The truth behind Maersk Alabama?
Pulled from a boating message board
Posted on Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:09:51 PM by mrmargaritaville
Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking
why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36
hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
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, the y 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. 4 hours later, 3 dead
raggies
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
D-.
Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.
Read the following accurate account.
Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean
hadn't
worked out as well. With the 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 captors -
and none was taken.
The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United
States , Barack Obama - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only
acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear,
extreme danger.
The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on
by the Somali pirates - and again no fire was returned and no pirates
killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel
thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a
mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man
with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of
decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful
solution"
would be acceptable.
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
[1] 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 hours - as long as it took the USS
Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location - became
an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of
criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
Is this true?
There are 4 replies to this message
