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 and/or ROE legality 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 (albeit ugly by today's standards) 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.

 

[Spekkio]

Well, if you're comparing hay bales to pills, the fact that pills are greater by weight than hay bales tells you something.

Sketchy source...

The Mexican federal government has mostly been an honest actor in its drug war, with thousands of federal agents murdered. What reason do you believe that the source is 'sketchy' other than the fact that it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived ideas?

There are several plausible explanations for decreased marijuana arrests that don't revolve around the cartels losing interest in revenue from the product due to U.S. domestic production.

Yet those DARE programs, just like other abstinence programs, did not work.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448384/

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211217460/fentanyl-drug-education-dare

In fact, your statements about drug deaths going down in the 1980s and 1990s is false. Deaths per 100,000 people doubled during that time period.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db81.pdf

I said from the 1980s to 2000s. It's true that drug use spiked in the 1990s (thanks, crack wave), but went way down in the latter half of that decade and into the 00s.

The problem with using the word 'abstinence' is that it creates a false dichotomy of zero or bust. We made a lot of advancements against illicit drug use and then we decided we 'lost' and therefore it wasn't important. And now China is using England's opioid tactics against the U.S.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

ambiguity and ... information

Based on what you have, you do or do not take the shot.
As long as you are comfortable with your briefing, ROE, and intel, I'm good with the shooters (no matter the platform) decision.
If not clear on what you're briefed, the ROE, or intel, then ask ask and ask again for clarity.
This was not a kill or be killed scenario milliseconds to make a decision, so again, your choice to pull the trigger.