There is

41.

She knows the drill as well as I. Subjectivity, as important a part as it sometimes plays, takes the back seat to its un-emotional, non-philosophical, black and white binary partner, objectivity, or as TVs first star detective, Joe Friday, was fond of reminding his (female) suspects, “Just the facts (Mam)” 

Julie is wearing her game face, as she opens her laptop and begins the Q&A. 

“Good to see you, too” I can’t help but saying.

She offers a toothless smile but the hue in her eyes belies the relief and appreciation I suspect she inwardly feels. I appreciate the subtlety, nod in recognition of the shared emotive and bid her to begin. 

We have four hours and it would suit me just fine if we were to use every minute of it in conversation. I fight the temptation to segue into frivolity respecting the importance of the exercise. I do, however, tap the service button and request a pot of strong black coffee and two mugs. 

She asks about the interaction between myself and Davis. Was there hostility? Was the integrity of the chain-of-command faithfully followed? At all times? Was a connection between the driver of the truck, Floyd Cooper, and the terrorist group, now known to be a neo-Nazi, right-wing extremist group, AKA, The Axis, ever established? What role did Dr. Hamsten play in the hospital hit? Why did the two surveillance perps roll over so easily? Did we follow up with their GPS tracking? Why was the force used in their capture so excessive? Was there other ways information might have been extracted besides the enhanced tactics used? Was your use of local authorities and agencies optimal? Was there any point in the hostage negotiation that our superior intel might have been used to leverage a better result? What do you see, upon review, as the key inflection points in the taking of the leader and the high-school kids? In review, do you think that your decision to use the munitions and explosives were necessary to accomplish the mission’s objectives? What is the total collateral damage accrued in the process of completing the mission? How was the liaison between the governmental agencies, particularly the Navy, and our operation? How effective was the communications to and from TOM and your Team? Did you witness serious actions, of lack thereof, that may have jeopardized the mission by your Team, from ours, from the intel community or local agencies? What could we have done better?

I am answering her questions with as much integrity and honesty as I can. I always find it an interesting exercise to try to remove the hubris, attitude and fearlessness required in the process of our work from the capsulized results and subsequent analysis of the overall effort. Minus attitude the results aren’t worth even discussing. Without these critical emotions we would never stand a chance against a foe with legitimate fire-power and motivation. 

We have been in this important conversation for hours, alone and without distraction. We have covered all the elements that contributed to the uncontested success of the mission. The drill is not so much about finding fault, but making our future efforts a little better, cleaner, with a higher success rate and with fewer resources used in the process. 

She looks at me with compassion and respect as we near the end. The captain has announced the beginning of our initial descent. She is about to close her computer and call the debrief completed, when she risks one final question. 

“Is there anything that you, personally, could have done better?” 

I admit to her that there is.