Originally Posted by Liverandbacon
One thing you'll learn: The media always gives the SEALs credit. I really have no clue why, but according to the news, there've been things I've participated in that were apparently done by the SEALs, not the 75th or anything else I've been involved with. That's news to me. However, considering the info that it was a joint CIA + SEAL attack is coming from the government in this case, it's actually accurate. No hate here for the SEALs, they're excellent warriors, just bemusement at their higher media profile.
I'd say infighting is unlikely, as is any kind of disintegration. Osama was in hiding, and his influence on AQ's day to day operation was very limited. The people who have been actually leading AQ for quite a while now are still around. Honestly, I almost prefer that to a bunch of splinter groups, since the more well known a terrorist group is, the harder it is for them to put any plans into action without information about them getting to us.
Good point. I may have underestimated the integrity of their chain command; but at the same time I feel like infighting is a possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the majority of AQ leadership under Bin Laden Saudi? Isn't there a possibility that another group would seize power?
I'm still in college with an ROTC scholarship, so I have limited experience, but everything I've read from sources on the ground makes it seem like it was a hassle to make all the factions (the various tribes, ethnicities, nationalities, etc.) in AQ work together.
Also, wouldn't infighting give us some advantage? True, we'd have less actionable intelligence, but wouldn't the overall weakening of our enemy be advantageous?
Slightly off topic: 75th would be Rangers, correct? They won't let me go to Ranger School until I graduate :P