Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2009]
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for
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.
4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage.
7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.
So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Oohbaby's performace to
Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his
The guidance from National Command
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali
After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he'd had enough.
Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.
Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.
There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.
Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.
Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.
What should have been a standoff lasting only
Origins: NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reported on this
Miklaszewski noted of the e-mail that:
Two senior military officials who talked to NBC about this both said that [President Obama] and the White House responded quickly and positively to the military's request.
Given some of the details included in the email, military officials say it could very well have come from a "disgruntled" Navy SEAL who had no idea what the White House and senior commanders were planning or executing.
In addition, the email was originally passed around by a former admiral
However, military officials at the Pentagon involved in the operation said Navy SEAL snipers had not arrived on board the Bainbridge at that time and therefore could not have fired on the pirates.
Contrary to the critical report, the president did not reject two proposed rescue attempts by
Navy SEAL commandos based in Norfolk, from the Naval Development Group, part of the Naval Special Warfare Center based in Coronado, Calif., were dispatched to the region. On
The rescue operation was delayed because of the time it took to deploy the second SEAL team of more than 20 commandos, along with boats and special equipment, from the United States to the area about 300 miles off the coast of Somalia, Pentagon officials said.
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
The senior military official said that assertion was false.
The posting also stated that rules of engagement imposed by the president prevented action unless the hostage's life was in imminent danger.
The military official said the commander had authority to take action at all times because
Instead, the incident underscored the danger Phillips was in as the pirates fired their
The next morning, the authority to use lethal force was expanded for what the White House described as an "additional set of U.S. forces," an apparent reference to the arrival of the SEALs off the Somali coast.
Last updated: 23 April 2009
Barnes, Julian E. and Greg Miller. "Moment to Shoot Somali Pirates Had Come." Los Angeles Times. 14 April 2009. Bumiller, Elisabeth. "To Rescue Captain, U.S. Snipers Held Steady Despite Many Moving Parts." The New York Times. 14 April 2009 (p. A5). Gertz, Bill. "Obama OK'd 2 SEAL Teams for Pirates." Washington Times. 22 April 2009. Hansen, Louis. "Authorship of Viral E-mail on Piracy Rescue in Doubt." The Virginian-Pilot. 21 April 2009. Miklaszewski, Jim. "Seal Email Criticizing Obama Is Bogus." MSNBC. 21 April 2009. Vanden Brook, Tom. "Captain's Rescuers: 'No One Else in the World Who Can Do That.'" USA Today. 14 April 2009 (p. A1). Associated Press. "Obama Twice Approved Force to Rescue Hostage." MSNBC. 12 April 2009.