About those Iranian speedboats

[Michael Tee]

Something just doesn't add up here.  There should be a way for the captain to shoot up a small outboard motorboat without shooting up the whole port.  There should be an anchorage with some kind of do-not-approach zone around it, demarcated by buoys and/or flashing lights, maybe even a perimeter patrol by harbour police or if permitted by the ship's own launches - - an outer zone and an inner zone could be marked off by buoys. And finally if the captain can't secure his ship in the port, or can't negotiate adequate security with the harbour-master or port authorities, then it shouldn't be docked there in the first place.

These guys fucked up majorly and of all the lame-assed miserable excuses possible, they now want you to believe that there was no way a U.S. naval vessel could have protected itself against a bomb-carrying motorboat.  Not only are they incompetent as sailors, they're even lousy liars.

[Amianthus]

Yeah, 'cause every port we sail into has nothing but the utmost respect for the US Navy.

 

Many ports are small, and in many cases a ship cannot keep a sufficient buffer around itself, because even if you shoot up the boat, it has inertia. The only truly safe thing to do is to take out every small ship in port as you sail in, then you don't have to worry about 'em.

[Michael Tee]

<< . . . every port we sail into has nothing but the utmost respect for the US Navy.>>

They don't have to have the utmost respect, but the captain's duty is to formulate minimal acceptable conditions to ensure the safety of his ship in port and if the port authorities cannot or will not provide them, then the schmuck should keep his ship safe at anchor outside the port.  Or just find a friendlier place to visit.

<<Many ports are small, and in many cases a ship cannot keep a sufficient buffer around itself, because even if you shoot up the boat, it has inertia. >>

Well, it goes back to what I said in the first place.  If the port cannot or will not provide the security the ship  requires, stay out of the fucking port.  How smart do they need to be to figure that one out?

<<The only truly safe thing to do is to take out every small ship in port as you sail in, then you don't have to worry about 'em.>>

Yeah, THAT'LL work, good idea.  Why not bombard the town too, while you're at it?

[Amianthus]

They don't have to have the utmost respect, but the captain's duty is to formulate minimal acceptable conditions to ensure the safety of his ship in port and if the port authorities cannot or will not provide them, then the schmuck should keep his ship safe at anchor outside the port.  Or just find a friendlier place to visit.

The official rules of engagement that the ship was under at the time was "do not fire unless fired upon." So, until the bomb actually exploded, they were forbidden from firing on the boat. One of the sailors on watch reportedly even requested permission to fire on another small boat approaching their ship after the explosion occurred, but was ordered to not fire since the other boat had not fired on them.

[Michael Tee]

More Navy stupidity.  The rules made no provision for what happened and was easily foreseeable as well.  At a bare minimum, the rules should have required the captain to satisfy himself as to the ability of the port to provide safe haven to his ship and if he couldn't do it - - i.e., establish a safe perimeter or a secure berth - - then not to risk the ship and crew in that particular harbour.

[Amianthus]

More Navy stupidity.

The Navy is required to follow civilian leadership; Clinton, in this case, did not want to provoke the locals.

[Michael Tee]

How do you know that Clinton wrote the rules of engagement?  I thought technical stuff like that would have been left to the so-called "professionals."  Even if Clinton took a hand in them, or at least set out the broadest parameters "Don't fire unless fired upon" it was up to the Navy to at least alert him to the fact that being fired upon was only one of the hazards the ship could face.  If they let their boss write rules of engagement that were manifestly foolish and dangerously inept, they had a duty to point that out to him.  My gut feeling was that he's smart enough (and more!) to realize, once the danger was pointed out,  to require that the ships either adequately secure themselves or stay out of the port altogether.  Unless some Navy guy comes forward with evidence that  (a) Clinton wrote the rules and (b) the Navy made him aware of the deficiency in the rules but he (Clinton) stubbornly resisted amending them, then I will go with my original conclusion that it was the fucking stupidity of the U.S. Navy that permitted the attack to succeed.

[Amianthus]

I will go with my original conclusion that it was the fucking stupidity of the U.S. Navy that permitted the attack to succeed.

And I will go with my original conclusion that you know nothing about military strategy.

[Michael Tee]

<<And I will go with my original conclusion that you know nothing about military strategy.>>

LMFAO.  When ya run out of credible arguments, attack the messenger, haul out the insults. 

When you think up a credible answer to my last argument, let me know.  But I'm not holding my breath.

[Amianthus]

LMFAO.  When ya run out of credible arguments, attack the messenger, haul out the insults. 

When you think up a credible answer to my last argument, let me know.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Your last "argument" was, to put it succinctly, "I'm right, you're wrong."

Rules of engagement originate with civilian authority. Just denying that fact is not an "argument".

[Xavier_Onassis]

They should have shot the boats when their behavior became threatining.
========================================================
I wasn't threatening. Had they done this, it would have been seriously assholic warmongering.

I am glad our Navy is run by smarter people than this.

[Michael Tee]

<<Rules of engagement originate with civilian authority. Just denying that fact is not an "argument".>>

Yeah, but your problem is that I didn't "just deny" it.  Actually, I took it into account - - I postulated that even if the rules of engagement did originate with civilian authority, that civil authority must have recourse to military advisers, who should have alerted the civilian authority to a potential problem if the rules were clearly inadequate to the situation.  A civilian by definition lacks the military expertise of a military man.

In addition, you show a real lack of common sense if you think that a civilian President would formulate rules of engagement for the Navy without running them by professional military advisers, specifically Navy.  While theoretically possible, it's extremely unlikely to happen in real life.

[Amianthus]

In addition, you show a real lack of common sense if you think that a civilian President would formulate rules of engagement for the Navy without running them by professional military advisers, specifically Navy.  While theoretically possible, it's extremely unlikely to happen in real life.

When we're not at war, the standard policy is "do not fire unless fired upon." At the time of the Cole bombing, we were not at war.

Deny it all you like, thems the facts...

Those are the rules of engagement, even now, for units not in designated war zones.

[Michael Tee]

<<When we're not at war, the standard policy is "do not fire unless fired upon." At the time of the Cole bombing, we were not at war.>>

And MY point was that a boiler-plate "standard policy" if dumb, inadequate to the existing situation or otherwise defective just isn't good enough where lives are at stake.  IMHO the dumbest and least acceptable excuse for any failure is "That's how it's always been done around here."  Situations change and threats mutate - - a vigilance that should have been constantly probing, questioning and evaluating was, as usual, totally absent.  That this was a major Navy fuck-up is undeniable.  Lame excuses like yours only make it worse.  If, for reasons of policy, the President and his advisers had ruled out amending or modifying the "don't fire unless" rule, then they ought to have considered what risks this would expose their sailors to, and what the alternatives were to accepting a sitting-duck status - - such as staying out of harbours where they wouldn't be allowed to secure their own safety.  It's pretty clear that instead the ship was sent into the port under a ludicrously unjustified sense of security, totally blind to the danger that faced them and the sailors paid the price of their officers' stupidity and lack of imagination.

[Amianthus]

Situations change and threats mutate - - a vigilance that should have been constantly probing, questioning and evaluating was, as usual, totally absent.

I thought terrorism was not a major threat during the Clinton administration? That he had them al Queda boys all taken care of?

Look, either terrorism was a threat - in which case Clinton's administration fucked up, because they didn't see it as a threat - or it wasn't a threat until Bush took office (one of your claims, IIRC) - in which case the Cole had no reason to implement anything other than their standard security.

We had several terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, and security was not beefed up anywhere. Why would you think that the Navy, who are sworn to uphold civilian authority, would countermand that authority when it was determined that security didn't need to be increased?