Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Balog on July 07, 2016, 12:15:09 PM
-
http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/07/cowardice-and-incompetence-in-the-persian-gulf-the-us-navy-has-severe-problems/
The .mil has released their report on the sailors captured by the Iranians.
-
That whole evolution was FUBAR'd beyond belief.
A couple of things that really jumped out at me;
A female on one of the boats as a 2nd Gunner (WTH is that?), I don't believe women are assigned to Riverine boats as crew at this point. I could be wrong. Was this a transit and they took whoever wanted to go? Possibly office types, I really don't know.
I read earlier that one of the recommendations was Riverine crews receive Code of Conduct and in-person SERE training but I can't find it now. :(
How can anyone in these boats not have SERE is beyond me.
Hopefully they are at least well trained in preventing sexual harassment, being diverse and learning to accept LGBT shipmates and completed all required NKO courses to be politically correct in any situation....you know...the important stuff. ;) :(
bob
-
One is reminded of the feigned, lefty outrage over Bush "failing" to provide ever soldier with a bullet-proof vest, and to armor every bit of rolling stock.
-
I read earlier that one of the recommendations was Riverine crews receive Code of Conduct and in-person SERE training but I can't find it now. :(
All military members receive training on the Code of Conduct, continuously throughout their career.
-
Wow. Don't remember reading this before:
The report also found that the crew members improperly revealed passwords for laptops and cellphones and even sensitive technical details about their two ships, including their top speed, capabilities and missions, the report said. “It is clear that some, if not all, crew members provided at least some information to interrogators beyond name, rank, service number and date of birth,” the report said.
-
All military members receive training on the Code of Conduct, continuously throughout their career.
How do they get it these days? While we talked about the CoC a bit, especially before deployments I don't recall a bunch of formal training sessions. This was before NKO, or any other computer stuff so we did it as GMT once a year or so, or so we said. I just don't remember a lot of it though. :(
bob
-
How do they get it these days? While we talked about the CoC a bit, especially before deployments I don't recall a bunch of formal training sessions. This was before NKO, or any other computer stuff so we did it as GMT once a year or so, or so we said. I just don't remember a lot of it though. :(
bob
For us it is via an annual brief along with several others that are mandatory. Also as you stated it is drilled in over and over during just about every brief while prepping for a deployment.
-
This is what stood out to me. A crewmember refused a direct lawful order because it might have been dangerous? That bastard should be rotting in a cell the rest of his life.
Instead, Nartker did order the boats to speed away. But by then it was too late, the Iranians were able to block their vessel and had their weapons fixed on boat. The crew’s coxswain saw the Iranian’s AK-47s were close enough for him to see they were pointed at his gunner. When the captain wanted another attempt to go, the coxswain said no.
“I tell the [boat 802] captain that we are not moving. [The boat 802 captain] said we just got to go and if they shoot through us then whatever. I am having this dumb conversation with him about how I am not going to drive. I am not going to get the [boat 802] gunner killed,” according to the investigation.
-
This is what stood out to me. A crewmember refused a direct lawful order because it might have been dangerous? That bastard should be rotting in a cell the rest of his life.
Actually no, I wouldn't see where putting a life into jeopardy would be a lawful order. I don't think I would have followed that order at that time either.
-
Actually no, I wouldn't see where putting a life into jeopardy would be a lawful order. I don't think I would have followed that order at that time either.
Are you serious? So, it is unlawful for a officer to order his men to fight against the enemy? Good Lord...
-
This is the kind of *expletive deleted*it wrought by turning the military into a *expletive deleted*ing social experiment.
-
Actually no, I wouldn't see where putting a life into jeopardy would be a lawful order. I don't think I would have followed that order at that time either.
!!?!?!?!?!?
WHAT?!?
How is it not a lawful order to put a sailor's life in jeopardy? THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY DOES.
One thing I'm noting in all of this, that there is a female gunner on the crew.
Might the gunner that was at risk have been the female, leading to the greater reluctance to put her in danger?
Oh, that's right. We can't talk about that kind of thing happening.
-
Are you serious? So, it is unlawful for a officer to order his men to fight against the enemy? Good Lord...
!!?!?!?!?!?
WHAT?!?
How is it not a lawful order to put a sailor's life in jeopardy? THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY DOES.
One thing I'm noting in all of this, that there is a female gunner on the crew.
Might the gunner that was at risk have been the female, leading to the greater reluctance to put her in danger?
Oh, that's right. We can't talk about that kind of thing happening.
Considering that the order came to late to act....The officer in charge is also committed to make sure that his team stay alive. It isn't as if our Sailors had an opportunity to defend themselves.
-
Considering that the order came to late to act....The officer in charge is also committed to make sure that his team stay alive. It isn't as if our Sailors had an opportunity to defend themselves.
If the officer is committed to anything other than accomplishing his mission then he is a failure.
I know we joke about the differences between the services and all, but I cannot fathom defending the refusal of a direct order to attempt to evade capture on the grounds that it would be risky. I am dumbfounded.
-
If the officer is committed to anything other than accomplishing his mission then he is a failure.
I know we joke about the differences between the services and all, but I cannot fathom defending the refusal of a direct order to attempt to evade capture on the grounds that it would be risky. I am dumbfounded.
If one wasn't already staring down the barrel of an AK maybe, but you even quote the coxswain stated that he saw the AK pointed at the gunner.
-
One is reminded of the feigned, lefty outrage over Bush "failing" to provide ever soldier with a bullet-proof vest, and to armor every bit of rolling stock.
Well, hey -- Now that they have vests, who cares if the engines work? It's all good, right?
-
Hmmm usdefensewatch is all angsty about this. I'd like to read the actual report, not excerpts. That said, I'm going to quote myself from the original thread:
Sooooo. I have actually trained with that Riverine squadron. also the one on the east coast. Those guys (the coxswains of small craft) are barely competent sailors. By doctrine, they are supposed to provide security for US Army Logistics Over the Shore operations. We plan on doing that ourselves, because in the Chesapeake Bay it's 50/50 they will get there on time. I 100% believe that navy officer that was violating the Code of Conduct: Those tool's got lost, and were picked up by the Iranian's before they could figure it out. It's not a conspiracy, it's lowest common denominator boat handling. We (the Army) normally know our position to within .5 NM or so. We train, and routinely use, GPS, RDF, visual, and celestial navigation. My experience with small (read less than 300 or so ft) Navy boats, is that if it isn't on their commercial grade chartplotter, they don't know it.
On the coxswain refusing an order? There are some questions. A competent officer would have been looking at that whole situation and trying to pick the least risky way to save his crew and boats. There was no good choice by that time. Are the Iranians really going to shoot? After all they don't actually want a war either. Can we limp out to international waters? If they take us what is the threat to the crews? What is the threat to the security of the boats and onboard equipment? Gotta pick the least crappy option and go with it, as there are real risks to each choice. The thing is, assuming the chain of command is as we've been told, that's the LT's call. The Coxswain (of the 802) doesn't get to make that. Right or wrong when the commander says "we go left" that's what you do. Now, I will amend that to say it's possible that the LT, while the ranking person present, wasn't actually in command. If there wasn't an actual "This is the convoy/flotilla, and the LT is in charge" then the individual responsibility for the safety of the boats and crew stays with the Master of each boat. i.e. the Coxswain. IF that's the situation and the LT was kinda riding along, the Coxswain was legal to make his own call on his boat. For example: I often take Generals out on PAO rides. As soon as we throw lines and get underway, I'm in [legal] command of the vessel, crew and passengers. Stars down to LT aides. We do what I say. (That being said, I tend to pay pretty close attention to what the Generals want :) )
So we'd need to know specifically what the command structure of that little flotilla was in some detail.
Personally, from what I know of their situation, I'd have bluffed them and headed for sea. The Iranian's didn't KNOW they weren't in contact with 5th Fleet, and no one wants to be the first to pull a trigger. Aim for sea, engines dead slow ahead, and don't turn.
Pretty much everything the crews did after capture was stupid, and professionally embarrassing. (Except the sailor that hit the beacon (I assume an EPIRB)) It also sounds like they shouldn't have gotten underway at all as the boats don't sound seaworthy, much less ready for ops in the Gulf.
Are you serious? So, it is unlawful for a officer to order his men to fight against the enemy?
It's worth remembering that however much you don't like them, we ARE NOT at war with the Iranians, so overt aggression would indeed have been an illegal order. The ROE in CENTCOM/The Persian Gulf are pretty dang specific, and from what has been described so far, shooting at the Iranians would not have been authorized, or legal. If they had actually shot at us that would be different.
Shitty training, shitty SOPs, shitty equipment, and shitty seamanship put those crews into a situation where there wasn't actually any good choices, just an array of bad ones. They still seem to have managed to pick the worse ones.
-
If one wasn't already staring down the barrel of an AK maybe, but you even quote the coxswain stated that he saw the AK pointed at the gunner.
When I was in Iraq I didn't get to refuse lawful orders because people were actively shooting at me, this fcking coward doesn't get a pass because someone had a gun in his general area.
-
It's worth remembering that however much you don't like them, we ARE NOT at war with the Iranians, so overt aggression would indeed have been an illegal order. The ROE in CENTCOM/The Persian Gulf are pretty dang specific, and from what has been described so far, shooting at the Iranians would not have been authorized, or legal. If they had actually shot at us that would be different.
Granted, but he was ordering them to leave the area not open fire.
-
When I was in Iraq I didn't get to refuse lawful orders because people were actively shooting at me, this fcking coward doesn't get a pass because someone had a gun in his general area.
Big *expletive deleted*ing difference. You're trying to compare apples to VW's.
-
Big *expletive deleted*ing difference. You're trying to compare apples to VW's.
Show me in the UCMJ where it discusses which lawful orders you can disobey because you're scared.
-
Shitty training, shitty SOPs, shitty equipment, and shitty seamanship[s/] leadership put those crews into a situation where there wasn't actually any good choices, just an array of bad ones. They still seem to have managed to pick the worse ones.
FTFY
-
Show me in the UCMJ where it discusses which lawful orders you can disobey because you're scared.
My point being is it wasn't a lawful order.
-
Pretty much everything the crews did after capture was stupid, and professionally embarrassing. (Except the sailor that hit the beacon (I assume an EPIRB))
EPIRB is what I figured when I read it. I'm only talking from my armchair, but with clearer heads, that would have been a good thing to do before they were boarded. Good on her for doing so afterwards though and taking the risk. Sounds like she was the only one on either boat with testicles.
How do you guys in the mil handle EPIRB pops off your own vessels? Because on the civilian side, it's always, "some idiot must have bumped the switch" especially if it's a short signal. I would guess you all are more professional than that and verify, which means she was smart to activate it, if only for a few seconds-minutes.
-
EPIRB is what I figured when I read it. I'm only talking from my armchair, but with clearer heads, that would have been a good thing to do before they were boarded. Good on her for doing so afterwards though and taking the risk. Sounds like she was the only one on either boat with testicles.
How do you guys in the mil handle EPIRB pops off your own vessels? Because on the civilian side, it's always, "some idiot must have bumped the switch" especially if it's a short signal. I would guess you all are more professional than that and verify, which means she was smart to activate it, if only for a few seconds-minutes.
In the Army, we go find the device no matter the length of signal sent. Either someone needs help, or someone is in trouble.
My point being is it wasn't a lawful order.
Other than a possible COC issue that I mentioned what makes you think it wasn't lawful? What Law do you think was broken to order the boats to leave?
I'm allowed to risk my soldiers at my discretion for mission accomplishment. I may very well have to answer to my commanders for the risks I take, but that goes up the chain, not down.
-
Other than a possible COC issue that I mentioned what makes you think it wasn't lawful? What Law do you think was broken to order the boats to leave?
I'm allowed to risk my soldiers at my discretion for mission accomplishment. I may very well have to answer to my commanders for the risks I take, but that goes up the chain, not down.
The point being none of us were there. We are only getting part of the story. We will never know the complete truth.
-
The point being none of us were there. We are only getting part of the story. We will never know the complete truth.
This, really.
Though if its true that the people in charge sent boats with crews that weren't trained, that had radios that didn't work, with officers in charge that had failed their navigation courses and in boats had mechanical problems, for a cruise just off the shores of Iran for the purposes of God knows what then really those people in charge should perhaps not be in charge in the future. I don't blame that coxwain one bit, if anything he seems to have considerably reduced the level of stupid that existed at the time and at least everyone involved walked away afterwards.
-
Pretty sad, really.
Back in 1980, when my ex-wife and I were recently married, we bought a small (19 foot) day sailer from a marina that was a couple of miles up a river and then about 20 miles from where we were going to dock. As it happened, the day we went to pick up the boat and sail it home was foggy. The boat had a compass -- which we had no way of checking. I had a chart, but I hadn't sailed up that river for over 20 years.
Nevertheless, we set out. We hit every buoy going down the river, and every buoy we wanted to find on the way from the mouth of the river to our marina. "It's not rocket science" -- but it does require paying attention.
-
I called Hillary today about this conversation and what happened with the boat crews. She said, "What difference does it make?" Further she said that the coxswain never intended to disobey an order. Not intending is a safe space...the director of the FBI declared it so.
-
The point being none of us were there. We are only getting part of the story. We will never know the complete truth.
Monday morning quarterbacking won't get us anywhere.
While maybe a bit of a reach though I can think of a couple of scenarios wherein the coxswain countermanding the order to evade could have been appropriate.
If in fact the order came way after the boats were "under the gun" "improper hazarding a vessel" could come into play.
Biggest failures came way before the actual capture.
-
As for folks going on about disobeying orders... If you have light weapons and the enemy has 40mm Bofors autocannons, yeah, maybe suicide isn't the best choice. Though I'd prefer not to be a 'guest' of Iran. Not going to Monday morning quarterback, but generally disobeying orders from an officer comes with high burden of proof. Being right isn't necessarily enough of a defense either. Giving up because some Haji aimed an AK at you, barring other circumstances or orders, is definitely NOT meeting that high burden of proof.
Regardless of the disobeying orders shenannagins, they all deserve to be thrown into the deepest, darkest hole for failing to destroy critical equipment and for giving intelligence to enemy forces. I don't know if treason would apply, because I don't think Iranians meet legal definition of 'enemy forces'. But a dozen other laws and regs DO apply. They deserve at least five to ten in Leavenworth for failure to destroy critical equipment, or scuttling the boat if destroying all the equipment was impossible (unlikely as that would be). If they all had broken toes or were waterboarded, ok, fine. Folks crack. If it was just stern words from an interrogator, throw them all in Leavenworth for a decade followed by a bad conduct discharge.
Those cowardly incompetent morons handed a lot of intel directly to the Iranians. Who are guaranteed to broker that to the Russians and possibly the PRC. That's potentially billions of dollars worth of equipment, and potentially risking lives if things ever get hostile with Iran and any other foreign power we eventually fight.
In the wake of Manning, Hillary, Petraeus, etc the military NEEDS to send set an example. Ignoring security violations by the brass is wrenching, but most grunts know the brass get to ignore the rules. If folks cotton to EVERYONE getting to ignore security and classification rules, we're completely boned. Honestly, if a tenth of the accusations are true, the sailors should be sentenced to breaking rocks for the rest of their life on live TV with every single last member of the military watching.
-
They were, at least, extremely careless with the handling of classified info on those boats.
-
In the wake of Manning, Hillary, Petraeus, etc the military NEEDS to send set an example. Ignoring security violations by the brass is wrenching, but most grunts know the brass get to ignore the rules. If folks cotton to EVERYONE getting to ignore security and classification rules, we're completely boned. Honestly, if a tenth of the accusations are true, the sailors should be sentenced to breaking rocks for the rest of their life on live TV with every single last member of the military watching.
In a more general sense this is already happening what with middle class folks' attitudes are trending. Middle class anarchy and/or irish democracy are spreading. Hillary & Co are making it worse as the middle class suckers begin to realize they are suckers.
-
They were, at least, extremely careless with the handling of classified info on those boats.
I see what you did there.
-
They were, at least, extremely careless with the handling of classified info on those boats.
Well, (per the FBI director) that's okay now. ;/
I agree with Rev. They were NOT under fire. We point weapons at folks whom we suspect are bad actors on the high seas all the time. (Do it on land a lot also.)
I can't remember who said it, but they should have turned toward seaward and attempted to get back to international waters at best speed, avoiding an incident with the Iranians as best a possible. Again, let them fire first.
-
Wow. Don't remember reading this before:
Remember when that P3 crew crash landed in china, rather than bailing out over the sea?
-
Remember when that P3 crew crash landed in china, rather than bailing out over the sea?
I remember. There were reasons.... I can't recall them right now. I do know they didn't ditch because of possible damage to the forward pressure bulkhead due to impact and having nose the radome torn off.
bob
-
Remember when that P3 crew crash landed in china, rather than bailing out over the sea?
I do generally remember that incident, but I may be misremembering in that I thought they had initiated the protocols for equipment and data destruction before landing. Maybe I'm incorrect or they didn't finish or something?
-
I do generally remember that incident, but I may be misremembering in that I thought they had initiated the protocols for equipment and data destruction before landing. Maybe I'm incorrect or they didn't finish or something?
You are correct, the first thought was to get on the ground, they were tossing equipment out the door as they were trying to make it over land. They didn't have a lot of time so it wasn't completed.
bob
-
We had thermite grenades in our trucks to destroy the radios if we were getting taken. Does the Navy have similar destructive means for their classified gear?
-
We had thermite grenades in our trucks to destroy the radios if we were getting taken. Does the Navy have similar destructive means for their classified gear?
Shipboard for sure, not on planes when I was in. That may have changed but I doubt it, planes and molten burning aluminum and other metals don't go together very well. I remember reading about them using a lot of thermite when the USS Pueblo was being captured.
bob
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
The Hainan Island P-3 mid-air collision and subsequent emergency landing got a lot of press in the Seattle area at the time. The P-3 squadron was based out of Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, about 30 miles NW of Seattle.
-
All military members receive training on the Code of Conduct, continuously throughout their career.
Really?
I was in for 22 years, served in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and I only remember "receiving training" on the COC once in boot camp.
What's your military background?
-
Really?
I was in for 22 years, served in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and I only remember "receiving training" on the COC once in boot camp.
What's your military background?
I get annual Code of Conduct training plus additional, more in depth, classes before each deployment.
-
The question is since when was this started? It wasn't a thing when I was in service but that was up till 80.
-
My whole career. So at least from '98 on.
-
We got training on CoC prior to deploying to "the other guy's backyard" when there was a possibility of getting caught and detained. Additional training was required of those with higher levels of clearance.
My experience was '80s and '90s.
-
Really?
I was in for 22 years, served in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and I only remember "receiving training" on the COC once in boot camp.
What's your military background?
20 years of service this August, 5 active from 88-93 and then since 2002 in the Guard.
During active duty time served 14 months or so in Korea and then a few months in Egypt.
Since I've been in the Guard been to the sandbox three times.
-
Like RKL during my time ('71-'92) we got it in Boot Camp (although the General Orders of the Sentry was much more important to my well being) and I don't remember much at all until I started flying in the late '70s. Because we spent time in places like the Sea of Okhotsk and other places where we weren't welcomed with open arms and shots of vodka we received CoC training before every deployment. If it wasn't for that I am not sure it would have been anything but a check box every few years or so.
bob
-
Outside of in basic training I don't remember any such training. We had lots of EO sessions...
However, I was peacetime Army in Kansas for 3 years. I'm sure it would have been brought up had we deployed anywhere.