Danger of the Obama Administration's loose lips

  • Print
  • 16 Comments
  • Favorite
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close

During World War II, posters displaying the slogan "Loose lips might sink ships" reminded service members and civilians alike to avoid indiscreet discussions about secure information that could be exploited by the enemy and used against America during wartime. People understood that freedom of speech did not give them license to spill their guts because national security was vital to victory, and victory was paramount to America's survival.

But that was then. Today, we have an administration that embraces a "Loose Lips For Political Expediency" philosophy. (No, I'm not talking about Vice President Biden.) Case in point: A headline I read the other day titled "SEALs becoming (the) face of Obama's defense strategy." Say, what?

Until this administration drew them to the light (like a bug zapper), SEAL Team Six was, for all intents and purposes, a figment of our imaginations - the stuff little (and big) boys dream about, and a terrorist's biggest nightmare. This group of "quiet professionals" is quite content doing their job backstage without a spotlight and would prefer to keep it that way. Nonetheless, they were mentioned yet again in the State of the Union address. Obama claimed the mission was successful "because every member of that unit trusted each other" knowing someone was "watching your back."

Obama was partially correct, but someone with a bit more (38 years) experience has another take as to why the operation was successful. Admiral Eric Olson, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command and former Navy SEAL, spoke to a group at Aspen Institute last summer. Olson explained the raid was successful "because nobody talked about it."

Oh, the shock and awe one must experience after accomplishing such an extraordinary feat only to discover your commander-in-chief cannot "watch your back" because he won't keep his lips zipped (to the unaware: unzipped lips are worse than unzipped pants. Ask Bill Clinton).

In the address, Obama accurately quantified getting bin Laden was apolitical and said everyone in the Situation Room was unified in purpose. He failed to mention the "Loose Lips" pact agreed upon by those in the room (I guess he left it out because it didn't last long). Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said everyone agreed to "not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden." Gates said it "all fell apart on Monday, the next day."

What about the word "secret" does the Obama administration not get? They are now under investigation by the Inspectors General of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) per a Jan. 5 press release by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

The investigation is underway because the administration purportedly granted "high level access" of information to Hollywood filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow and Sony Pictures for the making of a film about the bin Laden operation. King claims the information may put operators and their families in danger and said some "in the intelligence and special operation communities express support" for the probe.

In earlier correspondence to DOD and CIA inspectors general, King questioned another alleged controversial decision, which by all intents and purposes blew the cover for special operators, when filmmakers were invited to attend "a meeting with special operators and agency officers at CIA headquarters."

While everyone involved rejects the idea of foul play for political gain, it should be noted the film was originally scheduled to be released just three weeks before the November 2012 elections, which could have been an "October surprise" of Chicago politics proportion.

Obama himself said taking out bin Laden was not political, but actions subsequently emphasize the importance of having a person of sound character and disciplined tongue in the Oval Office. Had one of those been in charge, he'd have mostly like gained the trust of these clandestine cohorts by congratulating them in private - because they do what they do for love of the country, not for glory or praise. If they needed that kind of stuff, they'd run for president.

Contact syndicated columnist Susan Stamper Brown, opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate, via email: susan@susanstamperbrown.com.




  • Print
  • 16 Comments
  • Favorite
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close

Comments

  • Debunker.

    Proving your point on what? Plus how come you never ANSWER THE QUESTION. Who is “you guys” or “you people” you speak of? Pot meet kettle? You should look in the mirror. Aren’t you guilty of it for saying “SHUT THE FRAK UP!” That in itself a personal attack and that is a an insult. So don’t play victim card ish with me, while hiding behind a computer screen name. If you going to call someone Dufus, tell it to that person’s face.

    Mr. J. Williams

    February 8, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
  • wRitein,
    Thank you for proving me correct.

    You make an Apples and Oranges argument. I point that out and then go on to talk about how those like you cannot argue logically, that you cannot answer point for point but rather twist things around, use fallacious arguments like strawman arguments. and in general attack the person rather than their opinion.

    And what do you do?
    Attack me for a typo. and totally avoid my position.
    I know what your name is, Dufus. I just did not hit the "r" key hard enough apparently. I am an excellent speller. What I have never claimed to be is an excellent typist.

    But there you go attacking me rather than my points.
    Typical.
    You FAIL.
    You proved my point.

    And by the way, talking about me shouting and beating my chest like a gorilla? Who was it that got a loud shouting post removed? oh wait... that would be YOU.

    Pot, meet Kettle.
    Again, typical.

    February 8, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.
  • Digalitdper, if this were Facebook, I would hit the like button with that comment!!!

    February 8, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
  • Debunker.

    It is Writein, not witein. This isn't 1st grade.

    Mr. J. Williams.

    February 8, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
  • Witein,

    Apples and Oranges and you know it.

    Telling of a Missile defense shield as a matter of deterrence is not the same thing as divulging operational information that gets people in the field killed.

    Apples and Oranges.

    I have never understood why the other side has a total inability to argue logically.

    Rather than argue points of fact and merit, you guys twists things around, used fallacious arguments like strawmans. never a point for point factual exchange. Instead, you try to attack the other person directly, rather than argue the actual point.

    February 8, 2012 at 3:20 a.m.
  • Debunker.

    Is it political expediency or is it to ensure more peaceful options which I do not hear from you and others?

    Now Debunker since you are telling people to shut up and chest beat like King Kong, well it is good that you have knowledge of history etc. However, I do not hear you talked about a certain missile defense shield which was publicly broadcast to the public and directly to the former Russian President by no other than the Bush Administration. I mean even the Russians, the Chin-Coms, and the Iranians have known the location of the faculties of the shield system in Europe.

    MMMMMMM I don’t hear you on that one. Is it because Bush administration or the neo-cons reflect your conservative “Good Ole Boy” narrative or is it because simply President Obama (not Obama or King Obama) is in the White House?

    Mr. Williams

    February 7, 2012 at 10:41 p.m.
  • JD.

    You aren't always right yourself.

    Mr. Williams

    February 7, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
  • I take it that Mike has never been at the "pointy end of the spear" he can sit back and talk smack about violating OPSEC because his arse is not on the line.

    let me spell it out for you and to the Administration. SHUT THE FRAK UP!
    You don't discuss things of an operational nature for political expediency!!!!!!

    Doing so GETS PEOPLE KILLED!
    OUR people!

    Let me tell you a bit of history. Back to WW2

    Congressman Andrew J May was a ranking member of the House Military Affairs Committee. As part of his duties, he visited Pearl Harbor where he received many an intelligence and operational briefings.

    One such briefing included the detail that the Japanese had no idea of the depth capabilities of our submarines. As a consequence, the Japs were setting their depth charges too shallow and our subs could easily dive deeper than the depth charges were set for.

    Congressman May went back home and to show just how important he was, he held a press conference when he revealed that fact to American newspapers. Naturally the information made public found it's way back to Japan where the oversight was immediately taken care of.

    Vice Admiral Charles Lockwood, Commander of Submarine Forces, Pacific (COMSUBPAC) was livid angry! In a communique to Admiral Edwards he wrote, " "I hear that Congressman May has said the Jap depth charges are not set deep enough. ... He would be pleased to know the Japs set'em deeper now!"

    Later it will be shown that as many as ten Submarines and nearly 800 sailors are now on "Eternal patrol" because of Congressman May.

    Oh yes, and one other thing...
    Mike,
    You and the other liberals will be pleased to know. Congressman May.... was a democrat.

    Who could not KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT when it comes to OPSEC.

    February 7, 2012 at 7:48 p.m.
  • What else does one expect from the celebrity and chief. We might as well fax ours and our allies plans months in advance.

    February 4, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
  • Writein...I'll say this to you and then leave it alone...saying it loud doesn't make you right.

    February 4, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
  • He doesn't get it? Haven't you figured out by now President Obama doesn't publicize his plans?

    February 3, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
  • And you are saying that you know better than the Secretary of Defense plus " Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a security forum attended by some of Israel’s top intelligence and military leaders, declared that time was running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into newly constructed mountain bunkers. The Defense Minister said, "“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” Barak said. He switched from Hebrew to English for the last phrase: “later is too late.”

    This was not leaked by Panetta and has been know for some time..And Bush had everything in place is a fantasy..Obama's Robert Gates did not want to go after Bin Laden,read the entire story.

    I don't except the right to do nothing but criticize but seems to me after the Iraq blunder they would keep quite.

    BTW Either of know what's going on behind doors and through back channels.

    February 3, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
  • Seriously Mike? Everything that happened to them was put in play by the previous administration. I will give credit to Obama for staying the course though and we are better for it. No, they don't get it. Bringing media attention and focus to a unit like Seal Team Six does them no good and will in the long run make it more difficult for them to operate. Paneta announcing the possible plans of an ally was an embarrassment. Iran may have known of Israel's intentions but then again maybe they didn't. The element of surprise is of great value in most military operations.

    February 3, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.
  • lol..Tell Bin laden and all the al Qaeda leaders this administration doesn't get it.

    February 3, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
  • Today's release by Leon Paneta, regarding the belief that Israel will attack Iran in the next several months, was another perfect example. Of course I'm sure Paneta's release was intended to cause Israel pause in their plans, knowing that now Iran was being forewarned. This administration just does not get it.

    February 3, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.