 |  |
 
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 13, 2009 More Imminent DangerBy GreyhawkI actually wrote the Imminent Danger post last night, finished it rather late and decided to post it this AM. I tweaked it a bit on waking and published, but have since found two additional bits of data that add much to the discussion. To those in a moment, first, when I watched the press conference, what stood out in my mind were the repeated references to these three points: 1. The hostage was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him 2. The hostage was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him, and 3. The hostage was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him. Add to that the number of times Admiral Gortney mentioned that Captain Phillips was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him and I couldn't help but notice that it was awfully important to him to make sure that we knew that Captain Phillips was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him in case somehow someone overlooked the fact that Captain Phillips was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him. (At his back even, where he himself couldn't even see it!) As noted in the post I wrote about Captain Phillips in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him, it seems to me Captain Phillips was in imminent danger from the moment armed pirates boarded his ship - but I'm no expert on the fine points of law of the sea. Which brings us to the two additional items found today. Item one: the first official DoD story on the rescue of Captain Phillips: Hostage Captain Was in 'Imminent Danger' at Time of RescueWithin which I perceived a subtle emphasis on the fact that Hostage Captain Was in 'Imminent Danger' at Time of Rescue (but maybe that's just me). Item two is in this NY Times story (hat tip Tom Maguire): The Defense Department twice sought Mr. Obama's permission to use force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed, they said, if it appeared that the captain's life was in imminent danger.Apparently the Friday answer was just "no" (or maybe "hell no"), the Saturday response was "well okay, but only if he's in imminent danger - that definition apparently not being met by his mere hostage status*. Back to the conclusion I drew from the repeated repetitious repetition of the presser: I think my interpretation is that there's a legal counsel somewhere just outside the picture who placed an awfully restrictive ROE on the folks involved in this effort. Into exactly what ear he whispered this advice I have no idea. But even with highly skilled operators at the ready, the odds of having all three pirates on a covered lifeboat available for a ranged headshot from one pitching deck to another in less than optimum light made by passive snipers at the exact moment an AK47 is pointed at Captain Phillip's back must have seemed remote even to the most optimistic on-scene commander coordinating the delicate negotiations and hoping that a resort to violent gunplay wouldn't become necessary.- a point that I think bears repeating here given new information now on hand. I'd now like to expand what I think my interpretation is: someone wanted pirates "arrested", not killed. The desired outcome was apparently a demonstration that a guided missile destroyer and an amphibious assault ship with 2000 Marines and an FBI hostage negotiation team can do a lot more than a guided missile destroyer and an amphibious assault ship with 2000 Marines and no FBI hostage negotiation team. They got at least 1/4 of their wish (though the status of the hostage negotiations and location of the team at time of termination is uncertain) - I hope that works out for them (or is it us?). And I'll close for now by repeating myself again: ...give him a tour of the Boxer, have him meet the Marines and see their toys, ask him where his home is and put him ashore. Tell him to pass along to his elders that next time anything like this happens nearby those Marines will be downtown within a couple of hours. *Update/footnote: A senior administration official "clarifies" the claims of Pentagon officials: "A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama granted the authority on Friday and Saturday to use appropriate force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. The Pentagon believed Phillips' life was at risk both times, officials said." Back to the NY Times story linked above for a memory jogger: By Friday, with several warships within easy reach of the lifeboat, the negotiations had gone nowhere. Captain Phillips jumped into the sea, but was quickly recaptured. On Saturday, the pirates fired several shots at a small boat that had approached from the Bainbridge.Really? On both these occasions the on-scene commander had to call the Pentagon to get them to ask the White House if they could act? And the Saturday answer - with the Navy crew under fire - was "only if it appeared that the captain's life was in imminent danger? As fellow Iraq vet Dave Thul asks in comments, "The ROE in Iraq gives every young private the authority to use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily harm to civilians. Why did the President need to give specific authority to the CO of the Bainbridge to do the very same thing?" Because he (or an underling) wasn't authorizing - he was restricting. Thank God they had an Easter miracle and were smart enough not to call again. This situation was a classic goatf$%k. Kudos to everyone on the scene who made it turn out right. And kudos to the Admiral for ensuring no one on high could second guess the decision made on the other side of the world. At least it worked this time. Next: The Sims Posted by Greyhawk / April 13, 2009 4:02 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksI don't have time or software to make a totally sweet simulation of the 21st Century Easter Miracle, but I think I can fairly quickly paint a word-picture that's at least equally accurate. Here goes: Fade in - a mousy looking guy in a suit stands on th... Read More That headline above (another version "Subject: The Behind the Scenes News on the Gulf of Aden Pirate Take-Down") is the subject line from an email that's making the rounds. So yes - I've seen it. If you haven't seen a copy yet you probably will. There'... Read More 14 Comments |
July 19, 2010Dawn Patrol 07/19/2010 [Greyhawk]
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our ongoing roundup of information on war and other topics - from the MilBlogs and other sources around the world.
Always updating - refresh for updates.
AFGHANISTANProspects for stability in Musa Qala: challenges and possible solutions -- [Bill Ardolino /Long War Journal - in Afghanistan] Exploding Culverts -- [Kandahar Diary - in Afghanistan] Arbaki -- [Free Range International - in Afghanistan] Weather -- [A Major's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Fête Nationale -- [Field Notes: One Soldier's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Goodbye "FaST" Food (and good riddance) -- [FaST Surgeon - in Afghanistan] IRAQOn The Iran, Iraq Border -- [J.D. Johannes - in Iraq] WAR ON TERROR /TERRORISMSenators Look For Smoking Gun In BP-Lockerbie Link -- [AP] No Link Between BP And Lockerbie Release: UK Envoy -- [NPR news blog] UK's Cameron: Releasing Lockerbie Bomber Was Wrong -- [AP] U.S. AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLDAs Cameron and Obama Meet, BP Will Be Top Issue -- [NY Times] Afghanistan tops agenda for British PM's visit -- [Washington Times] WELCOME HOMEHomecoming -- [Rajiv Srinivasan - home from Afghanistan] STRATEGY & TACTICSISAF, SCR Address Military ROE and Tactical Directives -- [ISAF] SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYRaytheon's pain gun finally gets deployed in Afghanistan (update: recalled) -- [Engadget] Pain Ray Recalled From Afghanistan -- [Noah Shachtman/Danger Room] The Active Denial System: the weapon that's a hot topic -- [The Telegraph (UK)] World's Fastest Helicopter Boosts Battle Against Insurgents -- [ISAF]
POLITICSIs it time for a real GI Jane? -- [CNN] HUMOR/SATIRE(Need more? Dawn Patrols Archives are here.) Iraq, Afghanistan, War, Terrorism, Military, Politics, Media, MilBlogs, dawn patrol Mudville |
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2009 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  |
The ROE in Iraq gives every young private the authority to use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily harm to civilians. Why did the President need to give specific authority to the CO of the Bainbridge to do the very same thing?
He didn't Dave - he was restricting them, not authorizing them.
Well...I think they wanted a pretty strict ROE here...like you said, you've got snipers taking a night shot at a boat pitching in waves. So the ROE is real simple - life in danger, take shot, but don't take a chance that's unneccesary. The boat wasn't exactly going anywhere - weren't they actually being towed by the Bainbridge?
I think the Admin did the right thing pretty much the whole way...there was no bellicose press conference, no dithering and panic, and they got the Seals in place. They gave the pirates a little time to think about their course of action, and they made a poor choice.
Ooops...SEALS.
I'm not suggesting the Admin did anything all that special, either. I don't think they messed it up, but that's sort of the minimum I hope for, not a great triumph.
So what happens at a later date when someone decides to throw a temper tantrum because they feel they were cheated out of their negociations this time?
Don't misunderstand, I am glad it all worked out and that the Capt. is safe and the bad guys are mostly dead. But I just have a bad feeling like when the guy with the hockey mask is stabbed multiple times and falls out the third floor window. He always comes back.
The key word is imminent...and yes, that does imply that a "peaceful, negotiated resolution" was the White House preferred solution...so the captain jumping in the water the first time wasn't what the WH wanted and shots being fired at the Bainbridge wasn't enough to be imminent...although this ended well, the overall picture is not a good one for our troops. The WH obviously was micro-managing with a lawyer's eye not a warrior's eye.
Katie, you're assuming the SEALs had an open shot both those previous times. I don't think they were on station the first time the captain jumped. As soon as they had a clear line of fire they obviously acted immediately. It was a bouncing boat, after all. I think they showed perfectly appropriate patience.
Like I said, I don't think BO deserves any special credit...but don't go the other way and try to find fault where there isn't any. I don't see any micro-managing. I do see dead pirates! Haha...
NS Webster
The part that bothers me more than anything is that apparently the White House was called at least twice for permission to fire. That implies micro-managing, worse yet micromanaging from a very long distance. Not only that, but a description of armed Americans under fire in a situation where that's unsurprising. Not only can they not shoot back on their own decision, they need authorization not from the immediate on-scene commander but from someone in Washington - and as the call indicates no blanket authorization was in place.
Said 'blanket authorization' as Dave points out, exists, and not just in Iraq. Return fire in self defense isn't something that must be granted on case by case basis - it is the default, it is understood, it's law. Unless it is very specifically denied, which in this event is inexplicable.
Ultimately the guys with the guns in the danger zones must be the ones who decide when to pull the trigger.
That said, dead pirates are the best pirates!
My Oh-Oh meter went off when the ship was sealed as a crime scene.
Which will cost more - the military assets employed or the FBI personnel, trial, and prison time? I suggest the latter. But what would I know? I'm just an old farm boy who thought nothing about shooting a rabid skunk and didn't even bother to take it to the vet to see if it was rabid. Soaking it with kerosene and burning it though was an extra precaution.
Lesson for the pirates: If the US Navy, with some SEALs and Marines, offer to let you return to you mother if you release your hostages, best release the hostages.
We should also crate a "Flight 93" medal, and give it to the ship's crew!
Thanks for summing that up Greyhawk. As you said, there should have been no need to seek authorization from anyone when Standing Rules of Engagement would already have covered the situation.
Three snipers, a pitching firing platform, a pitching target platform, 3 independently moving targets, targets simultaneously exposed on a partially covered lifeboat and three disabling shots. What probability of success? It is unlikely that the military would reveal the kill method at this time.
You forgot "all at the exact moment hostage had weapon pointed at back".
Twenty-first century Easter Miracle, TonyO.
Thanks for a great post, Greyhawk! These kinds of ideas were skittering around at the edge of my consciousness since Sunday, but I didn't have the experience or even the knowledge to crystalize it all (but there was just no way I was buying the idea that things were as obvious as they were presented).
Awesome post!