Key Takeaways
- A top-secret 2019 Navy SEAL mission in North Korea resulted in civilian deaths.
- The mission aimed to plant an intelligence device to monitor Kim Jong-un.
- Operational errors and a communications blackout likely led to the deadly encounter.
- President Trump reportedly approved the mission despite public denials.
- The New York Times published the story to highlight special operations failures.
Deep Dive
- In 2019, a top-secret Navy SEAL Team 6 mission attempted to plant an intelligence-gathering device in North Korea.
- The objective was to monitor Kim Jong-un during ongoing nuclear talks with President Trump.
- The complex plan involved a nuclear-powered submarine and two mini-subs to approach the North Korean coast undetected.
- During the mission, a North Korean boat unexpectedly appeared, despite intelligence suggesting the area would be deserted.
- SEALs opened fire, killing all occupants of the 15-foot boat, who were later identified as likely unarmed civilian fishermen.
- The SEALs disposed of the bodies by puncturing their lungs to ensure they sank, then abandoned the mission.
- The mission may have been compromised by seemingly minor mistakes, including one mini-sub missing its parking spot and requiring a U-turn.
- This maneuver potentially created noise that attracted the North Korean fishing boat.
- U.S. spy satellites detected increased North Korean military activity post-mission, and nuclear negotiations subsequently broke down.
- A communications blackout during the operation contributed to the SEALs' decision to fire on the unidentified boat.
- Multiple sources indicate President Trump was briefed on and personally approved the 2019 North Korean mission.
- Despite this, President Trump publicly denied knowledge of the operation.
- The mission's classified nature facilitated the president's ability to deny involvement without public contradiction.
- The New York Times decided to publish the story due to concerns that government secrecy often conceals special operations failures.
- Journalists argued that transparency on such failures is crucial for public and policymakers to accurately assess risks and avoid overestimating success rates.
- The newspaper acknowledged the sensitivity but emphasized the need for a realistic understanding of military operations and inherent risks.
- A poll question for listeners asked whether The New York Times should have published the story, with early results showing a close split.
- Reader comments debated the public's right to know about classified missions against the potential for hindering future operations.
- The New York Times stated it withheld sensitive information to avoid impacting future operations, while prioritizing accountability.