Posted on 03/25/2007 5:30:55 PM PDT by Weight of Glory
The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: “The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”…
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
c.f. USS Pueblo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_pueblo
I don't believe clinton was ever called for permission to fire on the small boat approaching the USS Cole.
Can you provide more details?
thanx
Winston Churchill would never have sent off his military with a no shoot ROE.
I always wondered if the Iranians were planning a 9-11 type civilian airliner crash into a naval war ship ?
The Iranians would not care if a few hundred civilians died ?
I thought that the Cole did not have permission to fire their weapons in port and that their guns were not loaded.
My recollection ( could be wrong ) is that the DOD had given orders to the Captain to not post armed guards in port. Also that the Captain was not aware of the attack until after the explosion.
Please help me if I am wrong.
The crew of the Cole were basically unarmed thanks to the Clintoons and the Goron.
Now we have President Bush, and things have changed.
However, most of us, who served in the Cold War in potentially hot areas, know that we often had PC ROEs, that placed us in danger if the commies decided to take us out or make an issue of us. It has been a problem since the Korean War, thanks to Truman and the UN.
Roger that!!
Humm hadn't seen that part. Well now we wait.
The Cole incident never would have happened had the Clinton administration not denied UNREPS and left the Cole to replenish in a foreign port.
As the crew members were surrounded in their two rubber dinghies, the Cornwall’s commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, frantically radioed back to his own top brass for instructions.
The response to the inquiry, which had been immediately patched through to Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall, was to hold fire.
The order to show restraint has been observed throughout the forces and the British government in the 48 hours since, but it is unclear how long both sides will be able to maintain control.
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=462812007
The British navy has suspended all boarding operations of cargo vessels in the northern Gulf while a complete review of the practice is under way following the capture - and release - of 15 navy personnel by Iran, it was confirmed Friday. The head of the British Navy, Admiral Jonathon Band, said in a BBC interview that the boarding operations of merchant vessels suspected of illegal cargo had been suspended while a “complete review” of the incident which led to the sailors being seized is carried out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813593/posts
Just wondering?
Which “he” are you asking about?
I remember 3 US soldiers taken without a shot fired in Kosovo in, what? 97?
Just a friendly inquiry.
Actually we do know what the US would have done. US Soldiers have already fired upon Iranians trying to capture them. Been there done that...kicked ass and they came home.
The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."
Duh...thats what you do when you are fired upon by crazy Muslims...you fire back and kill the btards. Then you deny...hehe. Everyone gets the message...especially the soldiers under your command. They get the message that they are NOT expendable...contrary to the British wussies who now have gotten the message loud and clear that if you stray away from something too large to surrender peacefully, HMS Cromwell, you are done for...
As long as John Howard is PM - Australia would come to our side. By the time the Brits appeased their muslims, it would be all over with.
Consider the diffences in “rules of engagement” under the various presidents.
Under ANY clinton presidency we would have Carter-esque surrender style rules. A paper tiger which holds all conflice is a “police matter”.
I think the British military is going to pay a serious price for their weakness for many years to come.
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.