Posted on 08/31/2006 7:25:33 PM PDT by Marius3188
The captain of the USS Cole, who saved his ship from sinking after an al-Qa'eda suicide attack by speedboat, has lashed out at senior Pentagon staff blocking his promotion because of allegations that he could have done more to protect the ship.
Commander Kirk Lippold, who now serves behind a desk at the Pentagon, accused the head of the navy, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the navy secretary of "over-riding the judgment" of officers who had recommended his promotion.
He complained he was the only officer being held to account for the attack in Aden harbour six years ago. The Cole had gone to Aden despite a recognition that terrorists were active in Yemen.
Relatives of the Cole's dead, and many serving and retired American sailors, have criticised the Pentagon's decision, arguing that Cdr Lippold had been made a scapegoat.
The blast killed 17 American seamen and blew a 40ft hole in the guided-missile destroyer. It was al-Qa'eda's last major operation before the September 11 atrocities.
"I am extremely disappointed by the about-face on the part of navy leadership," Cdr Lippold told Navy Times. "The (official inquiry) findings still stand, that nothing I could have done as commanding officer would have prevented the attack or its results."
Navy secretary Donald Winter said he had decided that Cdr Lippold's actions in Aden "did not meet the high standard expected of commanding officers".
But the decision was criticised by commentators, who argued that the navy was bending to the views of a single senator, John Warner, who chairs the powerful armed services committee.
Mr Warner argued that he is not opposed to the promotion, but promised a public hearing on the attack if the commander's name was formally placed before his committee.
He once complained that "not a single disciplinary action of any kind was taken".
Politics.
From the title on down, not one bit of bias. Nope! (/s)
The Cole bombing was Clinton's fault.
I believe if I were commanding a ship ringed with chain guns and autoloading cannons that this could have been prevented quite easily.
Whoever set the rules of engagement for the deck watch should have been the scapegoat.
Tough Luck Captain.
That is how it goes.
Not if the SecDef or SecState or SecNav is setting the RoE.
Pure B.S.
The captain is responsible for his ship. He knew was entering enemy waters and territory.
He apparently had orders not to provide a "show of force".
He could have and should have had armed sailors on deck. That is not a "show of force" but common sense. He could have had boats providing perimeter security. That is not a
"show of force" but common sense.
They can take his Clinton/Cohen/Albright ass and kick it to the moon!
Yeah no kidding, however the ROE specified, unloaded weapons.
True enough. The fish rots from the head. I could never figure why Yemen was a port of call anyway. It's not like the sailors can go ashore and have any real fun, plus it is obviously a quite perilous place for American interests.
I don't know how you protect a ship in those areas; but I presume that a patrol craft circling it, plus deck guns, both with orders to fire on any craft approaching too close,
would be fairly standard.
If I--who have never been a navy officer--would feel insecure and think there might be a need to undertake protective measures in ANY Gulf or muslim port--I think maybe the capt. of the Cole might have thought that necessary, too.
(just my uniformed opinion. . .)
Not if the standing orders from your chain of command prevented you from engaging the enemy until fired upon.
"Whoever set the rules of engagement for the deck watch should have been the scapegoat."
That would be REMFs in Washington.
If he had fired on that boat, they'd have hung him from a yardarm.
The stuffed shirt pompous poop deck Warner certainly is worthless. Pentagon doesn't want hearings because the blame would climb the chain of command and somebody besides the good captain would find their appendage in the meatgrinder regarding why US warships were refueling without guard in that port in the first place and that is not Monday morning quarterbacking. They knew it was a damn dangerous port.
You'd think so, but I've heard the deck guns were not even manned at the time. I was in Med-Hold at the Bethesda Naval Hospital with a sailor who was injured during the attack on the Cole. According to him, the guns were ordered to be unmanned in order to not show signs of aggression in port. Of course that is second-hand information, so take it for what it is worth.
I agree. Why didn't heads roll at any of the government organizations or intelligence organizations? Not what Warner wants to hear but it's the truth and he will only settle for blaming the Navy.
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.