Esquire Magazine Article - Your Thoughts

G

goaliedad

Parent
10-Year Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,594
I'm pretty sure this article will get talked about at length.

My only questions is that the article doesn't much discuss the nature of The Shooter's retirement (voluntary?) I could see the "I'm screwed" if his retirement were other than voluntary. Regardless, you'd think that special ops personnel should get similar protection afforded to our intelligence personnel.

Those of you who can read between the lines or provide more information, please do.

Here's the link.

http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313

For all of our younger members, this is probably as good of an insight as to the thinking of special ops folks as you are going to get in a public forum.
 
I'm grateful he shot bin Laden, but 16 years aint 20. Why would he get out 4 years early? I have no idea. But he knows the rules. I can understand his concerns with security, and the government has a responsibility to some degree to protect him. But retirement? Pension? Well, he cut it 4 years too early.
 
My only question is - why didn't he just stick it out for four more years??
 
tpg said:
First, he did not retire....he seperated from the Navy at the end of his enlistment. Second, it appears that this was a personal choice. He could have just as easily left the SEAL community and had gone back to the regular Navy. But he chose to leave the Navy as a whole.
Click to expand...

My bad for using the term (retired) of the author. The Shooter never was quoted as saying he was "retired". Only the author described The Shooter as such.

My question is did he leave because he chose to (there was one reference to coming back too late) or because he didn't pass medical, or what?

I'd think someone would have asked him "What the heck are you thinking? 16^=20 years! Maybe not? Or are these guys just too burnt out to deal with something other than the here and now?
 
tpg said:
From what I am reading, he left on his own accord. He knew that without that 20 year mark, he would get nothing. So whether he got bad advice, made a decision in haste, or out of stress makes no difference now.

There are plenty of options for military members to transition to other roles upon re-enlistment. He just chose not to do so. This happens all the time and honestly, I have little sympathy for those who chose this path.
Click to expand...

I agree that special ops deserve no special discount on retirement requirements.

I would hope though (and it would be good policy - we don't want to read about hit squads) that the US Government extends former special ops forces who have been involved in the war on terror some semblance of protection of identity similar to those of former intelligence operatives (not that it is that much).
 
goaliedad said:
I agree that special ops deserve no special discount on retirement requirements.

I would hope though (and it would be good policy - we don't want to read about hit squads) that the US Government extends former special ops forces who have been involved in the war on terror some semblance of protection of identity similar to those of former intelligence operatives (not that it is that much).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link goaliedad. Good read. There was a hint in the article that he probably had to put up with a great deal of bull when they thought he was the guy writing the book. I expect one factor was that he was fed up with that. Another might be the TV cameras on the homes of the VA Seal Team community. Also that the word got out so fast to others that he was the Shooter. Seems to me there was a violation of trust in there somewhere. So I think he left voluntarily, perhaps with some reason.
 
If he is that worried about security, why is he talking to a public magazine?
with the amount of information given or alluded to in the article, it would not take much for a second rate reporter trying to kickstart his career to figure out who he is.
 
Last edited:
For the record, at least one person on this site has met the individual in question. Finding him would be harder than you think.
 
So one person out of 100 active people on a website have met him? Seems a little public for me.

If his actions put him in danger, the U.S. federal government has an obligation to afford him some protection.

But retirement? Pension? Anything like that? No.

But what is also true, if you want a low profile, don't give interviews... that will be talked about. How long until someone wants an interview, for big bucks, that atributes the info to him. Does he say no? (he shouldn't even have the conversation).

Where does he get a job? Can't put "shot bin laden" on the resume (I guess he could, but it would be wise...)
 
LineInTheSand said:
Where does he get a job? Can't put "shot bin laden" on the resume (I guess he could, but it would be wise...)
Click to expand...

And that's part of what he wants to highlight here. The difficulty of getting a job. None of it can go on their resume. I suspect even if they put just Navy SEAL, when someone does a check, the Navy probably denies it. I even think they should deny it for security reasons. Quite the conundrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top