Posted on Jan 13, 2016
How should the US respond to Iran detaining 10 US Sailors?
16.5K
282
186
7
7
0
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 54
There is so much about this that strikes me as "odd". It's impossible to imagine both craft having the same malfunction, at the same time...so if it truly was a failure of their navigation equipment, I'm pretty certain these Sailors could use other methods of getting into International Waters safely. If one craft became DIW, then yes, the other would've provided cover; Even then, it's pretty hard to imagine two such craft being painted into such a corner they would be forced out of any option but allowing themselves to be towed in and taken into custody. Yes, I'm sure the political and tactical realities would've precluded a hell for leather showdown...but there's definitely more to this than meets the eye.
(15)
(0)
SGM, my guess is that a) they were outmanned and outgunned and b) were following ROE. If they were caught in Iranian waters, particularly if it truly was unintentional, they had no legal justification for resisting detainment without exacerbating an already tense situation. By resisting, they could have escalated what amounts to a law enforcement detainment into a shooting war.
Now, if they were in international waters and the same thing happened, it's a very different situation. Attempt at detainment in international waters could be considered an act of war.
Now, if they were in international waters and the same thing happened, it's a very different situation. Attempt at detainment in international waters could be considered an act of war.
(11)
(0)
SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT
LTC Paul Labrador Sir, the problem is we will probable never no the true answers. Back in the day if a vehicle breaks down you slap a tow bar or in combat you strip any useable parts and destroy it in place
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
MSgt Mike Mikulski - good questions. Also, it seems now it may not have been a mechanical problem but a huge navigation error?
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
LTC Yinon Weiss - Both small ships (I would contend boats) were equipped with GPS. Either the propulsion failure was true something was happening that may never be revealed.
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
MSgt Mike Mikulski - Last report I read was that they decided to take a "short cut" through Iranian waters. Nothing really adds up with this story.
(0)
(0)
Simple; the Rule of Engagement (ROE) along with some other "standing" orders made it very clear to the crew not to engage the Iranians nor offer any resistance. We've been down this channel before back in the 1980's in Beirut with the "Don't shoot back" club. Marines standing guard posts without ammo for their weapons and strict orders that when fired upon, don't shoot back (not that they could, etc.) And of course we all know what happened to the Marine Barracks.
(9)
(0)
(2)
(0)
PO2 Jack Mitchell
CWO2 I so agree with you! The ROEs are what set these sailors up for failure. (And the ones wearing white socks hahaha)
(1)
(0)
Timing is everything...right before the State of the Union and then released...HMMMMM. Especially to say that both boats had mechanical difficulties. That is like the odds of two of our aircraft launching the same time and both having flameouts on takeoff. International political move trying to make a statement on the worlds stage knowing it would make headlines yesterday. I am sure our folks have been operating out there for some time and they just happened to get caught yesterday?
For once I believe our leadership did the right things and let law enforcement of territorial waters and diplomacy work. I guarantee the folks at Dept of State ran with this one. I also tend to believe the Iranians probably didn't do anything we wouldn't have if they crossed the lines of Intl waters into our territorial waters...just my two cents.
For once I believe our leadership did the right things and let law enforcement of territorial waters and diplomacy work. I guarantee the folks at Dept of State ran with this one. I also tend to believe the Iranians probably didn't do anything we wouldn't have if they crossed the lines of Intl waters into our territorial waters...just my two cents.
(7)
(0)
SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT Here's a thought. The service members are currently in reintegration, so the Navy can learn about what happened. After the Navy gets all the facts straight they will release a statement about what they want us to know.
(6)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sgt Richard Buckner You're a stand up person and I know it and you know I know it.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Sgt Richard Buckner - Great we're in agreement then with regards to your original question. I value your opinion and your way of putting things, always, even when it's roughly put.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
What they want us to know and the truth are probably two different things. Coming from this Administration, I'm not holding my breath that whatever story comes out is going to be true. You can almost count on it being a poorly made up bunch of lies... which is pretty much SOP for this Administration.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Sgt Richard Buckner I think your thinking of August 6th 2011 when 38 men and one military dog (30 Americans of which 17 where Seals, 15 of them where from team six) where killed. They where a QRF for a group of Army Rangers tracking a senior Taliban leader by the name Qari Tahir in Tangi Valley, Wardak province, Afghanistan.
(0)
(0)
Response really comes down to how our guys were detained. If they had strayed into Iranian waters by accident (as is claimed), Iran had every right to detain them. As long as the sailors were not abused, and all of our equipment is returned as well, I see it as no-harm, no foul. Now if our guys were in International waters, regardless of how close they were to the border, and snatched at the point of a gun, that is a different issue altogether.
(6)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Both parties agreed they were in Iranian waters. I agree, thank goodness cooler heads were present.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Look at the video's the Iranians released. Unless their was a large Iranian patrol boat somewhere out of frame, it appears that we outgunned the Iranians. I'm also sure that the Navy and Air Force would have been able to provide air cover as well. This means our folks were told not to engage and to surrender rather than put up a fight. I just hope they successfully completed their mission before being intercepted by the Iranians.
(4)
(0)
I think it is possible that Iran was jamming their GPS units or, they were not IN Iranian waters. But my question is, Why didn't Boat 2 just pull Boat 1 out into International Waters? Even with non-functioning GPS units they had to know they were close.
Regardless, Iran went against The Geneva Convention. Something does not add up here, IMHO....
Thanks,
Rick
Regardless, Iran went against The Geneva Convention. Something does not add up here, IMHO....
Thanks,
Rick
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG (Join to see) - First; It looks like we are in agreement. I even suspect that you would (grudgingly) admit that Saddam Hussein went to his death with one hell of a lot more dignity than the people who were running the execution showed.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - More than one wrong does not make it right, nor is it morally relative to do the wrong thing because the other guy is doing the wrong thing. If we go there, we are no longer on the high road.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG (Join to see) - First; There is a common thread between "If we are the good guys, then we should act like the good guys." and Galatians 6:7 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." and that thread is codified in the several Geneva Conventions.
(0)
(0)
Sending a very Stern letter, and creating a hashtag, both very effectively used by the current administration...
(4)
(0)
CPO David Sharp
Don't forget about 20 red pens. Good boots will help when you have to stamp your feet.
(1)
(0)
In this case it appears it was handled as it should have been, diplomatically.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next