Skip to comments.U.S. Would Have Fired on The Iranians
Posted on 03/25/2007 5:30:55 PM PDT by Weight of Glory
The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, Why didnt your guys defend themselves?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Different time and different place.
I must say that this was truly stupid.
In the first place, if you send your troops into harm's way, you have an obligation to defend them. I said the same thing about those National Guard troops on the Mexican border. If you don't want a provocation, then don't send in the troops. But you don't put troops on the line without the means to defend themselves.
In the second place, these bloody politicians and admirals now have created a first class mess for themselves. If they don't give a damn about their troops, you'd think they'd at least want to avoid getting themselves into a mess.
Once the Iranians went off with the hostages, the damage was done. Now they are between a rock and a hard place, and no matter what they do, the hostages' lives are at risk.
Like the guard ran away from the border too.
Blair is working on that. He's cutting the fleet to 22 - that's right, 22 - ships. He's also cut out paratroop training for the army, and liquidated formerly elite units.
Previously, and most likely in effect again post September 11, 2001, the US & Coalition vessels would refuel away from UAE Ports.
I doubt very much that they were on the Iranian side of the water. By the time the boat was surrounded, it was a bit late, but they could have fired warning shots when they saw the Iranians leave the shore.
Except that the rules of engagement didn't allow it. So if what you say is true, then it just means that the moment when it became too late to take useful action was just a little earlier.
When the school bully knows you won't fight back, you'll be handing him your lunch money every day.
Come on you Limies! You'd never have hung on to the Colonies with an attitude like that... Oh, you lost your colonies didn't you. Well, you're sure as hell not going to survive as a nation if you keep this BS up.
Come on! We need you as an Allie.
Hornblower and Pelliew (sp?)
When the USS Pueblo was hijacked in international waters by the NKoreans in 1968, we allowed the crew to remain captives of the NKoreans for 11 months rather than create an "international incident".
IMO, there would be fewer possibilities for "international incidents" if response was swift and sure everytime a rogue nation pulled a stunt like this. After the Pueblo was hijacked, the Enterprise was off the coast of NKorea the next day. Had I been in charge, I'd have parked 5 F-4s out the deck and invited the NKoreans to come take a look. Then, I'd let them know that they had 24 hours to release the ship and the crew intact. After that, a NKorean city would disappear every 2 hours until the ship and crew were released or there just wasn't anything left to destroy.
Unfortunately, we abandoned that crew to the "negotiators" for 11 months!! BS!!!
The fagafacation of the west is destroying us.
Didn't the brits invent radar
My computer has a mind of its own sometimes.
This is an ally that stood with us and the newsers seem to be ignoring it already. /rant
Consider who he works for. If he word "war" passes his lips, he probably gets sacked immediately.
The mort accurate date would probably be the Washington Treaty of 1922.
The HMS Cornwall did have a helo in the air monitoring the boarding operation. They detected the Iranian patrol boats shortly after they left port and were on a heading to intercept the boarded frieghter. Commodore Lambert in an interview with the BBC said of the incident, that the sailors appeared to be safe, and that they had behaved in an extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement.
"IMO, there would be fewer possibilities for "international incidents" if response was swift and sure everytime a rogue nation pulled a stunt like this"
No, Germans did some of the earliest work. The Americans, Germans, French, and British all developed working radars at roughly the same time.
Found this on the Long War thread:
"Everything I saw said Iraqi fisherman...9:10 in the mornin'
local time...they had a helo up that saw the iranian boats
"leave port",,,port must be close to the border,,,the
helo up and reporting tells us that the Cornwall was some
distance back from the border...
1,017 posted on 03/25/2007 9:12:02 PM EDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68
I doubt if the US Navy would have done anything different. In fact, last fall the new Centcom commander, Admiral Fallon, who was then the Pacific commander, when a Chinese sub suddenly surfaced within the security zone of a US carrier, went kowtowing to Beijing uttering, "We knew you were there, we just didn't want to create an international incident". I imagine he'll soil his trousers when Iamadinnerjacket bluffs him with a nuke.
See #68. All we know is what they tell us, but it's looking more and more as if the rules of engagement were the problem. They had plenty of backup and they saw the boats coming, but they did nothing.
At some point, the ship captain called his superiors for permission to fire, and was refused. I don't know how far up the chain of command that went. But obviously, if it has to go all the way up the chain of command and you have to call a meeting of politicians in England before you're given permission to fire, then it's too late.
The Brits were a little ahead of the US with radar, and we drew on their work. I believe Raytheon was central to our effort.
I guess the same rules of engagement don't apply to our border guards
"I say, old chap, if you continue to capture our troops I'm afraid I'll have to speak to you rather sternly!"
Uh huh. Lets see...they did have a 50 cal on the Pueblo against...four torpedo boats with multiple machine guns, a subchaser with a 57 mm cannon and two MIGs.
What would you suggest the Captain and crew of the Pueblo have done?
Actually, I thought it was all too obvious.
Radar is one of those things where there were parallel developments in multiple countries. There is a brief article from the BBC here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A591545
TANKS for the ping,Cas,,,4 has a new map up on the thread
that mite help get a handle on where this happened,,,
Because political correctness has almost completely destroyed Britannia.
"The world screamed excessive force and the Israelis backed down"
And the Israelis still don't have the kidnapped troops back.
"Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were very much de-escalatory, because we dont want wars starting
Somebody tell the Brits thanks much for all their help and support through the years, but it's time for them to go home.
"...It's time we recognized the nature of the conflict. It's total war and we are all involved. Nobody on our side is exempted because of age, gender, or handicap. The Islamofacists have stolen childhood from the world." [FReeper Retief]
"...That the totalitarian force pitted against freedom wears a religious makes this civil war among mankind all the more difficult to engage. Loving freedom as we do, it seems reprehensible to deliberate against a religion. But this is no ordinary religion as it demands absolute obedience of all to their religion at the cost of freedom itself." [FReeper Backtothestreets]
Why didnt your guys defend themselves?
says it all IMO. Disgusting.
Thanks for support through the years thanks for coming Salem
I don't blame the Captain or crew. I blame the president of the US who called off the two F4C's that were enroute.
It means that Little Commander Horner is a blowhard
Our reaction was, Why didnt your guys defend themselves?I remember the same question being asked 20 years ago
By the way, if my response had overtones of irritation, it is because my dad did have a connection to CDR Bucher, and while the Captain of the USS Pueblo might not have been a top of the line Captain, he tried to do the best he could with what he had. Our military places value on the lives of its men...we generally don't require them to go down shooting in a hopeless cause, which is what that would have been.
I am very disappointed with the British reaction about this terrorist act against them which is in fact a declaration of war. The British are acting in a very meek and weak fashion regarding this.
called off the two F4C's that were enroute...
We were sure the US would do something.
I can't say much more without getting pissed off all over again.
What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?
"The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.
So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.
If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong."
Yeah. My dad, in addition to being a friend (I kind of wanted to say drinking buddy) of CDR Bucher, was also the Security and Communications Officer at the time when we lived in Yokosuka, Japan. My dad spent two weeks straight in the Comm Hut on the base without coming home.