60 Minutes: Kill bin Laden
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4502669n
Is this guy for real?The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports.
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
The 60 minutes spot was strange.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Rest of Story - 4 page article
Here is the 4-page article (+ 27 pages of comments) underlying the spot.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtmlElite Officer Recalls Bin Laden Hunt
Delta Force Commander Says The Best Plan To Kill The Al Qaeda Leader In 2001 Was Nixed
Oct. 5, 2008
....
In 2001, just 10 weeks after 9/11, he was a 37-year-old Army major leading a team of America's most elite commandos. Even now, 60 Minutes can't tell you his name or show you his face. 60 Minutes hired a theatrical make up artist to take this former Delta officer through a series of transformations to disguise him. He calls himself "Dalton Fury," and is the author of "Kill Bin Laden," a new book out this week.
.....
Fury says he'll donate his profits from the book to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.
I have no way to determine whether this article is factual in whole, part or not at all. Others here may be better informed.
Ishmael Jones, The Human Factor, pp.238-239, blames the escape on CIA "HQs managers" taking over the operation after UBL's radio transmission was received.
DefenseTech did two minutes of research and apparently found out who the guy is.
Last edited by Entropy; 10-07-2008 at 01:15 PM.
Despite the comic book pseudonym he adopted, the guy is the real deal.
Now that his bona fides have bee established, would anyone like to comment on what he said?
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
It sounds like old territory to me - much of the same was covered in other articles and books, although the request to mine the passes above Tora Bora was new to me. Given the realities of the time, it's not surprising that both of his requests (a blocking force or mining) were rejected.
The cynic in me suggests it might have something to do with the timing of his book being published.What is bringing it up now going to do other than bring about a big old round of finger pointing, and possibly some scape goating?
I think the big point is that the guys on the ground did their job, that oversight and politics (to many cooks in the kitchen problem) screwed up the mission. I think from the interview the idea that the Afghanistan support really wasn't and that the missions are incredibly more difficult based on trying to make them (the locals) look good.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Great. A fellow AMU professor.
http://www.amu.apus.edu/Academics/Fa...?facultyID=997
No doubt he is a hero and a stud but I agree with other posters. Where is the so what of his story? The Muj couldn't be trusted, liked Bin Laden and often had agreements with the Talibs...nothing new there.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
Could you please explain. Isn`t a blocking force one of the simplest and most basic ways to deploy troops.
Isn`t that highly relevant given that our strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day is to turn over security to the locals. Do you really think that its old news to the millions of Americans and millions of 60 Minutes viewers who our going to be voting in the next 30 days. (For example, I had no idea the local went home every night, and were sleeping peacefully in their beds, when our guys were very close to Bin Laden and knew exactly where he was and I think I`ve learned a thing or two from hanging around here that the average 60 minutes viewer might not know.)
Last edited by Rank amateur; 10-07-2008 at 06:35 PM.
Maybe, but subtlety doesn't really work in our nations discourse, in this case I reckon he would just come out and say it:
Ideological agendas cannot be pursued, and political and economic gains cannot be reaped, when you literally kill the pretext. With bullets and HE.
This is where the issue was discussed on PS.com. Most people in the community are pretty pissed about this. I don't have TV right now so I did not see the interview and I doubt that I will read the book. What I am wondering though is what the point is. I near as I can gather, he is pointing out what is basically a bad call that was made on the ground in Afghanistan during the Tora Bora operation. My question is why? Whether it was a good, bad or indifferent call, it is an old call. What is bringing it up now going to do other than bring about a big old round of finger pointing, and possibly some scape goating?
SFC W
His book has been in limbo for awhile while some OPSEC issues were clarified. The author's homepage goes into more detail.
From the little I know it appears that a "risk averse" culture kicked in by the Higher Ups. I don't understand why a Ranger Blt wasn't deployed as another support element. Hats off to those guys who went in knowing their "support" was dubious at best.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_off...kill_1006.html
I didn't see the original airing but have been following this on the author's homepage. Hopefully this is the original 60minutes piece without modification.
Last edited by Jedburgh; 10-08-2008 at 02:15 AM.
Legally, Ishmael Jones Redux ?
Here is the only "statement of facts" that I have:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ghlight=dalton(posted at PS by Team Sergeant - from 2 Feb 2008 Army Times at 2nd url below)
Fury said that, as required by the agreement he signed when he left the unit and retired, he sent Delta a copy of his manuscript for security review.
“They came up with a list of redactions of items they thought ought to be taken out,” he said. “I told them I would honor every one of those. However, they were never ever given to me.”
Delta’s higher headquarters apparently intervened, according to Fury. “It’s not Delta’s fault,” he said. “It’s their higher command – JSOC and SOCOM have the say. And they … collectively decided not to provide me with any detailed redactions after a year of trying through my attorney.”
“All I got back was responses [reminding me of] my commitment to the classified information agreement that I signed … [and] basically threatening to possibly take me to court over this.”
Fury said that after SOCOM “stifled it,” he sent the manuscript to the Defense Department’s Office of Security Review.
“OSR failed to respond in any timely manner at all, after numerous requests from my attorney.
“The comment that SOCOM made was that the sensitive information was so thoroughly woven into the manuscript that any attempt at detailed redaction would be literally impossible. They chose not to do it.”
“We did receive a manuscript from [the author] for security review,” said SOCOM spokesman Army Col. Hans Bush. “The manuscript did not pass security review because it was found to contain classified information. We notified [the author] through his lawyer last fall. To date this remains unresolved. “We are still willing to work with the author in the even he resubmits a manuscript that does not contain classified information.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0..._book_080131w/
The Ishmael Jones book, and the CIA PRB's refusal to clear it, has been discussed here.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=5832
The agency's PRB review process is well regulated and subject to judicial review - sometimes in favor of authors, sometimes not (as in Frank Snepp's case).
The Fury process has multiple commands involved; and, I have no idea (no legal research done or intended) of whether judicial review is available or not. Since the Army has regulations for most everything, I presume there is some legal guidance somewhere - but I arz a dummy in this legal area.
The Jones and Fury books were both rejected for the same reason stated - " sensitive information was so thoroughly woven into the manuscript that any attempt at detailed redaction would be literally impossible." Both books were then published despite the rejection.
So far, no legal action has been taken in either case. Note: I am not calling for legal action in either case - just sitting on the sidelines watching.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks