"Subject: AH, now it comes out"

Update: mystery 90% solved, see below.

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's a version on a blog from 18 April here, Jerry Pournelle linked it that day, Glenn Reynolds linked Pournelle the day after.

As of this writing, there are 39 Google hits for one of the key quotes. A quick glance at a random sample reveals no morphs at this point in time, they appear to be the same story. (Update: there are subtle differences, see below.) However, the line "read the following accurate account" about midway through indicates two sources.

For what it's worth, I get the impression that everything after "Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe." was written by someone other than the person who wrote the "accurate account" - perhaps the person who wrote the part before the "accurate account".

The earliest version I've found online is here - although depending on time-zone this version from a free republic chat dated April 16 ("Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:09:51 PM by mrmargaritaville" With the credit "Pulled from a boating message board ") might be the first. The earliest email I've seen this far has the same date.

Snopes has nothing as of now.

For what it's worth - this has all the classic elements of an urban legend. I'd like to see it happen, but I doubt you'll find anyone stepping forward and taking credit for being the initial author(s). Such things have a tendency to be dismissed - and usually that's good. The downside is - as I wrote on April 12th and 13th - this is a pretty accurate description of what happened, though I remain convinced that Barack Obama had next to nothing to do with it. ("White House" would be a better term.)

Still, there's no better way to ensure the truth is destroyed then to turn it into an urban legend.

Update: ahh... much of the email (everything after "read the following accurate account" - guess I googled the wrong quote) is taken directly from this unsourced story from Jeff Emanuel (not to be confused with Rahm). That also contains the line about Phillip's "second" dive into the water.

More: and that story first appeared on Red State. It too contained a reference to the "second jump" - a detail that (like many) was first erroneously reported to have happened in the MSM coverage (then subsequently scrubbed). Repeat after me: Initial reports are always wrong.

Still Jeff has much of the story right regarding restrictive ROE - although the desired outcome was not "a peaceful resolution" , it was more specifically captured pirates face trial in America. And President Obama played a bit less of a role than he wants you to believe.

As for whoever wrote the rest of the email and turned it into an urban legend: they weren't military - but they are the sort of person who thinks military people use terms like "raggies." ("Skinnies" has been used, you have to appreciate the humor behind that - being skinny is harder to shoot.)

Still more: this comment from NS Webster gets bumped, because there's a distinction that needs to be made:

This effort to find fault with the response is getting somewhat desperate and grasping.

There's dead pirates and a rescued hostage. Those are facts.

All the rest of this are theories turning more weird and strange. Not from here, but from these other urban legend sights.

The first time I posted about this I said it's not about Obama, and it isn't. We have dead pirates thanks to what I call the 21st Century Easter Miracle. I'm as glad as I am agnostic on this one.

I don't have a problem with Obama - he wasn't the player many (Right and Left, pro and con) think he was. Barack Obama is not that deep into military business. Even he hasn't claimed the honors or blame many want to bestow upon him for this.

The problem is next time, and restrictive ROE that can't be used successfully again and again just because this time an "on-scene commander" had the balls to act and an Admiral covered his back and presented the admin (meaning whatever legal counsel actually set this goatrope up) with "here's your story, heroes - whatcha gonna do now?"

There are similarities between this story and that of Captain Roger Hill - a man whose career ended as a result of Bush-era "ROE" in Afghanistan (ROE that continue). The main difference being that in Captain Hill's case no enemies were killed.

Here are the earliest examples I found of this urban legend email - and some additional observations.

The early "freep" version:

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation. 2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger 3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction 4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in. 5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams 6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies 7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors -- and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority -- the president of the United States, Barack Obama -- had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates -- and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he'd had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer -- unnamed in all media reports to date -- decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours -- as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location -- became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the pirates all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the pirates were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead pirates

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behavior. As usual with him, it's BS.

So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading BHO's performance to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors - and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United States, Barack Obama - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates - and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he'd had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer - unnamed in all media reports to date - decided
the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours - as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location - became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

As for the superkewlkid word DEVGRU - their participation might seem like a degree of knowledge only an insider would have, but in reality the Obama admin (specifically, some untrained dipsy doodle dipstick working the Easter weekend shift in the PR department or else a payback for snuffing the pirates) blew COMSEC and released that datapoint into the wild almost immediately. Easy enough to guess, but still - bad form.

Finally - I think "Send this to 12 of your friends immediately or a SEAL sniper will shoot you in 5 minutes" should be added to all future forwards of this email.

And wait til you see what we're going to do about the pirates next! (Hint: Guess "grab their great big pirate assets".)