The SEAL who shot UBL
 

All over the news right now. The SEAL left the service with 16 years and some media outlets are making a big deal over him not receiving a pension.

20 years is the earliest service at which a 50% pension is earned. The pension % goes up from there. It's been this way forever.

I remember the last time forces were being drastically cut to realize the "peace dividend" after (even during) Desert Storm. Guys with 15 and 16 years were being forced out into a recession. That was a tough time, and it's happening again now -- but probably even worse this time.

The news reports always tell half the story. Anybody know what the real story is here? Did he leave voluntarily? Was he forced out for some reason? What's going on? Sam, do you know?

do not care. if he has no money it'sbecausehe doesn't manage finances well.

Did the 9/11 first responders ever get healthcare? We don't give a shit about heroes after their 15 minutes of fame if it costs us money. Unless it's to get a photo op of course.

Man Who Killed Osama Bin Laden - Treatment of Veteran Who Shot bin Laden - Esquire

That looks like the most in-depth article, but I have not had time to read it. I am also really curious as to whether he voluntarily retired early via a monumental mistake on his part (aka just did not think it through) or what the details are.

That was the article I was referring to. Puff piece, full of hyperbole. But no real information on why he left the service from what I can see. I can only assume he left voluntarily, in which case, he's a big boy and knew what he was doing. I don't get the "outrage."

Alright, I sped-read the Esquire article. Here are some relevant snippets:

I don't get part of that second quote. They make it sound like he can't disclose that he was a Navy SEAL and Special Forces. I don't think that's accurate at all. He can't say, "I shot Osama bin Laden" but he can say, "I served 16 years in the Navy, including Special Forces."


I am sympathetic to a lot of elements of that story, but they need to take the focus off the one guy and make it more comprehensive about how the whole system of reintegration can be improved.


I am also shocked to hear that a SEAL with 16 years experience is only making ~$54k/year. That sounds like BS to me or totally neglects combat pay and tax advantages. It does make it sound like he opted to retire (understandably) with virtually no concrete plans for post-service work or employment.

timely:

Fort Hood Hero Says Obama 'Betrayed' Her, Other Victims - ABC News

You think he was thinking of his finances when he got back from whatever mission toke him to whatever far away god forsaken shit-hole where he got shot at last? Probably not.

He's divorced so he might not be getting full BAH, plus what the military makes you pay out to your ex. I know a Marine who was making less then $50 a paycheck after what the military made him pay out to his ex wife + taxes.

It says in the article he was burnt out, and after serving as a SEAL I can see how that would probably happen. We've spend billions of dollars trying to kill OBL, but we can't throw special operations guys a bone? Not to mention the fact that these guys can really destroy their bodies doing this kind of work, epically for a long period of time.

what's your point? How many other active service members are in the same situation. If you want to have that conversation, have it. but this guy just happens to be a "hero" so now he should deserve special treatment. it's a silly story.

Now he's out of service and struggling like a regular citizen. Veterans always deal with this shit and always have to struggle with going back to regular life.

He left service after 16 years, but needs 20 to get a pension. Okay. Normal. That's like quitting a job and then getting pissed you're not getting paid anymore.

He gets 5 free years of healthcare through the VA.

so again, I dunno what all the fuss is about.

Before he left and when he got back, yes - he absolutely should have been thinking of his finances.

The article says he is separated but still lives with and is in love with his wife. They are considering divorce for safety reasons once his identity becomes known.

I can understand being burnt out and I can understand being physically wrecked. I can understand not having the mental or physical drive to work active SpecOps missions.

I cannot understand how someone quits their job without having some concrete plans for future employment lined up first, especially when you are responsible for a family's well-being.

What I don't know is whether he had the opportunity to stay in the service but work in a different role (i.e. not active combat). Could he have worked in a different role for the next four years and retired with benefits? I will also again question the quote that says he makes about $54k. That seems way low to me, based on my experience with active military clients that have less time in.

I was a highly trained fighter pilot. The military spent millions training me. I served in combat where the other side actually had missiles to shoot at me and opposing fighter planes to launch at me. I had shipmates killed, shot down and imprisoned.

I resigned my commission when my commitment was up to preserve my marriage -- a personal choice. I also had 3 bad discs from the stresses of my job. My transition to civilian life into a recession was extremely difficult -- an experience that I don't care to repeat.

Should I get a pension?

Frankly, this guy was lucky to get probably the most cherished assignment in the history of the military. He served honorably, just as millions of others have. I'm sure he's a great guy. But his buddy that writes for Esquire is a dipshit who has no idea what he's advocating.

Now, if this guy was forced out with 16 years -- like so many others are during postwar RIF processes -- that's a different story entirely.

Your post was epic enough that when i hit the plus props button, it gave you two props.

Thanks for your service. And your post makes sense. I mean, we don't really know what the story is, so how can we draw a conclusion?

I'm saying to turn our back on the type of person who did so much for us without asking for much at all in return is wrong, and that somebody should throw him a bone. All it would take is a phone call from the right person to get this guy a good job in a field that he could fit into, ie private security, something in law enforcement ect. I'm sure somebody in his community of former special operations dudes there is somebody that will hook him up with a job.

tell that to everyone else struggling in his exact same situation. no one is turning their backs, it's that no one has any duty to him.

Just because you don't have to do something doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Do you tip waiters/waitresses?

red herring.

do you even lift?

So we can let this guy be knowing that people in the past had it worse?

Does that mean I shouldn't bother calling 911 if I see you've been in a serious car accident, since you've got it so much better (what with barely clinging to life and all) then a guy who would have gotten in the same accident in a 1965 Lotus Elan and died instantly?

Why are we helping this guy and not others? and by we do you mean: you and I? society? or the gov't?

silly liberal non-logical argument does not get a response.

That argument isn't silly and I'm not a liberal.

I don't mean to say we should just help this one guy, I'm saying society should help out people who choose to do these things to help us out.

Gearhead - You are missing pretty much everyone's point. You are saying The Shooter should receive some charity from someone because he is special.

Most of us are saying something like, "there's an argument to be made that all service people deserve better transition services from active duty to civillian life but the author of that article selling The Shooter's as a sob story is disingenuous."

Brain and I are also saying The Shooter should have done a better job of financial planning for himself and his family before deciding to quit his job.