Posted on 04/13/2009 6:07:49 PM PDT by tobyhill
This is the best account of the incident I have seen. It closely parallels the Free republic threads of Sunday afternoon interpreting the Admiral’s briefing from Bahrain.
It resolved the issue of two apparently separate Presidential authorizations for deadly force. The second came after and because the SEAL team(s) arrived on site.
world’s most powerful navy against a rag-tag foe holding an American hostage.
From this information it appears that the SEALS only arrived on Saturday morning. Can someone explain why it took so long for them to get to the Bainbridge? And did the Bainbridge have its own shooters (Marines?) on board from the beginning?
I thought that the Boxer was also sent to the area of the pirate hijacking? If this is right, this means that the Boxer's Marine Expeditionary Unit would have its complement of Marine snipers and these specialists could have been, or were, on the scene at the Bainbridge well before the Seal unit arrived.
Bunch of "ifs" here for sure but I do wonder if Marines were held back while the FBI was brought into the the situation or for other reasons. Marine snipers are not exactly creampuffs ya know.
I'm sure they were speaking for the civilian (far left liberal) leadership, and not for the patriotic mainstream in the Navy. As for the SEALs, it's a good thing they finally got the order. I don't want to imagine how rough it would be to have been a SEAL with a clear shot waiting for orders from the druggie in our White House and never get those orders, especially if the captain was later killed.
amen. I’m very worried how Obama will abuse our special forces. All I can think about is “Desert 1.”
Somehow, I think any sensible conservative, like Governor Palin, would have gotten this one right. When a pirate kidnaps an American citizen at gunpoint, the American is in imminent or immediate danger. The correct answer is to "resolve" the danger at the first good opportunity, and rules of engagement should reflect that fact.
ROFL!
Bravo!
One detail, without going into my own background: the night shots could be easier, since both the people and those waters are likely to be calmer at night (less wind-driven chop among other considerations). No debate on the raw amazing skill of the SEALs, but they might have preferred the night shot to a daytime shot (although personally I would have preferred the night shot on the first night).
There have been a lot of hostage situations in the world, long before anything to do with these pirates in Somalia. They range from dedicated Islamists, to opportunists, to something that is “spur-of-the-moment” to — you-name-it.
And the authorities have developed methodologies and procedures for the best way to secure a safe return of hostages (for the most part and things that are seen to be successful).
Two components (or maybe three or four... LOL...) of that kind of successful operation comes down to (1) patience, (2) negotiation, (3) assessing by using these first two, (4) setting up for possible storming, (5) creating best conditions for securing hostages [by setting up storming or simply getting them released].
So, no..., I don’t think — rushing things and doing something — without “developing” the situation in order to create conditions for the highest probability, is the best route. And neither do the authorities, who deal with these kinds of situations all the time...
Apparently the swells had gotten worse during the day - the shots were taken around nautical twilight, so the swells had apparently not had a chance to diminish. But I would have preferred the first viable shot been taken.
I'd actually rather those details NOT be released, but one correction - the SEALs arrived Saturday night, not Saturday morning.
In the words of the late, great Will Rogers, “Diplomacy is saying nice doggie while you pick up a stick.”
The military needs clear orders. The president (or whatever the druggie in our White House deserves to be called) can ask for recommendations, but he needs to give an order ... which can be a standing order. I'd like rules of engagement that give the military orders to "take the shot" whenever an American is kidnapped by pirates and the opportunity is present, since the act of kidnapping as part of piracy implies an immediate danger to the lives of the hostages, but there needs to be guidance from the commander-in-chief, or in this case from the community-organizer-in-chief.
I think that depends on whether the intent is to arrest the criminals and press charges or to rescue the hostages and hold funerals (Lord, we send these otherwise worthless pirate bodies to feed your undersea critters, the first and only good they will have done with their lives. Amen). In both cases, there is an advantage to getting assets in place and allowing fatigue to build, but with the second option and skilled shooters you gain less. Dead pirates are a whole lot easier to control during a rescue than living "suspects".
SeaHawkFan said in post #96 — If I was president I would have not needed a briefing. I would have told the DoD to take care of it any way they thought best and then tell them to get on it.
Then, TurtleUp said in reply — The military needs clear orders. The president (or whatever the druggie in our White House deserves to be called) can ask for recommendations, but he needs to give an order ... which can be a standing order.
—
I was watching “The Missiles of October” last night (once again, after several times before...). It’s about the US/USSR standoff regarding Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba (true story, of course... for those who might not know... LOL...). It was based upon records of the conversations and pretty much “kept to the script” — so it was a good insight as to how the President interacts and works with his Cabinet, the military and diplomats through a crisis situation.
People should review that situation and sit through the movie to get some insights as to how things go (and they *actually did go* the way the presentation showed it...)
I decided to review that again, considering what Obama was probably doing behind the scenes for this particular event and especially since I had put together the “Presidential Crises” list a few days before...
—
A recent post that I did...
Well, an interesting thing happened on the way to Free Republic for me, a few days ago..., it just started with a simple post and two little items on it... I never intended for the following list to come about... LOL...
Here’s where it all started, and then some FReepers started giving me some more events.. :-)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2226437/posts?page=5#5
THEN... it turned into this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2226437/posts?page=135#135
—
Oh..., and I decided to watch the docudrama — “The Missiles of October”. One should watch that one (or watch it again, if you have already seen it) to see how a “real crisis” happened and all the backroom scenes of how the President’s office works in solving the crisis... :-)
Out of 100 shots at a head-sized target from 200-300 meters, I would miss zero (where a miss is anything significantly off the point of aim), and my guess is that the SEAL snipers are better than I am. At 25 meters, I'd again miss zero shots. No difference.
Well, consider two clear advantages that the Navy was able to do, by following through with this procedure that I outlined above.
One, they were able to gain the confidence of the pirate *enough* to have the pirates allow the U.S. Navy to “tow them” and the lifeboat they were on. This one thing, alone, put those pirates within about 25 yards of the Navy vessel. That, by itself, improved the odds of success greatly.
And then, another thing that they did (again, from following these kinds of procedures) was that they were able to have one pirate be *confident enough* to stay on board the US Navy ship, while his compatriots were still in the lifeboat.
This made it so that there were now *only* three pirates on the lifeboat, instead of four (as there was before). So, you have two things that happen as a result of that. You have it happen that you see *all three* at the same time more often that you’ll see *all four* at the same time. More opportunities for shots.
And then, secondly, you have a *higher degree of success* for only taking out “three” than you have for taking out “four” — all at the same time.
So, you see..., with patience and negotiating, you increase your odds greatly and contribute to a successful operation...
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.