Posted by Tina
A former Navy Seal, quoted by The American Thinker takes on the official versions of the Navy boat incident in the Persian Gulf calling both the Iranians and the State Department liars. The area in question is considered “the single most dangerous area in the Persian Gulf. It’s a small group of Islands used as a naval base for Iran and the headquarters for IRG, the special forces used against other nations with shorelines in the gulf. This would not be an area the US Navy Seals would use for refueling, a scenario deemed “idiotic,” as was the idea of navigation failure. Former Seal Matt Bracken:
I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only had radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat’s icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats “strayed into Iranian waters” is complete bull$#it.
For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation’s claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that’s why two boats go on these trips and not one! It’s called “self-rescue” and it’s SOP.
This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a “hands up!” situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America’s face.
Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.
The “strayed into Iranian waters” story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other. (Follow link for UPDATE fMatt Bracken’s )
Rick Moran points to another flaw in all of this. As far as we know there are no women (as yet) serving in our Special Forces.
Jack, this former Navy Seal seems to vindicate your suspicion that there is something fishy about this incident.
The propaganda continues. Freebeacon, “Iran: ‘American Sailors Started Crying After Arrest’ – IRGC Official: ‘I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself”
Talk about a recruitment tool!
We all remember what happened in Benghazi – and the shameful lying for political reasons that came after it.
This admin is so anxious to climb in bed with Iran that the cartoon with da prez on his knees thanking Iran has more truth than humor, and is a reflection of the abject cowardice of both Obumble and Lurch.
Obumble’s legacy of FAILURE is secure, although he sees himself otherwise. We’ll have to wait until the Serial-Liar-in-Chief is gone from the Oval Office to find out any truth about the boat BS.
Just like we’ve had to wait on the truth about Benghazi . . . . . .
There is something fishy about every event. We know that.
From JFK to 911 …there are always holes in the story.
People tend to focus on symptoms and single events instead of the real truth and big pictures.
When it comes to war, profits, and greed for power there is no line between events.
The belief that The USA is some sort of ethical country who tells it’s citizens truth is a fantasy. The belief that the military industrial complex changes on a dime every time there is a New president is fantasy.
The belief that there is no dirty business between countries is a fantasy.
Dewey you should stop trying to speak for other people. You don’t know what others believe.
No country is perfect, but America has held up ethical and humane standards in the world and been a model for others to emulate. (alternatives are federal authority over the people or Democratic socialism which pave the road toward dictators, tyrants, and oligarchs – socialism, fascism, or Marxism, none of which is based in freedom)
Our founders were quite clear when they formed our Republic:
Whether the USA is ethical depends entirely on we the people and we’ve been failing in that role for some time; ethics begin at the level of family and trickles up. It’s up to the people to uphold high standards, demand high standards of performance from our leadership, and send them on their way when they fail.
The green industrial complex is becoming quite profitable, greedy, extensive and dangerous…be careful what you wish for.
That’s kinda what I was thinking. Would they have been caught so quick unless they were REALLY where they were not supposed to be.
And a prudent skipper plots courses that keep well clear of “sensitive” waters, mechanical failure notwithstanding.
On the other hand, there is always incompetence.
“Recruiting tool?”
Are you perhaps conflating Iran and the Islamic State? They are very different political entities with different interests. They are, in fact, on opposite sides in Syria.
This thing you do: “a Muslim is a Muslim”, it’s just not helpful, Tina.
Incompetence isn’t a word normally associated with Seals…but then, were they Seals or a handpicked group from the mess hall?
All this is a desperate attempt to change the headline. The real headline here was that our sailors were returned safely and peacefully within 24 hours; an unprecedented event in Iranian relations, and a credit to improved diplomacy under the Obama administration.
The far right couldn’t have that, because nothing good is allowed to happen under the Obama administration, especially in an election year. So conservative commenters scrambled to come up with something, anything, to drag these sailors through the mud and to argue that this event actually shows that Iran is so much smarter than our own government. The ridiculous Code of Conduct argument was born, ignoring the fact that the Code applies mostly to wartime situations, that is has no official authority, and that had the sailors refused to surrender they would have endangered our nation’s interests in diplomatic relations. Some even said the sailors should have fired on the Iranians even though they were in their waters and they were returned safely. It was enough to make rational people wonder if these people would rather the sailors died or be kept by the Iranians instead of safely released.
The Iranians had every right to hold our sailors for as long as they did. They shouldn’t have videotaped them, but it’s still Iran and it isn’t exactly surprising. They may have wanted to humiliate America but obviously they could have done a lot worse–they could have kept the sailors and turned things into a real hostage crisis. Maybe that’s what these conservative whiners wanted, since it would give them a more valid reason to complain. If the Iranians wanted to embarrass America, these conservative bloggers seem to be doing everything they can to help them; they WANT America to be humiliated as long as Obama is in office.
My headline is fine Chris since the article is about what an ex-Seal thinks of the situation.
You know what to do if you want another headline.
Nothing good HAS happened under Obama if you look at the full picture and the actual ramifications of this deal. Good God, Chris, you act like we have made a deal with Switzerland instead of the main sponsor of terrorism, a nation that still refers to America as “The Great Satan.”
“to drag these sailors through the mud”
The president dragged the entire military (and in specific these sailors) through the mud by failing them again and again as their CIC. And by the way…who’s making this incident the sailors fault? If anything it is how they’ve been trained or, if something is fishy, how they’ve been USED!
“the Code applies mostly to wartime situations”
Several points off the top of my head:
1. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups….As of December 2015, the AUMF remains in effect and provides Congressional authorization for the use of force against ISIS and other Islamic militant groups” – Wikipedia
2. Iran is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism at #1.
3. If not an officially declared war zone, this area is certainly a zone of conflict and danger.
The ME has been called a war zone and we are definitely engaged in war efforts still. The Gulf is a strategic area in that zone.
Because of this, and probably a lot more, I think it’s questionable to say this is not a war one.
Iran is not treating the US as a partner in peaceful negotiations. Iran is treating America as a fool to be exploited and laughed at. That you manufacture ways to blame conservative bloggers for this sad state of affairs, and at the same time make excuses for the leader of our nation, shows your understanding is both partisan and shallow. We comment on what has happened…we do not design or order what has happened.
Obama’s dealings with Iran have been as moronic as his dealings with Putin. In both cases Obama has managed to make those nations stronger and ours weaker. Whose side IS he on? Chris, the only “rational” person here will decide at the same time that he is dismissing a Navy Seal and other former military types who regularly post here.
Incompetence is endemic in the species.
And Tina, you want to talk propaganda … comparisons have been drawn between the Abu Ghraib photos and these, comparisons provoked by your less than justified outrage, and we know who comes off uncivilized in that one.
So, just cool it.
Typical of a sixties left wing radical.
The photos at Abu Grabe need never have been made public had the radical left allowed the military to handle the matter internally, at least until the war was over. The people responsible were already in the process of being punished. Making this incident public was purely political and diabolically disloyal. It hurt the war effort ensuring that more people were killed or injured, became a fine recruitment tool, set back efforts to gain trust from locals, and was generally stupid behavior in the middle of a war.
Civility isn’t the question. Diplomatic and military policy and ignorance on the part of our leadership is the question. Bush was not directly responsible for what happened at Abu Grabe. Obama’s diplomatic and military policies are all over this incident.
Tina: “The photos at Abu Grabe need never have been made public had the radical left allowed the military to handle the matter internally, at least until the war was over. The people responsible were already in the process of being punished. Making this incident public was purely political and diabolically disloyal.”
It’s like you’re in a competition with yourself to reach a new low every single day. After spinning Benghazi conspiracy theories for the past three years, now you’re gonna say that the public doesn’t have a right to know when our government messes up? You’re ridiculous.
“Bush was not directly respnsible for what happened at Abu Grabe. Obama’s diplomatic and military policies are all over this incident.”
Correct. Obama’s diplomatic policies are directly responsible for the sailors’ safe return.
But I guess you meant what you said as an insult, which makes sense if you think the sailors’ safe return was a bad thing. Which, apparently, you and Jack and Harold all do.
I don’t know how much more of this I can take.
Tina, earlier:
“The ME has been called a war zone and we are definitely engaged in war efforts still. The Gulf is a strategic area in that zone.
Because of this, and probably a lot more, I think it’s questionable to say this is not a war one.”
Tina, later:
“Making this incident public was purely political and diabolically disloyal. It hurt the war effort ensuring that more people were killed or injured, became a fine recruitment tool, set back efforts to gain trust from locals, and was generally stupid behavior in the middle of a war.”
Do you realize that by your logic here, it is “diabolically disloyal” for you and other Republicans to try and “expose” the “coverup” in Benghazi, since by your definition, that would also qualify as a war zone? And that you could say the same about any criticism you make about Obama’s mideast policy while we are actively engaged in conflicts there?
Of course you don’t, because you don’t think critically about anything you say; both of the above quotes are you jumping for any justification you can find to support your narrative, even if it contradicts another justification you’ve just made.
Criticizing or exposing wrongdoing done by our government/military in the Middle East under the Bush administration was “diabolically disloyal,” while doing the same under Obama is your patriotic duty.
Blatant hypocrisy. Again.
Tina, why do you believe the Iranians let our troops go so quickly? Most analysts are crediting the nuclear deal; what is your explanation?
Are you happy that the sailors were returned?
It worked in their favor to release them right away…well, after they got the propaganda shots. They are a two faced nation, Chris. They tell us they intend only to use enriched uranium for energy and such. In private and probably when talking with the Russians or Chinese they reveal their actual intentions and make arms agreements.
Why do you believe they used force and took pictures and video rather than doing as Harold suggested?
The nuclear deal is a vehicle on which this can ride. Iran is establishing itself as a superpower in the region and the world. Humiliating and getting the best of America is a huge win for them.
Of course I’m happy the sailors were returned quickly.
I am not happy they were used and abused…how about you?
Tina: “It worked in their favor to release them right away…well, after they got the propaganda shots.”
How did releasing them quickly work in their favor?
Do you believe they would have released the sailors so quickly prior to the nuclear agreement? History indicates otherwise.
“They are a two faced nation, Chris.”
No one is disputing that.
“They tell us they intend only to use enriched uranium for energy and such. In private and probably when talking with the Russians or Chinese they reveal their actual intentions and make arms agreements.”
Yeah, you’re right. But we have inspections now. And no, it’s not just Iran “inspecting itself,” as many conservatives have lied; it’s actual UN inspectors.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/sep/18/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-iran-deal-trusts-iranians-inspect-th/
This is called progress. You have yet to suggest any plausible alternative to the deal, which is what leads many to suspect your goal is all-out war. (In truth, you don’t have a real goal, because you don’t think any further than “If Obama is doing it, I must oppose it with every fiber of my being.”)
“Why do you believe they used force”
They used as much force as any nation would in a similar circumstance.
” and took pictures and video rather than doing as Harold suggested?”
This was probably done for propaganda purposes. Big whoop. There’s nothing we could have done to stop them from taking video. Again, this could have been so much worse. The fact that the sailors were almost immediately released should be enough to make this a small issue, but you’re trying to make it the main issue, for obvious reasons: you’re trying to turn good news into bad news.
“Of course I’m happy the sailors were returned quickly.”
Well how the hell would anyone know that? You’ve said not one positive thing about their safe return until you were asked to! You and Jack have been in such a blind, incoherent rage on the subject since their release was announced that you didn’t even bother to say you were glad about their release. You can say you don’t hate Obama all you want, but your actions say otherwise; your spin on this story was motivated by personal hatred and, to use your words, a “desire to destroy.” How do I know? Because that’s the only way to make sense of your reaction, which has been illogical and unreasonable in the extreme.
“I’m not happy about how they were used and abused.”
No one was “abused.” Get a grip.
“How did releasing them quickly work in their favor?”
I already explained this. They look like reasonable people on the world stage. It’s a pretense, of course, but that’s part of the game with militant radicals. They are two faced. So, they got the win on both sides…in addition to appearing reasonable they got the propaganda/recruitment photo’s and video (And the technology, etc from the boats).
Chris as far as Iran is concerned there is no agreement. They do not recognize it as binding and have said so.
We have been assured inspections will be made by the UN but what does that mean? According to an ex-IAEA inspector another “secret” deal was made about one site:
Whether UN inspectors, or their own, do the inspecting does it really mean anything? The Iraq inspections were a joke and these will be too.
Nobody favors “all out war” but geez Chris, is it really progress when we enable our enemies to develop the means to deliver nuclear and chemical weapons to our shores. Is it really progress to diminish our influence and stand by while Russia and /china gain in influence?
You need to consider that there are not only two alternatives: Obama’s “deal” or war. In fact this deal increases greatly the probability of war waged by Iran through Hamas to “end” Israel and ISIS to destroy the West. We are dealing with massive egos. They only understand/recognize strength.
“Well how the hell would anyone know that?
Really?
Peddle your leftists high anxiety elsewhere, Chris. As I wrote before, I am not, we are not, required to dance to your tune.
You were enraged at the end of Bush’s last term. I don’t recall expecting you to feel or think anything but what you were feeling and thinking. What is it with you?
Tina: “I already explained this. They look like reasonable people on the world stage.”
Would you rather Iran had not released our sailors, so that they could not look reasonable?
“So, they got the win on both sides…”
Pretty sure getting our sailors back is a “win” for us. Do you disagree?
Here’s what the leader of the IAEA has to say about the side deal. Apparently this is common:
“I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.
The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public – the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA Member States.
However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way. The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement, with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.”
https://www.iaea.org/press/?p=5108
“Whether UN inspectors, or their own, do the inspecting does it really mean anything? The Iraq inspections were a joke and these will be too.”
The UN inspections of Iraq weren’t perfect, but they worked. We now know that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Had we listened to the inspectors who told us to wait, we would have avoided a pointless, unnecessary war.
I hope we won’t make the same mistake twice, but if our country listens to you, we probably will.
“Had we listened to the inspectors who told us to wait, we would have avoided a pointless, unnecessary war.”
Pointless, huh? Your memory is conveniently short. Iraq was IN BREACH of seventeen UN resolutions…seventeen! (From 1991 to 1998 when Saddam threw UN inspectors out). Iraq was firing on our planes in the no-fly-zone IN BREACH of the cease fire agreement they signed after the war in Kuwait. See here:
We’ve been over the number of Democrats who believed as Bush did that WMD’s were still available to Saddam when Bush made the decision to go to war. they agreed it was what we had to do. They later turned on Bush and the mission, in typical lefty fashion.
And then, in addition to all of the other things regarding the terrorist sponsor Saddam there’s that little incident that happened on 911 in NYC.
I know the left position is always to draw red lines in the sand and then drop the ball but we’ve seen now how that works; I don’t recommend it.
Obama took what was an incredible accomplishment on the part of our troops in Iraq and threw it in the trash with his “stupid war” remark…talk about a gauche, un-presidential statement!!!!!!!!!…and the proceded with policy that set the ME on fire and spawned an uptick terror attacks across the globe.
Tina: “And then, in addition to all of the other things regarding the terrorist sponsor Saddam there’s that little incident that happened on 911 in NYC.”
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Everyone knows this by now. That you continue to push this lie disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation on the matter; the discussion isn’t worth having.
I will add that Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq, but you’ve never had a single thing to say about our close relationship with that huge state sponsor of terrorism.
You are such a hypocrite.
Tina
Uppity Americans who refuse to admit our wrongdoing in the middle east are no better.
maybe if the Boats had not gone into Iranian waters we would not even have had to see those pictures. You act like we are some kind of special king that does not have to play by the rules.
Bottom Line for now the deal has worked. The future may change things but we are not sending young people out to die and starting WW3. Is that a problem?
Dewey you’re nuts…if anything sound “rules” are what we are arguing. The rules of negotiation, the rules of the military, the rules of common sense, the rules of survival.
You lefties want to let it all hang out. Makes sense, that’s how you justify everything. That’s why everything that goes wrong is always someone else’s fault. And Obama, or any other Democrat, is above criticism.
(UGH)
“we are not sending young people out to die and starting WW3”
Newsflash! We are still sending young people out to fight (and die) and we have moved closer to WWIII than we have ever been. Ask the Saudi’s, ask Israel. Every country in the ME will now be looking to build nuclear weapons. The tribal wars alone could spark an incident that leads to WWIII. it’s not an opinion shared by everyone but it is a viable opinion.
This ignorance is almost too much to bear.