Drug Boat Strike

[Swanee]

I mean of course the Venezuelan govt and the families would say that, just like of course the president’s folks would claim the opposite. I’m not sure this tweet really clarifies anything with facts, other than i suppose the last sentence

This was just an example tweet. Add to the pile the articles that speak tobthe questionable legality, etc...

We owe it to the guys or gals who took that shot to know that their target was valid, met the ROE, and was in accordance with the LOAC. Hand waiving doesn't do that.

 

[taxi1]

I mean of course the Venezuelan govt and the families would say that, just like of course the president’s folks would claim the opposite. I’m not sure this tweet really clarifies anything with facts, other than i suppose the last sentence

It suggests there are families that can be queried for details outside of our intel organization. I expect investigative journalists will.

That boat does not look like a fishing boat, unless it's like the open ocean version of an overpowered bass boat that has to race its competitors to the best fishing hole. Three engines and moving fast in decent waves? Also, we just boarded a much bigger Venezuelan fishing boat that had only 9 people on board. Why did this one have 11?

Sad that I am just not trusting our government right now? Where TF is congress?

 

[Gatordev]

There's two separate issues at hand. One is the reality of what the vessel was doing. The other is the legality of the action taken.

Because many don't feel the shot was legal (with good reason) or just don't like the administration, they're turning the reality of what the vessel was doing into a political weapon. It's important to understand and differentiate the two in this case, especially here in AW as a group of individuals who are educated in the specifics of ROE thanks to their professions.

Assuming there was an asset available, that vessel would have been fired on under normal circumstances if it didn't stop. There's zero question in mind that would have happened. Everything about that configuration indicates it meets the ROE for AUF. The important thing to know/be aware of is that the shots wouldn't have been at the people. I know you guys understand that, but just reiterating the point.

As an aside, it is relevant to mention that people do get injured even when conducting AUF. Bullets can do interesting things.

 

[Brett327]

If you don't believe it the kill/attack is valid, you don't pull the trigger (switch, button, device).

This is a rather Pollyannaish trope where there's never ambiguity and you always have perfect information upon which to base your decisions. Probably a good thing to say to a Marine at the shooting range during boot camp, but not terribly helpful otherwise.

 

[Flash]

A second boat was struck with 3 killed.

 

[Spekkio]

There's two separate issues at hand. One is the reality of what the vessel was doing. The other is the legality of the action taken.

Because many don't feel the shot was legal (with good reason) or just don't like the administration, they're turning the reality of what the vessel was doing into a political weapon. It's important to understand and differentiate the two in this case, especially here in AW as a group of individuals who are educated in the specifics of ROE thanks to their professions.

Assuming there was an asset available, that vessel would have been fired on under normal circumstances if it didn't stop. There's zero question in mind that would have happened. Everything about that configuration indicates it meets the ROE for AUF. The important thing to know/be aware of is that the shots wouldn't have been at the people. I know you guys understand that, but just reiterating the point.

As an aside, it is relevant to mention that people do get injured even when conducting AUF. Bullets can do interesting things.

Also a difference between deliberate vs. reactionary fires.

I saw an interesting TACAID on a 1-star's desk that related ROE to weapons posture.

No one wants people below a 3-star questioning deliberate fires tasking in the heat of the moment. Questions like "is this operation legal" is answered at the 4-star / SECDEF level.

The USMC did a pretty good job of ethical decision making in warfare for CGOs. We don't want another My Lai. The USAF isn't so good. And there are folks who essentially say that if certain words are said in the chat rooms or on the phones it's on someone else "higher". While true in a sense, they still have to look themselves in the mirror every morning.

My Lai is interesting insofar as everything down to the batallion level was 'clean.' "Search and Destroy" was valid, sanctioned doctrine and is how the orders were written through that level.

The issue is when people at ground zero didn't recognize that the village wasn't rife with Viet Cong and didn't call off the attack.

I think the Company Commander is who should have fried, but instead the military hung a boot 2nd LT out to dry until he was pardoned. We can armchair QB that the orders from batallion should have been more specific vis a vis how to verify the presence of Viet Cong... but again, they were conducting a relatively 'standard' operation for the time.

The quotes from some of the NCOs on why they obeyed the orders of the officers, even though their guts told them it was wrong, are extremely interesting and enlightening.