January 13, 2013

Drone Strike: ST-6 Says Zero Dark Thirty Inaccurate

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA- An anonymous Public Affairs Officer (PAO) for Seal Team Six says the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” is factually inaccurate, portraying Seal Team Six members like the douchebags from Seal Team Two.

“At one point Joel Edgarton’s character wears a polo shirt with a popped collar,” the PAO said. “Team Six doesn’t do that. We’re the baddest motherfuckers on the planet. We don’t wear shit like Tapout shirts, Ed Hardy jeans, or fedoras. That’s Team Two.”

The members of Seal Team Two, who the rest of the Special Warfare community calls “very special operators,” gained their reputation in the last decade as the Navy’s demand for SEALs skyrocketed. Not enough sailors were passing Basic Underwater Demolition/Seal (BUD/S) training, so SEAL Team Two began recruiting civilians from local tanning salons and UFC parties. Actual SEALs in Team Two were transferred to other units, including the illustrious Team 11

“Team Two is a joke,” the PAO from SEAL Team Six said.  “Their PT uniform is a sleeveless t-shirt with slits down the side so people can check out their rib tats. On their last deployment they petitioned the White House to open a Hooters in Afghanistan. A few years ago they spent their entire training budget to make a calendar,” the PAO paused. “What’s up with that guy second from the right?”

Read the rest on the Duffle Blog.

About the Author

is a former U.S. Navy SEAL with combat deployments to Afghanistan, and Iraq. During his last tour he served as the west coast sniper Course Manager at the Naval Special Warfare Center. He is Editor-in-Chief of SpecialOperations.com, a SOFREP contributing editor, and a New York Times best selling author (The Red Circle & Benghazi: The Definitive Report). Follow him on twitter here.

To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

  • Coriolis effect

    That team 11 link is a joke right

  • TheAtrium

    @majrod   " When and who mentioned the Domino theory before we invaded?  Where they key  decision makers in the administration?  Again, you fall prey to revisionist  history. "   Wolfowitz and gang mentioned it, but I don't think the gang really bought into it, it was part of their ever evolving rationale to invade Iraq. If you track Wolfowitz' thought process from the early 90s and on, you can see these justifications being stacked on top of each other. There's more in the gang's memoirs, but I'd have to re-borrow these books over again--the evolution of this rationale.   Samantha Power and gang, now those crazy folks believe in democracy.     " How does the spat between Wolfowitz and Shinseki support we wanted to install a  democracy in Iraq?  It doesn’t from my reading.  He pooh poohed the  numbers. "   He pooh poohed the numbers citing the Iraqi professional middle class were going to take up the slack as soon as the regime fell. You're right "regime change" didn't necessarily mean Democracy, but who in 2003 would convince others that another Saddam in Iraq would be a great idea, after regime change?       " Even more so if one ignores that one is over a DECADE and the other over FIVE  years BEFORE the Iraq invasion and you were trying to make the case that Clinton wanted a Democracy in Iraq. "   Clinton didn't want anything to do with Iraq. I shared those links to showcase Wolfowitz' evolving rationale to go into Iraq, they finally got their best reasons after 9/11. But he and others have been wanting to fuck that poodle, since getting blue balls after the Gulf War I, is my point.         " While many whole heartedly condemn Iraq what would the world situation look like  if Saddam had remained in power.  Afghanistan would be the same unless we  made a decision to take on nuclear armed Pakistan.  Iran may not be as  influential in Iraq but what’s to say that Saddam may have not come to an  accommodation or worse, restarted his own nuke program seeing how ineffectively  we’ve dealt with Iran. "   Agree with Af-Pak and Iran. I gotta feeling the world situation would've been more manageable had Saddam been left alone, and less of our boys (and girls) dead. The juice just wasn't worth the squeeze, but that's neither here or there.   I like your perspective though, and agree with you that BW wasn't conservative, hell more Hispanics voted for that guy than Romney could ever wish for.           " We really need to carry this on elsewhere though and just to be clear I don't  think your a lefty or blame America hippie. "   Great talk, thanks truly. As for hippie, I prefer the term metrosexual, my go to site when logging online is Uncrate.com and the Art of Manliness.   ps~ I'll keep looking for more on the democracy domino theory, you can see bits and pieces of this though in Bush's speeches pre-invasion, but you're right I don't think there was an actual white paper laid out, like the Kirkpatrick doctrine, etc. I still owe you that one. Again thanks for this talk.                         @ArcticWarrior  @LauraKinCA

  • majrod

    @TheAtrium  BTW & FTR I'm not "pro Bush".  The guy like his daddy was NEVER a conservative.  I think he did an overall great job with a unique enemy.  The Patriot Act is necessary but highly flawed.  He gave drunken sailors a bad name ref his spending and his fiscal policies e.g  TARP made us all the worse and served as an excuse for even worse spending to the point that it's a national security issue.   I defend him at times because the onslaught is ridiculous in its slant and largely iuncontested effforts to rewrite history.  Ever heard the "two wars" line?   We really need to carry this on elsewhere though and just to be clear I don't think your a lefty or blame America hippie.       @ArcticWarrior  @LauraKinCA

  • majrod

    @TheAtrium  “After there were no WMDs found they REVERTED to their original premise was the point of that Bush Nov '03 speech.” (emphasis added)   No.  “Revert” means you have to have the original premise sometime previously.  There is no evidence that before we invaded we had espoused the spreading of Democracy as one of the reasons to invade.  “A new regime” is far from a democratic one.   When and who mentioned the Domino theory before we invaded?  Where they key decision makers in the administration?  Again, you fall prey to revisionist history.   There was substantial evidence that Saddam had WMD and it was not just the US and BOTH its political parties that accepted it as credible.  I won’t belabor you with the very recognizable names and quotes.    Curveball, Plame etc. all gained notoriety AFTER the fact with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight.  How does the spat between Wolfowitz and Shinseki support we wanted to install a democracy in Iraq?  It doesn’t from my reading.  He pooh poohed the numbers.   “I understand we can chase each others' tails on semantics and what was said and how it was said, but the point is the Iraq War was 10 yrs in the making when we finally went into Iraq in 2003.” Agree but that mutually agreed upon fact coupled with Democrat agreement on what a threat Saddam was should cause pause in anyone exercising independent thought that spreading democracy wasn’t one of the reasons to invade Iraq.   Your links to the 1992 Def Planning Guidance and the letter written Clinton are interesting .  Even more so if one ignores that one is over a DECADE and the other over FIVE years BEFORE the Iraq invasion and you were trying to make the case that Clinton wanted a Democracy in Iraq.  Unfortunately like the overwhelming majority of analysis into “why Iraq” it ignores the singular most important reason for why OIF happened, that being 9-11.  Pundits and historians singularly ignore the mood of the nation, an overwhelming threat, concern, evidence for the capability of an attack and flush with what appeared a resounding defeat of Al Qeada, all serve as driving factors to eliminate an adversary (contrary to any analysis of any other conflict we’ve entered, hmmmmmm).  Then there’s the untouched subjects that unlike Pakistan, Iran, Libya etc. Saddam underestimated the US again and instead of defusing the situation held firm and even racheted up tensions.    I’m always entertained by the “blame America first” crowd’s slanted “analysis” (not saying you are one though you have bought into their HEAVILY slanted and incomplete analysis) which isn’t so much analysis (an effort to learn)  as it is placing blame to achieve some sort of vicarious sense of supremacy over a deeply hated president they thought illegitimate and not up to the task at hand.  Yet a decade later we are still using almost all his policies and a highly capable military he largely is responsible for creating.   If we applied the same rigor and slanted analysis to WWII (or a slew of other wars) we had little justification for going to war against the Nazis except for the fact they declared war on us.  There is little to learn from that approach and hence why I reject it.   I try to base my analysis of Iraq from a military professionals professional perspective and not a political one.  If I was in the decision makers shoes without 20/20 hindsight what did I know or could I have known to make the best decision possible?  That’s how we learn from history vs. just repeat it.    Since you brought up the largely unrelated domino theory, never a pre OIF reason for invasion I’d like to plant a seed.  While many whole heartedly condemn Iraq what would the world situation look like if Saddam had remained in power.  Afghanistan would be the same unless we made a decision to take on nuclear armed Pakistan.  Iran may not be as influential in Iraq but what’s to say that Saddam may have not come to an accommodation or worse, restarted his own nuke program seeing how ineffectively we’ve dealt with Iran.  These are issues never addressed by the Bush Derangement crowd but none the less make an impact on today’s decisions.  Mom told me, “everything happens for a reason”.  I didn’t like it much but no doubt I learned…    There’s a lesson there…  :)      Being this thread has gotten so long I suggest we continue the conversation elsewhere or at some other time. @ArcticWarrior@LauraKinCA

  • TheAtrium

    @majrod    ***I don’t contest that after invading Iraq the ball was fumbled badly.  I do contest that we had Democracy in Iraq as a goal, reason or justification for invading Iraq.  Stating so is simply rewriting history with 20/20 hindsight to fit a narrative.  That faulty analysis condemns the reader to learn inaccurate or wrong lessons from history.***   What's your narrative of the Iraq war and its justifications? And what are the lessons to be learned?     ***The decision to foster a democracy in Iraq was made after we invaded and after it became obvious that the Iraqis were not going to rule themselves.  At first we tried a WWII approach with our military in charge but we never resourced Iraq like we did Germany.  The US Army was overwhelmed with just maintaining order let alone running courts, providing power or clean water (Shinseki’s 400k troops prediction was prophetic).  Into the vacuum stepped the US Gov’t and all the pain that followed.***   The ME Democracy domino theory was out there pre-invasion. The WWII approach was wrongly anticipated by Wolfowitz and gang, the battle with the number of troops put on the ground, stating that everything was going to be fine once they toppled the regime, because Iraq had oil and Iraqi professional middle class to keep the country's revenues going.     ***Just an aside, I’m not comfortable with saying anybody can’t handle Democracy.  Saying so kind of puts one at odds with the Declaration of Independence.  Is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not for uneducated or non western peoples?  It’s a slippery slope when one argues that a certain people can’t handle democracy.  Now of course you haven’t said that but many that ascribe to the narrative and rewritten history of OIF do. ***   Democracy right after ME autocratic or royal rulers, who clamped down on every organization that posed a threat to their rule, leaving only the mosques. It's almost a no fucking brainer that given the choice everyone over their will "vote" Salafi--it's the only game in town. But we had to have gone through Iraq and Gaza to understand this. This was a big lesson learned in the ME recently.   Isn't this the reason most Nobamas complain about this administrations' abandon of Mubarak? Hell even Qaddafi and Assad. This is the perfect time for the Kirkpatrick doctrine, just replace Communism to the Salafi tide and that's justification enough to stand by with secular autocrats, because democracy over there, sadly is against our interests. Reform of which the Assad regime was known for, that, but this Arab Spring is no fuckin' bueno for us. There's no narrative, that's just common sense, both the right and left can agree on--which they do.     ***Just to be clear I think Democracy is for everyone though it doesn’t have to look like ours.  Ancient Greek Democracy had many differences with how we practice it.  Even the Afghan Jirga qualifies as Democracy in my book.***   I agree with you 100%, I'd only add that we shouldn't be pushing Democracy down peoples' throats. I'm confident those days are over, we've been playing the hands off game since--Assad's killing their own people, that's not our problem; Mali, Algeria and Libya, France you fuckers handle it; Egypt, is a sad case since the officer corps is practically ours, but still at the end of the day I foresee no troop commitments, no wars, maybe just specialized units/contractors sent, but they're on their own.            @ArcticWarrior  @LauraKinCA