Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Yeah it's only been a bubbling undercurrent because the Dems are too ****ing stupid they want to keep asking for his tax returns
TBF it's a risky political move for Democrats to criticize the military when they already have the reputation of being the less military-friendly party, even if that reputation is largely built on actual FAKE NEWS. If it appears you're using the death of a servicemember to score political points you're creating an opportunity for Republicans to make that the narrative, and I think that's one that would turn off a lot of independent voters and casual Democrats. You'd need a strong record of giving AF about military issues in the past to come off as legitimate. Tammy Duckworth could pull it off, probably Sanders too, but the party as a whole wouldn't be able to make a convincing argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayhawks
Yeah, what he said is bull****. I disagree about it being a bungled raid, though. And not because they're now saying that there wasn't much intelligence gathered. It's because the plan usually never goes as planned and it can go sideways fast. I'm sure they didn't expect the woman and teenagers to pick up weapons, but I can't be sure. Once a severe gunfight like that begins, it's all about survival. It's sad that the U.S. lost an elite operator, another SEAL got his jaw shot off, and civilians died. They know what they signed up for.
It was absolutely a bungled raid. There's a difference between things not going to plan (which always happens) and things going to **** (which rarely happens). Putting this in the latter category would even be generous. Our intel was bad, the enemy intel was good, we killed civilians, they killed a Navy SEAL, we lost an expensive aircraft, and what did we get out of it? Calling this raid a success simply because someone died is backwards, and it's a dangerous and disgusting cover for a President to defend himself with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Yeah, we need to be careful with the "bungled raid" hot take. I get that Trump blaming the generals is ****ing awful, but let's remember that bungled raids are a natural consequence of warfare. Jimmy Carter sent special forces in to free the Iranian hostages and they "bungled it". Hell, George Washington lost battles; a whole bunch of them. The bin Laden raid might have been a bungled raid if the helicopter pilot hadn't managed to pull off a gentle crash landing. The essential difference is not that Carter or Washington led bungled operations, it's that they understood that the buck stops with the Commander in Chief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Well, one might criticize the intention of the mission to land troops in a country we are not at war with and murder the 8 year old daughter of a dead terrorist.
That's part of it, but more generally there needs to be an assessment of risk vs reward, and if unnecessary risks were accepted that should be judged more harshly than a thoroughly planned out mission that went wrong. The Iranian hostage rescue was a bungled raid and it was planned horribly. It's now remembered as a lesson in bad strategic decision making and any raid that matches its level of incompetence should be similarly criticized. George Washington was fighting a war where a significant percentage of Americans had committed to win or die so he gets a ton of leeway on the risk vs reward metric. The OBL raid was flawless beyond the crashed helicopter, which they adjusted well to and still accomplished their mission with no US casualties so it's hard to call that an almost bungled raid unless you mean literally any raid has the potential to be bungled. The Yemen raid was reportedly poorly planned, wasn't targeting anyone or anything of value, and went about as poorly as any US vs 3rd world engagement has ever gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
I don't think anyone has been pointing fingers at the military for failed raid, Trump not taking responsibility for it and pawning it off on his generals is the problem.
I'm pointing fingers at whoever was responsible for the failures. I'm not so idealistic to blame all military failures on the commander in chief but this one sure looks like it's on him. Agreed that no matter who did the actual ****ing up the President should claim responsibility, and the fact that he's publicly pointing the finger at his subordinates instead is just ****ty, incompetent leadership.