Recently there was news that a
Navy Seals special operations force carried out a surprise raid on a
mountainside al Qaeda redoubt in Yemen, killing seven terrorists and freeing
their hostages. This was a small victory for the Obama administration in the midst
of seemingly endless troubles with Islamic militants in the region. This
operation hasn’t garnered the kind of attention as has the Osama bin Laden
raid, ending his reign of terror, although one suspects that there is a video
game consulting job waiting for one or more of the participants.
Or a book, such as No Easy
Day written by Matt Bissonnette, a retelling of the bin Laden raid in which
he participated. Bissonnette supposedly violated the Seal’s “code of ethics” by
“cashing in” on the affair, and he has also been accused of inflating his role
in bin Laden’s demise at the expense of the more “deserving.”
One of those more “deserving” was
profiled last year by Phil Bronstein in Esquire
magazine, identify only as the “Shooter.” The “Shooter” claims to be the man responsible for killing bin
Laden, and he seems not only unhappy that he is about the only one who knows
it, but that he hasn’t received the “appreciation” for his accomplishment that
he believes is his due. What he means by “appreciation” has something to do
with the suggestion that he is broke, implying that he hasn’t been sufficiently
“compensated” for his service. For some reason, “Shooter” believes that simply
because he did something “important,” he is to be given more—in fact much more—“deference”
than other soldiers.
What does he want? A $1 million
bonus? No, just a “job.” And full medical benefits, and a corporate
executive-size pension plan (well, not exactly that, but his whining about his
alleged impoverished situation could encompass the wants and desires of a whole
battalion). You see, he is angry at President Obama, because he supposedly
“promised” returning veterans a good, high-paying job, and for some that has
not happened. Of course, it really wasn’t the president’s place to promise
anything like that, since he would need the cooperation of the private sector. Frankly,
there is not much call these day for middle-aged shooters kicking in doors; my
own artillery training did nothing to help me find a “good” job, and within a
year of leaving the service, I was attending college.
But “Shooter” seems to believe
that the “government” was supposed to act as his personal headhunter, and place
him in that high-paying position—he was “owed” that. Forget the $60,000 a year
he was paid as a Navy Seal—and that didn’t include the additional compensation
for housing and rations; that was just free cash to spend as frugally or
frivolously as he and his family wished.
I know a veteran who returned
from Iraq, doing what I’m not sure; another who was a reservist and spent a
year there told me that he didn’t see any
“action” while he was there. Anyways, this first veteran is a raving
right-winger who I occasionally had rather fierce political discussions with. I
always find it fascinating how anti-government types who complain about
“socialist” Social Security and Medicare still expect that same government to
look after their every need, just because they served in the military. We had a
“discussion” about the Affordable Care Act, which I supported and he did not;
when he mentioned in passing that he was on partial disability, I asked for
what, because I could not see anything physically wrong with him. He then
confessed that he suffered from PTSD, and that he was taking medication for
it—paid for by the “government.” He also mentioned that his family had a health
plan through the state-run ACA exchange network.
“Shooter” is paranoid about the
“government” too, and so is his wife. They also believe that they are on some
jihadist’s “hit list.” Bronstein writes that “Since Abbottabad, he has trained
his children to hide in their bathtub at the first sign of a problem as the
safest, most fortified place in their house. His wife is familiar enough with
the shotgun on their armoire to use it. She knows to sit on the bed, the
weapon's butt braced against the wall, and precisely what angle to shoot out
through the bedroom door, if necessary. A knife is also on the dresser should
she need a backup. Then there is the ‘bolt’ bag of clothes, food, and other
provisions for the family meant to last them two weeks in hiding. ‘Personally,’
his wife told me recently, ‘I feel more threatened by a potential retaliatory
terror attack on our community than I did eight years ago,’ when her husband
joined ST6.”
According to Bronstein—or at
least what he has been led or chosen to believe—the “Shooter” has a body
“filled with scar tissue, arthritis, tendonitis, eye damage, and blown disks,
here is what he gets from his employer and a grateful nation: Nothing. No
pension, no healthcare for his wife and kids, no protection for himself or his
family.”
Actually, at the very end of the
on-line article we find this small tidbit:
Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the extent of
the five-year health care benefits offered to cover veterans of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs offers comprehensive
health care to eligible veterans during that period, though not to their
families. In light of this change, we have also revised an earlier passage in
the story referring to the shooter’s post-service benefits. Also, the original
version of this story did not include a few sentences that ran in the issue
printed last week. They have now been restored.
One wonders what else is not
correct about this story. The bin Laden raid wasn’t that long ago, and so how
could the “Shooter” have been cleared physically to take part in the raid if he
was so rundown, seeking our pity? Especially when the only “injury” was
suffered by one of the helicopters? Is this just journalistic license? Self-pity?
More anti-government propaganda?
Bronstein reports that he and the
“Shooter” saw the film Zero Dark Thirty,
allegedly an “accurate” portrayal of the events leading up to and during the
bin Laden raid. Despite the fact the “Shooter” criticized the portrayal of the
actual raid as being largely inaccurate, ‘The portrayal of the chief CIA human
bloodhound, ‘Maya,’ based on a real woman whose iron-willed assurance about the
compound and its residents moved a government to action, was ‘awesome’ says the
Shooter. ‘They made her a tough woman, which she is.’"
Or at least as portrayed in the
movie. Actually, for all the “Shooter” or the Esquire writer knows, she is a largely fictional character, since
they never met her or knew of her existence before the film. In fact, the CIA
director at the time was almost livid at the portrayal; in a memo posted on the
CIA website, he characterized her involvement in bin Laden’s demise as grossly
over-exaggerated in the film, and he apologized to the hundreds of agents who
were involved in the operation over many years who were done a disservice by
the film, and overlooked by the filmmaker in the quest of making a gender
“statement.”
Having served in the military
myself, I do not wish to seem overly “unsympathetic” to the supposed plight of
the “Shooter.” United States veterans at least receive lip service
“appreciation” from every corner—particularly from armchair “warriors” and rich
celebrities and athletes who never served, and hope never to. I—as someone who
served seven years in the U.S. Army, most of them overseas—also appreciate
their service. But sometimes this “fighting for our freedoms” shtick goes too
far, especially when that is not clear. Everyone in the military, including
officers, are volunteers. No one forced them to join the service (well, maybe
in the case of a few, their parents forced them to “volunteer”), and they all
have a “story.”
If they are officers, that
“story” may be a quest for martial “glory.” For the enlisted, it might be for
the same reason, or for the “benefits”—like college tuition—or just a job. Isn’t
that what all those enlistment commercials say—the ones that forget to mention
that the jobs with largest number of troops do not “translate” into “good” jobs
in the civilian workplace? But the government asks something of you in return
for living on the taxpayer dime. I went where I was told to go, even if I
didn’t want to go; I couldn’t just “quit.” That was the “choice” I made for
“three hots and a cot,” plus spending money on the side.
The “shooter” made the same
choice. And he chose to be a Navy Seal not necessarily because he was
“patriotic,” but because it made him feel “superior” to others. And he liked
the exhilaration and intrigue of commando operations, like what he saw in the
movies. Maybe he and many others saw things a little differently afterward,
especially when their friends and colleagues started getting killed—or making
money in video game consulting jobs. If he was honest, he and those others could
thank George Bush for embarking on a needless war in Iraq based on falsified
“justifications,” costing the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, and
maiming thousands more.
And for what? Islamic insurgents in
Iraq knew after a few years of fighting that they could not defeat American
troops on the ground, so they just hunkered down and waited until the U.S.
believed that it had “won.” After U.S. forces left, they just crawled out of
their holes like rats, with the results we have seen—almost daily killings of
civilians since 2012, and Islamic militants attempting to take control of the
country piece-by-piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment