Lotsa stuff out there about 'who said what.' Blackfive has its own take--and it's well-informed, (as usual.)
...the commander on scene already had the authority to deal with an imminent death situation in his standing rules of engagement. It means that when this situation was escalated to national command authority i.e. Obama those rules were suspended and Obama implemented new ones specific to this incident. Then he had to restore the authority the captain already had to use deadly force to save a hostage from execution. There is considerable talk that the initial new ROE that Obama instituted did not allow a rescue so as to allow the negotiations to proceed, and then a second set of ROE was instituted after the Navy could not respond to Captain Phillip's escape attempt. That is unconfirmed but fits the facts as they happened.
Further,
...The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.
He did affirm the military's authorization to use force if the captain's life was in danger, but they already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement. If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an imminent execution unless the ROE specifically forbid it.The AP is making it sound like there was an active rescue ordered by the President. It was not, there was an imminent threat and the local commander gave the order to fire. Good on Obama for ensuring their authorization was clear, but let's also be clear that he did not authorize or order an active rescue attempt
Hope that clears it up for all of you!
HT: Ace
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Frankly this will never be publicized. The moment I heard about this, I pretty much assumed that the actions taken were ordered by the captain on the scene - not O.
He will of course, imply that he made this crucial decision.
Post a Comment