Did the White House watch the Bin Laden raid live via the SEALs’ helmet cams?

Turning this guy into a celebrity is a mistake. And he is an idiot for putting his name/face out there.

Moesart on February 12, 2013 at 2:02 PM

His face and name aren’t out there. No photos and no name.

dentarthurdent on February 12, 2013 at 2:14 PM

But it did indeed turn him into a celebrity, as Moesart correctly noted. And if you read the whole article, you would no doubt also concede that there are a few “personal identifiers” about the Shooter described therein.

The story also turned the author, Phil Bronstein, into a considerable publicity seeker, and as he now quite publicly pursues his apparently new-found mission of seeking additional financial and physical security for the Shooter and his family, and other warriors similarly situated, he may have unwittingly opened the door to exposing the Shooter, and himself to considerable additional risk.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I’d not be opposed in any way to a truly generous accommodation for the Shooter, or those similarly situated . . . but turning this into a public cause is, I think, a mistake.

We have been, and will continue to be dealing for the foreseeable future with a fringe of people adhering to an ideology which encourages and practices endless personal warfare and revenge-seeking, that goes by the name of “jihad.”

To some extent the notion of “blood lust” and endless revenge has been thankfully missing from the American lexicon for most of our history, though it was ever-present in the storied past, even of many of our European roots. The notion that “the South will rise again” simply never materialized because one of the secrets of American success — even following great conflicts that divided us — was that we always found a way to move on. But for the jihadists amongst us, no more!

The downside of that absence has been that many Americans simply have no idea what it can mean for the future.

When you get around to reading the entire story, dentarthurdent, please note the final few lines penned by Mr. Bronstein.

. . .
The supper table is suddenly flooded with the surge of strong emotions. Anguish, really, though they both hide it well. This is not a movie. It’s real life, where death is final and threats last forever.

The blood is your own, not fake splatter and explosive squibs.

Movies, books, lore — we all helped make these men brilliant assassins in the name of liberty, lifted them up on our shoulders as unique and exquisitely trained heroes, then left them alone in the shadows of their past.

Uncertainty will never be far away for the Shooter. His government may have shut the door on him, but he is required to live inside the consequences of his former career.

One line from the film kept resonating in my head.

An actor playing a CIA station chief warns Maya about jihadi vengeance.

“Once you’re on their list,” he says, “you never get off.”

(My emphasis)

What Bronstein may not recognize is the potential that he represents as someone who has had up-close and personal contact.

Finally, I also have some lingering doubts about the curious timing of the publication of this article, given the fact that — in addition to retelling the Abbottabad raid story — the author was also critical of the U.S. government response to those who so clearly put themselves on the line. The piece made it quite clear that the interviews were conducted back in May, in the spring of 2012, up to September. Why was publication held until now?

Trochilus on February 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM