The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed
esquire.com
esquire.com
Since esquire wants you to click through 9 pages and I like to add it to Instapaper.
> The ones Vice-President Biden called "the finest warriors in the history of the world"?
Does anyone think this level of appalling ignorance and arrogance helps the US in any way? I know Biden was excited about Bin Laden's death but come on. These so-called warriors followed a tip and snuck up on some people who they massively outgunned and managed to kill them. I wouldn't even consider that "greatest warrior of the month" material.
P.S. Can we please keep this political nonsense off HN? I don't know how many people outside the US are going to care too much about the plight of ex-mercenaries.
Here's an alternative takeaway: we should use those $800 billion better. Perhaps spend more of them on people who come home after war.
‘I wouldn't even consider that "greatest warrior of the month" material.’
Killing someone isn't super impressive, I guess. Doing so with minimum collateral damage in hostile environs is.
‘I don't know how many people outside the US are going to care too much about the plight of ex-mercenaries.’
Considering the general tendency of people to be interested in the US's interventionist policies, they may be interested in discussing a side that is rarely discussed. Also, please look up the definition of a mercenary. It seems reasonable that, like many, you meant to use it in a derogatory fashion; instead, you simply used it incorrectly. SEALs are US citizens fighting in their country's army, not a foreign one.
I agree though, this has no place on HN.
The fact is, a career as a combat operative does not prepare you for a civilian life at home. Sure, you get some fantastic team training and basic skills. You get some international experience. You get (in theory) a strong peer network. But you don't get a guarantee when you come home. You're back in the game like everyone else, and you make what you can of your life. And in the case of today's vets, you're back in the game with the deck stacked against you.
The WW2 generation came home and, in many cases, achieved a great deal of success in the civilian sector. What is it about today's military that prevents the same from happening on a similar level? Certainly it's not the talent or the caliber of the individuals involved. Many of the vets I know today are outstanding and capable individuals.
Instead, I think it's got something to do with the way the military is organized today, and the way we fight our wars. Today's professional military is nothing like the military of old. It's made our military an incredibly effective force, but it has completely isolated the military and civilian sectors from one another. We almost have a separate warrior caste within our society these days, and we have no idea what to do with them when they transition out of it. Nor are they prepared to do so. And their repeated deployments certainly haven't done them any favors in making a steady or stable transition.
Where I'm going with this is to suggest that funding more government assistance programs for veterans is probably not the answer. It feels like the right thing to do. But ultimately, it's a crutch. It's a band-aid. These folks need job training. So I think we should be giving our active duty personnel some practical training, in addition to martial training. Not just indirectly -- the kind of training often bragged about in recruiting ads -- but directly. And we should be finding ways to interchange talent, skills, resources, and knowledge between the civilian and military worlds. The complete separation of one sector from another is the root of the problem.
In as much as the service branches have recruiting issues, and in as much as the civilian sector has a very hard time reabsorbing vets, it seems like a return to real ties between the two worlds is in order.
Could it be the general economic climate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econo...
WW2 ends, you come home the victors, and the economy is doing great and there's a ton of opportunity out there.
The War on Terror is ongoing, it's too early to declare anyone a victor and so the whole thing is tainted, and the economy is in the dumps.
If you can't say what you did, aren't willing to use the skills you spent 16 years getting, and don't take a pension, and don't make an effort to learn/do something new (when you have ~hundreds of thousands in free tuition assistance available), uh, you're kind of screwed. But largely self-inflicted screwing.
Unfortunately for this guy, scar tissue doesn't count as a disability. But he knew all that when he joined the SEALs. When you join the special forces community, they tell you straight up that you are probably going to get injured and you will live a tough life. You know that you don't get any special treatment.
There are thousands of ex-SEALs and other special forces guys out there living with bad knees and lingering injuries like bullet wounds, broken bones, etc. Why should this guy get anything beyond whay they get? Complaining to the media makes him hand his entire community look bad.
Source: I'm in the military and am friends with a few Air Force Pararescue Jumpers. Not the same as the SEALs, but they work with them and know when a guy is being a whiny b*h.
Can anyone speak to the truth of this? I'd never thought much about it, but if that's true it's a pretty terrible gig. I was under the impression that most members of the military get substantial tuition assistance? That seems like a benefit most Americans don't have the luxury of.
No pension? Really?
More to the point, Personally? I think the 17 year olds we throw into actual battle are the least morally culpable of us all. They have to face the physical consequences of an enemy who actively fights back; they have to face the psychological consequences of having killed another human.
And they have to make the decision (the decision to become part of the military machine or not) usually at an age where none of us are equipped to make that sort of decision.
You and I? we're paying for it. If our government is right (and I don't know that they are) we are benefiting from it.
I think that you and I, assuming you are a tax paying US citizen like I am, are in many ways more culpable for the unjust killings our country commits than the 17 year olds that actually pull the trigger.
(well, that, and while the war in Iraq looks completely unjustified from my perspective, with the information I have, killing bin laden, well, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but it certainly has more justification than invading Iraq.)
Because you say so? Because your president thinks so? That doesn't make it any more legal. In short, killing people without trial is 100% unlawful, except in a declared war (and that means between countries, not "against terrorism" or "against drugs") or in self defense. As far as I know, Osama bin Laden has never been tried before a regular court of justice and even if he had been, breaking into his house and shooting him would likely not have been a proper execution of the death sentence.
Uh... wtf? Are you under the impression that the laws the US makes apply to the entire planet? Some group of people claimed they had the right to kill someone, then they went into a foreign country (in violation of numerous laws, etc.) and killed someone. That's very clearly murder, among other crimes.
If you think it's ok because you country made some decision that said it's ok then I guess my country can do that too? I think I'm going to lobby for a law that says I can legally go to your country and take lots of money by force.
I think that everyone would agree that the soldier in question was also an American, working under US law.
I mean, yes, I'd bet a Pakistani would see the matter differently; But usually, to charge someone with a crime like murder, you need something of a "Mens rea" - the state of mind of the person doing the killing matters quite a lot. In this case, the soldier could reasonably have thought he was acting lawfully under US law, and was reasonably justified in believing that US law was what he had a responsibility to follow.
How should conflicts of law be resolved between countries? I don't know. Usually, it seems, the laws of the more powerful country prevails, which obviously has little to do with justice. But personally, I think that if blame is to be assigned, blame ought to be pointed at our government (or, at the very least, higher ups in our government; not the kid who actually had to pull the trigger.)
I think it says a lot about our society that it is widely seen as a 'good thing' that we kill out of passion.
I would have preferred it if bin Laden stood trial, but he knew the risks he was taking when he did these things. We have many admissions of guilt on video, so I don't think it would be a long trial if he got one.
Proof? Due process?
Even Saddam Hussein got a trial and he was known to have been responsible for war crimes at the time, not just declared as such by media, politicians etc. ...
Deleted comment
>> Officials said none of the slain SEALs had participated in the May bin Laden raid carried out by their Team 6 comrades.
From your article.