Posted on 09/26/2006 3:42:08 PM PDT by detch
Could USS Cole tragedy have been avoided?
October 18, 2000
By John MetzlerSPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
UNITED NATIONS — The terrorist attack on the USS Cole (12 October 200), refueling in the port of Aden again sharply focuses the stark vulnerability of American interests in the Middle East. While it's easy to play "Monday morning quarterback" after such a tragedy, its equally prudent to question the set of circumstances which witnessed a planned suicide attack on the destroyer Cole tragically sending seventeen American sailors to their untimely deaths.
All the pieces were in place; An overextended fleet--today 325 ships down from 600 in Ronald Reagan's fleet--a mandate patrolling the Persian Gulf enforcing sanctions on Iraq, a lack of oilier vessels because of cutbacks, thus prompting the fatal choice to make a questionable port call in a place like Yemen.
Allowing the USS Cole, a modern guided missile destroyer go unescorted into Aden was possibly safe, but probably better avoided given regional tensions, emotions and threat profiles, especially in the wake of renewed Palestinian /Israeli fighting.
One must not underestimate the visceral anti-American hysteria, emanating from the Palestinian uprising on the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. An American ship is like a red flag to a bull during such times throughout the Islamic world, even far from the political epicenter; whether one is in Yemen or Pakistan.
The small boat suicide attack on the Cole, impacted hundreds of pounds of high explosives against the ship's hull causing a gaping 40 hole in the vessel. FBI investigators, soon to be backed up by 1,200 Marines for security, are searching for the culprits likely to be the Osama Bin Laden organization or some of the other terrorists who Yemen home.
Why were we operating in such a dangerous environment? Where's our planning? While its common knowledge that US ships have gone into Aden for refueling since early 1999, bunkering was not done in times of violent upheaval and high octane hate. Furthermore, the US Embassy in Yemen has prudently warned about the risks of American ships visiting Aden.
General Anthony Zinni, recently retired Pentagon Chief for Middle East operations defended his original decision to use Aden as a refueling port and the desirability of bringing Yemen closer to American interests. General Zinni told the New York Times that several ship visits had been vetoed by the American Ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, who worried about the threat of terrorism.
Importantly National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Defense Secretary William Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were not opposed to the Yemeni port calls for US Navy ships. "Mr. Berger, Mr. Cohen, and Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, defended the decision to use Aden as a refueling point despite concerns about security in a country the State Department itself called `a safe haven for terrorists,' earlier this year," cites the New York Times .
Thus we again ask the painfully poignant question? Why would a US Navy vessel be in Aden in the first place? Mountainous Yemen has a well earned reputation as a wild and woolly place for friend and foe alike, kind of an Afghanistan by the Red Sea. It seems that Yemen rarely enters the media except when hapless foreign tourists, usually Europeans, stumble into kidnaps, ambushes, and afoul of some local militia.
Moreover as a old Soviet client state, there are more than enough people who don't quite welcome an American presence even if it means needed revenues for the Port of Aden.
Though Aden and its famous Steamer Point was woven into the strategic planning and lore of the British Royal Navy until 1967, modern Yemen has suffered the vicissitudes of civil war, national division with South Yemen, the former the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, being an classic Soviet client.
Washington has worked on improving relations with the current regime of Field Marshall Ali Abdullah Saleh. Clearly there's a case for better ties with strategic Yemen . Yet, a seeming nonchalance about credible threats underscores a larger problem. Sadly the Clinton/Gore Administration's usual sloppy planning, Alice in Wonderland worldview, and "it can't happen here" mindset, creates such a glaring vulnerability.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
October 18, 2000
the HEAD IDIOT, Clinton and his odious General Zinni!!! They have BLOOD on their hands because they KNEW how dangerous it was and they didn't allow out sailors to have arms!! Bastards.
I remember someone discussing this back awhile ago and heard that the Cole could have easily refueled out of the harbor and out of danger's way!
I've never checked it out or anything but I've read that the Cole was refuling at an occidental petroleum terminal. Al Gore is a stockholder of Occidental. It might be worth a look or it might be garbage.
My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.
BTTT
October 12, 2000 - USS Cole attacked
October 12, 2000 - Albright verifies that Yemen was taken OFF the terrorist watch list FOR GOOD REASON.
My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.
bump
Something I found from 1999.
"http://www.politics.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,,209477,00.html"
SOmething like that would only mater if it were Bush/Cheney and Haliburton owned the terminal.
You should know by now that Democrats are immune to conflicts of interest
This may be true, but then I would also ask why the Congress approved it. I've continued over all those years to be unimpressed with the ability of our Republican Congress to stand up for itself.
We all know that the Skipper of this ship was only obeying orders. Why wasnt the person issuing the orders punished, like the Skipper was.
Still aiting for Clinton to tell us why he never caught nyone involved in this. I bet that one would get his blood up again. After all he promised.
A Clinton promise is like water in a bird bath. After a while it just dries up and goes away.
You're in error--this was a purely political exercise; the Cole had refueled at sea several times before during that deployment.
Nope. They refueled there because it was cheaper to have a single ship tank up in a port than it is to have an oiler following every ship in the fleet. The oilers were supporting the body of the fleet, where they belonged.
And all this talk about Clinton decomissioning oilers in bunches is a smoke screen. Oilers, ammunition ships, and other resupply ships have been removed from the active duty navy and reassigned to the Military Sealift Command. All that means is that they have a primarily civilian crew. They're still there with the fleet, and there were more available when Clinton left office then there are currently. And, I should point out, the policy of converting auxiliaries from USS to USNS has continued under the Bush Administration. Currently there is not a single ammunition ship, supply ship or oiler in the U.S. Navy. First time that's happened in close to 100 years.
I think this cut in tanker spending occured in the early 90s when Democrats still controlled Congress. And when the GOP took control, I don't think it was one of those things that made it onto anyone's radar screen.
It may well be that it was a political exercise, but refueling in ports did have to occur because of the cut in the Navy tanker fleet. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. I'm almost totally sure of the facts on this. I think it was Lt. Col. Patterson in his book "Dereliction of Duty" who asserts this, though I'm not entirely positive that was the source. But I am quite sure I've read this.
The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. I'm almost totally sure of the facts on this.
Fine, show us the decommissioned tankers.
I think it was Lt. Col. Patterson in his book "Dereliction of Duty" who asserts this, though I'm not entirely positive that was the source.
OK, there's the problem. Patterson's books are less than reliable when they get away from the U.S. Air Force and his time at WHAMO.
But I am quite sure I've read this.
I've read that aliens are abducting people and sticking probes up their butts. Doesn't mean the claim is correct.
Bottom line: this was a purely political exercise. If CENTCOM and the Clinton administration hadn't ordered the Cole to Aden, there would've been an oiler available.
You've got that right. Does the name "Teapot Dome" ring a bell? Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve - the heart of the Harding scandal - was sold to Occidental Petroleum under Clinton. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.