Should the USN patrol boat crews have defended themselves/boats against the Iranians?

SPC Kirk Gilles — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 01:29:38 -0400

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2016 1:56 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 01:56:56 -0400

They should've damned well been more alert to the approaching Iranian gunboat and made some attempt to evade. Firing on them would have been an act of war, and seeing as how they were in Iranian waters, they would've been wrong to shoot first.

Response by CSM Patrick Durr made Jul 1 at 2016 2:32 AM

CSM Patrick Durr — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 02:32:15 -0400

The boat was disabled. They'd drifted into Iranian waters. Submission was the correct move...but...the subsequent violations of the Code Of Conduct can not be excused. They were not tortured, they weren't under great duress. The Navy now has to punish all but one for conduct unbecoming.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2016 9:26 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:26:48 -0400

No that would have caused a whole crap ton of other problems. They were in foreign waters so they would have been seen as the aggressor and could have caused an international incident. According to the reports the mission was FUBAR from the get go.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 1 at 2016 10:39 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:39:24 -0400

Did Custer surrender when he was surrounded by Native Americans? Have there never been a command surrendered when annihilation is probable. AS a MCPO, I'm glad I was never in a position to find that out. This makes it apparent to me that if you get into trouble, on the Iranian coast or Benghazi, no one has your back in this day and age. With all the satellites and radar, and comms, are you telling me that they weren't covered like a blanket?

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jul 1 at 2016 11:07 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 11:07:42 -0400

Not putting up a fight was probably the smartest thing they did in this situation.

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 1 at 2016 12:33 PM

SPC Kirk Gilles — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:33:38 -0400

Is it possible that the boats in question are not seen as Blue Water navy and had a small group of sailors impacted a factor in people's views on this?
If a new LCS/FFG had drifted away? 44 sailors and a 300' "ship"? Different?
A Burke DDG with 250 sailors had been taken?
Just expanding the question. Enjoy!

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jul 1 at 2016 1:11 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 13:11:21 -0400

That would only be yes if they were attacked first and were capable of defending themselves. We are not in a 'state of war' with Iran. Firing first would only have gotten them all killed and their boats sunk. They did not know the intentions of the Iranians until it was too late. However, they should have been trained and prepared for this contingency since they were operating so close to Iranian waters. When they saw the Iranians approaching, radio in a sitrep, then throw all comsec and intel overboard or destroy it, then conduct yourself as a POW according to the code of conduct.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jul 1 at 2016 7:33 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:33:36 -0400

They should not have been sent on a mission the boats were never designed to do, cross deep water for a long distance.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Jul 5 at 2016 8:51 AM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:51:02 -0400

The Iranian "ships" that "captured" and approached them were equally armed, maybe slightly more heavily armed. Cold War Navy crew of 1990? Dead Iranians. Touchy feely new age Americans? Both sides probably woulda fired a ton of bullets and not hit anything. Boot camp now is nothing like it should be, basic skills like navigation without electronics are lacking. Then again, in their defense, where were all the super duper hyper technology 'Merican planes and ships? N O B O D Y was watching them? In a "trouble zone?" Wow...

Instead of changing all our titles to be gender neutral and adopting new this, new that, perhaps we need to apply the brakes, fire some dumb asses and start acting like a goddamn super power. Sailors that can't sail is beyond dumb. Nobody was watching them. This won't be the last time this happens.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Jul 5 at 2016 9:17 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:17:17 -0400

I'd like to hear more about the circumstances that put this crew/team in this precarious situation. These two watercraft were substantially armed. Why did they not defend their position. Were they told to stand down? What was their mission? I suspect we will never get straight answers too these questions.

Response by CAPT Walter Price made Jul 5 at 2016 9:39 AM

CAPT Walter Price — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:39:25 -0400

We inadvertently broke international law by entering Iranian waters. America has often led the world in establishing and then abiding by recognized standards of conduct and law. Shooting our way out of our breach of those laws would have been self-defeating and hypocritical. If we as a nation standby the traditional freedoms of navigation, we must also recognize the traditional restrictions of those freedoms.

Response by PO2 Reggie Scott made Jul 5 at 2016 10:30 AM

PO2 Reggie Scott — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:30:07 -0400

Of course, they should of. The Obama administration is an embarrassment to America.

Response by LCDR Johnny Smith made Jul 5 at 2016 10:35 AM

LCDR Johnny Smith — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:35:51 -0400

They should have been better trained, better supported by their Commanding Officer, and given definite instructions on how to handle this type of situation. Of course, if the POTUS had any "standing" in the world, those Iranians would have thought twice about tweaking the nose of the U.S. Military. But everyone knows that a "line in the sand" is moveable to this POTUS so what consequences would they face. Pretty Shameful and all due to our hand-wringing POTUS.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Jul 5 at 2016 1:38 PM

PO2 Mike Vignapiano — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:38:21 -0400

I was always taught "No Retreat, No Surrender." Bu that was before that coward (who now flies the White Flag over the WH in the WH Logo) took office. In this current administration, it was the best thing to do because if they defended themselves, they would've been all on their own, just like those in Benghazi.

Response by PO3 John Boatman made Jul 5 at 2016 2:16 PM

PO3 John Boatman — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:16:06 -0400

Not only should they of defended themselves, they should of had air support as soon as the Iranians started their way. No way our SAILORS should have been on their knees ever!

Response by CPO Bill Canada made Jul 5 at 2016 2:26 PM

CPO Bill Canada — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:26:37 -0400

With what has been divulged of this mission, no. I do believe that there is one hell of a lot about it that the public has not been told. I wonder where the air cover was? I also find the crews conduct to be a lot below standard.

Response by CPO George Mac made Jul 5 at 2016 5:01 PM

CPO George Mac — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:01:01 -0400

As a SWCC Operator, my thing is what the F&^% were these guys doing there in the FIRST PLACE? These guys were unqualed, lost and seriously lacking in adult leadership. "Mission was already compromised..." OMG, these knuckleheads were out TRAINING in other words, sight seeing and having no idea where they F*&(ing were. How dare they call themselves "Brown Water Navy"...After you finish the THREE MONTH SWCC school, you still have to qualify at your Special Boat Team upon arrival at the command. To be truly qualled, it takes over a YEAR. Not just a little OJT and let's load up boys!! What a sorry bunch!! I'm embarrassed. This whole "EXPEDITIONARY RIVERINE FORCE can not go away fast enough. What did the Navy waist so much money when all they had to do was turn this job over to their own subject matter experts, SWCC. The answer is simple...more O billets. More junior officers can claim "command time" on evals. What a frigen joke. Should they have defended themselves? That's the only thing these idiots did right. Lost...no comms and the boat was broke....I need to stop or my head will explode!!!

Response by CPO George Mac made Jul 5 at 2016 5:06 PM

CPO George Mac — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:06:48 -0400

Oh, and by the way CPT Murdock, I have been in much smaller craft in some pretty sick sea states...but then maybe the "bosses on board" were seasick and unable to make a correct decision ....much less figure out where they were....must likely no cell coverage, poor little things...

Response by CPO Mike Castro made Jul 5 at 2016 5:49 PM

CPO Mike Castro — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 17:49:14 -0400

I've been operating small craft most of my adult life. Soon as the 1 st boat broke down they should of turned around and returned to base. To prove they were the best at being stupid humanly possible they took an uncharted short cut.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jul 5 at 2016 6:15 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:15:43 -0400

Probably better to be a little embarrassed (particularly if we WERE in Iranian waters) then to start a shooting war.

Response by CPO Oscar Adams made Jul 5 at 2016 6:23 PM

CPO Oscar Adams — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:23:17 -0400

I think they need to have clearly defined rules of engagement. They had the means to defend their vessels and on the high seas they are obliged to do that IF they know what conditions have to be met.

Response by CDR Carl Tankersley made Jul 5 at 2016 6:46 PM

CDR Carl Tankersley — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:46:52 -0400

Out gunned and dead in the water was my understanding of their situation. There are several examples in US Naval history of Captains striking colors when further battle is futile and, after a prisoner exchange, being given another ship. Was there battle - don't think so but, my understanding is their situation was, in fact, futile. BUT, POW Standards of Conduct still apply. Agree with prior comment - Name, Rank, Serial Number only. (By the way, do you guys still on active duty have a serial number or just your social security number? I would not want to give away my SSN to an enemy in this digital world as it could lead to my family.)

Response by LT John Stevens made Jul 5 at 2016 6:49 PM

LT John Stevens — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 18:49:51 -0400

In my humble opinion, it was incumbent upon the boat crews to defend themselves and only to surrender their boats as a last resort. As soon as they knew they had problems, whether mechanical or navigational, they should have requested assistance and air support. They should have fired in the general direction of the Iranian boats without taking them directly under fire unless left with no options. Much of what Iran does at every level of government and its military forces is based on bluff and bluster. When faced with several miniguns, they are likely to have hesitated long enough for high command to make a decision on what to do and what not to do.

Once "captured" they were obligated to do their best to give up only name, rank, and serial number. Phones and such should have been quickly tossed overboard and no questions answered other than those required by international law except to the extent absolutely necessary to protect their lives and those of their fellow crew members.

It seems to me that the entire incident was poorly planned, poorly executed, and poorly led from start to finish and lots of heads should roll as a result.

Response by PO2 David Allender made Jul 5 at 2016 10:52 PM

PO2 David Allender — Tue, 05 Jul 2016 22:52:15 -0400

Yes, if they were armed. I remember reading on this subject where there were two boats, one broke down. Why did the other boat that was working not tow the other boat to base. Why did they both drift to hostile territory? There were a lot of unanswered questions about that story. There should have been somebody in charge to take the opportunity to tow the boat to shore and keep them from drifting into Iranian waters. Also surely they had a radio they could use for help. So there was no reason why the incident ended like it did.

Response by SN David Barhite made Jul 6 at 2016 2:33 AM

SN David Barhite — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 02:33:30 -0400

Yes they should have fought back weather we are at war or not , I seem to recall or failed attemt to rescue hostages in Iran mothing stopped us then from going into iran , My opion is the US has lost its military back bone in all things by the whimps in office and the company backing them looking for the big bucks they stand to gain but thats just me . WE need to support our troops and you cant tell me that there wasnt eyes in the area . And as to punishing the crews I dont know if they should or not but in the eyes of the military they did break the rules.

Response by PO1 Harry Champagne made Jul 6 at 2016 7:22 AM

PO1 Harry Champagne — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 07:22:14 -0400

no it would have suicide and served no useful purpose.

Response by PO1 Milton Wiseman made Jul 7 at 2016 3:02 PM

PO1 Milton Wiseman — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:02:03 -0400

Yes, Code of Conduct applies. Failure of leadership is what happened here. Not just the LTJG, but all the Petty Officers. All weapons should have been at the ready and security set while the engine problem was investigated. These are not lightly armed craft, they pack a powerful punch.