Let’s make sure we’re clear on one thing; while I emphatically do not support President Obama’s policies, administration, or style of leadership, when America and its people are in jeopardy I very much do want him to succeed. Politics is supposed to end at the shoreline; to those who’d do us harm singularly or as a nation, we should be behind the President. I even wanted Jimmy Carter to succeed in dealing with the Iranians – I was as Democrat as a 16-18 year old kid could be back then, and even I didn’t much like him, but I wanted to know that we had a capable, responsible person at the helm.
The corollary, of course, is that the President needs to do the job.
A friend forwarded this email, from the son of a friend of his, a US Navy sailor based in Virginia Beach VA (the Navy SEALs’ east-coast home) over the weekend. I present it without edits, redacting only the parties to the email by request, adding a few clarifications in square brackets.
From: XXXXX XXXXX
To: XXXXX XXXXX
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 7:25:25 AM
Subject: A SEAL friend of the mine sent the real Somali pirate story……and it frankly sounds about right. BHO is “Barack Hussein Obama”, ROE is “Rules of Engagement”, RIB is “rigid inflatable boat”, “Raggies” is ragheads (a pejorative term for Muslim terrorists)…
The account is one from a Rear Admiral Lou Sarosdy, and it’s been making the rounds on the Internet. I took the time to confirm that Sarosdy exists (he does, and ran in some pretty serious company in his day):
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 [The Navy equivalent of the Army’s “Delta” counterterrorism/hostage rescue group] 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, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.
5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN [Captain] and SEAL teams
6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR [commander] 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” behavior. As usual with him, it’s BS [Bainbridge Ship].So per my last email thread, I’m downgrading Oohbaby’s performance 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 craft 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.
Biased? Sure – military people often are when it comes to the right and wrong way of doing their jobs. Filter accordingly (and, given the nature of the subject, at your own peril).
The President – a guy with a paper-thin resume at everything but “community organizing”, with virtually no record even in the Senate – is new at the job…
…and that’s fine, and something “we” warned “you” about, and – let’s be fair – not really the issue here.
The Somali pirate story, which the Administration spun as a major victory and vindication of our naif President, would seem to have been more a lucky bobble that broke the right way, thanks to some commanders that knew when to creatively ignore, or at least circumvent, the President’s orders.
On how many issues will we – and He – get that lucky?
BLAH: If it looks too good to be true, it most likely is. While “CPT Sarosdy’s” email recaps points that have appeared in other media sources, it’d appear that the email itself was a hoax. I tried to verify this before running the post yesterday – but several rounds of Google searches on the article (looking for references to Sarosdy and searching for various parts of the email’s lede and key parts) produced no hits.
In other words; I did make an effort to verify the email before posting it. It obviously missed.
What was the term Dan Rather used? Fake but accurate?
I apologize.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.