I don't think so. I'm guessing it was just a matter of logistics and skill. The SEALS weren't yet on station when the skipper jumped into the water on Friday.
With all apologies to our Navy veterans, US sailors are not very good shots. In fact, I don't believe anyone on board a guided missile destroyer is even trained on a rifle, like the M-16A2 or the M14. The only weapons that were probably even pointed at the lifeboat at the time were crew-served M60s or M2s - not weapons you want to fire at a small object at 300 yards, especially when something you don't want to hit is floating right next to it.
I'm guessing that the Bainbridge skipper was instructed not to do anything provocative and to keep the lifeboat close with an open line of communication until the SEALS arrived. In my experience, that's very good advice.
Now, what happened after the SEALS set up shop is anyone's guess. I'm sure the real story has yet to come out, but eventually it certainly will - it always does.
You may be right. I haven’t been in the service for decades, and then I was in the Army, not the Navy. I do have quite a lot of experience with boats and the sea, but not connected with the Navy.
But it strikes me as remiss that the commander in that region would send out the Bainbridge without Seals already on board. Since the mission was supposed to be protecting ships against pirates, how on earth could they do that unless they were properly prepared to deal with pirates? Small boats, irregulars, hostages, the whole scenario was well known, the only difference being that this time the hostage was American. And they weren’t ready for it? Why were they there, then?
I don’t KNOW anything about current SOP, of course. It just seems odd to me that they wouldn’t be ready to deal with the kind of situation they encountered.
Although I understand that SNAFU can be an ancient problem in the military. Courage, heroism, and screwups.