Could USS Cole tragedy have been avoided?

World Tribune.com ^ | October 18, 2000 | John Metler

[detch]

Wasn't this a job Richard Clarke could have been doing - advising Pres. Clinton that a port visit to Aden was not wise, particulary since the Ambassador at the time, Barbara Bodine, thought it was not good judgment in view of the terrorist threat in the country?

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[OldEagle]

Short answer...YES!

[Inyokern]

Great find!

[kabar]

Zinni fancied himself as some sort of proconsul. He is a self-described expert on foreign policy. Zinni screwed up big time and was never held accountable.

[Doe Eyes]

Clinton was President. It happened on his watch. Of course he was responsible.

[Long Cut]

Well, here's a few things that might have helped:

1. The deck security force might have been properly briefed NOT to allow ANY unauthorised craft near the ship;

2. Said deck security might have been allowed to LOAD THEIR WEAPONS (they weren't).

3. They might have been authorized to fire on unauthorized craft approaching a Navy ship (they weren't);

4. They might have, Heaven forfend, even have been allowed to POINT their weapons at a potential threat to their vessels (they weren't).

In other words, due to absolutely INSANE Rules Of Engagement promulgated by an "administration" that was terrified of "offending" the locals, seventeen Sailors died, and a Navy ship was nearly sunk.

I wonder, what would Halsey, Nimitz, or Spruance have said? Would they have behaved as the Admirals nowadays did, and say and do NOTHING?

[detch]

I hope that CONDI RICE raises this point to the 9/11 Commission. This is one area where Richard Clarke could have and should have been instrumental in avoiding a tragedy and needless loss of life. In my view this would have been an area where he, in the NSC at the time, would have been directly responsible. The port visit request should have been denied, and he should have been involved in the process of approval/denial.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Do you think anything has changed? How many boats populate the waters of this nation's naval ports on any given day? For that matter, how many boats are moving about in any port, foreign or domestic, when a US naval vessel, or any ship flying our flag, enters that port and ties off or drops anchor?

[PISANO]

Of course it could have been avoided. If the Navy had sufficient AO's to refuel ships at sea the Cole would never had to go into port to refuel in the first place.

[Cboldt]

If the Navy had sufficient AO's to refuel ships at sea the Cole would never had to go into port to refuel in the first place.

That's another good point. I heard, but haven't followed up to confirm, that she was half full, and the port call was NOT necessary. Rather, the port call was to show some sort of show of goodwill, e.g., "We'll buy YOUR fuel."

[detch]

The DoD Commission reported that there WERE SUFFICIENT refuelling assets to allow refuelling at sea. This port visit to a high threat port was a "show the flag" that CENTCOM wanted to make happen. Can somebody find and confirm that the USS COLE had sufficient fuel GOING INTO the port of Aden to make it to the Northern Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. I had heard that the ship already had plenty of fuel on board.

[archy]

I wonder, what would Halsey, Nimitz, or Spruance have said? Would they have behaved as the Admirals nowadays did, and say and do NOTHING?

You left out Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel and Major General Walter Short, the respective Navy and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor on 07 December, 1941. I expect most would behave as they did, and afterwards, would pay a pretty similar price.

[archy]

This port visit to a high threat port was a "show the flag" that CENTCOM wanted to make happen. Can somebody find and confirm that the USS COLE had sufficient fuel GOING INTO the port of Aden to make it to the Northern Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. I had heard that the ship already had plenty of fuel on board.

Are you aware of which firm the fuel was purchased from, another likely reason the Cole was ordered to top up her tanks in a hostile port.

[Long Cut]

Actually, being in the Navy myself, I can assure you that security forces afloat are quite a bit better prepared.

As for the number of boats around, any getting within the ship's "safe zone" without proper clearance (and only a harbor tug would have this...not a raft or rowboat) would find its day solidly ruined.

[findingtruth]

It could have been avoided by a non-interventionist foreign policy, but nobody wants that except Pat Buchanan and those (sneer!) isolationists.

[Long Cut]

Were there ANY mud-puddles that wretched "administration" didn't wallow in?

I am not surprised in the least.

[detch]

All I can say to you is -- RIMFIRE. A single ship not going into a high threat port against the advice of the Ambassador has NOTHING TO DO with non-interventionism. Gheez...

[WhiteyAppleseed]

Glad to hear it. I was on the Hepburn (and the McCain DDG-36--carried the national ensign during the decommissioning, color guard). We were getting ready to leave Hunter's Point in '78 when a tug backed into us. The tug had moved the Fanning from the quay wall in front of us--why--I don't know. "Flooding, flooding, flooding in the boiler room" took on new meaning. The five foot dent was repaired quickly, unlike the 19 month yard period.