Regarding the 20 or 21 US Navy Seals that were just killed: Why were so many of them in one helicopter at the same time?

That’s a good question, but then you have to deal with the logistics of handling several copters instead of one.

I’ve kind of wondered this too. Now granted on some missions the mass of seals, or any special forces, would be ideal… But if I’m not mistaken the Seals are designed to work in small teams of around 4. In fact I remember reading about a failed attempt to use a large number of Seals (I think 20–30) in central or south America in the late 80’s or 90’s (I THINK Panama but I’m honestly not sure) that cost the lives of like a dozen or more Seals because they were operating outside their training.

Whatever the reasoning though, tragic outcome.

According to a news release, they were on a rescue mission of some kind. My question is what were they attempting to rescue that it took that many soldiers?

Also, it stated that one of the seals was involved in the capture of Bin Laden.

Is something fishy here?

Budget cuts

It’s a Chinook. They’re designed to transport as many people as possible.

FYI Chinooks were involved in the bin Laden op. There were ~80 SEALs altogether flying on Chinooks in reserve. The fabled stealth helicopters were only for the actual assault, and they had to bring in a spare Chinook when one of the stealth copters fell.

I’m ashamed at myself for even letting this thought cross my mind. I don’t want to feel this way, I really don’t. And I’m sure my passing thought is a product of my growing distrust in our gov and media. I’m very sorry for the families and the entire tragedy.

But I cannot help but sniff a scent of foul play. @josie suggests budget cuts could be part of the problem. I have no doubt that may be true. But what better way to instill a rejuvenation of public support for spending than to have Americans face the deaths of so many heroic men, (men that recently experienced a wave of unparalleled public support and admiration for recent accomplishments).

At this stage in the war, how is it that a tragedy such as this could become manifest? Earlier on, sure. I would have thought the engagement would have produced many similar tragedies. But now? On the brink of ending it all? Now?

Something doesn’t add up.

The Chinook can carry upto 55 people + crew. Also 38 people died in the crash (not all were Navy Seal). The troops are meant to face harm so I guess there safety isn’t the top most concern. Mission probably made them choose a loadout of atleast 38 people per helicopter. If they were VIPs for some reason…then probably better arrangements could have made. I think there can be a lot speculation since no details about their mission are present.

So you have 30 people that need to get somewhere quickly and efficiently.

You have a vehicle that will carry 30 people quickly and efficiently.

So it’s suspicious and unwise that they didn’t instead load 15 people on to two vehicles, doubling the amount of coordination needed to get people where they need to go?

I’m so confused.

“ball teams” travel together, on one plane/bus/train, assuming they can all fit

I don’t really see why anyone would think this is fishy. It was a lucky shot with an RPG.

SEALs routinely do rescue missions. From what I read the Taliban had a company pinned down somewhere, so they flew in special ops. That’s standard.

As for downing a Chinook, this war has been going on for ten years. It’s really not remarkable that the insurgents would get a lucky shot like this eventually.

You people and your conspiracy theories… how’s that whole bin Laden fake death theory working out?

Also, a single helicpoter makes less noise than two or more so its probably a better option if you do not want to attract much attention.

@Qingu I fully expressed my shame for even letting the thought cross my mind. Conspiracy theorists don’t work like that. You, as the prince of skeptics, should understand that.

I work with a guy who is in the reserves (has been for 20 years – he’s in his 50’s and ready to retire from my job) and he said he thinks something’s fishy, too. Hopefully, if so, an investigation will find it out. If not, then us conspiracy theorists will be proven wrong!

I don’t understand what could possibly be fishy.

Maybe it would help if one of the conspiracy theorists explained the framework for the alternate theory. Because all I’m seeing is

”~30 SEALs just got killed? No way!”

“No way indeed. Something must be fishy.”

@Qingu – Conspiracy theories are pretty tricky. “Something’s fishy” is sufficient for some people to demand proof that will rid them of that fishy feeling. Any evidence that is served up, however, will be met with complaints of fishiness.

[edit – I was tempted to put in a sarcastic conspiracy theory here, but then realized that I’d really be just adding fish to the fire]

If that’s all you’re “seeing”, then cool. People don’t always “see” the same things. As I said, I’m probably wrong and simply jaded by my growing distrust for gov and media. Not a good place to be and I’m trying no to weigh current facts against past exploitations. I’ll try to put this into proper perspective and just let the investigators work things out. My jaded “view” does not contribute to truthful investigation, and I certainly wouldn’t want it to.

There is a difference between skepticism and legitimate distrust of government and media, and assuming every single thing reported by government and media is a total fabrication for no apparent reason.

History is rife with examples of wars beginning by swaying public opinion. That is just as much of an historical fact as any evidence presented in this current situation. All facts and evidence should be weighed.

I encourage a full investigation and will accept whatever comes out of it. I certainly hope this isn’t another “latest tragedy… ok next customer” scenario.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I think most people think even more after the incident than before, why the hell are we still over there?

no doubt @JLeslie. and some will use this tragedy as justification to answer that question.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies So that thought process works against the conspiracy you suggest.

I’m not suggesting conspiracy. I’m suggesting that it shouldn’t be discounted as impossible.

@JLeslie, you actually expect a conspiracy theory to be coherent? That’s the whole point of conspiracy theories: a double standard. If there’s the slightest oddity or seeming lack of complete evidence to a “mainstream” theory, it’s discounted. But the conspiracy theory has no burden to propose any evidence whatsoever, or even a consistent or sensible set of motives for the alleged actors.

That’s what makes conspiracy theories so fun. Anyone can do it, it takes no effort whatsoever, and you get to feel cool and privy to secret anti-authority knowledge on top of it all.

Nothing should ever be discounted – sure. But you can’t bring every possibility up without evidence just because it can’t be discounted. It can’t be discounted that you are wearing a blonde wig and pink dress right now. But why should I even bring that up?

“But why should I even bring that up?”

It shouldn’t be brought up, because you’ve never seen me in a blonde wig and pink dress. You’ve never even heard of such a thing about me.

A better scenario would be to take a stroll through strange woodlands. Will you or will you not be cautious and mindful of defensive mother bears? You haven’t seen any on this hike, but you know for fact that others have been harmed by them in that same forest. It would be foolish to overlook the possibility of their existence.

Even this OP questions the integrity of orders given to place so many soldiers into one basket. Does that point to conspiracy just because the question is considered?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I completely agree that there have been and continue to be real conspiracies. It seems to me, however, that sometimes there is a reflexive jump to conspiracy theory among many people even though there is no evidence for one. (For example, a study comes out that doesn’t support your beliefs – conspiracy!)

I don’t support the current occupation of Afghanistan, and most of US foreign policy. As far as I’m concerned, I have no idea what is going on over there really. But what evidence is there for me to start saying that this copter downing is “fishy”? I think it sucks, and I think those people died in vain, but I will claim “fishy” when there is evidence for it.

I go out into the forest often. Years ago, I came across a mother black bear and her 3 cubs. When I hear a noise in the forest now, do I think “aaah – a black bear”, or do I think “hmm…there is a sound. I wonder what that sound is.”. Obviously, it’s the latter. Sometimes it’s a chipmunk, sometimes it’s a deer, and sometimes it’s just an old branch falling to the ground.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies but Chinooks regularly transport that many troops. That’s what a Chinook does. And the SEALs that took out bin Laden flew in crowded Chinooks as well.

Also, helicopters in general crash all the time. They’re pretty fragile instruments.

Yes I’m trying to keep a good perspective on this. Discussions such as these prevent my mind from running away with itself. Should refocus my attention to sharing sorrow with the suffering families involved.

The usual American practice in Iraq and Afghanistan is for the QRF to be made up of US Army Rangers… and for them to ride in one or two Chinooks, while the team carrying out the assault normally flies in a pair of Blackhawks… On Saturday, for some operational reason, this usual practice was reversed and the Seals ended up flying into action as QRF to back up some Rangers carrying out a raid who had got into a heavy fire fight.

the fulcrum of truth swings upon the “for some operational reason, this usual practice was reversed” statement

I’m sure they had their reasons. I hope they share them with us.

Why would they share their battle tactics with us?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: “the fulcrum of truth swings upon the “for some operational reason, this usual practice was reversed” statement”

Really? This is sufficient? Does “usual” mean always? How often does it need to be to be labeled as “usual”? Even if this was the first time in history that they did this, does the fact that they were shot down mean that there was some conspiracy? What are we even talking about here? What is the proposed conspiracy exactly? I hear “fish” and “fishy”, but what exactly are people hinting at here?

That’s the most direct answer to the question. IMHO, the metanarrative at work is propaganda. I would think SEALs are generally meant to operate under the radar, so the main reason to air all this laundry is for propaganda purposes.

Will you deny that the truth is found in answering that one statement @tom_g? It simply suggests that all evidence has not been collected. I have no reason to believe they will share tactics with us @Qingu. But I do have hope that they will.

Sharing my hope does not justify hearing “fishy” in my current words. Hearing things in my current words that have not been said is just as much leaping to conclusions as accusations of conspiracy.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – On her way home from work, Linda was hit by someone who blew a red light. Linda usually takes the other way home, so she usually doesn’t go through that intersection.

Ok. End of story. Wait….unless I suspect that Linda is having an affair, which is why she took a different way home! Holy crap.
What is it that you suspect happened that is making this stated variation from the norm (still could happen 49.9% of the time) reason to discuss this further?

You’ll never know the “operational reason”, and really, you’ll never even know if these people are dead. Maybe they’re locked up in an underground prison being used for cosmetics testing. I can come up with a million things that might have happened. But why would I?

You are correct @tom_g. We shouldn’t see things where we haven’t actually seen them.

This is a misuse of Special Forces. They go out on these missions two or three times a night assassinating or capturing Taliban leaders. These missions have ceased to be special and have become routine. Special Forces should be reserved for special missions such as the one against Bin Laden.

This particular mission was not even aimed at Al Qaeda or foreign fighters but local people of the Tangi Valley who have a long history of resisting foreign interference.

So, let’s say 20 people you know are stationed in Afghanistan and sent to do something, it doesn’t matter what. Say people from your neighborhood, sprinkled with a few family members, some brothers, sisters, cousins, husbands, wives, whatever you like.

They get in trouble, people are shooting at them, people are dying, so they call for help.

There’s 20 highly trained soldiers nearby who can be there in a matter of minutes if they just hop on a helicopter and go. There are probably also some other soldiers who are just fine at what they do.

From some of the comments here it sounds like people would rather

a) wait for some more helicopters, so you don’t have everyone on one
b) send in some less experienced troops, so you don’t risk “special” forces
c) get someone there in a slower, safer manner

If I’m getting shot at, and I call for help, I want you to send the best people as soon as possible in whatever will get them there the quickest. I think that would be true of most folks.

When people are in a deadly situation, I don’t think it’s suspicious that standard procedures aren’t always followed. Standard procedure should be to get people in danger, out of danger, as quickly as possible.

Beyond that, you’re just mucking things up and we’re all just second guessing people who are trained to do this all day long based on what we’ve seen on TV or heard in the news.

Why were they all on one helicopter? Because that’s how it made sense at the time. It’s tragic that it didn’t work out and people died but that doesn’t mean someone screwed up.

The intent in this question is obvious.
And not to be frowned upon. It is our duty to know what is going on, not that of those oligarchs that we presume to be our voted leaders.

@Boogabooga1, it is not our duty to know the details of every single military operation.

There’s a difference between meaningful transparency and accountability, and putting live Webcams on the helmets of every soldier on the battlefield.