snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 18 April 2009, 03:47 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 107,962
Jolly Roger Pirate/SEAL True Story

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pirates.asp
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18 April 2009, 04:14 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 22,462
Default

I was going to say that I didn't know what "BHO" meant and ask if it was Marine jargon, but I've just realised it's "Barack Hussein Obama". Oh well. "ROE" must be "Rules of Engagement". What nonsense those things are.

I suppose if "dead raggies" is the goal, then Obama's not the man. Dear dear. Is "raggie" a general term now for people who the OP writer and his ilk think would be better killed? I didn't think that Somalis were generally "ragheads" in terms of wearing turbans or desert headgear and the like. (eta - The CIA Factbook lists the religion as "Sunni Muslim" so I guess the term just means Muslim).

Obviously I can't comment on the truthfulness of the situation as a whole, but a better outcome would surely have seen nobody dead at all.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18 April 2009, 04:31 AM
Troodon Troodon is offline
 
Join Date: 06 January 2004
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 8,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
Obviously I can't comment on the truthfulness of the situation as a whole, but a better outcome would surely have seen nobody dead at all.
Well, in practical terms, captured pirates do us no good but cost us a lot of money.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18 April 2009, 04:38 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 107,962
Reporter Moment to shoot Somali pirates had come

Before ending a standoff with pirates by firing three fatally precise shots, U.S. Navy SEAL snipers had passed on multiple opportunities to fire.

The marksmen had moved into position after the White House expanded the authority it had given the world's most powerful navy against a ragtag foe holding an American hostage. They kept their scopes trained on their Somali targets as prospects for a peaceful resolution seemed to shrivel.

But most of all, they waited as a series of seemingly insignificant moves -- from extending the pirates a rope to bringing an injured brigand on-board -- improved their odds of success.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7994401.story
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18 April 2009, 09:54 AM
Mnotr2
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
Obviously I can't comment on the truthfulness of the situation as a whole, but a better outcome would surely have seen nobody dead at all.
When the pirates decided to attack a US flagged ship with the goal of extorting money by the threat of violence they sealed their fate. If the US continues its policy of not negotiating with kidnappers/terrorists and things continue to end in this manner for the attackers, the best outcome will be no more attacks against US ships.

Mnot - sometimes you have to shoot them in the face - r2
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18 April 2009, 10:04 AM
Old goat's Avatar
Old goat Old goat is offline
 
Join Date: 22 February 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 107
Military

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
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
I have trouble with these two lines. Since the Maersk Alabama Capt was fired on after he jumped into the water, the ROE requirements were met. According to the article, the SEALS were not aboard the Bainbridge yet, so line 3 is a fabrication.

And the ROE used have been pretty much unchanged since the 80's. We were never allowed to fire unless someone was in "imminent" danger. And sometimes not even then.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18 April 2009, 12:36 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,113
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnotr2 View Post
When the pirates decided to attack a US flagged ship with the goal of extorting money by the threat of violence they sealed their fate. If the US continues its policy of not negotiating with kidnappers/terrorists and things continue to end in this manner for the attackers, the best outcome will be no more attacks against US ships.

Mnot - sometimes you have to shoot them in the face - r2
And the worst possible outcome is increased targeting of US flagged ships in retailliation. Not not an expert on naval tactics, but I'm pretty sure that the navy want to prevent a worst possible outcome.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18 April 2009, 12:57 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Sachse, TX
Posts: 2,876
Default

The quote in the OP sounds like it came from someone who if they saw President Obama walking on water, would complain that he couldn't swim.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18 April 2009, 01:12 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
And the worst possible outcome is increased targeting of US flagged ships in retailliation. Not not an expert on naval tactics, but I'm pretty sure that the navy want to prevent a worst possible outcome.
Right. I am sure that the US would rather prosecute pirates instead of sending the military out and implying a more overt action and risk simply making the pirates more aggressive. Most of the pirates motives are probably dictated by money since they are from a poor region. Simply killing somebody who is poor can easily be turned around into anti american propaganda, "The Americans shot a poor villager - a child no less - who was trying to feed their family!" Anytime the military gets sent in, we have to be careful so that we do not set off a national incident. Half of war is political.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18 April 2009, 01:52 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,113
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Half of war is political.
To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 18 April 2009, 02:02 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 22,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
The quote in the OP sounds like it came from someone who if they saw President Obama walking on water, would complain that he couldn't swim.
It did seem a bit like that... I mean, apparently the writer got the outcome he wanted (hostage safe, dead "raggies") so you'd have thought that would be good, as far as he was concerned. But it didn't happen quickly enough because Obama wasn't gung-ho enough to let troops charge in without proper consideration of outcomes, and so he gets a "D-"?

Would Obama have even had direct involvement in that sort of tactical decision? The post claims he changed the Rules of Engagement especially. I didn't follow the story closely, but is that likely? (eta) Old Goat's post suggests not.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 18 April 2009, 02:06 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Posts: 3,876
Icon95

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnotr2 View Post
When the pirates decided to attack a US flagged ship with the goal of extorting money by the threat of violence they sealed their fate. If the US continues its policy of not negotiating with kidnappers/terrorists and things continue to end in this manner for the attackers, the best outcome will be no more attacks against US ships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
And the worst possible outcome is increased targeting of US flagged ships in retailliation. Not not an expert on naval tactics, but I'm pretty sure that the navy want to prevent a worst possible outcome.
Aren't those also the same best and worst outcomes that could come from ANY action by the US? The question is, which is more likely, and on what grounds do you base that decision. Why are we so afraid of creating anti-US sentiment if, for once, we did the right thing? They were criminals involved in a criminal act against as US citizen, so we stopped them in a manner according with international "law." Sure, it would have been "nice" to take them alive, but how practical and how necessaery would that have been?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.
Clausewitz would agree.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 18 April 2009, 03:39 PM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Simply killing somebody who is poor can easily be turned around into anti american propaganda, "The Americans shot a poor villager - a child no less - who was trying to feed their family!"
From what I've read since the hostage situation, this is already happening in Somalia. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Navy shouldn't have taken the action it did, but I think you're right that the US needs to consider the political implications of this.

The French government took action similar to what the OP seems to want, and they killed a hostage in the fight. If that had happened in this situation, something tells me the OP would still be criticizing Obama for his (or his advisors') decision.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 18 April 2009, 04:58 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
From what I've read since the hostage situation, this is already happening in Somalia. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Navy shouldn't have taken the action it did, but I think you're right that the US needs to consider the political implications of this.
Well those kinds of things are almost always likely to happen. I think of it as a "damned if you do or don't" kind of thing. My best guess is that they were trying to work it out so that they wouldn't be quite so damned by their critics that are jut going to be critical no matter what you do.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 18 April 2009, 04:59 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.
I like that one better. Never heard of it until now...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 18 April 2009, 05:02 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,113
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
I like that one better. Never heard of it until now...
The original is "Football is 50% physical and 100% mental." My football coach used to say it alot. I have no idea where he got it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 18 April 2009, 05:02 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 107,962
Icon19

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.
No, war is 90% military and 90% political, and the rest is psychological.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 18 April 2009, 05:02 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,683
Default

I am very curious why run-of-the-mill SEALS would be so knowledgeable about the CinC's decision-making, also.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18 April 2009, 05:05 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,113
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
I am very curious why run-of-the-mill SEALS would be so knowledgeable about the CinC's decision-making, also.
I never met a SEAL, but I have met an Army Ranger. The impression that I got is that they don't care about why the decision was made, they just get their orders and do their best to carry them out.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18 April 2009, 05:07 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,113
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
No, war is 90% military and 90% political, and the rest is psychological.
Obviously, the military is worse at math than Yogi Berra.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.