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
Retract your claws. I'm merely reporting what I've read in a number of sources. As I said, I could be wrong but there is sourcing that supports my claim that at least part of why the Cole was in Aden was a lack of oiler availability. And there is nothing that indicates Buzz Patterson is an unreliable source. He was at the president's side on national security matters for a number of years. I think that gives his opinion a little more weight in my book than yours.
Other sources: Author Peter Bergen indicates that there were two reasons why the Cole went to Aden--- the Navy didn't have enough oilers and so needed a port and the State Department hoped to woo Yemen, an ally of Iraq, into its "war against terrorism." The mastermind for the plot was a bin Laden deputy, Mohammed Omar al-Harzi who, like the intellectual authors of previous terrorist plots, fled the vicinity before the actual event. The Yemeni authorities were only minimally more cooperative with the FBI than the Saudis had been, much to the frustration of FBI agents such as John O'Neill. Yemen arrested six or so men who were directly involved with the Cole attack, but understandably refused the FBI's request to investigate and interview certain members of the government and an army general related to President Salih. According to a Yemeni newspaper, "It was clear from the start that the accessories to the attack would be tried and executed, but the people inside Yemen who financed it, and used their power to facilitate it, would never be brought to book." Bergen, Holy War, Inc., pp. 167-169, 184-193.]
BTTT
bttt
Let's deal in facts. There were 27 oilers or fast supply ships in the Navy and the Sealift Command in 1999. There are 17 now, all sealift. If they were short of oilers under Clinton then they must really be hurting now.
"I've heard it from a number of sources" is the lazy man's excuse for avoiding real research.
As I said, I could be wrong but there is sourcing that supports my claim that at least part of why the Cole was in Aden was a lack of oiler availability.
Yeah, that excuse got floated (like a turd) by the Clinton administration right after the attacks.
And there is nothing that indicates Buzz Patterson is an unreliable source.
Read his books carefully, and you will find numerous errors once you get away from the Air Force, and what he directly saw with his own two eyes--and this counts as both.
I think that gives his opinion a little more weight in my book than yours.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Other sources: Author Peter Bergen indicates that there were two reasons why the Cole went to Aden--- the Navy didn't have enough oilers and so needed a port and the State Department hoped to woo Yemen, an ally of Iraq, into its "war against terrorism."
Since there was no "war against terrorism" at the time, that flies in the face of the facts right there.
Eureka! You have struck GOLD!
Two sources indicate your numbers may be wrong. I realize neither are experts, but I imagine they did some homework before making their claims. In the second quote, perhaps you could contact the named Freeper for further discussion:
San Antonio Express-News 10/14/00 Sig Christenson "….. Long before the USS Cole made port in Aden, its fate may have been sealed by two seemingly unrelated events - a thaw in relations between the United States and tiny Yemen, and a big chill in the Navy's budget. The thaw is rooted in the end of a civil war in Yemen in 1990. After the war, the United States established an embassy and consulate in Yemen, which has drawn the interest of great powers over the decades because of its proximity to the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and Suez Canal. …….. Half a world away, the chill is found in the shrinking Navy, which has fallen from 585 ships in 1986 to 314 today, among them the retirement of at least 17 refueling vessels, or oilers, in the past decade - some only a third or so into their lifetime of 40 years when decommissioned. ……"
US Navy 10/15/00 Freeper JoeNavyEveryman "…… The present conventional wisdom is that the reason the USS Cole came to be in the Harbour at Aden (Yemen) was that the Captain chose to break away from the battle group in order to accomplish a planned refuelling. This, apparently, is a common occurrence if there is no Oiler in the battlegroup. ……. Hypothetically, let's say that those facts ring true. I had one question...why wasn't there an Oiler in the battlegroup....Maybe this is why:
AOR Designated Replenishment Oiler
All seven (7) were disposed, stricken or sold under Clinton/ Gore.
He disappeared a while after that.
And personal attacks are a lazy man's excuse for avoiding real debate.
I cited a source in my post to you above, and 2 other sources in my reply #28. What sourcing have you cited me other than yourself?
And by the way, I was merely asserting things I have read. It was never of sufficient importance to me to go into a massive research project over though I spent 5 minutes on Google to find some support which I have provided. But to claim somehow I'm lazy is really unfair and unwarranted in what was merely a casual discussion throwing out some ideas.
I went and looked stuff up at the time, because the "we didn't have any oilers" excuse stank like a used diaper. Turns out we had oilers in theater, the Clintons simply wanted to be buddy-buddy with Yemen.
I am not aware that the Clinton administration ever cited this as a reason for our going to Aden. To do so would tend to indict their defense cutbacks. If you have a source showing that the Clintonites used this excuse, then I'll buy it. But I really have a hard time believing they would have as it would have left them vulnerable to all sorts of criticism over their defense spending or lack thereof. I don't know why you think this excuse is somehow flattering to Clinton. Quite the opposite.
Read his books carefully, and you will find numerous errors once you get away from the Air Force, and what he directly saw with his own two eyes--and this counts as both.
Care to name some or is this the "lazy man's" way of discreditting sources that don't agree with your point of view?
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Hmmmm, didn't you just tell me to do some reseach and then when I provided you a source you say I'm engaging in logical fallacies?? I see. So which is it? Do I need to do research or is it just merely a fallacious appeal to authority if I do? Isn't most scholarly research based on using sourcing to back up your thesis?
I think you misunderstand what the appeal to authority fallacy is all about. It has nothing to do with presenting facts and sourcing them. It has to do with claiming someone with some perceived authority agrees with you and therefore you are right and your opponent wrong. That is not what I was doing. I was presenting the 1st hand account of someone on the scene of the Clinton White House.
Other sources: Author Peter Bergen indicates that there were two reasons why the Cole went to Aden--- the Navy didn't have enough oilers and so needed a port and the State Department hoped to woo Yemen, an ally of Iraq, into its "war against terrorism."
Since there was no "war against terrorism" at the time, that flies in the face of the facts right there.
Just because the US wasn't fighting the war on terrorism doesn't mean there wasn't a war with terrorism going on. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden had declared war on the US in 1998. Just because our side wasn't fighting it doesn't mean there wasn't a war. And note Bergen uses quotes as if incredulous at the State Dept. label of there having been a war against terrorism at the time. I believe he is using their labelling, not his own.
Finally, aren't red herrings like picking up one irrelevent line out of the entire passage to dismiss the main point also a "logical fallacy?"
Do a search using these words:
Bottom-Up-Review
This was the Clinton administration's plan to severely cut our military from 1993-2000.
The US Military (and the Bush administration TO THIS DAY,)is STILL trying to play "catch-up" with the cuts that were made for Clinton's "Peace Dividend".
IMHO, that's why Clinton IGNORED any and ALL possible conflicts or terrorist attempts on the US, because he and the Dem's needed the money for "programs", (IE get certain folks hooked on more Gov't "crack"= free handouts with military money.
The "Bottom-Up-Review" was supposed to (according to Les Aspin, and the Clinton Admin) leave us STILL able to fight a two-theatre war, even with the massive cuts.
It did not.
I find it ironic that the Dems are the ones screaming "We need MORE troops", etc, like Murtha and the Dem bunch, when it was THEIR President who slashed and burned the military that their "Billy Boy" LOATHED.
Wait, didn't you just call me lazy for saying something similar as opposed to doing actual research as you put it? You said this was the "lazy man's approach" I believe and now you're doing it. Interesting...
And refer to my previous post to you that the Clintons didn't use a lack of oiler excuse that I'm aware of because it would have made them and their defense cutbacks look bad. Provide me with a source to show I'm wrong and you'll have my apology.
Frankly, the "we wanted to be friends with Yemen" excuse looks far less damning than that "we cut the Navy's budget and thus forced them into a port crawling with terrorists." I can't imagine the Clintons would have preferred that excuse to an idea they could have sold as well-intentioned that we were just trying to make allies in the Middle East.
Either way, I think we agree Clinton blew it and any further pissing contest on this is really pointless and is going to get us nowhere.
That would depend on how it was spun, and the Clintons were masters of spin. They just said, "Well, things are really busy," and the press didn't give them a tough question on it.
If you have a source showing that the Clintonites used this excuse, then I'll buy it.
It came up early on, right after the attack--the major papers got it "on background" from an "unnamed administration official."
Meanwhile, General Franks was taking a beating in front of Congress, and he let the cat out of the bag that this port visit was discretionary.
But I really have a hard time believing they would have as it would have left them vulnerable to all sorts of criticism over their defense spending or lack thereof.
Well, that would require the sock-puppet press to actually ask Clinton something other than the softballs they usually threw, wouldn't it?
I don't know why you think this excuse is somehow flattering to Clinton.
It's a whole lot more flattering than "we decided to have the Cole make a port call in a terrorist s**thole for no good reason whatsoever."
Just because the US wasn't fighting the war on terrorism doesn't mean there wasn't a war with terrorism going on.
Clinton was NOT fighting a war on terrorism--which is why 9/11 came about--so there was no urgency to get Yemen as an ally in a war Clinton wasn't fighting.
Bottom line:
Just as with today's Democrats, one could easily build a credible case the Clinton administration and the Democrats aided and abetted the terrorists in setting the stage for them and then for misdirecting the search for them after each attack. That is especially true of TWA 800 and the Murrah building.
BTTT
Zinni is routinely lionized by the liberal-stream media, and there is NEVER any mention of the Cole issue. This guy gets more free passes from the media than BJ himself.
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.