These boats have a 300+ mile range. What, did they forget to fuel up before departing on a 200 mile transit?
Posted on 01/20/2016 5:55:55 AM PST by Hojczyk
The most important problem that this incident illustrates is the command environment established by Obama, Ashton Carter, his secretary of defense, and Ray Mabus, his navy secretary. To them, the military code of conduct is an after-thought. Social engineering is vastly more important as is the effort to make the navy “green.â€
Please remember that Carter has ordered women to be included in every military occupation, including special forces with, in his words, no exceptions. Mabus will be remembered for two things. First, enforcing the Obama/Carter edict on women to the degree that the Marine Corps, despite its objections, must not only include women in infantry but also eliminate the word “man†from all “MOS’s,†military occupational specialties. Second, for buying “biofuels†for the navy at roughly ten times the price of regular diesel fuel. He may be the worst SECNAV ever.
In that confused environment, when Iran is characterized as a friend rather than an enemy, it’s understandable — but not forgivable — for someone like Lt. Nartker to misunderstand his duties. Again, I’m not going to condemn him for surrendering if he was unable to resist. But how are we training our sailors and officers at this point?
Only a real and public investigation will reveal that answer. And I’ll bet no such investigation will be done.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Question 1: We know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a naval base on Farsi Island. From there, they have based “swarm†attacks — made by bunches of small armed boats — against other nations’ ships from time to time. From what we know so far, it appears that the refueling for the two riverine boats was planned to be near Farsi Island. Given wind, currents and the possibility of human error, what idiot decided to refuel the boats so near an IRGC naval base?
Question 2: What orders and rules of engagement told the sailors what they had to do if they encountered Iranian forces? The military code of conduct requires commanders not to surrender while anyone is capable of fighting. Through Iran has been at war with us since 1979, we’re not at war with them. The president gives every indication that he regards the Iranians as friends. Did the ROE require the sailors to not fire until fired upon? Just what did they say?
Question 3: Did the boat having engine trouble report that fact to higher command? If it did, was its location, and that of the second boat, tracked by satellite or otherwise? If not, why not? If the boats were tracked, were there any forces available by air or sea to rescue them from Iranian forces?
Question 4: What force confronted the two boats on Tuesday and took them prisoner? I’m not, on the basis of what we know, going to say that the ten sailors had to fight and lose their lives in a futile battle. Running was probably not possible given the disability of one boat’s engines, but surrender can’t be the first option. Nartker or one of the other sailors must have radioed for help when the Iranians approached. What was the response? Was there a Benghazi-like “stand down†order from higher ups? Just how far up the chain of command were people aware of the boats’ predicament and what did they do?
Question 5: What training in the Code of Conduct did the sailors receive? Nartker is reportedly a 2011 graduate of the Naval Academy and had to know his duties under the Code. He likely was in command of the two boats. At this point, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on the surrender, because he may have confronted an overwhelming force. But he must have known that making his apology to the video would lend aid and comfort to the enemy that captured his command. His conduct should be investigated and he may have to be court-martialed.
Add to uour list: John Kerry called Iran and told them the boats were there.
In effect, they handed the sim cards from the phones to iran along with encrypt keys, frequencies, etc.
Well sit right back
And you’ll hear a tale
A tale of a fateful trip
That started from a naval port
Enemy must have got a tip
Iran was about to rake it in
Sanctions were being pulled
They just knew that President Gilligan
Was a patsy to be fooled.
Propaganda started getting rough
The tiny ships were tossed
Then they tweeted photos of the crew
Get them back at any cost!
So join us here each week my friend
You’re sure to get a frown
Gilligan will never be impeached
Due to being slightly brown.
Propaganda and symbolism.
It was set up so the US acknowledges Iran is now a force to be reckoned with.
The US can no longer dictate to Iran what the terms are.
Iran is equal and can now accept or reject the terms.
In that confused environment, when Iran is characterized as a friend rather than an enemy, it’s understandable — but not forgivable — for someone like Lt. Nartker to misunderstand his duties. Again, I’m not going to condemn him for surrendering if he was unable to resist. But how are we training our sailors and officers at this point?
From Lt. Narkter's rather obvious happiness while making the statement I've come to conclude that he was ordered to do exactly what he did, probably to play his part in a side agreement where we went along with a demand that we allow those boats to be taken as a final part of getting the three civilian hostages back.
Lots of questions and more likely they will never be answered by our government. We can expect that both governments are lying, our own government has turned into lying as a daily practice. However, on one point there is no doubt. We are not at war with Iran and therefore the rules of the Code of Conduct does not apply. We did not do that during the Cold War and we shouldn’t be fighting to the last man every time that we encounter an unfriendly government. Wars ought to be started by governments, not by boat crews. They certainly had a right to defend themselves, but since they weren’t fired upon, that situation didn’t come up.
So incredibly unbelievable, that it had to be intentional. #Treason
The entire event and circumstances appear to be staged. I still go with my initial reaction, there was something or someone covertly delivered to Iran and it was planned. There are two choices after that......
1). The plan included the story of the boat/electronics breaking down with video going public, showing cooperation, etc., etc.
OR (my favorite)
2. There was to just be the covert delivery which during, IRAN as usual, went off script, captured the boats, did the video and went public. Why? So Iran had proof that the US was involved in whatever or whoever was delivered which makes for great future negotiations.
This does not sound like the same U.S. Navy that I served in so many years ago. So sad.
These boats have a 300+ mile range. What, did they forget to fuel up before departing on a 200 mile transit?
Kerry got away with going to see the enemy in Paris as a yound Naval Officer. This young Naval officer will get away with cowering in front of and surrendering his command to the enemy as well.
No sensitive items were thrown overboard, no effort made to resist, nothing. The LT needs to be court martialed for that and for his comments to the iranian cameras. Disgusting. and btw, this has already dropped off the news radar. Nothing embarrassing to Obama hangs around long.
That was pretty good.
5.56mm
“Nartker or one of the other sailors must have radioed for help when the Iranians approached”
ABC news reported that they failed to make a regularly scheduled check in, and launched a search mission. This doesn’t make much sense, as it seems that the second the crew saw Iranian boats headed in their direction, they would have made a radio report...and certainly when they got very close.
Since his superiors (the civilian ones, at least) do not consider Iran the enemy, no harm, no foul.
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.