#1 WHAT 'GUTSY CALL'?: CIA MEMO REVEALS ADMIRAL CONTROLLED BIN LADEN MISSION
04-29-2012, 05:20 AM
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.
The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.
This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:
Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.
The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.
The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.
Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.
04-29-2012, 03:56 PM
Even if it was Obama's (or had it been Bush's) call, the only risk either would face is a political one. Hardly gutsy, IMO. The term gutsy can only be applied to the men/women that were involved in carrying out the mission. They had everything on the line. Back in Washington it would have gone something like this:
"You know the guy who was behind the attacks of 9/11 that we have been trying to get for years? He's in a house and we can kill him. Should we do it?"
"Um, ok.""The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
04-29-2012, 05:22 PM
Give credit where it is due. It was a tough call to make, but from everything that I've read, it was done in spite of Obama, thanks to Valerie Jarrett's keeping him from committing to the raid, and Hillary, Panetta and Gates working to set it up so that when the go order came, they could execute before he could change his mind.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
04-29-2012, 07:18 PM
If it was the latter, then I give him credit. However, my money would be on the former.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|