 9:44PM

Yes, well said. IMO, Obama and his thugocracy, with or without their shills in the lapdog media, constitute the real clear and present danger our country--and, I believe, the world--faces now.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:22PM

Dear Ramage: we don't have an ANZUS anymore, thanks to the ankle biting Kiwis and their treachery to reagan. Oz is a good ally, though.

Stuart Koehl| 5.15.11 @ 7:28AM

We could rename the alliance "Australia 'n' U.S.", which of course, would give us the acronym. . .

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:21PM

Dear randy:

this is the guy who had to have his arm twisted to wear an American flag lapel pin. The office deserves respect, true...but this fellow is quite possibly the worst President of the last 100 years excepting Hoover and Carter.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 2:10PM

You are correct. It IS shameful to have to admit that we are a nation of idiots and fools and would believe any outlandish thing our dearly beloved 'president' says.

Admit it...almost everything he says is outlandish. There's always something missing or it's just slightly nonsensical ... anyway, it kinda makes you shake your head a little as if, maybe, you didn't hear him quite right.

That's not to comfortable, so, the next thing to do is repeat it even if it makes no sense. A country of retards...we 'elected' him...right?

Darryl Davis| 5.12.11 @ 3:01PM

Helicopter downwash next to that high wall will make a vortex. This kills lift, at an unpredictable degree. One can land next to a specific wall with practice, not possible here. The air rushes along the ground hits the wall, rises up the wall to above it, and then it is drawn into the vacuum above the rotor blades. When this vortex system is present, the helicopter blades spin for lift against the downward-moving air of the vortex circulation where before they had relatively still air above the blades. Vortex was a problem for the Osprey. I think they need stilt legs with shock absorbers that resist collapsing at faster than the normal helicopter descent rate. When planning on landing next to a wall, they could be installed and swung down during descent.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:53PM

Good point, but I think they probably considered the vortex problem and decided instead to crash-land in the compound. A similar crash-landing was an integral part of the Son Tay raid--it gets everybody down in one piece, together, and creates one hell of a big bang that can paralyze the enemy for a few critical seconds. If they wanted to get the troops into the compound without risk to the helo, they would have done a thick line descent from about thirty or forty feet up.

Thom| 5.12.11 @ 7:19PM

Stuart,
Do you think they deliberately crash landed on a wall when they could have simply landed it in the Court Yard? There is plenty of room to do that...
Just curious....

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:13AM

I haven't seen an overhead of the compound since the raid, so I cannot comment on that. I do know that sacrificing a chopper in order to get everyone into the compound quickly is a valid option. Whether they accidentally landed on the wall while trying to land in the compound, or accidentally hit the wall while attempting a hard (crash) landing in the compound (the difference between trying to grease the chopper into the compound so it can take off again, vs. simply plopping it down in the most open space available, can be dozens of seconds) is an interesting point to discuss. But why would you try to land in the compound when thick lining would be faster--though not as fast as crash landing?

Howard Prince| 5.12.11 @ 3:04PM

According to Leon Panetta in an appearance on the Newshour on PBS, there were four helicopters involved in the raid: two Chinooks and two modified Blackhawks. Teh primary mission was to kil bin Laden and the secondary mission was to make a sweep of the compound for intelligence materials such as paper doucments and digital storage devices including computers. They could have taken everyone in the compound who was still alive with them when they left, but that apparently was not part of the plan for whatever reasons.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:15AM

If so, the Chinooks were for the backup force, an operational reserve to be called on in case there was no way to extract the SEAL team from the compound. They probably waited on the ground in a secure LZ (picked and secured by CIA paramilitary forces, probably), and did not touch down in Abbottabad. There just doesn't seem to be any place to put one, let alone two, Chinooks on the ground near the compound.

gerald skey| 5.12.11 @ 3:07PM

I agree with Mr. Tyrrell's comment that bin Laden was, at the end, a lonely has been left to watch his broken down television while. I also agree with the comment that our intelligence people knew exactly what was going on inside the compound. They had to know whether the innhabitans of this residence were armed and if so, what weapons they had. Once on the ground, there seems no dispoute that whatever "fighting" took place was over within a matter of seconds. The job then became a rather simple matter of finding bin Laden which they achieved in a matter or seconds finding this lonely old man with what turned out to be his thir wife. That bin Laden was killed by a shot to the head makes me think that the operative word here shoudl be "assassinated" for that is exactly what happened.
The next question is "Why?". Why would we not have been salivating over the interrogation that was sure to take place in Guantanamo? Please do not tell me that we had no choices here as that is simply incredible - he was unarmed and his wife was unarmed - the only two people present.
I cannot answer that question. Unless.... unless President Obama made it clear to the Seals that we did not want him to leave the compound alive. One can only wonder now whether bin Laden would have told his Interogators that yes, the Pakistani government had know from the outset that he, Osama, was in residence. He could have given us real insight into what the Pakistani government is doing - we certainly do not seem to know. bin Laden also could have provided answers to many other questions but we will never know. But again, I ask Why.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:19AM

Alive, bin Laden would have been a major pain in the ass and constant danger to the U.S. and its allies. And then there is Eric Holder. Enough said.

Howard Prince| 5.12.11 @ 3:09PM

To add to my other comment, one modified Blackhawk could not carry all of the Seals, 25 in number according to Panetta, and the materials they confiscated. That is why there were two other helicopters besides the two modified Blackhawks. With that much airlift capability they easily could taken anyone still alive with them, if that had been part of the misison.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:18AM

The figure of 25 SEALs probably includes all the back-up forces, not just the assault team. The two Blackhawks probably carried 10-12 SEALs between them, the remaining men being held in reserve. There were probably Rangers, SF and/or USAF Pararescue troops over and above the 25 SEALs, again, held in reserve.

Bob| 5.12.11 @ 3:10PM

There is no question that R. Emmett is a good man but.... Jim Jones exiting in more glory...commanding 1,000 suicides of men, women and children? No.

Intelligent Design| 5.12.11 @ 3:14PM

Our intelligence people were probably 90% sure of the location of Osama bin Laden for the past two years. Perhaps he was not eliminated sooner because they wanted to see how much information could be gathered, to stop new attacks planned by OBL. Most likely they were using electronic surveillance, and also tracking the whereabouts of the courier. The courier's identity was probably learned from the interrogations conducted during the Bush administration. Obama of course would not admit that, since he and Holder are still investigating those mean and nasty CIA officers who helped prevent any terrorist attacks from 9/11/01 until Obama took office. Since then, several attacks and/or attempted attacks have occurred in the Unites States.

Let's hope that the records OBL left behind are kept secret and used to our maximum advantage. And let's hope that the hundreds of Muslim terrorists walking across the border from Mexico are not successful in their goal of creating another 9/11, or worse.

paul johnson| 5.12.11 @ 3:22PM

There's a lot they aren't telling us and that's OK. Maybe they are spinning misleading stories to muddy the waters on the sources of intelligence - even better. Considering the complexity and risk of this mission - losing one helicopter sounds like a pretty good outcome all things considered.

WakeUpAmerica| 5.12.11 @ 3:27PM

Personally, I think the President showed a great deal of class and humility in how he handled the whole thing. I noticed he didn't have a sign behind him that said, "Mission Accomplished" nor did he thump his chest and say, "Bring it on!" How soon some people forget the arrogance of the previous administration.

Ramage| 5.12.11 @ 3:38PM

Wake Up, no, I disagree. Most readers here -- it is my firm opinion -- were more than a bit shocked at that stupid bravado done/spoken by G.W. Bush.

His "bring it on" might work in a packed military dining facility in front of nothing but troops (in the kind of rallying cries that sports coaches do with similarly aged listeners) but not when every POTUS knows that every gesture is filmed (for the world), every syllable on audio (for the world).

No, no one has forgotten those very immature words.

We are ill served by 90% of those who reach the highest political offices of our land. They are: Egotists with no clue.

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 3:55PM

You get worked up about trivia, you know.

WakeUpAmerica| 5.12.11 @ 7:47PM

I hope you are right. I remember clearly watching in shock as he said that and thinking, "NOOOOOOOOoooo!!! What are you saying?"

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:21AM

The problem was, a certain half of the polity would not let us give it back when the Jihadis brought it on. Since then, I think, we've done exceedingly well--brilliantly, in fact, if one compares our performance with the unvarnished reality (i.e., not the Stephen Ambrose version) of past U.S. wars.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:27PM

Very correct, Stuart. WWI---no adequate arms industry, or ability to project force to a hostile shore. WWII---enormous Ron Paul type isolationism left us poorly prepared. Korea: Totally unexpected and unprepared. Won by the guts of the Marines and eventually by airpower.

Vietnam: we lost what we should have won had our leaders been sane. What people forget is that in the whole War on Terror we've lost fewer servicemen killed than on June 6, 1944 alone.

Jack Swift| 5.12.11 @ 3:32PM

Osama was a captive in a prison. Being the cynic I am, I think we knew his whereabouts for years. Obama simply needed a bump in his ratings. If we actually killed him, that is unfortunate. I couldn't imagine a better candidate for waterboarding.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:21AM

He seems to have been running ops and coordinating al Qaeda activities world-wide right up to the time he was two-tapped.

Jack| 5.12.11 @ 3:36PM

Lol-you right wingers won't give Pres Obama any credit for anything; he did in 2 years what Bush couldn't get done in his entire debacle of a presidency and that is just what sticks on your throats BIG time; you are becoming more of a joke with every passing day

Stuart Koehl| 5.12.11 @ 4:00PM

You do know that, even by the Obama Administration's own admission, the critical intelligence that led to Osama bin Laden was collected in 2007, a good two years before the Big O assumed office; that the information was extracted using organizations and methods put in place by the Bush Administration; and executed by forces formed during the Bush Administration.

It's more than a little like saying Harry Truman led the U.S. to victory in World War II because he happened to be sitting in the Oval Office on VE and VJ Days.

Ron | 5.12.11 @ 5:41PM

Yes in 2 years he has added more debt than bush and his previous 10 peers. Destroyed the energy sector, denied more freedom, sold us out to foriegn foes, and abandoned more allies, etc...
Good job ordering the raid though.

C.K. Amos| 5.12.11 @ 9:54PM

Nice try, but your bilge won't work. Without the processes Bush and his administration initiated, as well as their decision to strengthen special-ops capabilities, Obama would not have been positioned to allow the military and CIA to kill bin Laden.

BTW, I do give Obama credit for lots of things: Setting racial discourse back decades; moving our country much closer to bankruptcy; being the most petty and juvenile president in the past 60-some years; raising the term "thin-skinned" to a new level; cultivating real animosity to the country and people who've afforded him such rare opportunity; attempting to break the backs of the people and our economy through his war against fossil fuels; through his words and actions, showing the world's thugs that they've nothing to fear--yes, I know, he had OBL killed, but only because he had his back against the wall and could have made no other decision; not just reigniting class warfare in the U.S, but taking it to another execrable level; and demonstrating daily since his inauguration that he is not president of the Republic, but merely president of the Democrats/progressives/liberals/leftists.

There's more I'll give him credit for, but you get the gist.

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 2:17PM

Sorry...he is president of nothing. I dug deep and couldn't come up with a drop of respect for him :"(

You can have him if you want him...he's all yours...

Steve A| 5.12.11 @ 3:49PM

Jack, You are correct. He has killed more bad guys & spent even more $$ than Bush in only 2 years. You must be so proud. Oh, yeah, GITMO still open, tax cuts for the rich still in place, toss another war on the fire in Lybia. Killed a few pirates. Killed a fly in that interview. He is a cold blooded killer of men & flies.

Drunken Sailor| 5.12.11 @ 3:56PM

Don't forget a cold blooded killer of the Economy, home vaules, American pride, the truth, etc......

Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 3:55PM

Dear Steve A,

yeah, he's killed terrorists but captured fewer. He's living on rapidly expiring intell. And telling Al Quaeda that we recovered beaucoup intelligence from OBL's compound was moronic.

Occam's Tool| 5.12.11 @ 3:55PM

By the way, Steve, I do agree with your comments, very very much.

post*tenebras*lux| 5.12.11 @ 5:13PM

Don't forget, Clinton made China the permanent "Most Favored Nation" back when other countries or nations competed for our import/export business. Bammy is carrying on the "Most Favored Nation" tradition by leaving China a gift.

L. A. LAZARUS| 5.12.11 @ 6:09PM

Amazed you so readily buy into this story without having SEEN a shred of hard evidence. You might want to consider several anomalies of this miraculous raid. Osama bin Laden was suffering from terminal kidney failure in 2001 to the point where he required dialysis every other day. He also had Marfam's Disease. The prognosis for both diseases is bleak and yet by some miracle he lasted ten years? The world's most wanted terrorist was living in a house with three or four body guards armed only with a green plastic squirt gun? The neighbors were interviewed and the vast majority of them swore this was NOT Osama bin Laden. What have the journalists found out about the compound? Who built it? Who designed it? Who paid for it? Whose name was on the monthly mortgage? Who paid the rent check if it was rented? Who was the rent check paid to? How about the vehicles located at the compound. Who owned them? What do the records show? There is documented evidence that bin Laden has been dead for years. We have seen nothing. We only know what they tell us and we know they lie. As a journalist, would you say what we've been told about this event would hold up in a court of law as hard evidence? It seems mighty handy that we killed him so easily and dumped the body at sea so quickly. How very neat and tidy. No autopsy to examine who he was, how he was killed, the time of death, the condition of his miracle kidneys and whether he was right or left handed. Let's just accept the word of a known liar because this time he must be telling the truth. Or is he??
Respectfully submitted,

Louis Alan Lazarus
El Granada, CA

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 3:06PM

C'mon now...he wouldn't have been made president if everyone thought as logically as you do... and that's impossible in our drugged-out, brain-dead USA.

I love it...but you're ruining the script!

Thom| 5.12.11 @ 6:54PM

“Yet why did they need a second helicopter?”

RET,
To answer such a question one must first have enough “facts” to eliminate possibilities here. Given the contradictorily statements coming out of this Administration and the variance in those statements one must tread lightly on making assumptions about anything this crew says…..
Some truths can be approximated by reverse engineering from known “facts” toward a probable conclusion supported by those facts…. And no further.

The nominal internal load out max for a standard BlackHawk is 12 troops, 2 flight engineers/gunners and two pilots. That works out to be about 4000 lbs or about half the max lifting capability of a standard UH-60 at sea level. By default all the special versions of the BlackHawk are heavier and have less total lifting capacity.

The BlackHawk crashed landed across the compound fence had silencers on the tail rotor while making the bird quieter don’t necessarily make it sheath like to radar which brings up another question regarding the make up of the entire assault force and its equipment…..

Initial Administration reports said two helicopters delivered 16 Seals, and then it went up to 24 and is now officially 25 while other Administration sources said 79 Seals were involved over all.

If 24-25 Seals rode in two BlackHawks then that was a full house given the reported distance from AF where they were reported to have left from but did not return to….. Look at a map of the region….. A BlackHawk with that kind of load can’t make the distance involved without refueling. Four BlackHawks can’t carry 79 Seals even if they leave the flight engineers behind and certainly not the fuel to make the distance involved. That leaves either more than 4 BlackHawks or another larger Bird that can both carry the protection/reinforcements and the extra fuel needed to make the distance from AF to the assault location and then across Pak to the sea to land on a carrier off the coast…….. Of course all this assumes that all the birds involved were “sheath” and invisible to radar? Chinooks? CH-53s? Not likely.

This leads to another observation, what if the support helos came from Pak rather than AF? That would simplify some of the logistics here and improve the chances of success should one helo be lost which it was. If the larger support Helos came from Pak then what was the purpose of the “sheath” BlackHawks? (Outside of being quieter in the approach to the compound of course) All paths keep coming back to Pak involvement…… don’t they? What is Pak's stand on this, this week?

No matter how you work the math with what is known you can’t make two BlackHawks carry 24-25 Seals over the reported distances and then out again with a lot of “loot” and OBL. Just doesn’t work that way in Indian Country assuming Pak was not on line with the mission all along. The Seals are good but they aren’t sacrificial lambs. Under normal operational margins, especially against a supposed partner in the WOT, the loss of one BlackHawk would not have ruined the mission thus it is highly likely a whole bunch of “spin” has been thrown out after the initial Administration’s bungling of sensitive operational intel in its vain effort to take credit for something it had almost nothing to do with. As I said at the top, given what is known and not subject to spin you can only go so far before part of this story falls apart…..

A smart President would have said nothing beyond a successful mission conclusion and offered proof of said successful mission conclusion and nothing more to protect assets and means. A control freak tries to expand the mission hype and then control the messaging to suit his political purposes. This is what King Obama has done and was what Jimmy Carter was doing while talking to the Desert One raid in the clear in order to be in “control” of every minute detail. LBJ did the same thing throughout much of Vietnam too.

King Obama is a gift that keeps on giving to our enemies…..

As to RET’s question, what helicopters? What Seals? It all looks like a plant to me…...shore up poll numbers……

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:26AM

Good analysis. The Pave Hawks have in-flight refueling, which means they could have taken off with a partial fuel load and topped off in-flight from HC-130 tankers. On the other hand, the flight would require a hot/high profile, meaning reduced engine power and payload capability. I don't think the assault force was as large as 25 men--probably half of that, with the rest either deployed in blocking positions or held in reserve.

And I would still have had at least one back-up helo in case one broke down/crashed/got shot down.

GENE HAUBER| 5.12.11 @ 7:46PM

LIKE I GIVE A SH*T, BUT WHEN WILL WE BE HOLDING THESE THESE COCKROACH RATS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PROFESSED THREATS AGAINST THIS COUNTRY.
I LIVE IN BRICK, NJ.
BRING IT ON YOU PIECE OF ISLAMIC SHIT.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:28PM

Gene,

I like the cut of your jib.

GENE HAUBER| 5.12.11 @ 7:47PM

ALLAH SUCKS PONY PETER.

bluecollarbytes| 5.12.11 @ 8:12PM

insignificant observation- bin Ladens' use of 'old TVs and other random older bits of technology might have something to do with his rumored distaste for tech in general, one report even mentioning his dislike of (artificially) 'chilled water'. I don't think it was due to lack of money or access to updated flatscreens.

Sierra Blanca| 5.12.11 @ 8:18PM

Uh-oh--Obama caught Osama. Pretty good for a community organizer. At least a lot better than the trustfunder war wimp who proceeded him. Maybe his name Hussein affords him special powers.

post*tenebras*lux| 5.12.11 @ 8:38PM

It is sounding more and more like, Osama caught Obama? If a fake death incident comes out, wow!

John| 5.12.11 @ 9:02PM

Bit of uninformed armchair speculation coupled with mindless ideological bias and some obsessive froth-fill over progressives and how much better everything would be if we only had geniuses like this running the show, or "the professionals". Ooohhh. I wonder who they are?

So this is what conservatism has become. Pathetic. Embarrassing.

ExPat| 5.12.11 @ 10:33PM

Actually, I think that was their best case scenario, but I believe that they learned their lesson from the Iran hostage rescue fiasco to send alond a back up aircraft "just in case" something like this happened.

Replica Handbags&wallet; | 5.12.11 @ 10:53PM

That may be some inspirational stuff. Couldn’t know that opinions may be this varied. Thanks a lot for all the enthusiasm to offer such handy information here.

Albert Maslar | 5.12.11 @ 11:05PM

There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, and when having won a major battle and gotten major secrets, is the time to let actions speak louder than words and not boastfully broadcast the "treasure trove" of enemy secrets gained. Keep the enemy guessing and looking over their shoulder for their own enemy.

Dee See| 5.12.11 @ 11:07PM

Great piece.

MEANWHILE, as the greatest world nuclear
disaster in history goes into its 4th week of
'eugenics friendly' media cover-up ---it is
now FACT that off the charts radiation has
been picked up in backyard garden in
Kent England while monitoring sites around
the world have been taken down.

We understand David Rockefeller is now
vacationing in Chile as Bill Gates et al get fitted
for those new collators.

--------------------------------Giggles everywhere!

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 11:50AM

What's that thing I can see growing out of your shoulder, DC? It looks like. . . oh no! O, the horror,the horror!

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:29PM

Wasn't that the premise of The Dark Backward, Stuart?

firebrand| 5.12.11 @ 11:10PM

Wake up, Wake Up America. If you are implying that it was Karl Rove who "outed" Valerie Plame, apparently you have never heard Robert Novak when he finally outed the true "outer" after allowing Rove to twist in the wind on a "can't reveal my sources" excuse. Brain tumors will do that to you, I guess..He wasn't called the Prince of Darkness for nothing.

The CIA agent most famed for her appearances on the cover of Vanity Fair and her self-promoting husband, Joe Wilson got their 15 minutes of fame. They are heroes only in your mind. How is Joe Wilson's lawsuit against Karl Rove going? About as far as he got with "frog-marching" Rove across the White House Lawn, is my guess...

Plame was known in Washington cocktail circles for outing herself, bragging about being a CIA agent, long before she was ever a headline. "Risked her life" how? From her desk in DC? At an embassy party in Luxembourg?

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:30AM

Actually met Valerie Plame at a seminar in DC, while she was still supposedly "under cover". Like most Agency folks, she has a business card and was handing them out. Should have taken one--would have, if I had know its potential value (probably more than her book, last seen in the remainder stack at Barnes & Noble, selling for $5.95 hardcover). Sic Transit Valerie.

criolle johnny| 5.12.11 @ 11:22PM

YOU go into a hostile fire zone with only one helo! Then one gets shot up and YOU have to walk out.
It's always nice to have back-up when you're getting shot at. Having one break down proves that point.
At least they didn't go in with antiques like another president tried to do.

Asif| 5.12.11 @ 11:23PM

With all due respect, all the humor that you have tried to bring to this article, could be called an Epic fail.
For all other readers, i would suggest to read Chomsky's reaction to Osama's death here:
http://www.guernicamag.com/blo.....ion_to_os/

It has a lot more insight, carefully worded, and explains the background as well.

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 11:51AM

Chomsky? I don't even read him for linguistics anymore.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:30PM

Chomsky rivals Clint in his views on foreign policy. Very close.

chaussures puma | 5.12.11 @ 11:28PM

nice job!

Delores Smith| 5.12.11 @ 11:36PM

1. Most of the photos of bin Laden were to belittle him...Obama style. The photo of the elderly gent w/gray hair was not bin Ladin. The remote in his right hand should have been in his left hand since he is left-handed. The photos with a dyed beard are meaningless, because Obama dyes his hair with pride.
2. The extra helicopter was to flaunt in front of China, because they recently flashed us with a new
plane of theirs. I call it the...SEE WHAT WE'VE LEFT BEHIND...helicopter.
3. I highly respect our Navy Seals, but they must follow orders. This mission was not the American
way. I find most of it a farce. If bin Laden was assassinated, it is because Obama and the Muslim
Brotherhood want a new leader for al-Qaeda. MB attended Obama's speech in Cairo. They got more out of his speech than I did.
4. I believe that MB is stirring up protesters in all Mideast and Northern African nations to control the governments. It is so transparent as you view leaders being overthrown. Keep in mind that it was MB that founded al-Qaeda & Hamas.
Guess what, MB, Obama, and associates, the world is on to you...almost.
Delores Smith Delores109@cox.net

Stuart Koehl| 5.13.11 @ 10:30AM

Take your meds! It's important.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 8:31PM

Stuart---I like your style. And thanks for the reading list.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 5.13.11 @ 1:18AM

I'm amazed how most of the media, including conservative media, believe this [supposed] "reported" Bin Laden compound take-down. Especially, am I amazed why media people would be so quick to fall in line with the Obama story. [But, not really]

The media can't even investigate in journalistic fashion, Obama's origins and eligibility to be legally qualified, as president. Then, why should patriotic Americans believe the media reports about Bin Laden's recent "reported" demise? [Thinking Americans are not dumb. They know that the media keeps the spotlight on their darling, Obama. It's all about him - not Bin Laden]

Finally, I continue to be highly skeptical about anything coming from Obama. Why should I or other Americans believe Obama when he cannot protect our own US borders, allows Muslim terrorist training camps in our own country, and, will not recognize the Fort Hood Massacre for what it actually was - Jihadist terrorism?

For the alleged [uncertified] "president" who is so secretive and who has not been forthcoming about his origins and past - why take anything he says, seriously?

Controse| 5.13.11 @ 10:11AM

Not only that but you know even accepting his evidence of authenticity he is not constitutionally permitted to stand for election to the office of the presidency. He is not a natural born citizen because he does not meet one of the two requirements declared in the Senate resolution that he sponsored and voted for which passed in 2008.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel | 5.14.11 @ 3:54PM

Exactly!

nobamamamma| 5.19.11 @ 3:12PM

"Why should I or other Americans believe Obama when he cannot protect our own US borders, allows Muslim terrorist training camps in our own country, and, will not recognize the Fort Hood Massacre for what it actually was - Jihadist terrorism?"

Because he doesn't want to...he does as he's told to do.

I want an Eskimo for president. I'm bored with the 'black' scene.

Red Bubba| 5.13.11 @ 7:49AM

Come to think of it, it would have been smart to take in a couple of old laptops and a handful of thumb drives and left them behind. Then they wouldn't know what we had managed to take. Oh well, maybe the gutsy Barack von Clausuewitz SunTzu Napolean Obama will think of it next time.

American SC| 5.13.11 @ 10:02AM

Obama crashed the helicopter by remote control because he knew the area was full of Chinese agents. Jesus told me so.

Controse| 5.13.11 @ 10:04AM

Could it be they had two helicopters in case one of them was disabled? That way they could still get home.

amsron| 5.13.11 @ 2:26PM

Not to burst anyone's jingoistic bubble, but there were not two helicopters, nor three...there were four helicopters on the raid into Abbottabad. There were 79 men on the mission and two birds were orbiting the compound in case of problems like the one that happened. So you're all basing your trashing of Obama on poor planning that DID NOT HAPPEN.

As for the author's concluding paragraph...SICK...just SICK.

Ramage| 5.14.11 @ 2:44PM

amsron, I am in agreement with you about RET's (the article's author) final sentence of the article. Odd does not fit. Off-base is too weak. Have no idea what kind of warped mind RET is working with, but placing the vile name of Jim Jones and "gloriously" in the same sentence show a poor mind and writer at work.

There are countless other ways to conclude the article.

Richard Baker| 5.14.11 @ 8:32AM

amsron:
He got ONE correct. Great. Now what about the rest of the Kenyan's disasters? Are they to be forgotten because he makes a single correct call? He's still The Bum at 1600 Pennsylvania.

% recon8651| 5.14.11 @ 10:19PM

Obviously you know nothing of reconnaissance misssions. There are always two "choppers" for recon missions. How do they get out if they are shot down using one "chopper"? There will always be backup"choppers on call. I'll bet they also had fixed wing aircraft on call for this mission. In case the patrol had to be aborted for any number of reasons they could go in and bomb the house into oblivian. However I don't believe they had any intention of taking the "wives",they were of little value regarding schemes of Al Quida and women in his society are not treated like Lady Gaga. Obama makes me throwup by claiming he is the one deserving the credit for the mission. The mission was planned over 10 yrs, assured of almost 100% success by intelligence operations before BHO gave the go ahead. He (BHO) gave the order and that took guts but I'm sick of him "spiking the football"especially since he claimed he was going to end that silly rhetoric. He is never out of campaign mode and I won't vote for him he is an incompetent leader.

Dee See| 5.15.11 @ 12:23AM

----BTW, our sources indicate the entire Pakistan
Afghanistan operation is, long term, about securing resources for ---RED China.

----------Still ready to comply with servicing the
FAKE debt? ----the private FED? ---and the
Globalist EUGENIST agenda?

K. Patrick McDonald | 5.15.11 @ 2:01AM

"Why did they need a second helicopter? . . . The answer is obvious. They wanted to take his entire entourage with him and they knew who composed it."

As a Medic quite familiar with helicopters flying in desert terrain, I can assure you the "obvious" answer is not the primary operational answer.

Can you imagine the quagmire we would be in right now, had the SEAL team landed; had a chopper malfunction; kill bin Laden - with no way to fly out of there?

The term is called "multiplicity," and smart managers with narrow windows make it a point to have a plan B.

And for the record, satellite intel has severe limitations when it comes to dust storms and darkness. The best sky camera in the world can't tell you if the house has a tunnel system.

So, no, they could only approximate how many of "who" they'd find. They couldn't be certain.

Ivan | 6.17.11 @ 8:06AM

No sir. The second helicopter was taken to deliberately leave behind for the Chinese to study and improve upon.

More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

More Articles From The Current Crisis

A Crazy Culture

April 25, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

From Boston to Haymarket to Bill Ayers

April 18, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

The Iron Lady and the Blonde

April 11, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

The NRA’s Deterrent to Gun Violence

April 4, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Such Touching Concern

March 28, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/12/the-mystery-of-the-second-heli

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|69 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|37 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|44 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|72 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|23 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|18 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 12:45PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.