The concept of shooting down a transport helicopter with what is basicly a a point and shoot weapon is very basic. Average Afghani dirt farmer could accomplish it with a little luck. Enemy knew that someone was coming to rescue the previous troops in contact, so it was merely a waiting game for the backup troops. 99% surety that the shooters had no idea who was in the helicopter thye were shooting at, only that it was US forces of a high degree (depending on terrain, conventioanl forces would have just convoyed in). As to help from Afghan or Pak gov't: entirely possible - corruptioon in both organizations run rampant.
It was certainly an incredible piece of good luck for the pro AQ groups to kill so many of the SEAL men who killed their leader.
Regarding reporting of special forces missions etc. In the UK there is one military and political line taken, bar none: 'We do not comment on special forces operations' So, yes I think it very weird any story comes out so quick. Rumours in the military abound like anywhere else but I would expect hard facts about special ops to usually be the last to come out? I have one problem with the SEAL mission to get Bin Laden. It is a fact that the SEAL guys are as well trained as any SF force worldwide and it should have been relatively easy for them to take Bin Laden alive. I do not believe for one minute that the order to shoot on sight would have been given because of the risk to the SEALs. These guys are put in harms way ALL the time and they are chosen for their strength of mind as much as their abilities. If they had been tasked to bring Bin Laden in alive if possilbe, I have little doubt they would have done just that. The only explanation I can see is that they were ordered to kill him, no if's or but's. So the question is why would such an order have been given. Bear in mind the intelligence GOLDMINE that a captured Bin Laden would have been. In military/intelligence terms that would have made it an acceptable risk to those ordering the mission. I cannot help thinking those in charge did not want Bin Laden alive, no doubt cos of all the dirt he could have exposed - even if one does not believe in any 9/11 conspiracy, remember Bin Laden was with the Mujahadeen when it was backed by the CIA. I have no doubt whatsoever Bin Laden would have had major dirt to embarrass the US, if not many western governments. In saying all this I want to be clear that I have no doubts about the SEAL team or their honour and professionalism. At the end of the day, people in the military follow orders and if the mission is in question, question the order-givers. I have worked with the UK equivalent of the SEALs (not in a combat situation, having never had active service) and I know our guys would have happily tried to take Bin Laden alive, and I've no doubt the SEALs would have also. Again, I only question the orders?
Capturing him alive would have created more terrorism. His supporters would have hijacked planes/cruiseships/embassys etc etc etc, and demanded he be released. Dead is dead, and while that may invite a revenge attack, for as long as they held him alive, there would be attempts to free him. I personally would have ordered or at least reported him dead. The potential for ransom attempts would have been huge. Release him or i blow up this plane, killing 300. US says no. 300 dead. Same the next week and the week after and the week after.......
@mike - i disagree in as much as anyone who would actually commit an act of terrorism to free Bin Laden is already at the stage of wanting to commit a terror crime. if it is not for Bin Laden it would be for one of the multitude of excuses these people have anyway to commit such crimes. i really don't think that a captured Bin Laden would be the single reason such a person would choose to go down that path. yes, someone may use his captivity after the fact as a reason for their crime but i am sure they would have committed the crime anyway and used another reason to justify it. i think it likely that Bin Laden's death would be used as an excuse for terrorism as readily as his capture. probably no more, no less. the difference for us is that his capture could have served a varitey of uses whilst his death only really served one purpose (ridding the world of his stinking hide!). i guarrantee that if we could rewind the clock to before his death, and we asked hypothetically a number of western intelligence agencies if capturing Bin Laden for intelligence purposes would be worthwhile (and preferable to just his death) - i would put money on them giving a resounding 'YES, ALIVE' with no exceptions! i feel your arguement gives too much weight to his supporters NOT doing anything because he is dead rather than captured. i cannot envisage his supporters being any less motivated to exact revenge because he was killed rather than captured? no-one, i think, would act only if he was captured. i think as likely they would act in revenge for his death than is for them acting because they feel aggrieved he is in captivity. one cannot underestimate the valuable information we could have extracted (i do not support torture, including water-boarding but i imagine if you had seen colleagues die and suffer at the hands of the enemy, it might be easier to inflict pain on that enemy). it may be a long shot but could it have been the case that some of his supporters might have felt prevented from acting in case a captured Bin Laden was to bear the brunt of justifyable anger of his captors? just thinking outloud on that one. anyway mike, it's all academic now because he is dead (or is he?) lol. i suppose it is within the realms of possiblity that they faked his funeral etc, to keep him alive and question him, but with the world -and especially his followers-thinking him dead, so they do not protest and try to bargain for his freedom. Because i believe they should have taken him alive, i can completely believe they would fake his death. of course, that ploy would last only a short time because even with the strictes security, i have no doubts believing the news would leak out!
For me the math is in the potential and incentives. Having him alive for me suggests an increased incentive to use terrorism to free him, there is imo a greater potential for trouble in that scenario
Which is why we didn't hear about the operation until afterwards. The intelligence goldmine that was gotten from his computer, his thumb drives full of porn and other materials in the house were worth far more than anyone would have gotten from bin Laden. From all accounts he was a religious zealot. (Not saying I believe that.) So kindness won't work as a way to gain information. Torture (aka "enhanced interrogation techniques") won't work because tortured information is notoriously unreliable, and if you'll check the records you'll see that the US has not tortured any useful information out of the hundreds of people it's had in it's prisons. The best information was received from informants and intercepted phone calls. Probably the same reason that he was never charged with an actual crime, that and the fact that the bin Ladens are chummy with the Bush family. The feeling is mutual. SEALS and other special forces of all nations are some of the most dedicated professional military imaginable. The risk their lives in training, and in battle with no other thought than "completing the mission." They are to be respected for their sacrifices.
If I were sneaky, I'd take him, say he was killed in the attempt, and bury him at sea to avoid having to produce a corpse while I extracted any information I could. Hey, wait a minute!
