Posted by Jack
(After 7 1/2 years of a weak commander in chief with a horrible attitude toward the military – this is the kind garbage one must expect. I knew these sailors were completely out of line in the way they behaved during and after capture and I knew the Navy brass screwed up by not providing them with cover or having a plan in place should they be confronted by unfriendly forces. That much was obvious. I also knew the decision made after the capture were equally poor and went all the way to the White House. It was a shameful experience, caused by a lot of naivety, complacence, stupidity and negligence. This report backs up exactly what I suspected and believed to be true.)
Weak leadership, poor judgment, a lack of “war fighting toughness” and a litany of errors led to the embarrassing capture and detention by Iran of 10 U.S. sailors in the Persian Gulf in January, according to a Navy investigation released today.
Six officers and three enlisted sailors have been disciplined or face disciplinary action.
The partially censored report also cited instances of unnamed sailors violating the military’s code of conduct while in captivity. One sailor made “statements adverse to U.S. interests” during interrogation. A different sailor encouraged fellow crewmembers to eat food offered to them while being videotaped by the Iranians.
An officer was said to have failed to uphold the code of conduct standards when he ordered crewmembers to cooperate with the Iranian video production and “acquiesced” in making an Iranian-scripted statement on camera in exchange for the crews’ release.
Officials said that as a result, the Navy is stepping up training in adherence to the code of conduct.
The trouble for Riverine Command Boats 802 and 805, each with five sailors aboard, began even before they left port in Kuwait Jan. 12 on a short-notice, 300-mile journey to Bahrain, home of the Navy’s 5th Fleet. They were delayed, unprepared, poorly supervised and ill-suited for the mission, the report said.
At least one sailor had been up all night with boat repairs. Their higher headquarters failed to arrange air or surface monitoring of the boats’ transit. Such monitoring “would likely have prevented” the sailors’ capture by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, according to the report.
The Navy’s top officer, Adm. John Richardson, presented the investigation’s results at a Pentagon news conference. He declined to go into some details, saying he must not be seen as influencing the outcome of disciplinary actions that in some cases have not been completed.
Last week the Navy announced the firing of Capt. Kyle Moses, who was commander of the Navy task force that was in charge of the boats during their mission.
Richardson said the scope of problems uncovered in the investigation was so great that the embarrassing episode will become a case study.
“This will be something we can mine for a lot of lessons,” he said.
The lengthy investigation concluded that while the boat crews erred in entering Iranian waters, the Iranians violated international law by impeding the boats’ “innocent passage,” and violated U.S. sovereign immunity by boarding and seizing the boats.
“Those boats and crewmembers had every right to be where they were that day,” Richardson said, even though they got there by mistake.
In addition to the range of problems that plagued the crew and the sailors’ chain of command, the incident has raised questions about the Navy’s preparedness in a waterway known to pose risks amid tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
The trip planning “ignored established crew rest directives and sound navigational practices,” the report said.
The boat crews had planned their route but made an unauthorized deviation that took them into Saudi and Iranian territorial waters. More mistakes followed as both boats stopped inside Iranian waters while one crew was attending to an engine failure. They could see Iran’s Farsi Island in the distance but thought it was Saudi territory.
Other rules were “ignored for convenience,” resulting in the boats being “unable to present the appearance of a hard target or to defend themselves against (Iranian) aggression.” The Iranians boarded the U.S. boats, confronted the sailors at gunpoint and took them to Farsi Island, where they remained overnight before being released after Washington intervened.
“Decision-makers at every level failed to intervene when the boats could not achieve minimum communications standards … and when the (boats) violated Saudi and Iranian territorial seas,” the report said.
In January, a statement posted online by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said that the sailors had apologized for the incident. However, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to “CBS This Morning,” earlier this year denied that Americans made any apology.
“There’s nothing to apologize for,” Biden said. “When you have a problem with the boat, you apologize the boat had a problem? No, and there was no looking for any apology. This was just standard nautical practice.”
While there was no official apology issued, Iran state television showed footage showing one U.S. Navy Officer apologizing, calling the incident a “mistake.”
Leadership starts at the top. And we’ve had NO leadership since Obumble arrived in the oval office.
But we sure have had lots of phony photo-ops, vacations and golf games . . . . . .
It’s going to get worse—
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/18/acting-army-secretary-gender-neutral-fitness-test-coming-soon-patrick-murphy-apft/80566724/
A gender neutral dead lift. Right.
Ready. Fit. Well-trained! Why do none of those words apply? Why would this happen to any of the men and women now serving in our military? These have been cheated and denied proper training and their lives were at risk because of it. How many more units are poorly trained?
The thing that makes me sickest of all is that this incident is indicative of the leadership under the current Commander-in-Chief. Things like the ridiculous rules of engagement, the social engineering, the political correctness, and the “can’t we all just get along” attitude trickles down through the ranks and hardens like sludge. The way this report describes the crew is sad. It is obvious they were not prepared nor were they led by people any more experienced or caring than Hillary re: Benghazi or Obama re: the over-all war. BUT they will pay the price while he who is ultimately responsible is still strutting on the stage like some purple robed potentate.
Is there a word beyond disgust….
Tina, if Obama is responsible for this, is Bush responsible for Abu Ghraib?
Look at what Bush did about Abu Graib. When the story broke there was already an ongoing investigation and the people responsible were already on their way to a military trial and just punishment. I don’t know if Bush called our allies to advise them about what had happened and offer his apologies on behalf of our nation but I’d bet that he did…that was his style.So yes Bush was responsible in the way that a real leader IS responsible. The buck stopped with him, no excuses, no explanations, no attempts to hide or spin, or blame it on the former administration.
Someone leaked the photos and the left media and political people used those photos to undermine the administration and the war. It wasn’t a cover up; it was an internal matter that was handled internally and not reported to the press because it WOULD undermine our efforts in the war.
There is a very big difference in these two men…can you see it? Do you get it? Obama and the people he has put in place do NOT know what they’re doing. They don’t act responsibly and they do not take on the responsibility. Those within this administration who get it and speak up have been told to shut up or get lost…a lot of them retired rather than work under these conditions.
I don’t give a da#% about blame!
I care about the condition of our military and our ability to fight this awful war with positive measurable results!
I care about getting the job done swiftly and well with as lives lost and as few mistakes as possible.
Benghazi could have been prevented with planning and adequate security. But even before it happened, what the heck did the covert operation accomplish? Nothing positive that I can see. Whatever good work Chris did with the local people has pretty much gone up in smoke. This incident has the same earmarks…poor planning, lack of adequate training and lack of adequate security. It’s like nobody cares…they’re going through the motions without direction or end game…and people are dying and being displaced for what?
Sorry, I should have phrased my question more clearly. I’m not talking about responsibility after the fact, I’m talking about before the fact. You said this:
“The thing that makes me sickest of all is that this incident is indicative of the leadership under the current Commander-in-Chief. Things like the ridiculous rules of engagement, the social engineering, the political correctness, and the “can’t we all just get along” attitude trickles down through the ranks and hardens like sludge. The way this report describes the crew is sad. It is obvious they were not prepared nor were they led by people any more experienced or caring than Hillary re: Benghazi or Obama re: the over-all war. BUT they will pay the price while he who is ultimately responsible is still strutting on the stage like some purple robed potentate.”
Indicating that the lack of training was Obama’s fault, making him directly to blame for this unfortunate incident. You are using this as an indictment of Obama’s attitudes or strategies. I was asking if that makes Bush’s attitudes and strategies to blame for the lack of training that led the Abu Ghraib soldiers to rape and torture prisoners.
What creeps me out is that her “robed potentate” is the lamest of ducks … but she is still absolutely rabid on the subject. It’s irrational to be putting this kind of energy into the thing at this stage of the game. And she’s not alone. I fear for the man’s safety.
” It’s irrational to be putting this kind of energy into the thing at this stage of the game. And she’s not alone. I fear for the man’s safety.”
Oh please!
Did you likewise “fear” for Bush’s safety? Are you that blind to your, your party’s and left medias nasty, vitriolic, undermining, irrational 8 year criticism of a man who produced 4% growth, had the enemy contained and nearly decimated…the man who did not spark racial or class divisions, the man who took the criticism without making lame excuses, passing the buck, or disparaging YOU? Not at all. I remember your attitude; I remember the undermining methods that you took delight in, I remember the well orchestrated strategy to destroy Bush and his party. If only your party would direct some of that cunning toward our real enemies rather than playing politics for power.
I gave Obama three years of relative silence before I started dipping my toe into the criticism of his administration in any serious way…THE ENTIRE NATION DID!
You are such a phony!
Tina: “irrational 8 year criticism of a man who produced 4% growth”
Where did you get this number? Under the Bush presidency, average GDP growth was around 2% per quarter, and there were only two years where growth was higher than 3%. And of course, his last year in office saw no growth at all. (I am not saying this is Bush’s fault; just that this particular claim seems to be inaccurate.)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/27/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-says-tax-policies-george-w-bush-created-d/
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/28/which-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy
“… the man who did not spark racial or class divisions, the man who took the criticism without making lame excuses, passing the buck, or disparaging YOU?”
But he has not done these things. You positively think he has, but you are not perceiving reality in an objective manner. You are projecting your own distress (we will generously describe it) on to the object of it.
And this is why we are worried about you. People this worked up do reckless things.
I think it’s more accurate to say Obama has called attention to racial strife that already existed–with disastrous results. He hoped, naively, that opening a dialogue on race could help illuminate important issues such as stereotyping of blacks and police brutality. I don’t think he counted on the backlash of those determined to deny these problems, but the backlash has been huge, and I think Obama does bear some degree of responsibility for not anticipating that. Commenting on his friend’s arrest and saying the officer “acted stupidly” was a mistake, even though I agreed with him. He shouldn’t have commented on it. Same for “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvonn.” I understood his message, but there are millions of people in this country who not only do not, but cannot. As President, Obama has a responsibility to speak to them and not alienate them. He has given them ammo to accuse him of being racially biased even if said bias doesn’t actually exist. So I can understand the critique that Obama has been divisive, even if I don’t agree with it.
Of course, Trump is divisive more often, and on purpose, arguing for legal discrimination against Muslims and saying horrendous things about women, Mexicans, the disabled, and POWs. So anyone using Obama’s divisiveness as a reason to support Trump–especially over Hillary, who is a more adept politician than Obama and thus hasn’t said anything rising to the level of even Obama’s more divisive statements–is kidding themselves.
Tell me the Bush policy that led to Abu Ghraib and we’ll discuss it further.
How about legitimizing abusive methods such as waterboarding, which are considered torture under international law?
Oh please. You cannot connect those dots.
And as long as we’re on the subject let’s not forget that:
A) Both legal and medical experts were consulted when rules for the procedure were written…this wasn’t done in an uncontrolled environment by sadistic people the likes of which John McCain suffered under.
B) Nothing was done that hasn’t been done to our special forces in training so lets also not act like we were pulling off fingernails, burning them with hot pokers, or gouging out their eyes.
C)The purpose was saving lives.
D) The matter was resolved through the Congress…not with a phone or a pen.
E) The outrage was somewhat orchestrated and tactical rather than moral. It was an opportunity to undermine the war and demean Bush…just like every other roadblock your party’s radical jerks threw up over the course of eight years.
“A) Both legal and medical experts were consulted when rules for the procedure were written…this wasn’t done in an uncontrolled environment by sadistic people the likes of which John McCain suffered under.”
Yes, I’m well aware that unethical lawyers like John Yoo twisted the law to make waterboarding seem legal. He is an embarrassment to his profession because of that. I’m also aware that medical experts’ recommendations were ignored, and you would be too if you read the torture report. I’ll read the Benghazi report if you read that one. How about it?
“B) Nothing was done that hasn’t been done to our special forces in training”
Not true. Read the report.
“C)The purpose was saving lives.”
Yes. And? You can’t justify everything under that umbrella. And we also know from the report that these methods were not effective at saving lives, and that claims they were were lies.
“D) The matter was resolved through the Congress…not with a phone or a pen.”
Huh? Congress did ban waterboarding, but they never authorized it in the first place. Why should it have taken an act of congress to ban torture, which is already banned by international treaties we agreed to?
“E) The outrage was somewhat orchestrated and tactical rather than moral.”
Maybe from some. From me, it’s moral. From John McCain, it’s moral. From anyone with morals, it’s moral. So what is your point?
Chris your question is one of your favorite types. It’s a gotcha question. I have already expressed myself very clearly about Obama’s overall attitudes about the military. He thinks it’s his own little social engineering, climate change, project. He imposed ridiculous rules of engagement. He has gone through several generals. Retirement is up. So is suicide.
I did not say Obama was directly responsible, I indicated his agenda driven approach and his own lax attitudes and policies regarding all things military has created an atmosphere that trickles down and stains the overall sense of moral, readiness and dedication. Our military has been given no clear strategy to win, their hands are tied behind their backs, they’ve had to adjust to women in combat, gays and transgenders serving openly, and climate change imposed on them in a very short period of time. It’s all been orchestrated from the oval office. Events like this are not surprising, sad but not surprising, in an atmosphere like that.
The incident at Abu Graib was isolated and not in any way indicative of a military that’s been demoralized and stripped of it’s purpose.
I will say no more on this subject.
“He imposed ridiculous rules of engagement.”
Such as?
“He has gone through several generals. Retirement is up. So is suicide.”
You don’t think these could be results of more veterans returning from what many have seen as pointless wars, rather than any specific Obama policy?
“they’ve had to adjust to women in combat, gays and transgenders serving openly”
Tina, this is why people accuse conservatives of bigotry. You can’t just suggest that huge categories of Americans are unfit to serve their nation for no reason. It was a crime that these people were kept of of the armed services to begin with, and it was their exclusion, not their inclusion, that made us weaker. Soldiers will adjust to this just as they adjusted to racial integration, and complaining about this makes you sound no better than those who complained about that. It also reveals a low opinion of straight cis male soldiers. Are the majority incapable of serving alongside soldiers who are not straight, cis, or male? I don’t think so, but if not, why can’t they? And how would keeping out qualified soldiers who are not straight, cis or male solve that problem?
” climate change imposed on them in a very short period of time.”
In what way? How has acknowledging the threat of climate change made it harder for the military to achieve its goals?
“I think it’s more accurate to say Obama has called attention to racial strife that already existed ….”
By being black and in the office … nothing more.
Well, no…more. I made it clear what the “more” was. True, Obama would have called attention to the strife simply by his mere presence, but he has called attention to it explicitly with his comments on Gates, Martin, and other high-profile cases where racism was suspected by many. This is understandable–I don’t blame the first black president for engaging on these issues, or for speaking directly to the black community–but it did alienate a lot of people who, while perhaps not “Racists” with a capital “R,” have never thought critically about race before and don’t particularly like being made to think about it. They see a black man lecturing them and leaping to conclusions, because racism couldn’t be “proven” in any of those cases, so what’s the big deal? I’m not saying these people are right, I’m saying they exist and have a powerful voice in our country–as we can see with the rise of Trump, which is at least partially a reaction to Obama’s habit of commenting on race issues in a way many view as “politically correct” or unfair to whites.
So, because these incidents involved black people he should not have commented?
Bugger their powerful voice. They are frightened, ignorant, racist and wrong. And it’s spending 30 years being polite about this which has landed us with Donald for President.
No, because they were local police matters he shouldn’t have commented. The president is allowed opinions, but should avoid commenting on issues like that to avoid appearing as if he is abusing his power. The race angle only gave more ammo to his critics. I know they’re wrong and ignorant. I’m talking politics here, not ethics.
There was nothing “local” about the Gates home invasion or Martin’s exploits.
I’m starting to wonder about you, boy.
Sure there was. They did become national news, but they were still, by definition, local police matters.
And again, I think Obama’s comments in both cases were accurate and appropriate. But I’ve taken classes on the sociology of race, while most Americans’ understanding of race issues stops at “Jim Crow and affirmative action are both equally bad!” It was the right message for the wrong audience.
Hmmm. I’m thinking about it. Would there have been a fuss if these occurred during Clinton’s term and he commented? I doubt it. I also doubt he ever would have commented … which opens a hole ‘nother can of worms.
I think most Americans need to broaden their perspective.
“I think most Americans need to broaden their perspective.” Libby
Well, now if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black.
Jack: Explain.
Chris: A president
The machine tweaked. To continue:
Chris: A President identifies problems and proposes policy. You don’t think these two incidents represent social problems that need to be addressed?
Clinton probably would not have, but Obama did. Does his blackness disqualify him from doing so?
Libby: “Chris: A President identifies problems and proposes policy. You don’t think these two incidents represent social problems that need to be addressed?”
Yes, I do.
“Clinton probably would not have, but Obama did. Does his blackness disqualify him from doing so?”
No, but I think, unfortunately, it means he has to be more careful about how he presents himself to the public. This is unfair, but it’s reality.
After 7 1/2 years of a weak commander in chief with a horrible attitude toward the military – this is the kind garbage one must expect….
Opening line… Conservative Propaganda.
The weakness is in the people’s inability to stop our wars that brought us here. That last invasion of IRAQ has given us decades of war to come.
Just sayin………………..