Under the circumstances, "a few hours" is simply impossible to attempt a rescue. Check the chronology. The ship was hijacked on April 8. It took more than "a few hours" (until April 9, in fact) for the first ship to reach the scene--the Bainbridge, a destroyer with no SEALs or facilities to receive a team and all its specialized gear. That couldn't happen until the Boxer showed up with its flight deck, well deck, and full hospital on the 11th, the day it arrived on the scene. The Boxer also carried no SEALS but could support a SEAL team. Meanwhile it took time to get a SOF team ready and equipped with tools and intelligence. It has been reported that it took 18 hours for two C-17's to fly the SEAL team to the Boxer where they dropped four inflatable boats and gear and about 95 people parachuted into the water and motored into the Boxer's well deck on the 11th. That had to be something cool to witness. Within a day after the SEAL team arrival the action was taken on Sunday the 12th, having been authorized by POTUS on the 10th and with additional authority on the 11th after being updated on the situation after the SEAL team arrived. Salty, the SEAL snipers were not yet there when the Captain escaped on the 10th. Just the swabs on the Bainbridge with it's small Marine detachment. Reports of a second escape attempt were erroneous. Much will come out, possibly not everything. I find it interesting that when the military authorities were first interviewed and asked if the snipers were SEALs, they vaguely said that SEALS were a part of the Special OPS forces that staged the rescue. I would not be surprised if Delta Force personnel turn out to have been involved as well, but are trying to remain covert.
Whoa, boy, I'll bet you p-o'd Salty with that one. "Every Marine is a rifleman," and as the brother of a Marine, I can attest that you'll be hard-pressed to find any Marine who would not have confidently taken the shot.
OK, here's my take...it wouldn't surprise me for a second to find out that this entire story is a work of fiction. That's the nature of the Information Age we live in. The question that comes to my mind is, is it believable? So....do you believe that the current POTUS would desire that "a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome" to a situation in which armed foreigners were holding an American citizen hostage? Given his already demonstrated position that terrorists captured on the field of battle should be granted the same rights as American citizens who break American laws (gitmo), you have to conclude, yes. Granted, if we agree that the blog about this situation is false, then we're only talking hypotheticals. Hypothetically, I would like for a POTUS facing his first situation of an American civilian in peril overseas, to demonstrate to the world that the penalty for such action is to be swiftly and decisively reamed up the a$$. (Which may be the ultimate fate of the fourth pirate, who could end up in an American prison ). Otherwise, we could be back to the days of Jimmy Carter, when the thugs of the world thought we were ripe for the picking.
Marine snipers are the best in the world...fact, not fiction. Every Marine infantry battalion has a detachment of trained scout snipers. Bringing in a SEAL team was completely unnecessary if all they were going to do was take a shot from the ship. Also red, I meant hours after the ship arrived on the scene...not hours after the captain was taken hostage. This thing looks a lot like a training operation.
This is exactly the line of thinking that the story is geared towards. People who want to believe that he's a softy will buy the story without questioning it and let it reinforce their stance. Critical thinkers, on the other hand, don't run around believing stories that are posted on blogs with ZERO credibility. Actually, 'blog' and 'zero credibility' are pretty much synonymous, since they're really just op-eds that anyone can post. Given some of the other ridiculous email forwards that SabanFan has posted on here, I'd tend to be just a tad more skeptical.
Do not mean to hijack but by what proof and standard do you make this claim? I would say by your statement that Marines have the best assignment of snipers, but the best in the world is arguable. There are individuals from many countries with great shots but none better then Canada's Rob Furlong. I doubt seriously his shot will be topped until a better rifle is made.
Every Marine is a damned good rifleman . . . but not every rifleman is a top sniper. Ships detachments are not where the Marines keep their best marksmen. The best Marine marksmen are likely SEALS anyway.
Not following. OK. All of the known libs have checked in and are accounted for. I'm still not sure about USM. I think he's just a "humanist".
Contingencies. The SEALS came ready for anything. It could have ended in a boarding from small boats or even from scuba-equipped SEALS underwater. There were more Somalis arriving in other ships that had hostages also. They had to be ready to possibly board and seize several other ships or small craft. It's why we have SEALS, they are trained for this kind of covert special operation. Marine expeditionary units are trained to overtly seize and hold ground. I wouldn't be surprised if they will eventually be needed to clear out some Somali ports before this pirate business is over. Understood. But . . . they did take action hours after the SEALS arrived on the scene. Not that the sailors and marines on the Bainbridge couldn't have done something earlier, but we held almost all the cards here and could afford to wait for the experts. An important life was at stake, as well as national principles.
