What to make of this latest June 6th, 2015, article in the New York Times, detailing the “secret history” of SEAL Team 6? I am torn between writing about the subject and ignoring it. Instead, I will refrain from addressing the details of the Times’ article, but instead comment on the meta aspect of the story. In other words, how did this article come to be written? And why?

The answer to the ‘why’ is fairly obvious. Many people these days have an insatiable appetite for all things special operations, especially, it seems, those stories that involve the Navy SEALs. I get that. Hell, I am a former SEAL, writing this article on a website started by a former SEAL, that caters to just such a predilection. I obviously get it.

Into the mirror gaze I, describing for all what there I see.

So the Times story has all the makings of a spec-ops spy thriller. There are commandos (though, we are told, they do not like to use that term) ‘soaked in blood that was not their own,’ black ops, ‘advanced force operations’ teams, the CIA-SEAL “Omega Program,” and custom-made tomahawks, for Christ’s sake.

‘Quiet Killings and Blurred Lines,’ indeed.

What more does the average special operations aficionado need?  This story has it all and is what most of us Americans probably hope is actually happening in the war on terror. We hope that our Special Operations Forces are taking the fight to the enemy, and doing it convincingly and overwhelmingly.

The story is as sexy as they come, a virtual Scarlett Johannson of words, paragraphs, graphics, and anonymous sources. The article is peppered throughout with pictures of weapons (German-made rifles equipped with suppressors, oh my!), maps detailing specific missions, and stock spec-ops cool-guy shots, like SEALs rappelling from helicopters and shivering BUD/S students.

Even Richard Marcinko makes an appearance, and there are harrowing details of raids and rescue missions, of Somali pirates, of al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban.