http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/2/ ... Yemen-raid
some might call it a left wing what ever..
There is a lot of thought and intel that goes into developing target list and determining windows of opportunity.
Why the last administration did or did not conduct the raid could have been for any number of reasons. They just get passed on to the next command
who may detrimen that its either valid or not..which then gets rolled into a new target list.
this link for some might be thought of as right wing what ever. For me it's just an information source that makes the most sense at this time.
until I get a chance to check with some people I knew who still have some contacts in the Navy.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/02/m ... seal-dead/
The story suggests that Trump was rash to approve the raid but never makes clear why, or why it was brought to him for approval if it wasn’t ready. And on top of that, probably the single most able officer in his cabinet, Jim Mattis, is serving at the Defense Department. Mattis surely has the operational background to know if a raid is half-baked or ready to go. If he told Trump they were ready — and presumably he did — why on earth would Trump have doubted him?
This is the real question to me, why would they bring it to him for approval if it was not ready or had a good chance of success
The fact that he did go to sleep during the operation speaks to the confidence "Trump" has in his cabinet staff..
I bet in the future he will be a little more cautious or there will be new staff....
What’s missing from any of the reporting is the suggestion that Defense warned the Trump White House that they weren’t ready to roll but the White House demanded action anyway. Until that evidence is produced, why should we assume that Trump is the negligent party?
There is no way that the President of the United States no matter who it is, would order something to be conducted "against" the advice of his commanders
with out assurances that everything was ready to go,,this includes "intel"
Of course the president could as the last administration did, fire all those that didn't agree with him.
Team Trump wants to streamline the process for approving raids against jihadis by delegating authority for action further down the chain of command. Shave away some of the bureaucracy that delays missions like this one and you’ll give the military more freedom to act quickly when opportunity presents itself. That could lead to rash action in some cases or political fiascos where an aggressive commander approves a raid that the president and his team would have been more cautious about — but again, there’s no clear assertion that that’s what happened here.
A departure form centralized management pros and cons,,,it does allow for faster reaction times, but also for mistakes to happen...after the review I would expect more direct action, and less done by drones....
In fact, the NYT’s (gripping) account of the raid suggests that Al Qaeda was curiously well prepared for what was coming; it’s implied that someone (maybe one of the UAE troops who accompanied the SEALs?) had tipped off the jihadis. Some of the women who were killed in the firefight reportedly fired on the Americans too, raising the question of whether all of the “civilian” collateral damage here was truly civilian — although some, like Anwar al-Awlaki’s eight-year-old daughter, obviously was. Long story short, while there may be more specifics coming on how White House mismanagement contributed to the chaos of the raid, for now all there is is insinuation.
This is what is most troubling, it would seem that they knew the raid was going to happen....not a good thing...
Another thing that might be noted is that the objective is not stated,,,the who or what....why a seal team, and not a drone strike.
