The Wide Awakes » US Soldiers would have shot at the Iranians

3/26/2007

US Soldiers would have shot at the Iranians

A senior US officer in the Persian Gulf expressed surprise at how easily a team of Britsh sailors were taken captive by Iran on Friday, saying that US marines would have fired on the Iranian forces, the British newspaper The Independent reported on Monday.

“The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defense but also an obligation to self-defense,” Lt.-Cmdr. Erik Horner, who has been working with the British task force in the region, told the newspaper.

“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 didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”

But then again, the Jews understand very well that we have a right to defend ourselves from terrorists, even though the leftists engage in this blind factless moral relativism that would make ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. They haven’t, of course, taken into consideration the head hacking videos, and their admitted goal; a theocratic fascist state.

For the blind protesters who complain we live in a fascist state, they wouldn’t have the freedom to protest if that were true; just try speaking against the French government in France or any of the other countries who espouse this hatred of America; you’d be picked up immediately by the jandarmes.

Said Cao @ 2:49 pm | Permalink

13 Comments »

The most fundamental concept of Rules of Engagement (and I spent a brain burning 9 months deep into that subject while forward deployed) is that of “self-defense.” When you begin heading into the “waters” of “hostile intent,” having left the domain of “hostile acts” it gets hairier for the people with their fingers on triggers/firing circuits, but…it’s “in there.”

BUT: If attacked, the use of “proportional” (and you need to keep this clearly in the forefront while you are sending ammo downrange) force to control the situation is authorized.

Contrary to popular belief, ROE is not to manage conflict, but to manage the ramp up to possible conflict and then control how much force is expended if you have to engage. Use of all other means to control the possibility of a dust up (maneuvering/speed changes/etc) should be used as time/distance/communications allow before you get there.

The CO of USS UNDERWOOD (FFG-36) (patrolling in the area) had a 76mm (3 in) gun capable of putting 80 rounds into any Iranians ships in a minute at his command. Most likely at least one 25mm Bushmaster canon and a multitude of M-2 (.50 cal) and M-60 (7.62mm .30 cal) machine guns to answer such hostile acts.

Why didn’t he shoot? I’m not sure of the proximity, but unless a specific nation’s forces are designated as “allies” from National Command Authority (NCA), you are only authorized to use forces to defend US units/citizens. While we and the British are allies as a partical daily matter, there isn’t a specific treaty for this conflict listing them as an ally.

Comment by xformed — 3/26/2007 @ 12:54 pm

My husband is a LEGAL immigrant from London. So we have family over there. I called my mother-in-law and asked how she felt about this whole thing, and her response.

“Why the hell didn’t they shoot those bastards.”

I couln’t agree more. The only thing I can think of is the west has become so pansified, that we’re scared to shoot even in self defense.

Comment by Jenn — 3/26/2007 @ 3:44 pm

This is unfortunately true, thanks to leftist lawyers who pursue our own military, and the press which celebrates every jihadi victory and helps them spread their propaganda, like the koran flushing story.

I pray for those guys…Blair keeps saying ‘this is serious’ but if it’s so damned serious why don’t we line up our battleships and take aim?

Comment by Cao — 3/26/2007 @ 5:17 pm

I would argue that yes we do and should have the right to defend ourselves.

As a former intelligence analyst I also think we were right to take Sadam out.

I do also think that Bush is not only acting like a fascist, but he is acting like a fascist that is completely inept, which is possibly his only saving grace.

I look forward to the day when there is a real conservative in the White House and not someone that panders to the religious right out of one side of his mouth and issues orders that do not get the job done right out of the other side of his mouth.

If Hitler had been so inept, he would have never found the Rhine.

Unfortunately, Bush’s fascists precidents will make for much fodder when liberals take over the White House in 2008.

Ask yourself if you want a liberal operating with the powers that Bush has allowed himself and then tell me that his actions have been good for the country.

Clinton was a leader with bad ideas, but the capability to persuade people to do something.

Bush is a leader with good ideas, but completely incapable of getting those ideas accomplished successfully.

Comment by brettbum — 3/26/2007 @ 7:10 pm

Ok, how is Bush acting like a fascist?

That statement makes absolutely no sense. We actually play into the hands of fascists like Ahmadinejad by not towing the hard line and showing them, in their own language of jihad, STRENGTH with superior firepower. If Bush were a fascist, none of the war protesters would be able to chant 1,2,3,4 we don’t want your racist war. They wouldn’t be able to stand in the streets in their ridiculous clown outfits with ‘impeach Bush’ signs. They’d be in jail; like the Iranian blogger.

I think you’re a little ‘off’ in your thinking and rationale….in this country, “intelligence” doesn’t live up to the definition.

Comment by Cao — 3/27/2007 @ 3:58 am

For once I make a comment that does not dispute anything on this page, and as usual it dissapears. Accident, or incident?

Comment by Goshdarnit — 3/28/2007 @ 6:48 am

There were three trackback spams in moderation; it looks like the blog ate it. Every now and then it eats someone’s comments, sorry; I don’t have any control over what akismet picks.

Comment by Cao — 3/28/2007 @ 3:18 pm

Goshdarnit, is it “as usual” indicating we are deleting your posts? (Which I assure you on my part is not happening, the only posts of yours I change are those you ask a correction for)

Or did you make this comment out of frustration and your posts disappearing in NOT so usual?

By the way, Cao may not like you much, but unless you are a total ass and do nothing but swear, call names and insult, she probaby will not delete you or anyone else either. (and you may be an ass on occassion but you don’t reach the level of insulting I am talking about )

Comment by Richard Nixon — 3/28/2007 @ 5:54 pm

Yeah I like leaving the stupidity as it was written for posterity. Goshdarnit doesn’t always qualify as leaving stupid comments, but he’s succeeded in the annoying category. Not enough to have his comments nuked, and his IP banned though. Just annoying enough for me to pause, snort, and move on to another post or comment…and leave the babysitting to Richard Nixon.
I don’t delete a single thing unless it’s completely tasteless, rife with swearwords, insults and words that I don’t dare utter out of my own mouth. OR, someone has gotten on my last nerve, and it takes quite a bit to accomplish that. I am much more indulgent, much more patient than people like -uh-er-BETH, for example. Beth doesn’t take BS. I tend to take quite a bit more before I reach my limit.

And I’ve been known to swear now and again, so it has to be pretty bad for me to relegate it to spam. goshdarnit manages to keep it pretty civil.

It just seems to me that goshdarnit needs to direct complaints our way, which is fine, but I’d rather be accused of something I actually DID. Nixon can see everything back here, he has admin rights.

Comment by Cao — 3/28/2007 @ 6:10 pm

Well Cao, in that case I believe you. You have my sincerest of apologies. Although, in the past, at least three of my posts have dissapeared. In future I’ll try to find something else nasty to say about you that actually is true. “I hear Cao picks her nose with a shotgun!” Or maybe not.

Fair enough Cao. Fair enough.

Comment by Goshdarnit — 3/29/2007 @ 6:37 am

Actually, my shotgun rides in the bed of the truck.

Comment by Cao — 3/29/2007 @ 5:49 pm

U.S. soldiers would not only have shot AT the Iranians, they probably would have SHOT the Iranians!

Comment by RDX — 4/1/2007 @ 8:41 pm

Glad to see you back, RDX.

Comment by Cao — 4/2/2007 @ 7:04 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb				Apr »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31