I think that kind of detail is historically important, but not now, in like 20+ years.
The one thing I'm dubious about is the SEAL author getting the cold shoulder simply because he stated that he had decided to leave the Teams and start a civilian business.
Surely friends and team mates would be wishing him the best of luck with his change of lifestyle?
There's only so many ways to assault a building, depending on the strength and security of the structure itself, how many levels there are, how many people you have, what breaching equipment you have, how many people you think they have, what sort of defensive equipment you think they have.
I don't think posting up diagrams of the means of entry and action scenario is anything to get excited about.
Any SWAT team in the world would be able provide a similar set of plans.
How does one edit a post after one has made it, by the way?
I do so abore spelling msitakes, especially when I make them.
I personally think mentioning dual-breach top-down, bottom-up is a specific TTP. It's certainly not a common SWAT tactic. He over and over mentions how they went from landing on the X, breach and bum rush, to offset and slow and meticulous movement through a target. He never mentions the Blackhawks were stealth birds, but we know this from other sources and he literally plots out the flight path on a map, the linger time on mission, and the location of the FARP. Now someone can figure out if the range is similar to a standard Blackhawk. I don't think he's going to get anybody killed, but he certainly violated OPSEC. Foreign intelligence agencies have more sources than they did before. It's the little details from many sources that add up to a big picture. I'm not making a judgement of Matt, just pointing out what stuck out to me.Well SWAT teams are Tier 1 assets that conduct low/secret profile operations in other countries. There are plenty of ways to assault any type of structure but that doesn't mean it needs laid out in a book that may or may not give insight into specific TTP's.
Why is there even debate about this?
What part of 'Non Disclosure' is difficult?
I agreed this post so hard.
I personally think mentioning dual-breach top-down, bottom-up is a specific TTP. It's certainly not a common SWAT tactic. He over and over mentions how they went from landing on the X, breach and bum rush, to offset and slow and meticulous movement through a target. He never mentions the Blackhawks were stealth birds, but we know this from other sources and he literally plots out the flight path on a map, the linger time on mission, and the location of the FARP. Now someone can figure out if the range is similar to a standard Blackhawk. I don't think he's going to get anybody killed, but he certainly violated OPSEC. Foreign intelligence agencies have more sources than they did before. It's the little details from many sources that add up to a big picture. I'm not making a judgement of Matt, just pointing out what stuck out to me.
I was hearing the same OPSEC violated stuff when Chris Ryan and Andy McNab wrote their first non-fiction novels. Andy even had to attend a court to dispute the MOD's claims that he had written things he should not have.
Storm in a tea-cup. Nothing came of it, now both Chris and Andy are well known authors and respected members of the international security/protection community.
Well many people, upto and including their old RSM, would argue that McNab and Ryan's non-fiction novels, specifically Bravo Two Zero, were quite the work of fiction.