In a lot of ways it's amazing that Boone is remembered at all.  In spite of his reputation he never really accomplished anything of significance: he didn't discover Kentucky, didn't settle it first, underwent a court martial for treason, had Tory connections, etc, etc.  To be sure, he lived a fascinating life but there were many other pioneers, many he knew, who did more than he ever did that have been forgotten.  The reason Boone is remembered isn't necessarily because of what he did, but because he was the focus of John Filson's narrative – in short, he had a good press agent.

Didn't mean any offence

I made the comment I did because this raises an important historical issue; does the naming of this mission suggest that the government still views the Indian wars of the late 19th century as a legitimate exercise comparable to the mission to bring OBL to justice?

Hopefully not, but another question I ask would be did the US government view Geronimo as an equal threat back then just as the current government views (or viewed) OBL now?

Good question but as Omer said, I don't believe so; more of an inconvenience, although Geronimo's role in the public imagination was far weightier than any real threat he posed.

I'm not really reading too much into it, I'm just throwing it out there as a means of generating a discussion; it doesn't particularly bother me.  That said, if the operation had been carried out by the British government and the codename was William Wallace it would have really upset a lot of people, certainly a lot of the people I know (bear in mind I am Scottish).  To my eyes I could not imagine the British government ever using a codename like that precisely because it would carry a lot of dubious implications.  That said, I have no doubt that this is probably just a codename with little thought having gone into it, but in some ways that is an interesting point of discussion - that Geronimo can be used as a codename with little thought.  In at least some cases it appears that code names are picked very carefully: "shock and awe" doesn't seem like an arbitrary choice to me.Again, I'm not trying to start a discussion about political correctness, but rather the use of Geronimo as an image, the ideas and connotations that spring to mind 🙂

ThatFrontierHistorian, did you seriously just suggest that the use of the codename "Geronimo" was insensitive and dare I say, politically incorrect? ???

Political Correctness doesn't enter into it.  For me this issue touches upon how we think about and contextualise Indians in our past.  The issue, for me, is that it suggests - and I said I am probably reading too much into it - a degree of legitimacy for the actions of the US against the Apache.  Put simply, I do not think it is appropriate to link Geronimo to OBL, or the Apache to AQD.  This is not because it may offend modern Indians (although it's possible, I can't pretend to speak for them) but because it suggests something about the actions taken against Geronimo and his people that I do not think is appropriate.  To put it another way - the hunt for OBL was a legitimate exercise, whereas the hunt for Geronimo and his followers was far more problematic.  Or, if you like, OBL doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the context of Geronimo just as Geronimo does not deserve the the indignity of being mentioned in the context of OBL.Like I said, I am reading a lot into this and I dare say the government/military did not intend to make any great statement re: how America recognises its own past with regards to the Indians.  But I am not making a comment because of political correctness.  I made the comment I did because this raises an important historical issue; does the naming of this mission suggest that the government still views the Indian wars of the late 19th century as a legitimate exercise comparable to the mission to bring OBL to justice? That was what I meant by insensitive (I admit it was a poor choice of words); this is an important and (I feel) appropriate type of discussion.All best

Decades ago I read a book titled America B.C. , in which the author (whose name I have forgotten) postulated that Celts arrived on the east coast over many centuries before Leif Ericson, and one can still find a mini-Stonehenge and other similar evidence of that plus some Celtic words among the Iriquois and Algonquin languages. Don't know if he was discredited or not.Still, Columbus must always receive credit for beginning the permanent European colonization and conquest of the entire New World.

I am sure I heard something relating to the Basque people of France who MAY have whaled off the south coast of Florida - I am sure this is what you must be referring to as I remember it being mentioned that there were - possibly - some remnants of basque words, a language still not fully understood, found among some tribes but I believe the evidence was very circumstantial.  Never heard of a henge being discovered in the area but stone structures such as those pre-dated the celtic peoples by some way; celtic culture developed in the iron, not stone age, I believe but I am not an expert in that area so I don't want to push my argument too far.  What I will say is that the type of boats used by stone builders could not conceivably have gone to America; not sure about Iron age peoples.