OT: CNN.com poll

[Doug Beman]

CNN.com has a poll at their front page with the question "should the CO of the USS Cole be punished for not enacting anti-terrorist safeguards?"

I answered "yes." My answer depends on one factor: are such measures actually detailed somewhere in US Navy regs, or are they "something he should have made up?"

It's always been my understanding that the CO of the ship answers for the things done by and done to the ship. Maybe regular anti-terrorist stuff wouldn't have changed anything, but if there were security measures that should have been in effect, they should have been in effect. I thought the US military was supposed to be especially cautious in the Middle East.

I've read that USN officers have had their career "ceilinged" because they were the OoD when their ship ran aground, or something. If that happens, surely the officer in command of a $1 billion DDG when it gets a 40x60 foot hole blown in its side by two fanatics in a dinghy should be reprimanded.

DjB

ps I've never served in the military, but have the deepest respect for it, so if I'm out of line, be kind in your objections.

[Maximus]

I don't see why anybody should be reprimanded by the "SH syndrom" or "**** Happens Syndrom".

Take for instance, I used to work for a core drilling company. We were out in the North Carolina mountains drilling four holes for a new bridge. On the last hole we did, we got down to the rock fairly soon and then we set up to core the rock. This involves "setting" the augers into the rock enough to seal off the core hole as to where no sentiment can seap in while coring. Well we set up the core rods with a BRAND NEW $700 diamond drilling bit. We then started drilling like usual with streaming water as the coolant. Well, as we drilled down our first 5-foot run, we noticed that the water was spewing out of the hole faster than normal. Well as we pulled the rods out of the hole to collect the first run's rock, we discovered that the BRAND NEW drill bit had been MELTED into the inner "collection" tube. So basically we burned up a BRAND NEW $700 diamond drill bit in one 5 foot run. We discovered that we didn't set the augers good enough and setiment cloged up the hole therefore not allowing the water down to the bit.

So the question is should the driller be held responsible and punished for ruining a brand new drill bit? No, not really, because **** happens.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-09-2001).]

[saru3000]

I could be wrong but I thought that they were supposed to have a watch on deck that specifically kept a look out for small boats but didn't.Basically,the captain didn't follow regs.I imagine that unofficially, his career is capped.

[This message has been edited by saru3000 (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Hakko Ichiu]

My understanding is that the Cole entered Yemen, a known area of high terrorist threat, under a very low state of alert (Threat Condition Delta ???) per Fleet orders. While the Captain may be culpable to some degree, I think we have to look higher up the chain of command if we want to apportion blame accurately. Of course, we could just fry his sorry ass as a convenient scapegoat, and then the media will chuck this one into the memory hole again until next time.

So who did blow up Khobar Towers anyway? I thought our Commander in Chief would not rest until the cowardly perpetrators had been brought to justice or somefink. Maybe things will change in a couple of weeks.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[RMC]

I would need a lot more info to make any kind of meaningful answer. But i don't think CNN is interested in details. They want a nice number that can be quoted and become part of the "facts" they get to report. "In a CNN poll 63% of respondents felt that the captain should cashiered out...."

I don't know about USN careers being capped by running aground but I am aware of similar things in the army. I know how one "aw, ****" can erase hundreds of "attaboys." You can save a busload of schoolkids from flaming death and they celebrate you like a hero. But if two days later you get a DUI, or somebody hits you with a lame sexual harassment complaint you become the very antichrist.

This case all depends on what the communicated threatcon was. Hind sight is, if not 20/20, then still much better than what he had going in. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. If the commander had no credible info (which he has to get from higher) then he had no reason to take extra precautions. what is the normal threat terrorists pose to ships? I don't know, but I think a bigger concern for the commander was the safety of any sailors who went ashore for any reason.

Anyway, antiterrorist measures are largely a joke. The bad guy always has the initiative, picks where and when he wants to strike. Antiterrorist measures scare away the amateurs. The professionals will get in anyway. I work on a post that has two gates. There are guards at both gates. MPs patrol around. A dedicated fellow could get in and back out quite easily through the fence and remote detonate a nice bomb and we would go in spaz mode after the fact. We would maintain spaz mode for a good long while until it got too painful. Then we'd stand down and the next incident would happen, someone would get fired, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Jumbo]

From the CNN poll question:

"Should the captain of the USS Cole be punished for failure to implement standard security measures on the day 17 sailors were killed in a bombing?"

To me, the most important aspect of the question is: "failure to implement STANDARD security measures".

I don't know if he did or didn't implement standard security measures. IF he didn't, then something must be done. A ship's crew depends upon the competence of it's captain. Either way, his career is pretty much over. I wish him luck.

Jumbo

[Old Crow]

I'll give you a sailors perspective.

There is a mindeset that needs to be addressed. As stated, the port was deemed a low security risk so under those circumstances, when a small boat that appears to be part of the Port Operations is alongside, what are you gonna do? Just arbitrarily blow it out of the water? You can't go around doing that.

Were adequate security measures in place? In those circumstances, probably. Will the CO get canned? The Navy always provides a scapegoat. Just like someone said before, "**** happens". It just happened to happen there. It would be so easy for it to happen anywhere else.

.....and yes, CO's, OOD's get canned for running a ship aground. I think it was in the early 80's, the Enterprise was pulling into San Fran and ran aground on a sandbar that wasn't even on the charts. Still, the CO got relieved.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Crow:

.....and yes, CO's, OOD's get canned for running a ship aground. I think it was in the early 80's, the Enterprise was pulling into San Fran and ran aground on a sandbar that wasn't even on the charts. Still, the CO got relieved.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't Nimitz, as a young officer, run his ship aground? Good thing the navy didn't dump him.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

CNN.com has a poll at their front page with the question "should the CO of the USS Cole be punished for not enacting anti-terrorist safeguards?"

I answered "yes." My answer depends on one factor: are such measures actually detailed somewhere in US Navy regs, or are they "something he should have made up?"

It's always been my understanding that the CO of the ship answers for the things done by and done to the ship. Maybe regular anti-terrorist stuff wouldn't have changed anything, but if there were security measures that should have been in effect, they should have been in effect. I thought the US military was supposed to be especially cautious in the Middle East.

I've read that USN officers have had their career "ceilinged" because they were the OoD when their ship ran aground, or something. If that happens, surely the officer in command of a $1 billion DDG when it gets a 40x60 foot hole blown in its side by two fanatics in a dinghy should be reprimanded.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt anything, but a full war-time setting, would have prevented that boat from approaching. The Admiral reviewing the case said he acted within reason. I believe that.

[Subvet]

Wow, two navy posts in one day! I don't think it was the Captain's "fault" in this case from what I know about the incident in the regular sense of the word. However it is true that whatever happens on a ship is ultimately the Captain's responsibility. This guy will be the scapegoat, whether that is "fair" or not doesn't matter. There have been a few submarines that have ran aground or "bounced" off the bottom. The one I know the details of is a good example of what I'm talking about. A sub was traveling along at a fairly high rate of speed and pretty deep. The captain was sleeping. The Officer of the Deck (the guy in charge of driving the boat when the captain is not in control) managed to ram the bottom. Luckily the boat was not lost. Now the captain has to sleep at some point, the guy isn't a robot. Doesn't matter though, it is still his "fault." That captain's career was over instantly.

The guys that talked about terrorism before in this thread are right on the money. This could have happened to anyone really. If not on that day in that port then somewhere else later. So was it the "fault" of the captain in question? In civilian terms, no. In military terms, yes. Will the captain be punished in some way? No doubt about it.

[BWebb]

There are Naval regulations that specify certain security checks that a crew of a warship must maintain under any heightened security stance. In the report issued by the Navy, several of these regs were not being utilized at the time of the attack. I cannot remember them all, but i know that there was no officer on deck, which is against regs. Also, a crew at port, under threat, is required to have a audio message, in the host country's language, to warn inbound boats to stay away. Those were just two of several. I'm sure the actual report, listing all the infractions could be found on the net somewhere. Would any of those steps stopped the attack, who knows. One thing is for sure, the Ship and her crew are the sole responsibilty of the captain. And any misfortune that occurs, falls squarely on the shoulders of her captain. It has always been that way, and it always will.

[MikeJ]

I'm not sure if this is actually true or not but my father works over at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport much of the time and he has heard that the men standing watch did not even have loaded rifles (due to a lack of funds and/or training). So if that is true, no amount of security precautions could have possibly made any difference...

[Jeff Pattison]

The captain of the Cole is just the last link in a long chain of failures. But, the temptation to put a man in the dock is often overwhelming. If the captian is cashiered, then a whole series people up the chain of command should be also. Personally, I thought the decision to allow a port visit in country that has been known to support terrorism in the past during period of open bloodshead between the Palestinians and Israelis was a major fumble.

Given the reports I've heard in aftermath of the incident, the crew did an incredible job at damage control. Without their outstanding efforts, the ship would have most certainly sunk.

[Warmaker]

I just hope that they spend more time FIRST to find out exactly what went wrong or faults in the SOP so this doesn't happen again. We in the U.S. seem to spend more time trying to put a blame/scapegoat on someone than coming up with the solution(s) FIRST. If it was the CO's fault, try him FAIRLY not just burn him right away for appeasing the media/public opinion (throwing a piece of meat to a pack of rabid dogs).

[Flipper]

Don't matter, if you know how the navy operates he already is...he's screwed!..courtmartial or not.

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJ:

I'm not sure if this is actually true or not but my father works over at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport much of the time and he has heard that the men standing watch did not even have loaded rifles (due to a lack of funds and/or training). So if that is true, no amount of security precautions could have possibly made any difference...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not for the reasons you give. It's for "safety" concerns. For the life of me, I can't figure the balance between safety of the ship and safety for the crew 'cause it goes hand in hand. The "no bullets" thing is due to a couple incidents involving the sidearm turnover of the Petty Officer of the Watch. On one particular ship, which was tied up alongside another during the Gulf War, the oncoming POOW was inspecting the weapon when it was inadvertantly discharged into the side of the other ship. "Bore clear, no apparent casualties!" but very embarrassing to the command. The next day, the CO asked the Command Duty Officer for a demonstration of how the incident occurred and promptly the CDO put a round through the wardroom overhead.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJ:

I'm not sure if this is actually true or not but my father works over at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport much of the time and he has heard that the men standing watch did not even have loaded rifles (due to a lack of funds and/or training). So if that is true, no amount of security precautions could have possibly made any difference...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that even if they had loaded weapons, what were they going to do? Blow away this little boat chugging around, one of many?

Jeff Heidman

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I think that its a load of crap. My guess is that the REAL person or person(s) responsible for this tragedy were on board that bomb-laden boat.

All this blame game after the fact is pointless. It doesn't bring any of the sailors back, but it doesn manage to ruin the career of a person who has devoted himself to serving his country.

I would imagine that at this moment, he is more aware of the need for ship security than ANY other person in the entire Navy.

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Nathman]

CNN can kiss my ass. What difference does it make what the poll results are? Asking an uninformed public to voice their opinion on something like this is indicative of the way the media tries to make news instead of report it. Very few people out there have the necessary information to make a judgement regarding whether or not the captain of the ship should be held responsible, and I'm sure a court of inquiry will get to the bottom of it. Meanwhile, CNN will release it's poll results and treat them as if they are sacred. I really beginning to despise the american press.

[Old Crow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nathman:

CNN can kiss my ass. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just go ahead and try to express your views on one of CNN's message boards. If it's not in keeping with public opinion I gaurantee you'll get banned, I did.

[Lacky]

What is all this talk about blowing up other ships that venture too close?!

All warships have a variety of weapons, of which, some of them are non-lethal. SOP for surface ships while entering port dictates pressurization of the fire mains with the hoses manned. This practice serves a dual purpose (Quick accident/fire readiness and Repel Boarders) Training fire hoses and discharging sea water at closing small craft has been done for decades! The terrorist ship was no larger than a dingy.

This doesn't work very well against Green Peace, though. Green Peace uses BIG ships

[Doug Beman]

I am guilty of making my decision based on insufficient knowledge. I do not know if the CO was following the correct in-port regs. If he was following them to the letter, using the correct assessment of Yemen's safety/non-safety, then the fault is not his, although (as at Pearl) one or two will take the fall.

However, if there were regs that weren't being followed (fire hoses, whatever) then it is on his head. It is his duty to make sure that everybody under his command does their duty. If the suicide boat got close enough because one sailor wasn't watching correctly, then that sailor takes the fall, as well as those whose duty is to make sure that he is doing his. With command comes responsibility.

DjB

[MikeJ]

Thanks for the info Old Crow, I didn't know about that. Do you know if it was the fault of the weapon itself or just improper handling? (i would guess it's the latter...)

And no jeff, i wasn't implying they should just blow every ship out of the water, just pointing out that because of this strange-sounding regulation, it is possible that if the threat were recognized there may not have been enough time to react.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJ:

And no jeff, i wasn't implying they should just blow every ship out of the water, just pointing out that because of this strange-sounding regulation, it is possible that if the threat were recognized there may not have been enough time to react.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, point taken.

I seem to recall a story about the gate guard at the Marine barracks in Beirut having the same problem. By the time he was able to go into another room, open the safe, extract a magazine for his otherwise empty M-16, and engage the truck bomb, it was too late.

End effect, a lot of dead Marines.

Jeff Heidman

[The_Capt]

Even though it turns my stomach to discuss anything Navy in nature, I will venture my 10 cents worth.

The resposibility of command is what empowers a commander to tell other people what to do. It is not because he/she is smarter or better at the job but because he/she has stepped up to be trained and accept responsibility.

That being said, at what point should a commander be held responsible? When things "go bad" in combat, it is a very dangerous thing to automatically crucify the guy in charge. It breeds undo caution in his/her peers causing paralysis in decision for fear of making the wrong one. A very US military mindset right now, hence CNN polls etc.

Perhaps the best advice I ever received was from an old Armd Maj who said " I will always forgive a sin of commission, it is the sins of ommission I cannot abide". Which is to say never hit someone for doing something (within reason of course) as long as they were using best judgement and keeping within the intent of their superiors direction (a little manoeuvre doctrine for you guys). Failure to act is a far more serious crime.

That all being said, I don't think anybody here has enough of the facts to even wager a guess, let alone an opinion on the actions of a senior naval officer.