Page 1 of 2
True or false?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:32 pm
by Bobby
Re: True or false?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:54 pm
by Holland Oates
Why did he retire early?
Re: True or false?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:57 pm
by Gary John
I just deleted my post.
Guy needs to get over himself. And the whining article sucks. Nothing he is going through is unique.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:01 pm
by Holland Oates
Did I understand correctly that he will get his retirement but not until he hits his 20 year mark correct.
If so that's no different than being a cop or firefighter.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:23 pm
by milosz
http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who ... laden-0313
Story not from Russia Today. It's long, I haven't been able to read it yet.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:25 pm
by Sua Sponte
Sumtin' ain't right. Nothing prevents him from saying he served with a Tier 1 or SMU. He just can't give specifics of what he did. He can work in any of the top level security positions, weapons and tactics training courses, or consultancies available to SOF guys getting out. If he's as badly injured as the article states he would eligible for disability immediately, even if he voluntarily ended his service at the end of his enlistment.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:20 am
by Bobby
Mebe just to get interest before a book launch?
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:16 pm
by TerryB
Sua Sponte wrote:Sumtin' ain't right. Nothing prevents him from saying he served with a Tier 1 or SMU. He just can't give specifics of what he did. He can work in any of the top level security positions, weapons and tactics training courses, or consultancies available to SOF guys getting out. If he's as badly injured as the article states he would eligible for disability immediately, even if he voluntarily ended his service at the end of his enlistment.
Do you always talk completely out of your ass?
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:32 pm
by nafod
I don't doubt that he did 12 pumps forward (I think it said) which means he spent 4 months out of the year for 12 years in the fight. During those 4 months they'd go nightly and hit targets, rolling from one to the next until the sun rose or the intel ran out. That's a whole lot of fighting. Shooting Bin Laden wasn't even a deployment, that was just a quick response, like shooting the pirates.
Sure seems like he could have rolled off into shore duty working in the training command, back training Seals in San Diego, or working at a ROTC unit PT-ing college kids while picking up a BS degree or something more chillaxed. A soft landing to get him to 20 years and prepped for civvy life.
I grimaced when all the press came out post-Bin Laden. Better to have let the gents stay in the shadows, the grey guys.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:38 pm
by Freki
nafod wrote:
Sure seems like he could have rolled off into shore duty working in the training command, back training Seals in San Diego, or working at a ROTC unit PT-ing college kids while picking up a BS degree or something more chillaxed. A soft landing to get him to 20 years and prepped for civvy life.
I read the full Esquire article yesterday and was wondering why he couldn't have done something along these lines, but maybe he was JUST DONE or if that was a legit option.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:52 pm
by Sua Sponte
protobuilder wrote:
Do you always talk completely out of your ass?
Feel free to point out which part is talking out my ass.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:34 pm
by WildGorillaMan
To no-one's great surprise the article omits a few key details.
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ruptur ... e-1.207506
Except the claim about health care is wrong. And no servicemember who does less than 20 years gets a pension, unless he has to medically retire.
Like every combat veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the former SEAL, who is identified in the story only as “the Shooter”, is automatically eligible for five years of free healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
But the story doesn’t mention that.
The writer, Phil Bronstein, who heads up the Center for Investigative Reporting, stands by the story. He said the assertion that the government gave the SEAL “nothing” in terms of health care is both fair and accurate, because the SEAL didn’t know the VA benefits existed.
“No one ever told him that this is available,” Bronstein said.
He said there wasn’t space in the article to explain that the former SEAL’s lack of healthcare was driven by an ignorance of the benefits to which he is entitled.
“That’s a different story,” Bronstein said in a phone interview with Stars and Stripes about what he omitted from the article.
Apparently there wasn't enough space in the article for reality.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:55 pm
by nafod
WildGorillaMan wrote:To no-one's great surprise the article omits a few key details.
...Apparently there wasn't enough space in the article for reality.
Frankly, I wasn't aware of the details, and I'm eligible as it turns out. Probably received a detailed brief during demob, but no one listens. You just want to get home. Don't need it, thankfully.
It doesn't cover his family.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:03 am
by TerryB
WildGorillaMan wrote:To no-one's great surprise the article omits a few key details.
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ruptur ... e-1.207506
Except the claim about health care is wrong. And no servicemember who does less than 20 years gets a pension, unless he has to medically retire.
Like every combat veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the former SEAL, who is identified in the story only as “the Shooter”, is automatically eligible for five years of free healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
But the story doesn’t mention that.
The writer, Phil Bronstein, who heads up the Center for Investigative Reporting, stands by the story. He said the assertion that the government gave the SEAL “nothing” in terms of health care is both fair and accurate, because the SEAL didn’t know the VA benefits existed.
“No one ever told him that this is available,” Bronstein said.
He said there wasn’t space in the article to explain that the former SEAL’s lack of healthcare was driven by an ignorance of the benefits to which he is entitled.
“That’s a different story,” Bronstein said in a phone interview with Stars and Stripes about what he omitted from the article.
Apparently there wasn't enough space in the article for reality.
THIS DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU CANADIANS! STAY OUT OF OUR AFFAIRS!
Re: True or false?
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:39 am
by Grandpa's Spells
Such an awful article. Do 20 years, get 20-year bennies. Shooting bin Laden, which just about anybody would have given a nut to do, does not merit a magical bypass of the rules.
It's weird how in the 90's and early 2000s, actual SEALs not named Marcinko kept a low profile. Now they're putting out more books, movies, and self-promotion than any other military org I can think of.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:21 pm
by Andy83
What's with this 5 year coverage for a vet all about? When was this rule put in force?
I was discharged in '59 after 8 years service. I still get medical from the VA. And a small pension for being in during war time. I thought any vet got the same medical whether disabled or not.
Is it possible that this guy who wrote the article has his facts all fucked up?
Re: True or false?
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:13 pm
by johno
I was skeptical about this guy's situation...then I considered that he is #2 or #3 on the AQ Hit List, behind Obama & Bush, because the Obama Admin (and possibly his SEAL brothers) were loose-lipped about who killed Bin Laden.
This guy shouldn't have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life just because he excelled at serving his country. He deserves some security from Uncle.
But the Esquire article indicates that he had some plan for business that fell through, also that a book may be forthcoming. IMO, Uncle doesn't need to financially provide for every Tier 1 operator who leaves the service. And, as to the article's claim that Business should be snapping up SEALs for executive positions...I doubt there's much carryover from killing bad guys to executing deals & managing workers on Wall Street.
*****
I wonder if it has dawned on the article's author that he is just one degree of separation from The Shooter, and may be on an Al Qaeda list of "People to Visit."
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:24 pm
by Grandpa's Spells
Somebody's a lie-man
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/ber ... ?hpt=hp_t1
The Shooter explained that when he found bin Laden in his bedroom the al Qaeda leader was standing up and had a gun "within reach" and it was only then that the Shooter fired the two shots into bin Laden's forehead that killed him. That account was in conflict with the account from another raid participant in a wildly successful book "No Easy Day."
Now, another member of the secretive SEAL Team 6, which executed the bin Laden raid, tells CNN the story of the Shooter as presented in Esquire is false. According to this serving SEAL Team 6 operator, the story is "complete B-S."
SEAL Team 6 operators are now in "serious lockdown" when it comes to "talking to anybody" about the bin Laden raid and say they have been frustrated to see what they consider to be the inaccurate story in Esquire receive considerable play without a response. Phil Bronstein, who wrote the 15,000-word piece about the Shooter for Esquire, was booked on CNN, Fox and many other TV networks after his story came out.
________________________
The SEAL Team 6 operator also tells CNN that the Shooter was "thrown off" of Red Squadron, the core of the SEAL Team 6 group that carried out the bin Laden raid, because he was bragging about his role in the raid in bars around Virginia Beach, Virginia, where SEAL Team 6 is based. In the Esquire article, Shooter complains that he is receiving no pension, since he left the military four years before the minimum twenty required to be eligible.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:53 pm
by Protobuilder
Grandpa's Spells wrote:SEAL Team 6 operators are now in "serious lockdown" when it comes to "talking to anybody" about the bin Laden raid
Are there any regulations about this kind of thing?
I have known two guys who were retired SEALS - one of them fairly well. Neither would say anything about anything though one did talk about BUDS if you asked him though nothing beyond that (I never pushed).
Re: True or false?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:07 am
by Holland Oates
I've got a friend who was a PJ. Said the nondisclosure agreement violation is a big deal for him.
It all starts with small betrayals.
And I'm sorry but I can't feel sorry for "Shooter" since voluntarily left the navy 4 years before retirement. I believe he could have taken a desk or some kind of menial assignment but I doubt his ego would allow it.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:34 am
by Blaidd Drwg
Ed Zachary wrote:I've got a friend who was a PJ. Said the nondisclosure agreement violation is a big deal for him.
It all starts with small betrayals.
And I'm sorry but I can't feel sorry for "Shooter" since voluntarily left the navy 4 years before retirement. I believe he could have taken a desk or some kind of menial assignment but I doubt his ego would allow it.
That particular guy is in an "industry" that love to publicly fellate any and all SPECOPZWORRIORRRZZZ. He doesn't say peep about it on his promotional material or website, he just lets his actual skills in his civilian job speak for themselves. He has built about 700% more credibility by what he doesn't say than what he does.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:38 am
by Holland Oates
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Ed Zachary wrote:I've got a friend who was a PJ. Said the nondisclosure agreement violation is a big deal for him.
It all starts with small betrayals.
And I'm sorry but I can't feel sorry for "Shooter" since voluntarily left the navy 4 years before retirement. I believe he could have taken a desk or some kind of menial assignment but I doubt his ego would allow it.
That particular guy is in an "industry" that love to publicly fellate any and all SPECOPZWORRIORRRZZZ. He doesn't say peep about it on his promotional material or website, he just lets his actual skills in his civilian job speak for themselves. He has built about 700% more credibility by what he doesn't say than what he does.
Yep. Plus he's wicked smart for such a large fooker.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:41 am
by Sua Sponte
The self-described shooter was on the raid but not the guy who tagged Bin Laden. If you have even a fleeting understanding of CQB you can see the holes in his description of how the gun fight unfolded.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:58 am
by Fat Cat
Spell it out for a desk worker like me.
Re: True or false?
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:24 am
by Protobuilder
The guy who talked with CNN is saying that the guy who sold his story Esquire who disagreed with the guy who wrote a book...I think that it's better to see what comes out of the rest of the team when they leak to Playboy and The New Yorker.