Pirate/SEAL True Story

[snopes]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/pirates.asp

[Richard W]

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.

[Troodon]

Originally Posted by Richard W

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.

[snopes]

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

Originally Posted by Richard W

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

[Old goat]

Originally Posted by snopes

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.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by Mnotr2

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.

[RichardM]

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.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

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.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by diddy

Half of war is political.

To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by RichardM

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.

[ASL]

Originally Posted by Mnotr2

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.

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

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?

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.

Clausewitz would agree.

[Natalie]

Originally Posted by diddy

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.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Natalie

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.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

To rip off a sports phrase: War is 50% military and 100% political.

I like that one better. Never heard of it until now...

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by diddy

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.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by DemonWolf

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.

[AnglRdr]

I am very curious why run-of-the-mill SEALS would be so knowledgeable about the CinC's decision-making, also.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

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.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by snopes

No, war is 90% military and 90% political, and the rest is psychological.

Obviously, the military is worse at math than Yogi Berra.