Col David Hunt: US balked at killing bin Laden back in August
posted at 5:25 pm on October 25, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Uncle Jimbo reacted to this piece the same way I did.
We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys — now, pull the damn trigger.
Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.
My reaction can be succinctly put as “Wha..? Why?” along with another word or two that’ll remain my own.
Did we really have bin Laden with 70% certainty and refuse to kill him? Down in comments on Uncle J’s post, “The Wolf” offers a few bullet points that might or might not have factored into this scenario, if it happened.
1. 2 snipers face charges multiple times in taking out known baddie
2. Said snipers were cleared by CID and others, but charged again on direction of LTG Kearney
3. Said LTG’s actions could possible cause ‘double-think’ in field personnel actions when facing enemy
4. ”The One” (Luttrell) said in his book they worried more about rear-echelon reactions and the media more than Taliban or AQ.
Are we overlawyering the war to the point that our troops won’t even kill bin Laden himself without worrying what the legal eagles may accuse them of after the fact? I hate to think that that may be true, but after so many cases of overzealousness on the part of the military against its own, it sure is possible.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Remind me again why we elect so many lawyers to congress?
EricPWJohnson on October 25, 2007 at 5:29 PM
What did the Wolf mean in the comments when he said he saw the exact same thing when they had “Mookie” in their sights?
Mindcrime on October 25, 2007 at 5:30 PM
This reminds me of athletes who say that they’re 85% healthy. Yeah, right.
When I read anything less than 100% – it’s nothing but speculation. But, then again, speculation is all that Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS ……………… have.
This % crap is asinine.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 5:30 PM
This is just unacceptable.
LETS GET REAL OR GET OUT
400lb Gorilla on October 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Sooooooo…the drones quit following the convoy? Was there a shift change or something?
PatrickS on October 25, 2007 at 5:38 PM
pic’s or it didnt happen.
trailortrash on October 25, 2007 at 5:38 PM
70%? What the hell does that mean? It’s either Osama or it’s not.
SoulGlo on October 25, 2007 at 5:43 PM
If this is true, then we can expect a movie to come out about it in a few months. It will be like the one that showed Clinton/Berger not killing UBL, except the only difference will be the Clintons won’t try to stop it from coming out. For all the talk in the press on how a “chilling affect” in the intel community was created by the “outing” of Plame, there is no talk about how Congress itself, along with so called “human rights groups,” have chilled our guys in fighting the good fight. Worthless pricks, they are!
Weight of Glory on October 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Are we fighting a war or not? Washington needs to make up its mind. The military should be making these decisions, not some stupid lawyer. This is sick. No, insane.
katieanne on October 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
P.S. If you had Bin Hidin’ “in your sights,” would you cap him? Would you concern yourself with “rear-echelon reactions and the media.”
I’m capping the Pig. And, I’d proudly go to Fort Leavenworth for disobeying orders – if that’s what it came down to.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Amen, brother.
Mindcrime on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM
We just awared a Medal of Honor to a man who could have killed a few shepards and live to be called a war criminal everyday in the media but he let them go and it cost him his life and the lives of several Navy Seals and the media gives him five minutes recogonition as a hero and then itosses him and his sacrifice down the memory hole.
In short, sadly, the OBL story is probably true. Afterall, who wants to be called a Nazi and war criminal by
Keith Fv
RobCon on October 25, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Look, if we got this close, we can do it again. It’s just a matter of time. Maybe next years “October Surprise”?
csdeven on October 25, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Karl von Clausewitz said this about military intelligence reports: ” Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory, even more are false, and most are uncertain.”
Col. David Hunt, while I admire his service, can’t know a tinker’s damn about what’s going on anymore than any of us could. His security clearances have long lasped. Again, I admire his tenacity and service, but I’ll let Petraeus and others tell me what’s going on there.
MNDavenotPC on October 25, 2007 at 5:51 PM
How could this be confirmed? I have respect for Col. Hunt. I just have such a hard time believing that we would pass on the chance… If it is true, yeah, outrage would probably be the proper response.
nailinmyeye on October 25, 2007 at 5:53 PM
The intel community does not use percentages for confidence levels.
I think this story is probably bogus.
NPP on October 25, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Hunt is no longer in the hunt. He needs to move along to the pasture.
Wade on October 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I don’t know where Hunt ot his info and if it’s accurate but I have no faith in him and I hate to say that about a local guy who is clearly a hero. I hear him often enough on local radio to know he gets a lot of stories conflated and often seems to be exaggerating. I remember him on BOR a few years ago claiming we had killed a HVT (I think it was UBL) and said, “It’s all over but the DNA.” That’s the kind of bad info I’m talking about. Maybe he’s right in this case, but I want to hear it from a more reliable source.
TheBigOldDog on October 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I can totaly believe this story.
As of now, EVERY American casulty has to have an outside investigation as to circumstances (because of Pat Tillman).
As of now, almost every time an American Weapon is fired, it is legaly quesitoned.
You have a civilian convoy… you have a pretty good Idea Osama is there, but no “smoking gun”… it is NOT a combat situation… and while the Chain of Command dithers because this does not fit our overly legalized Rules of Engagement… they get away over the border into Pakistan… where Musharif is having political problems.
Problem is that the war is being run by politicians and lawyers… not the military.
Romeo13 on October 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM
.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Ok, I wrote my comment before I read any other comments. Glad to see others know what I am talking about. I hate to say it about him. He grew up a few towns away.
I bet this is his “take” on the NYT story about the raid Rummy called off. I’ve heard his take on that incident morph and I bet this his latest exaggerated version of it.
TheBigOldDog on October 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Another possibility is that the collateral cost was to high. Osama was probably riding in a car load of kids and I don’t know that I would pull the trigger on that one.
I also will wait to hear from Petraus before I believe this report.
jdog on October 25, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Certainly will bolster the truthers’ claim that Osama is Bush boogie man, won’t it?
The lawyers in D.C. are really just aiding in their own demise. Al-Qa’ida is going to get WMD, and Washington is their target.
PRCalDude on October 25, 2007 at 6:13 PM
During WW2, we burned whole cities full of kids. From Hamburg and Dresden to Tokyo and Kobe. If it’s all about the kids, then let’s just end this matter and leave Bin Hidin’ alone. We’ll hear from him later – rest assured.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 6:16 PM
As much as this story may be false, the salient point is that if such a scenario was to happen, it would not surprise me if the order to kill never came. I have a feeling Bush does not want to kill bin laden. He may have had his brain, whatever there is of it, tainted by the likes of Karen Hughes, his infidel muslim apologist advisor, and others like her, who may have convinced him that killing bin laden would just anger the muslim world much more than it is, including endangering Musharraf’s regime that much more, so nothing good will come of it. He may believe it is better not to kill him, lest it stir up a hornets nest.
As head-shaking as that is, I’m afraid we live in a world where politics trumps all else. Bush has always shown himself to be very sensitive to these types of political issues in this so-called war.
jihadwatcher on October 25, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Nicely said. I put nothing beyond the capacity of the politicians. Absolutely, unequivocally – nothing.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 25, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I must have missed the original report on this or is this the first news of it. If the latter, then … what’s Col Hunt’s reputation — I don’t have cable and have never heard of him. How reliable is he in his fact-gathering, confirmation and reporting? I can understand his frustation but his post on the subject seems a might bit cavilier in both attitude and degree with which he reports this scoop, since it is a serious charge.
No sources either. He doesn’t even note that there are anonymous ones.
Dusty on October 25, 2007 at 6:29 PM
“Osama was probably riding in a car load of kids and I don’t know that I would pull the trigger on that one”
I hope to heck this is not what happened. Because if we’ve got people looking down sights that are squeamish about taking down likely future terrorist camel jockeys and preventing the taking of the big fish, our military is in a lot of trouble.
rayvet on October 25, 2007 at 6:30 PM
more info needed, please.
Lots more.
Mike D. on October 25, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Mookie=Muqtada al-Sadr
baldilocks on October 25, 2007 at 6:32 PM
If the cases of Ilario Pantano and the accused at Haditha didn’t answer that question in the affirmative already, then this most certainly should.
The so-called military “justice” system has been absolutely out of control in this conflict. It’s time to reign them in and let our soldiers and marines do their jobs.
thirteen28 on October 25, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Thanks, baldi!
Mindcrime on October 25, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Very skeptical on this. It seems awfully convenient to the thesis of Hunt’s book.
I mean, if they had a SEAL team nearby they didn’t have to just hit the convoy and hope it wasn’t a busload of widows and handicapped kids, they could have pulled them over to check them out first.
And we took out Zarqawi knowing full well there were other people there.
TallDave on October 25, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Please excuse the naiveté of this non-military American, but WTF place do lawyers have in any war?!?!? I thought the whole point in war is to kill the enemy! Arrrgh…
infidel4life on October 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Hmmh, personally I’ve had questions about Col Hunt since he said (way back in the early days of the war) that all of those prisoners had been killed (who of course were later released). I mean he was looking into the camera, dead eyed and said that his “contacts” told them they were all dead. Well, they weren’t dead but he was never called on it by Fox (at least that I remember seeing could have happened at a later time).
Just wondering that’s all.
Catie96706 on October 25, 2007 at 6:50 PM
[TallDave on October 25, 2007 at 6:46 PM]
Okay, I had to check Long War Journal for a date because this is waht bthered me about this post of Hunt’s.
We returned to Tora Bora the 15 of August, so I am sure we had Special Teams in the area, armed Predators hovering and aircraft loitering 24/7 as well as portions of all the other assets he mentions. We were probably monitoring communications there 24/7 to pick things up generally. This would have all been going on even if we were 100% certain Osama was somewhere in NYC, because we had begun a major mission to kick the crap out of the Taliban/AQ that had come back there.
Maybe there was a sighting but Hunt’s writeup makes this all sound like it was all done because of the sighting of a white truck heading south from Tora Bora. (Can a pickup even head south from Tora Bora?)
No date range, just the month of August. No hint as to the source of his scoop. No nail down on the “we” in the certainty calculation, how long the window of opportunity was, and whether we were certain in real time or or after the window had gone by.
Lastly, I have to ask, why is this top-of-the-hour FoxNews type story relegated to Col Hunt’s blog at Fox News?
I’m not calling Bullshit and I’m not calling it a Scoop, but Hunt needs to “put up or shut up”.
Dusty on October 25, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Wondering if this is even true in the first place. Wait a bit and see…
But if it IS true, this was bin Laden, for chrissakes! What the hell’s wrong with shootin’ NOW and worrying about backlash later. I would think that with all the donks’ bitching about how Bush has NOT found/caught/killed bin Laden, that the backlash couldn’t be very serious anyway!
>:- [
leepro on October 25, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Sorry for the B******t word. I won’t use it with out the *’s again.
Dusty on October 25, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Mmmmm…I think I want to see more facts. I find it hard to believe that anyone with 70% certainty that the target was UBL would have hesitated to pull the trigger.
Gawd, I hope I’m not wrong.
flipflop on October 25, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Why is my comment “awaiting moderation?” Have I been a bad girl? Am I on probation or something?
:/
leepro on October 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM
70% IS good enough. We can’t wait for 100%, it may never happen.
.
Who was in the convoy, if we know it’s terrorists or at least one terrorist, we kill them. PERIOD.
Anything over 67% (even 68% sure) is good enough, pull the f*%kin trigger.
.
Bush said “You’re either with us or against us” and he meant it then and the public supported him 100% (or close).
We’re losing the battle because of the Murtha/peloser/reid Liberal WIMPS!
I STILL believe it should be that way, so if a terrorist is running in a convoy… kill him and everyone near him.
THEY HAVE ALL BEEN WARNED!
.
Hang with a bad guy & you might die suddenly.
shooter on October 25, 2007 at 7:29 PM
[leepro on October 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM]
I got the same thing on my second to last one, which is the explanation for my last one.
Dusty on October 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM
You need a spanking.
infidel4life on October 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Because it keeps them out of polite society.
highhopes on October 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM
My heart sank on this one Bryan!
Pam on October 25, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Tough Choice = who do you trust less for the truth, the media, or the intelligence community?
Bing. If this is true, it will be impossible to explain, and the administration and military hierarchy will have Nowhere to Hide. More likely 70% is as meaningless as it sounds, and the couldn’t justify the exposure of their intelligence for the distinct possibility that it was not him.
Jaibones on October 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I think the legal aspect is incidental. Dhimmitude is as much a mental condition as it is an aspect of Islamic law. There was a great article on Frontpage a while back by some guy who was arguing that the West is and always has been suffering from a psychological crisis as regards Islam. He says why do we calls the conquerors of Spain the Moors when it would be more logical to call them the Muslims. He recounts the dhimmitude of Britain, France and America in submitting to the Barbary Pirates until Thomas Jefferson (there was a man) let ‘em have it. It is a sort of mental reluctance if you get my drift.
aengus on October 25, 2007 at 8:24 PM
I’m calling BS. Oh, I don’t doubt that the over-lawyered ROE scenario is within the realm of probability, but OBL is DEAD, and has been for a long time.
And as the first boss of SEAL Team 6 taught; “It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.” So I doubt that a ST6 team shooter would hesitate if he had a clear shot at that particular target.
I like Hunt OK, but he has been badly wrong several times, and downright stupidly wrong a couple of times that I have seen.
He’s not quite the authority that Fox News think he is.
LegendHasIt on October 25, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Saddam Hussein “employed” multiple doppelgangers to throw assassins off his scent.
aengus on October 25, 2007 at 8:26 PM
why is anyone waiting for Petraeus’ opinion? Isn’t he in charge of Iraq?
And, yes, we in the military are increasing afraid of political “second guessing” than of the enemy. I don’t blame the military… I blame the US media (who are vultures who have shown they are more about $$$ and ratings than their country) and the democrats (who are more than willing to use the vultures stories… true or not, as a political club for those they do not agree with…) again at the expense of our country.
BadBrad on October 25, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I think you’re more probably right than the rest of us armchair generals. 70, 72, 75, even 85% is a long way from 95 or 98%. Better to be a little more sure of the target than to expose intelligence AND position.
leepro on October 25, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Sorry Bryan but OBL is, or isn’t in this alleged convoy.
The 70% is a dynamic variable and this convoy takes time and terrain to get from A to B. I’m sure it was followed, … I mean with a 70% “level of certainty” :)
Let’s not overdo “we know”.
Randy
williars on October 25, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I heard this story a few days ago on Fox and Friends, but I could not believe what I was hearing.
How many opportunities are we going to intentionally pass over? There is no excuse.
madmonkphotog on October 25, 2007 at 9:26 PM
shooter, I don’t think that’s the point. I know some commenters are sharing that sentiment, but I don’t believe for a second that the military would hold their fire because of who Bin Laden is with. They will kill him and everyone who looks like him with great relish, but I suspect that they want to be sure it’s him.
Killing kids is
a probleminexcusable if they’re innocent Afghanis and Bin Laden is nowhere in sight, right?Let’s save the faux outrage for a good reason.
Jaibones on October 25, 2007 at 10:12 PM
That’s all I’m sayin’.
Jaibones on October 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Reminds me of last year when the brass decided not to kill the top Taliban leaders at a funeral because ROE didn’t allow attacks in a cemetery: http://michellemalkin.com/2006/09/13/what-the/
So do I believe the story is plausible? You betcha. I was getting excited about the results of the surge in Iraq. Now I am sliding back into the stance of “fight the damn war or bring them home”. Throughout these conflicts I am often reminded of Lincoln’s famous comment, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.” I believe the cause is just, however, I do not believe that leaving our soldiers in harms way and then hamstringing them so that they can neither win nor on some occasions even defend themselves without fearing legal charges, is remotely moral or fair to those who are willing to lay down their lives to defend us. If they will not be allowed to win, then bring them home immediately.
If this story is true I will be beyond angry at our gov’t.
deepdiver on October 25, 2007 at 10:16 PM
If this is true then I have lost even more respect for the current administration, this is something I would expect from the demo-craps (happened quite often in the Clintoon adminstration) and it not only makes me seethe at our government but also makes me even more concerned about the way we are waging this war and if we’re really serious about winning!
We need to win this war and it’s way past taking the gloves off, and it’s about damn time Bush and the administration back up his words right after 9-11, something about going after these animals and taking them out, dead or alive!
If It were me manning one of the drones or aircraft with that ass-turbin Osama in my sights it would have been BOMBS AWAY BABY…buh-bye scum bag, and I hope you rot in HELL!!
Even if it meant spending years in a military prison, I’d do it in a heart beat!!
Liberty or Death on October 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Well said, politics/PC and war don’t mix at all! It’s time to take the gloves of already. I’m certain we wouldn’t get the same consideration from our enemy! It’s foolish and folly to give any quarter to your enemy during war, either you fight to win or you pack it up!
As for the innocent civilians that may be killed in the cross fire, while it’s sad and regretful it’s a part of war and the “innocent civilians” that are hanging out with ass-turbin Osama have to know he’s got a great big bullseye on him and you’re taking your life in your hands being within a one mile radious of him!
Bottom line is don’t lay with a murdering jihadist if you don’t want to get blowed up!
Liberty or Death on October 25, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Over-lawyering the war? Your enemies and I have in common that we have no respect for your laws of war.
Kralizec on October 26, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Twenty-five million buck reward would get you a decent lawyer. Providing the Feds paid up, of course.
Texas Nick 77 on October 26, 2007 at 5:52 AM
If he is hiding behind some kids, they are being told it is a great leader and they should be honored to be near him. And in a few years, they too will be jihadhis we have to fight.
And obl, like all the rest of his terrorist minions, show the world how really brave they are: hiding behind kids.
Texas Nick 77 on October 26, 2007 at 6:02 AM
ROFLMAO. Now THAT is funny.
Texas Nick 77 on October 26, 2007 at 6:07 AM
Note that the piece doesn’t say WHY the attack was not carried out.
The implication is that it was a lawyer’s call, but it may not have been.
The rest of COL Hunt’s article is exceedingly thin on facts. And actually, the “70% certainty” bit is only mentioned in passing.
Odds are this was an offhand comment relayed to COL Hunt absent much in the way of evidence.
greenonions on October 26, 2007 at 7:44 AM
Or multiple confirming sources.
70%?? Did they take a poll of the SEAL team or something?
BacaDog on October 26, 2007 at 8:05 AM
A target in the crosshair is either the correct target or -not-. It’s 100% or no shot. If he was seen getting into the convoy, then the convoy should have been smoked. Erase a whole bunch of bandits with one swift stroke.
dogsoldier on October 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Perhaps by allowing Bin Hidin’ to go back to the hole where he’s been hidin’, we can A) monitor his movements more closely B) monitor those coming & going more closely C) do more damage by dismantling AQ from the top down vs bottom up.
Kind of like letting the street dealers deal so you can smoke out the kingpins (no pun).
Biffstir on October 26, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Comment pages: