海角大神

How credible is the author of 'No Easy Day'?

In his book and in a TV interview, the author of 'No Easy Day' describes the killing of Osama bin Laden and the efforts to identify the body. Fellow SEALs call the book account 'first hand.'

Just how reliable is the Navy SEAL who has written the controversial, insider account of the US raid on Osama bin Laden鈥檚 compound?

Matt Bissonnette, who wrote 鈥淣o Easy Day鈥� under the pen name of Mark Owen, offers plenty of juicy insider nuggets in the recently published memoir.

Heavily disguised with makeup, Mr. Bissonnette discussed the book Sunday on "60 Minutes," in which he reports surveying a grievously wounded man and trying to determine whether it was, in fact, bin Laden. 鈥淚n his death throes, he was still twitching and convulsing,鈥� he writes.

Bissonnette then describes what happened next: 鈥淎nother assaulter and I trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds.鈥�

With that, America鈥檚 No. 1 enemy was killed by the US Navy鈥檚 SEAL Team 6.聽

Hours later, President Obama would announce bin Laden鈥檚 demise on national television.

The former Navy SEAL then describes how a fellow assaulter squirted water from his CamelBak hose onto bin Laden鈥檚 face to clear away blood so that the SEALs could better recognize him for identification purposes.

鈥淚 started to wipe the blood away from his face using a blanket from the bed,鈥� Bissonnette tells readers. 鈥淲ith each swipe, the face became more familiar. He was younger than I expected.鈥�

Rather than grey, bin Laden鈥檚 beard was聽black. Bissonnette reports later finding a box of 鈥淛ust for Men鈥� hair dye in bin Laden鈥檚 bathroom.

The SEALs took photos with two different cameras, and collected duplicate samples of blood and saliva. They tried to use 鈥渁 spring-loaded syringe the CIA gave us to get a blood-marrow sample,鈥� he recalls, but the spring-load mechanism didn't work.聽

Copies of the photos and samples went to two SEALs traveling on two different helicopters, so that if one was shot down, Bissonnette explains, the evidence of bin Laden鈥檚 death would survive.

So, are all of these details plausible?聽

While fellow Navy SEALs have taken issue with Bissonnette鈥檚 decision to publish the details of the raid in his memoirs, few have taken issue with the details themselves.

A group of former US Special Operations Forces and intelligence operatives offer their own take on Bissonnette鈥檚 memoir in their own account, 鈥淣o Easy Op: The Unclassified Analysis of the Book Detailing the Killing of OBL.鈥澛燭heir conclusion: The book is 鈥渧ery significant.鈥�

The authors, who are contributing editors for the Special Operations Forces Situation Report (SOFREP), an internet publication, add that the book is 鈥渨ritten by someone who experienced the event first-hand.鈥�

鈥淧eople who say, 鈥業t鈥檚 a grunt鈥檚 perspective,鈥� are wrong. 鈥楪runt鈥� is Army or USMC [US Marine Corps] slang for an infantryman, and the author, a US Navy SEAL, is a sailor, not a soldier,鈥� they explain.鈥淏ut accuracy of terms aside, 鈥榓 grunt鈥檚 perspective鈥� doesn鈥檛 come close to doing the book justice. It鈥檚 a warrior鈥檚 perspective, complete with the raw, nostril-burning stink of death.鈥澛�

The Pentagon for its part differs with Bissonnette on a key part of the account. While defense officials report that bin Laden was killed in his bedroom, Bissonnette says the Al Qaeda mastermind was first shot in a hallway, when he peeked around a corner.

Therefore, he was already gravely injured--not on the run--when SEALs delivered the 鈥渄ouble tap鈥� that killed him.

Pentagon officials have said they are investigating legal action against Bissonnette, who did not submit his book to the Defense Department for review.聽

For their part, though the Special Operations vets who wrote 鈥淣o Easy Op鈥� say Bissonnette would have been 鈥渂est-served鈥� by consenting to the official review 鈥渆ven if this would have meant delaying the book鈥檚 publication 鈥� which it surely would have,鈥� they also sympathized with his decision not to.

鈥淚t has been our experience as writers that DOD reviews are painfully long and typically are more concerned with removing information that might make senior leadership look bad than with ensuring operational security [OPSEC],鈥� they note.

鈥淪uch a review would have come with intense scrutiny,鈥� they add, 鈥渁nd put the integrity of the story at risk.鈥�