It seems a bit strange (the announcement) in that it has flagged to the terrorists that missions are underway to rescue captives. Would it not have been better to keep quiet and not alert them?
I have the feeling that the terrorists in question will assume by default that the US will try and rescue its nationals if it can. There are precedents, and with things like the mission to kill Bin Laden fresh in everybody’s memories… I think that acknowledging a past operation won’t be telling the terrorists anything they were not assuming anyway.
(I understand that the mission failed because Foley’s captors moved him away to some other place than the one he had been before – obviously they were expecting some kind of action on the part of the US).
Any overt action taken by any governing body falls broadly within the sphere of Public Policy. So the contentious issue is the order to conceal something from the public which is, by its very nature, a matter of public concern.
Everything the government does is, by definition, public, and explanations are only required when a public policy is removed from public view.
And if he’d authorized the mission 29 days earlier and a helicopter had been shot down you’d be decrying his cavalier attitude to being commander-in-chief.
The first story I read about this said it was about to be disclosed.
On the other hand, now they know that they might be targeted with a mission by US Special Forces - it may cause them to think twice before taking US citizens hostage. It may not stop it, but it may reduce them.