Spec Ops Chief Sketched Out bin Laden Raid… in 1995
Choppering 25 Navy SEALs into a populated area covered by the air defenses of an unsuspecting sovereign nation. Fast-roping them down into a fortified compound containing unknown numbers of enemies. Killing or capturing the world’s most dangerous terrorist. Extracting them safely and flying them to Afghanistan the same way they came. No one can say the plan to take down Osama bin Laden was timid.
But it had a template. In 1995, William McRaven published Spec Ops, a collection of commando case studies he used to formulate what he called a “theory of special operations.” Since then, McRaven, now a three-star admiral, rose to lead the terrorist hunters of the Joint Special Operations Command, which killed bin Laden. His book, at least among the general bookbuying public, has fallen into obscurity. But the Cliff Notes were on display in Abbottabad on Sunday night.
Spec Ops isn’t exactly a field manual. But it might be considered a guide to audacity. McRaven wants to know what distinguishes a successful mission from a doomed one. Spoiler alert: “Brave men without good planning, preparation and leadership are cannon fodder in the face of defensive warfare.”
At the heart of all special operations is asymmetry. Operators attack “fortified positions,” confronting a superior force. It’s a recipe for being mowed down — unless you achieve what McRaven calls “relative superiority.” It’s a slippery concept, easy to identify after the fact and more difficult to isolate before or during a mission. Basically, it’s the point at which the commandos seize the advantage, leveraging their unique assets — “technology, training, intelligence, etc.” — to turn their opponents’ superior force into a disadvantage. It doesn’t guarantee victory; but not having it guarantees failure.
What’s individually necessary and jointly sufficient for success? According to McRaven: Keeping it simple. Keeping it secret. Rehearsing thoroughly. Surprising the enemy. Getting in and out quickly. And having a clear — and simple — purpose.
Counterintuitively, what’s needed for all of those to knit together into relative superiority is a small force. ”Because of their size,” McRaven writes, “it is difficult for large forces to develop a simple plan, keep their movements concealed, conduct detailed full-dress rehearsals (down to the individual soldier’s level), gain tactical surprise and speed on target, and motivate all the soldiers in the unit to a single tactical goal.” No wonder insurgents and special operators understand each other.
read more http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/risky-bin-laden-raid-came-f...
But it had a template. In 1995, William McRaven published Spec Ops, a collection of commando case studies he used to formulate what he called a “theory of special operations.” Since then, McRaven, now a three-star admiral, rose to lead the terrorist hunters of the Joint Special Operations Command, which killed bin Laden. His book, at least among the general bookbuying public, has fallen into obscurity. But the Cliff Notes were on display in Abbottabad on Sunday night.
Spec Ops isn’t exactly a field manual. But it might be considered a guide to audacity. McRaven wants to know what distinguishes a successful mission from a doomed one. Spoiler alert: “Brave men without good planning, preparation and leadership are cannon fodder in the face of defensive warfare.”
At the heart of all special operations is asymmetry. Operators attack “fortified positions,” confronting a superior force. It’s a recipe for being mowed down — unless you achieve what McRaven calls “relative superiority.” It’s a slippery concept, easy to identify after the fact and more difficult to isolate before or during a mission. Basically, it’s the point at which the commandos seize the advantage, leveraging their unique assets — “technology, training, intelligence, etc.” — to turn their opponents’ superior force into a disadvantage. It doesn’t guarantee victory; but not having it guarantees failure.
What’s individually necessary and jointly sufficient for success? According to McRaven: Keeping it simple. Keeping it secret. Rehearsing thoroughly. Surprising the enemy. Getting in and out quickly. And having a clear — and simple — purpose.
Counterintuitively, what’s needed for all of those to knit together into relative superiority is a small force. ”Because of their size,” McRaven writes, “it is difficult for large forces to develop a simple plan, keep their movements concealed, conduct detailed full-dress rehearsals (down to the individual soldier’s level), gain tactical surprise and speed on target, and motivate all the soldiers in the unit to a single tactical goal.” No wonder insurgents and special operators understand each other.
read more http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/risky-bin-laden-raid-came-f...
Comment
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
"This is encouraging."
"There was no trail of death from the first case in the US landing in Seattle and brought north of…"
[OFFICIAL TRAILER] The Grand Deception
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Архітектурне планування двоповерхового будинку: ключові рішення для комфортного простору
Проєктування двоповерхового будинку — це складний, але захоплюючий процес, що поєднує…See More
After Querying GROK over the 1952 Washington National Sightings
The Washington National Sightings (also called the 1952 Washington, D.C. UFO incident, the…See More
I Tried AI for Fun. Now I’ve Got Questions | Jeff Childers From #474 | The Way I Heard It
What does inevitability sound like?That’s not a thruway line—it’s the question I keep coming back to after this conversation with Jeff Childers. Because some...
"Cheeki, Thanks so much for the encouragement! "
© 2026 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!
Join 12160 Social Network