Father of Murdered Team 6 SEAL: “My Son Did Not Become a Navy SEAL to Win the Hearts and Minds of Islamic Jihadists”

A basic mistake that Republicans made was to ignore the Rules of Engagement issues in Afghanistan. It’s a much bigger issue than Benghazi and in this clip from the press conference with the parents of the SEALS, you can see why.

From today’s press conference with the families of SEAL Team 6, here Billy Vaughn, the father of Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn, speaks about why his son died.

“If my son had gone in on an MH-47 that night with guns blazing and they had been shot out of the sky that night, it would have been a whole lot easier to live with. If the air weapons teams had been offering suppressive fire because a 3.5 hour operation was already underway in the valley, but you know why we were not…

because according to a high ranking three-star admiral, Admiral Harward, made a statement to the grieving families that day. We want to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. Aaron did not become a Navy SEAL Team 6 Gold Squad to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic Jihadists. He became a Navy SEAL to fight for this republic and defeat the enemy.

And I’ll tell you right now, any American flag officer who does not want to defeat the enemy, needs to find another job. Any man who sits in that White House…”

  • Moishe Pupick

    Th., 05/09/13

    The late General George Patton once said that the purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and break things. Overemphasis on human rights and p.r. causes unnecessary deaths of U.S. military fighters. What's next? A.C.L.U. lawyers on the battlefield?

    • Drakken

      They have tons of JAG lawyers to give "advice" as operations are conducted. A bloody travesty.

  • Lisa

    General David Petraeus' COIN strategy is deadly to Americans.

  • Spider

    The rules of engagement are what they are because Houssein our commander in chief was directed to change the rules of engagement by his masters in Mecca

  • jakespoon

    "Win their hearts and minds"- should be eat their hearts and blow their minds. It's criminal to have soldiers go into battle,and not let them have everything and every weapon they need. I don't care who's in charge.

  • BDelsol

    "A basic mistake that Republicans made was to ignore the Rules of Engagement issues in Afghanistan."

    Wait, what do the Republicans have to do with this? LMAO
    Is this throwing anyone else off?

    • Raymond in DC

      What he's suggesting, I think, is that the GOP too often focuses on the wrong issue. That certainly happened in the nomination fights for Hagel and Brennan.

      • tlc232

        Why are the rules of military engagement even "party oriented", I believe is what BDelsol is saying — Wouldn't that be the members of Congress?

  • guest

    This is a major misrepresentation. The point of the strategy is not to win the hearts and minds of the enemy, it is to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population. The Soviets learned the hard way what it means to have the population turn against you. US and allied casualties would be exponentially hire had the entire country been turned into a free fire zone. And we would have had to do it alone, with no allied support. And we would have been driven from the country with much bigger wounds. Those are facts people.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Casualties were much lower before Obama began pushing hearts and minds.

      And the war was lost under him.


      • guest

        a) you're changing the subject, which seems to be your style. The point is stated in my second sentence, for your reference
        b) casualties started trending upward in 2005 and continued to climb for the rest of Bush's term. US deaths almost doubled between 04-05 (from 52 to 99). Big jumps under Obama, to be sure, but to say casualties were lower before ignores the clear multi-year upward trend that began almost 4 years before he took office. Casualties were also lower in Bush's first term than in his second term. Which proves what?
        c) whether or not the war was lost under him is a matter of debate, not a fact. IMO, there was never a time when the war was close to being won under either administration.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Soviets learned the hard way what it means to have the population turn against you. "

      Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Look, we were not behaving like the Soviets were before 0'Bama. The point is not that we want to annihilate everyone. It's more nuanced than that in reality. If we didn't care as a nation about the "hearts and minds" factor we wouldn't spend trillions on sophisticated precision weapons. We'd nuke who we want. Short of that, we'd carpet bomb them.

      Do you realize how much we spend on each missile launch when we used guided weapons? That alone is 99% of what needs to be done in the "hearts and minds" realm. Rhetoric aside, 0'Bama has changed the rules of engagement the way any appeaser would who had no actual way of pulling out immediately. It's now a theater of war in more ways than one. It's a grand fiction.

      We refer to it as "hearts and minds" because that's 0'Bama's justification. We don't need to use Soviet tactics to win. But to win "Hearts and Minds" according to 0'Bama's standards we must literally lose the war. "Hearts and Minds" means "let them win and kill us" to 0'Bama.

      And the Soviets lost there in part because they also had to fight against a population that had the support of international jihadis AND a superpower. We have weapons that are so much more sophisticated than the Soviets did then, and the jihadis are using mostly IEDs and leftovers from the arms we gave them or Soviet weapons from the same era.

      It's pathetic what's happened there when you look at the facts rather than just the headlines through your tinted glasses.

      "And we would have had to do it alone, with no allied support. And we would have been driven from the country with much bigger wounds. Those are facts people."

      Evidently you don't know what a fact is. The fact is that those are your highly subjective opinions.

  • Paul

    God Bless Billy and his son, if not for his sacrifice and patriotism I would have lost all hope in this country! We need more fathers like him and more sons like his!!

  • Kevin Stroup

    Yes, your son did not join for that reason. But our muslim-sympathizer Obama cannot get on his Marxist knees fast enough and orally service the koranimals. We voted for this man. TWICE. We deserve this. Unfortunately, many good people will pay the price.

  • billybadass

    We voted for him? Speak for itself.
    Obumer spends our money, gives it
    Away and let's the baddest warriors
    The world has ever know just die.
    Speak for yourself not press ur
    Opinion like the joke u voted for

  • DDay66

    I remember my first patrol in Afghanistan being told by a full bird Colonel, that my men would be locked up if any of them dared to load a magazine in their rifles prior to being fired upon. That was 2002. And I got written up because I simply pointed out that if we are walking around without a magazine in, that would leave the bolt to the rifle exposed to dirt and other factors that will lead to the rifle malfunctioning.

    That was the day I realized our nation is in its twilight years.

    • Raymond in DC

      Pres. Bush insisted that we are "not at war with Islam" and that it is "a religion of peace", even as the World Trade Center was still smoldering. Bush acted consistent with that meme, even at the cost of US lives; Obama maintains that meme, but with greater insistence. It's hard to imagine Bush declaring that he saw it as his duty to "defend Islam", or to declare before the UN that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam".

      Recall also that, under Bush, the number of immigrants from Muslim countries, and visas granted to students from Muslim countries, increased substantially. Obama just accelerated that trend.

      I too fear for our nation's future. Unsustainable debt, an emasculated military, a failure to distinguish friend from foe, and huge numbers of legalized illegals will result in a country we can scarcely imagine.

  • DDay66

    The only major difference from the Bush to Obama doctrines is that Obama's team forfeited a lot of the command responsibilties to the other allied countries in theater and NATO. Many of our troops are now following orders of the Canadians and Brittish. Many of the bases and forward operating bases are also under NATO control and in many cases they have been giving NATO priority over US military assets like weaponry and vehicles including Med flights.

    Lucky for us the Brittish military still runs the Brittish Military, and not their politicians. They have pretty much rejected much of the ROE's that the US has been cripled by, and they keep marching to their own drum beat. Most notably, the US banned all Alcohol in theater so that we wouldn't offend the Muslims Sharia. The Brittish on the other hand ships in booze and beer in full conex containers daily.