LT Nartker says he saved his crew
Lieutenant David Natker, the commander of the boats which were seized by Iran earlier this year thinks that he should be praised for saving his crew rather than fired for being an incompetent boob, according to Foreign Policy.
Speaking publicly for the first time about the case, Nartker last week offered an alternative narrative to the one painted by the U.S. Navy, which has reprimanded him for “dereliction of duty.”
[…]
Nartker considered the possibility of aiming his M4 assault rifle at a Iranian gunner only about 10 feet away.
“I know I could have hit that guy and killed him. There was eye contact,” Nartker said.
If he had taken the shot, his boats could have tried to make a run for it, he said. The Americans would have had to race about eight to ten nautical miles to make it to international waters — but within the potential range of two machine guns on the Iranian boats.
Nartker ruled it out. “I was thinking, ‘I am not going to kill this guy right now over a bullshit navigation mistake,’” he said.
“There would be a dead Iranian in Iranian waters. And there was no way to claim it was international waters.”
Yeah, well, that’s not what he was being punished for – according to everything I’ve read on the incident, it was a goat-screw from the beginning of the planning stage. CNN quotes from the Navy’s investigation of the incident;
“This incident was the result of failed leadership at multiple levels from the tactical to the operational,” investigators wrote in the detailed, partially redacted, report.
The report found the crews were poorly prepared, their boats not properly maintained, communication almost entirely lacking, and their conduct after being captured by the Iranians wasn’t up to military standards.
In a stunning finding, the report said the sailors veered off course almost immediately after heading out to sea and had no idea where they were when a mechanical failure struck one of the boats.
“The boat crews could visually see Farsi Island, but were not concerned as they were unaware that it was Iranian or that they were in Iranian waters,” the report said.
In other words, LT Nartker, it doesn’t matter what you did when the Iranians showed up – that doesn’t make up for you being lost and off-course to begin with. If Nartker had been doing even a half-assed job of supervising the operation, it never would have happened.
Nartker said he believed the fallout from the video turned him into a scapegoat. “I embarrassed the Navy, and therefore they punished me,” he said.
No, sorry, you are an incompetent boob who shouldn’t lead troops in combat, so adios, Dave.
Thanks to Bobo for the link.
Category: Navy
These guys could have done a better job. ….
Yep. You embarrassed the Navy, but it was waaaay before the video.
Be a Leader (for once) take your punishment and move out…
Yep, he screwed the pooch big time.
Join the Coast Guard, even you ought to be able to find the coast of the U.S.!!
Coast Guard officer recently ordered a 20mm through an Iranian boat for harassing his vessel and crew. No need to knock the CG.
Foreign Policy huh? Maybe he can go get a job there and work with Rosa Brooks. They both seem to have a very different perspective on the world.
Let me give both Nartker (omitted rank intentional) and Foreign Policy the reply IMO they deserve.
You should remember that paragraph, Narker. I’ll guarantee you’ve heard it before.
Tough call Hondo. He might not have in today’s Navy.
Pretty sure that the Code of Conduct is still covered at the Naval Academy. He’s a 2011 grad.
There is also an eight hour Code of Conduct course that is required to be completed prior to deploying to the Middle East on NKO (Navy Knowledge Online).
Sometimes you just debilitate people’s cynicism Hondo. Geeze, cut a brother a break!
We aim to please. (smile)
He committed a ton of stupid that day.
Surrendering was not one of the stupid things.
1. He was in Iranian waters. He had committed the international violation.
2. We are not at war with Iran. So his “surrendering” was actually complying with international laws we as a nation agreed to. He should not have been there and since he was Iran had a right to stop and search/seize his vessel. If a foreign naval vessel violated our sovereign space we would try to stop and seize it.
3. Shooting the gunner not only would have possible and unnecessarily cost the lives of his crew but it would have been an unprovoked and stupid act of war after already being dumb enough to enter Iranian sea space.
We would not be ok if an Iranian vessel shot a Coast Guardsmen after it tried to stop the Iranian vessel after it entered US territory. We would consider it an act of war and the commander of the Iranian vessel a war criminal.
He definitely should absolutely avoided engaging the any Iranian vessels. He should have tried to run and tried to keep his vessel moving toward international waters. I suspect the reason he didn’t was because he had no idea where he was and which direction to run and the uncertainty gave the Iranians time to surround him.
You really are a stupid asshole, Taylor.
A – This moronic twerp took his crew out completely unprepared.
B – No standard procedures were followed BEFORE departing in those two boats. That means they were not properly fueled or in good repair ahead of the trip, both of which are a requirement for ANY water-related navigation of ANY KIND.
C – He had no idea where the hell he was in the first place.
D – He does not know how to navigate in open waters. Apparently, he can’t read a map or a compass or work a sextant. If he could, he’d have known where the hell he was in the first place.
E – He’s at least as incompetent as you are, and an arrogant ass, just like you, into the bargain.
So shut up NOW.
Oh boy. He’s baaaaaaaaaaaaack.
So now Commissar Poodledick is also an apparent expert on the ROE in 5th Fleet waters, eh? I can’t wait for more of his inevitable highly-informed, detailed analysis of what should, and should not, have happened in this situation. Standing by to receive the lecture.
I’m sure that we’ll all learn a lot from his extensive Naval expertise.
It does make you wonder how this idiot made it to LT, he obviously didn’t make any checks prior to the trip. And from what I can tell, if his senior enlisted raised any issues, he totally ignored them. This dimbulb shouldn’t have made it out of the academy
How is anything you wrote a rebuttal to what I wrote?
Fuck off poodle.
That’s the only reply you ever deserve.
Going the direction opposite direction of the direction the Iranians came from would have been a good start. As for the Iranians’ being legally correct, if he did not know where the hell he was, he should have assumed he was in internat’l waters and taken appropriate steps with a weapon to let them know to stay the fuck away. If they persisted, it’s a fight. To lay down your arms and surrender yourself, your crew, and your vessels is not okay–FOR AMERICANS–if there are alternatives. And I think this is where we will differ beyond any reconciliation. These were American Navy craft. Yep, we’re different. Yep, we’re special. I know that’s not a popular sentiment but, oh well.
A) If it is true that they were in Iranian water and he knew it he failed as a leader to take care of his crew. Patting yourself on the back for not getting your guys hurt from your own screw-up is not allowed.
B) If he thought he was in international waters (whether or not he was) then he failed as a leader by kowtowing to a bunch of towelheads.
C) If he wasn’t sure because he is such a poor navigator then he failed his men by not putting someone competent in charge of navigation.
Any way you cut it – he failed as a leader.
Anyone worth his salt fails occasionally. A good leader admits his failures, and becomes better. He has not done that, meaning that once again he has failed as a leader.
Man up and shut up, dude. Accept the fact: you failed.
Graybeard, all AOK, but you left out the part about the incompetent ‘leader’ who makes all sorts of excuses for his failures.
This guy is whinier than a dog without a bone.
I was getting tired of listing his failures.
[That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.]
Honestly, that is one of my biggest issues with this type of “leader” – if you are going to accept the position, accept the responsibility, and take ownership of your choices.
Of course, in todays PC environment, career military in leadership positions have been conditioned to avoid anything that may get them a mark on their records. Not that I’m making excuses for being a wuss, but the conditions are ripe for only wusses to advance or stay in.
I’ll get off my soapbox now…
I am not defending him.
I am not defending the guy.
He screwed up utterly.
However, using force lethal force to resist was not one of his screw ups.
The “never surrender” notion that is being applied to does not apply to this case because we are not at war with Iran.
It was a simple international incident. Using force would have turned it into an act of war.
It actually shocks me that some of the people on this board lack the capacity to understand that “never surrender” simply does not apply in this case.
When it comes to muslim theocracies you “roll the dice, move your mice” when it comes to counting on them to abide by international law 100 of the time.
Lt Lost-boy and his crew could have ended up kneeling in from of an ISIS flag wearing orange jumpsuits if the wrong call was made in Iran.
Surrendering to ANYONE in that part of the world is not a good precedent to set.
Other than Bowe Bergdahl every single US Serviceman taken prisoner in the war on terror was tortured and executed within a few hours of their capture
Ever hear of something called “Innocent Passage”, CPdk?
http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/Maritime-Security-Private-The-Concept-of-Innocent-Passage
Since 1989, it’s been accepted international law at sea that warships enjoy this right as well as commercial vessels, and that prior notification is not required.
Once again, in Ihrem Kommentar oben, alles ist nicht klar, Herr Kommissar. Oder vielleicht sollte ich sagen Kommissar Scheiße Kopf?
Kommissar Scheiße Kopf ist verecht, Ich glauben.
Aber, kannst Herr Kommissar Sie verstehen? Ich dinkst nicht.
Danke, Herr Greybeard. Ich glaube, Sie sind richtig.
It was an innocent passage.
Which is why he had no right nor should he use force. Because he would have turned a simple international incident protected by innocent passage into an act of war.
And why “never surrender” is an asinine standard to apply.
Innocent passage does not mean the foreign power does not have the right to intercept, search, and/or seize the vessel.
It is an affirmative defense that prevents the foreign power from charging and trying or imprisoning the crew after it is established that it was innocent passage.
Detaining the crew and vessel while they investigate and or exploit the incident for political gain is well within their treaty rights. We violated their sovereign territory whether it was an accident or not.
Since you are too freaking lazy (or too mendacious) to research the issue yourself, here’s the “bottom line”:
In the first sentence above, “ships of other nations” is used as a synonym for “foreign naval vessels.”
In other words: you’re full of it. Yet again.
A warship is the sovereign territory of the state involved. When a foreign nation’s naval vessel is engaging in innocent passage of territorial waters, boarding that other nation’s warship and seizing it and its crew is a f**king act of war – just like seizing an embassy during a “demonstration” is an act of war. In contrast, defending one’s ship against seizure by another nation IS NOT.
http://www.payvand.com/news/15/apr/1141.html
The author “only” has a doctorate in International Law of the Seas. I suppose he’s wrong and you’re right, though – even though he’s the one saying you’re full of it.
Sheesh. Is “Bend over America” the mantra you chant to put yourself to sleep each night? Or are you simply a “fellow traveler/useful idiot” for every anti-US/anti-Western cause that exists?
Hondo, I did do the research.
First of all your posted quote makes a distinction between “high seas” (international waters”) and their coastal regions which is under their territory.
While you cherry picked quote says they can only “ask them to leave” it assumes that the ship did not commit any of a long list of violations that essentially “revokes” the safe passage right.
One of those violation is even FISHING, so to claim they were wrong to stop the Navy vessel if flat nonsense.
A nation has a right to intercept ANY vessel in their coastal controlled areas (sovereign sea space) if they have reason to believe that vessel is committing a crime, violating trade/import agreements/protection, taking sovereign resources, threatening the security of the state or its people, collecting information (including scientific research), disrupting communications, or trafficking people/passengers/refugees).
That is an absolute fact well established.
And in fact the US officially says the US has a right to intercept any vessel that the US reasonably believes is committing crime anywhere in the world which is not widely recognized in international law. We do it all the time in narcotic enforcement.
This was a crewed and armed Naval vessel with and armed crew in their sovereign territory the Iranians had a right to intercept and detain it while they determine if it was a threat (such as carrying out intelligence collection or infiltrating a small detachment etc.). Technically any military equipment on the ship at all meets the standard for regarding a vessel as a security threat.
Where Iran went wrong was in detaining the crew BEYOND what was necessary to determine if they were a threat.
I find it ridiculous that you guys are trying to argue otherwise. The US routinely interdicts vessels in our water and in international waters. You know damn well we do and that at least in our water we have a right to do so.
Really?
When was the last time the US (a) stopped, (b) boarded without permission, and (c) seized a foreign naval vessel exercising the right of innocent passage in US territorial waters?
International law treats naval vessels (AKA warships) differently than commercial vessels. Had you actually done the research you claim to have done above, I’m pretty sure you’d have run across that fact.
Accepted international law in this area can be found at
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
Should you care to do so, you could educate yourself by reading Articles 19 and 29-32, found on pages 31 and 34-35 respectively.
The US vessels involved in this incident did nothing that would be an action prohibited under Article 19 – making a repair at sea is not a prohibited action. The US ships met the definition of “warship” under Article 29. Under Article 30, the most Iran was allowed to do was to request the US ships leave the area. And under Article 32, the Iranians were specifically barred from boarding the US craft without invitation – a warship is immune under international law from being involuntary boarded and taken over by naval forces of another nation, with it’s crew placed in custody. Doing that is called “seizure”, and constitutes an act of war.
Sheesh – not even a “nice try”. Finding the authoritative source material I cited above took less than 5 minutes. Your missing that – or not understanding what it said – is certainly evidence of some “mad Berkeley research skilz” on your part, Poodle-ditz.
The reason we avoid Iranian territorial waters in this area is not because the Iranians have any right under international law to bar us from them; we retain the right of innocent passage regardless. We avoid their territorial waters because we do not wish to allow them to manufacture an incident or do something stupid. The former is precisely what they did here.
Thank you Hondo!!
So,
In addition to what appears to be “conduct unbecoming” in signing yourself “Commissar Poodledick”,
And in apparent encouragement of disobedience of lawful orders regarding the behavior of an active-duty sailor during the national Anthem and flag presentation,
you are now apparently advocating that it is perfectly acceptable for the commander of US warships to violate the code of conduct where it states words to the effect of “I will never surrender of my own free will”.
I find it incredulous that a commissioned officer would do such things, publicly and quite brazenly.
Do you grasp of the incredible -wrong- that it would be for a -commissioned officer- to do so?
Whatever rights a person might claim under the US Constitution are almost entirely subordinated by the oath taken as an officer. They -volunteer- to do so, “without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion”.
Finding it very hard to take your postings seriously in light of your apparent disregard of UCMJ.
You could, of course, resign and be as free as anyone else.
How am I wrong?
Remember, Lars is always right. He is smarter than everyone else, because he says so. Rules only apply when they can be twisted to fit his view of the world.
Bullshit.
I am right in this case.
The notion that this officer should commit and act of war because he swore “never to surrender of his own free will” is idiotic.
We are not at war with Iran. He violated Iranian sovereign territory and had an obligation to try to escape while avoiding any conflict or using any force.
Once he could not escape without the use of force he had an OBLIGATION to comply with Iranian vessels.
If he had used force he would have turned a basic international incident into a act of war.
You mean you’re as right as usual, dickless.
No, Poodle-dipstick, you’re not right in this case. International law does not give the Iranian navy any right to seize naval ships of other nations when they are engaged in innocent passage of territorial waters.
Doing that is an act of war, because a naval vessel is the sovereign territory of the other nation, just like an embassy. The Iranians have previously demonstrated they don’t give a sh!t about violating international law with respect to foreign embassies when it suits them to do so. They have now demonstrated that they don’t give a sh!t about violating international law with respect to foreign warships whenever that suits them, either.
Defending one’s ship against seizure under such conditions is NOT an act of war. It is self-defense, and is fully in accordance with international law.
You are factually wrong in your statements about use of force and the LTs obligations when the Iranians attempted to block them. Perhaps you should go read the US Navy’s report on the incident which at 169 pages goes into exhaustive on all the failures at every level in the cluster that occurred.
Per the investigation. The boat crews had the right and duty to defend themselves from hostile actions by the Iranians to include the their aggressive aiming of weapons, as well as seizure of themselves and the boats. The boat captains and the Patrol Commander (the LT)were specifically cited for their failure to appropriately apply the theater ROE to defend the boats and crew.
The act of war in this case was the seizure of the boats and crews by the Iranians which is prohibited by international law. At most the Iranians had the right to direct the US boats to leave Iranian waters.
The good LT had a direct obligation to prevent the seizure of his boats and crew by the use of force if necessary. The only reason he did not was because he never had all the weapons mounted in the first place and his coxswain disobeyed his order to maneuver through the Iranian boats and run for international waters. Instead of booting his coxswain, he acquiesced to his disobedience and gave up without resisting at all. In violation of 5th Fleet orders and ROE.
Get your facts straight before making grand pronouncements.
I wish there was a like button for this.
Doubt Lars will respond though, facts aren’t his friend.
(uncoiling rope)
So…what you’re telling me is under the circumstances, according to international maritime law and other laws and treaties;
The Iranian Navy had the right to bring weapons to bear on the USN vessels
The Iranian Navy had the right to board the USN vessels
The USN personnel would have been committing an ‘act of war’ (your words) by firing on the Iranian naval personnel to prevent the boarding and seizure of their vessels
This is what you’re saying, right? ‘Because they were in Iranian territorial waters’?
I just want to make certain I have a clear understanding of what you are saying.
*Crickets…Crickets*
Still too early on the Left Coast. Check back after noon EDT, when it will be after 9AM there.
You may be right but when faced with facts ole Lars conjures up his best Marcel Marceau…
I’ve noticed that too. And here, apparently you were spot-on.
Red on the Head, Like the Dick on a Dog!!
You have no clue what you are talking about. We are not at war with Iran so your comments about “never surrendering” is nonsense. Maybe that is why they don’t but low information joes like you in charge until they become better trained or educated and better understand their responsibilities. As service members we have to follow international treaties. He was in Iranian sovereign territory in a US craft. He committed a international violation that borders on an act of war. Using lethal force to refuse to stop Iranians from enforcing their sovereign territory by attempting to stop and seize the vessel WOULD have constituted and act of war. He should have tried to resists by trying to escape, once that was impossible surrendering was his only option. Using lethal force to resist would have been a CRIMINAL ACT. It would have been an act of war. Not just an incompetent mistake but a literally a criminal act under both international law and under the UCMJ. And I was not ENCOURAGING lawful orders. I was saying that US service members retain certain rights under the US constitution and her refusal in civilian clothes in this particular case was likely protected by the constitution. Much like a conscientious objectors refusal is constitutionally protected at time. Recognizing that service members are protected by the constitution is not advocating disobedience. It is advocating OBEDIENCE to the constitution which is what all officers and enlisted are supposed to do. Stop trying to pretend you have the moral high ground when you openly disparage the legitimacy of the constitution and openly advocate officer commit violate international law and commit warcrimes because you have a basic training level understanding of the consideration that need to by recognized in making decisions on deciding to charge a service member under you command with a crime for an act of protest, or trying to start a war with Iran because you are fucking moron, got lost, then decided to use lethal force against a foreign power while in their sovereign territory. Using the term “Commissar Poodledick” is not conduct… Read more »
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/code_of_conduct/the-code-of-conduct.shtml I think you missed the point. Code of Conduct does not state “when in a declared war” or anything like it. That stuff was presented to me like Holy Writ. The officer teaching it the first time basically said “shoot the leader that violates this”. You seem to demand the respect you believe is due you 24-7, based on that rank you wear and the experiences you state. However, you seem to also want to not uphold the burdens of that rank, 24-7. I find your conduct… lacking. Not on politics, but on -behavior-. I ran mail operations for a battalion of ~950 Soldiers plus frequent attachments, and was responsible for about 30 mail orderlies who mostly outranked me. I had zero training for the mailclerk job, and was -asked- by several well-respected officers and NCOs to volunteer to do it. I was inadequately trained by two outgoing predecessors. I had a bunch of other clerkish duties, for which I was also not qualified, and also had to maintain skillset as an 11B. Strangely, I succeeded beyond my wildest prayers, was named as having the best unit mail operation in the 24th Division, was commended for my job performance, had the respect and confidence of persons who outranked the shit out of me, and the trust of many, many junior enlisted. To this day, I remain humbled by the respect I was shown. Not bad for a skinny Geek. All I did was bust my ass every single day. I wanted to live up to that 7th infantry crest I wore, and prove I had fucking well earned my E-4. I try to be respectful here, especially to those who outrank my prior self, even though the honorable discharge on my wall says I can say pretty much what I want. So who the fuck are you to slack off your deportment as an officer? Hmm? I never had the rank, or the word “commanding”, yet I just carried on like I knew what to do, did whatever needed doing, and -fucking listened- to the advice and experience of… Read more »
11B, Lars is a former officer, he no longer serves (Thank God).
He is our resident know it all who thinks everyone should be thrilled to hear his opinions on everything and is outraged when we find HIM lacking…
A service members constitutional rights are NOT almost entirely subordinated when they join the armed forces. They retain them ALL. Every single on of them. And the fact that you do no know that means you need some further training before you become and NCO. The difference is that this rights are measured against the need for good order and discipline in the military and addition to any standards used to adjudicate the scope and limits of a civilian’s rights. That additional standard in adjudicating the scope of a service member’s rights means that on many issues their rights are somewhat more limited than a civilian’s might be but only to the minimum extent necessary in order to maintain good order and discipline. The standard is that a servicemmember’s rights should only be limited to the minimum extent necessary to maintain good order and discipline and only when necessary. The fact that you seem to think you fellow soldiers no long have rights under the constitution means you are not going to be operating in the best interests of your soldiers particularly if you have the unfortunate experience of a commander that also ignorantly believes his soldiers do not have rights. As an officer I was well aware of the rights of my soldiers and I felt it was my duty to respect and protect them as much as possible. I value the freedoms protected in the constitution and recognize that we only maintain them if we insist on the government respecting them (that includes are military and our law enforcement forces) and stand up in defense of the rights of our fellow citizens. There are a lot of countries with fantastic lists of constitutional rights that do not mean a damn thing because the government does not respect them and the people do no demand or expect the government to honor them. Under their constitution the Chinese people have far more rights than we do. But that means nothing if the Chinese government does not respect those rights and the people are powerless or unwilling to stand up in… Read more »
They retain them ALL? (Your Words) Hmm, does that apply to the 1st Amendment?
Last time I looked a private citizen can speak disparaging about the President but a Service Member cannot.
If you live on post or base the military may search your home without a search warrant, something that doesn’t apply to the average civilian.
He is correct, some rights are subservient to military service.
But you knew that already…didnt you?
“Under their constitution the Chinese people have far more rights than we do. But that means nothing if the Chinese government does not respect those rights and the people are powerless or unwilling to stand up in defense of them for themselves and their fellow countrymen.”
Don’t fear the commies!
Geezo Pete, OS2, don’t let that asshole control freak change the subject again!!!
Read the report.
For starters, there is the “right of free passage ” the Iranians didn’t observe.
I’d go on but you probably won’t read my comments either.
I read it.
Right of passage does not mean the Iranian do not have the right to intercept, search, or seize/detain a foreign military vessel that entered their sovereign territory.
It means that cannot prosecuted and imprison the crew once it was established the violating of their territory was an innocent mistake and not a criminal act or act of war.
And Innocent passage does not apply if the vessel is a threat to the security of the state.
They had no idea whether the US Navy vessel constituted a threat until after they intercepted and investigated the nature of the violation of their sovereign territory.
Actually, it does. Absent a declared war, naval ships of one state have no right under international law to seize and detain the naval vessels of another state engaged in innocent passage of territorial waters. Period. The most they can do under international law is to tell them to leave the area.
Read the link I posted above a few minutes ago if you’d like to educate yourself on the matter. Or remain a willfully ignorant fool regarding the issue. Your choice.
Nope. I responded to this under one of you posts.
And you were wrong then as well. Here’s the authoritative citation to the relevant international law proving you are FOS.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=67943&cpage=1#comment-2899823
Once again you fail to make the connections. You’re so insistent that you’re right that you won’t consider alternative viewpoints.
Hindi and many others have presented similar arguments and backed them with facts.
You,on the other hand, drew all your conclusions based on Jonns comments and didn’t bother reading the investigation.
You probably Googled the concepts others have written about and drew from the wave top, but don’t get the inferences that actually matter. You’re opinions are based on a lack of your own understanding and it shows.
Which is one of the reasons you’re given so much shit.
“Hondo”… Not Hindi.
Fuggin autocorrect.
Lars, as usual you pontificate without reading.
The main thing that John brings up is the LT’s failure to ensure his sailors and equipment were ready for the mission, and if he had this event probably would never have taken place.
Instead of commenting on that specifically you decided we all had know your thoughts on use of force.
No wonder people think you ate too much paste in grade school.
Gee whiz, swormy, that’s the THIRD time someone has said that very thing: failure to assure that sailors and equipment were ready for the mission.
Jonn said it. I said it. You said it.
And LARS THE ALL-KNOWING BLOWHARD COMPLETELY IGNORES IT, even though it was the direct cause of this incident in the first place.
Had the boats been in good working order, which they were not, they’d have been well on their way to their destination. Had they been properly fueled, which they were not, they wouldn’t have gone adrift. Had that dumbfuck Natker known how to navigate open waters in the first place, they wouldn’t have gone anywhere near Farsi Island.
Instead, that moron treated the boats like automobiles – just get in, fire up and go – took off with no clue to the direction he should follow, and was unprepared to summon help when he ran out of gas and one boat broke down. Big Mistake. Big Huge Mistake. Many Big Huge Mistakes.
If he were in commercial shipping, he’d have been fired months ago. He should be fired now, but I guess that takes time.
He’s exactly the kind of arrogant ass who gets people killed or taken hostage and held for ransom.
There is no getting around that.
But ol’ Poodledick up there pays no attention to any of that, because it doesn’t mean anything to him, and therefore, misses the point completely.
Lar’s argues the “never surrender” portion of the code of conduct isn’t valid because we aren’t at war with Iran so the code doesnt apply.
The naval investgation afterwards conluded that the code was violated by some of the crew (for other things).
The million dollar question for Lars is how can they be in violation of a code that doesn’t apply?
It’s because it does apply, swormy. But you know that as well as I do.
A naval vessel is the sovereign territory of the nation involved. Absent a preexisting state of war between the two nations in question, seizure of a naval vessel when engaged in innocent passage of territorial waters is no different than seizing an embassy during peacetime. It is an act of war.
However, CPdk never was one to let something to petty as the truth matter when he wanted to wax ignorant on a particular subject. When he’s doing that, facts don’t matter.
He’s omniscient and infallible, you know. Reality changes to match his opinion.
The Code of Conduct applies during the entire detention once they were captured.
However, even the Navy report says that some of the code of conduct does not apply to the capture itself and what does apply is too vaguely written for it to be “enforceable” under the circumstances.
He did not have the right or the duty to use lethal force except in self defense. Because of that his ability to resist was far less than what was imagined in the code of conduct which was written with wartime action in mind but applies all the time as guidance any service members who find themselves isolated, detained, captured, or lost in enemy or potentially hostile territory.
That is why some of the actions after capture are being regarded as violation but the capture itself is not.
And the imprisonment after the initial detention was a violation of international law by Iran.
self defense of defense of his crew.
Bull. International law recognizes the right of a nation to defend its sovereign territory against seizure by foreign powers, to include the use of force when necessary. Naval vessels and embassies are sovereign territory and can thus be defended with deadly force.
Face it, Poodle: no matter how you try to spin this one, you are simply wrong. Once again you engaged mouth before engaging brain – and without doing your homework beforehand.
Vague?
I think the Code of Conduct is quite explicit.
But then again I read things for what they are, and try not to parse words to fit my needs.
That is all nonsense.
Once they were in captivity Iran was violating international law and their status as captives certainly means the code applies.
But never surrendering does not mean turn a navigation error into a act of war by entering a foreign nation’s sovereign territory and opening fire on their vessels and crew.
It is idiotic you think otherwise.
Sorry, you can’t pick and choose the portions of the code that suits your argument despite what you think.
The code was in place the minute they met hostiles, all portions of it.
What say we have a vote here about who is idiotic? Who do you think gets the most votes…me or you?
He most certainly can “pick and choose”, swormy. He does exactly that all the time.
Any time a fact supports his position, he picks it. When the facts contradict him, he chooses to ignore them.
Yep, A leoprd doesn’t change its spots..
And neither does an asswipe, as we have seen over and over again.
I read it. I do not disagree with anything Jonn wrote. People on this board are assuming I do because I disagree with the idiots that claim he should have resisted using force.
He didn’t because one of the vessels broke down! hard to run when you don’t RUN!!
Odd. Iran has been at war with us since 1979.
Officially false.
Officially false?????????
PROVE IT. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Cocksucker.
Things not to think about when sucking Iranian Navy cock while held captive
“Hopefully, this salty taste is just from the seawater. Wait, is this a scab or just seaweed?”
Holden
Probably best to also not wonder why everything smells like goat.
Smells like goat? Probably tastes like it too (with a side of camel).
As was said more than once when an Ensign said, “I think…,” they usually got immediately cut off with, “There ya go, thinking again, sir.”
The smart ones knew to STFU at that point. I’m guessing he didn’t.
“I was thinking, ‘I am not going to kill this guy right now over a bullshit navigation mistake,’” he said.
Umm…that nav error was the reason you were fired. The rest was just 2nd and 3rd order effects of the nav error.
“Incompetent boob” fits
Holden
Much is here, in this acoount. My first thought is that Foreign Policy reads more like People magazine, sans many pics, nowadays. I recall when it was a well respected journal. The article is very sympathetic to “the young officer, who turns 28 this week,” and takes him to task for absolutely nothing. Nartker says he was the scapegoat. In my book, a scapegoat is one on whom blame is pinned, either out of proportion to the errors made or exclusively, without justification. Well, he was one of six or seven personnel to share the blame. I don’t see scapegoating here at all. I see accountability. The trip was a clusterfuck from start to finish. I don’t pretend to know what he should have done by the book but I like to think a US Navy officer would not allow a US vessel to be boarded and that the officer would say something to the effect of, “We will wait until your boats are at least 1000 yards from us and we will depart. If you attempt to board us, we will resist. These boats are US territory.” Instead, he had people stand down from their guns and made his decision based, at least in part, on the very telling last line of the article: “I 110 percent believe I would be in Fort Leavenworth right now if I had ordered to fire on the Iranians.” It seems to me that in his role, HIS fate should not have been a consideration.
It was, as was pointed out elsewhere, a goat fuck at every position PO2 or above.
Where the fuck was the Chief, with the ever sage advice, “That’s not a good idea, sir!”
Damn straight! IIRC, from the investigation , the only person that acted like an adult and tried to do something was the only woman that was captured – she tried to set off a distress beacon when stuff starting going real bad.
Nartker is all butt hurt… he should be separated “for the good of the service”. I wouldn’t trust him to be the SLJO at a CONUS command.
SLJO = Shitty Little Jobs Officer
Maybe he’ll claim PTSD.
Like maybe he’ll write a book. Ain’t no maybe in either one.
I’m a former 11B with zero naval experience. I own a sailboat that I sail of the coast of New England…do you want to know how many times I’ve been so lost I have no fucking idea where I am?
Zero, exactly zero times.
Oddly enough the US Coast Auxiliary has some fucking awesome navigational courses and even an old fart like me can learn to read a chart and follow a GPS…my non military GPS will actually allow me to generate a waypoint by waypoint path to my destination and all I have to do is fucking point my boat in the direction on the GPS…the charts are a great back up tool, but I’d also like to think if my $500 GPS system can do point to point based on my personal input the US Navy has a system at least 100 times better.
KaBOOM
The takedown has occurred.
Something about LT with a map and compass comes to mind…..
The four scariest things you’ll ever hear in the military:
1. A private saying “I learned this in basic training…”
2. A Lieutenant saying “Based on my experience….”
3. A Captain saying “I have a great idea…”
and finally,
4. A Warrant Officer saying “Watch this shit!”
No navigational skills. No idea where he is. I figure he’ll get an expensive boat, park it in Burnham or Montrose Harbor, go for a sail some day and not know how to trim the sails, ending up in Duluth Harbor, MN.
He strikes me as the ‘Who’s on first?’ kind of guy, only with him, it’s ‘which way the wind blows’.
Farker, do you know which way the wind is blowing?
It’s Natker, and yes, I do know.
Well?
Well, what?
Which way is the wind blowing?
Well, it’s blowing from right to left. (pointing at the shoreline)
Uhmmm, Narker, this is Lake Michigan. There is no right or left on Lake Michigan. Which direction is the wind coming from?
It’s Natker, you know. And —
Yes, but which way is the wind blowing from, Nutker?
Well, I think —
Is it from the east, the west, the north or the south?
Uhmmm, it’s coming from that way (pointing again).
Well, then, which way is that, futker?
It’s Natker, ma’am. I think that’s… uh, well, I think it’s east. That direction.
Oh, Fukker. (Shakes head.) That’s not east. What direction is it?
Can I ask you something?
Sure, what is it?
When are you going to use my real name?
When? Fair enough. I’ll use your real name when you learn to use a map, a compass and tell me which way the wind blows, Frakker.
I once had a firefighter like that on my engine. “Dumber than a box of rocks” would be an undeserved compliment. You could walk him through the most basic of skills step-by-step, and the retard couldn’t perform it five seconds later (seriously). When we went on T/Cs and medical aids, I couldn’t let him near a patient. Couldn’t trust him to hold a stop sign, either. I don’t know how the hell he got hired. Hell, I don’t know how that dipshit was able to operate a fucking doorknob, yet somehow he had a driver’s license.
There was another one further back, when I was still a Firefighter-1, this one a girl. Nice girl, but there must have been a black hole between her ears. One day during summer (peak fire season), most of our engines are either up north or assigned to a local fire. Days off have been cancelled, and we are staffing reserve engines to fill the gaps. The dispatch center calls the station to verify which reserve rig we picked up. This girl answers the phone. Conversation goes like this:
[Station name], Firefighter Schmuckatelli.
Hi, this is [dispatcher’s name]. Just need to verify which reserve engine you guys have.
Oh, uh, I’m at [station name].
Yes, I know. Which engine are you on?
Uhh, I’m at [station name].
Yeah, I know. I know that because I called that station’s phone number and you picked up the phone. I need to know which ENGINE you’re currently assigned to.
I’m at [station name].
Okay, look, there’s a big red fire engine in your apparatus bay. On the side of that big red fire engine is a big white number. What number is it? That’s all I need you to tell me.
Um, do you wanna talk to my captain?
YES! PLEASE! For the love of God, give him the phone!
Luckily we were able to get rid of them fairly quickly. The scary part here is that the Navy put this dipshit in charge of people.
Dumbass shouldn’t be allowed within 100m of any watercraft that’s too big to float in a standard bathtub.
You forgot a few:
A sergeant saying “this is NCO business, sir”
A specialist saying “that’s the way we’ve always done it, sir”
A Platoon sergeant saying “I got this sir, don’t worry”
A PFC saying ” nobody told me!”
Just my opinion but he should be hanged
Meh, I think being effectively “drummed out” (and publicly censured) is enough.
IIRC academy grads owe the service 5 years (or is it 6?) So if he’s a 2011 grad his obligatory term of service is coming to an end.
He’ll soon be shown the hatch (see I can do Navy slang) and encouraged to pursue another career outside the military.
This wasn’t the USS Pueblo. Nobody died and I’m guessing that whatever classified documents or information fell into Iranian hands was fairly low level (and I’m not convinced that the Iranians could do anything with “high level” classified documents anyway – hell they already have all the knowledge they need to make nukes, what more do they need?)
I wouldn’t make him a martyr, I’d say just let him walk out with his besmirched reputation and be done with it.
The sooner the better,, during my time in the shithole (aka) Iraq I became very good friends with a CPO who was detailed out near Umm Qasr teaching the Iraqis how to use boats that we gave them, this during the time the Brits had a incident with the Iranians from all the SIRs and other things going on we never gave them a inch the last seven has been a circus
Excuse me last 5
re: USS Pueblo, we now know that was a carefully planned and timed op overseen by the Soviets, thanks to ‘Johnny Walker Red’.
They needed the hardware after he gave them the perishables. So they targeted the USS Pueblo knowing that according to their planning and surprise no aid could reach her in time.
The USS Pueblo and her crew were set up and had no chance thanks to the actions of a traitor.
Too much effort. Not worth it.
???
Numbnuts doesn’t seem to get that his failure started when he allowed the situation to occur in the first place.
A disgrace to the officer corps.
*spits*
LCDR, USN(Ret)
Just to make it clear – he’s not a disgrace because he fucked up.
He’s an incompetent boob because he fucked up (failed to plan = planned to fail and all that.)
However he’s a disgrace because he’s whining like a little bitch about being punished.
Lieutenant, you fucked up. Now take your punishment like a Naval officer should and STFU.
Sir.
Exactly.
Funny how he can’t accept his licks as a LT but some SA who comes back semi hungover gets keelhauled by everyone in their CoC.
The LT rank (ground side ie US Army, USMC) is the one bright and shiny reason I detest our holdover of the aristocrat rank separation.
A fucking boot should never be put in charge of anything anywhere at any time for any reason.
That a Navy LT is a Capt in the ground force side of things means that some boots never ever manage to grow the fuck out of bootiness.
Robert Heinlein (an Annapolis grad himself) had some things to say along those lines “Starship Troopers.”
His behavior was and is more along the lines of a dumb butter bar ensign. The arrogance he’s wrapped himself in is baseless.
He’s no John Forbes “Knife-Kill” Kerry.
His excuse is kind of like someone who sets the house on fire by his own negligents, but happens to grab the cell phone on the way out the door.
Why aren’t you commending me for grabbing the cell phone?
8-9 miles into Iranian water’s is something more than a simple navigational error.
100 yards is a navigational error.
A mile is “You suck at navigation.”
Five miles is “You done fucked up.”
Eight miles is “Did your parry have any children that lived?”
That said “parents,” not “parry,” when I typed it. Sometimes I really hate this fucking iPhone.
Texting is the reasonI seldom use aphonetosendmessa ges.
You can turn that off, y’know.
I did on my phone ASAP.
Can they demote him to E1?
No, I think the lowest he can go is E-5. I knew a guy who washed out of Annapolis because he didn’t get the math background he needed when he was in high school. He said it was an automatic E-5 for him, but he was quite squared away.
Bust him to E-5 and then E-1? 😉
Off topic but when I was in the Guard I briefly had an E-4 in my section who was a USAFA graduate. He declined to be commissioned so he served out his obligation as an enlisted guy.
His civilian job was a deputy DA for the City and County of Denver. And he wasn’t the only enlisted lawyer I ever worked with, there were at least 2 others I came into contact with over the years – lawyer in the civilian world, enlisted GI in the Guard.
No, I believe a CRB (Competency Review Board) is in his future. Complacency Kills, and he dodged that one. Had he fired (as he said he could have), he would have smoked his own Sailors. Not sure about the Navy, but the Marine Corps is pretty big on Competency, Integrity, and Accountability. He fails at all. Now he’s Google-able to boot. Don’t think the Navy will see anything ‘retainable’ about the douche-pickle. I certainly don’t. According to the linked article: “He has received a letter of reprimand that finds him at fault for failing to conduct a patrol briefing before the mission, for failing to chart a navigation course on paper and for failing to ensure ammunition was loaded onto feed trays for the machine guns aboard the boats.”
Dancing around there with no fucking ammo loaded in your main guns? They wouldn’t have stood a chance. Yea, he’s toast. And he earned it. He’s just too arrogant to own it. He’s lucky none of those Sailors he was responsible got killed. Lieutenant David Natker internet famous. Anchors away, Popeye.
Ain’t gonna happen, Ex-PH2. Even a court-martial cannot “bust” an officer (for officers convicted at court-martial, it’s either “retain in grade” or dismissal, which is equal to a DD). I’ve been told it’s because the appointment of an officer to a specific rank is done by the POTUS and that the services therefore do not have the authority to demote an officer. I cannot give a verifiable citation for that being the true reason, however. As someone noted elsewhere in comments, however, he can indeed be considered by an Admin discharge board and summarily tossed. In the Army, that would require that a GO in his chain-of-command – the GCMCA, I think – recommend an admin discharge board be convened to consider his retention; if the board says, “Adios,”, he’s gone. I presume the Navy has a similar process. Assuming he has no remaining USNA active service obligation (believe that’s 5 years active plus 3 reserve for service academy grads if a commission is accepted), the Navy can do that at any time they so desire. Sounds like what happened in the case you referenced is that the guy was administratively terminated for academic failure, or resigned voluntarily when they told him he’d have to repeat a year. Depending on his prior status and/or how far along in the program he’d gotten, he may have had a statutory service obligation due to his attendance. Believe that starts when a Cadet/Midshipman begins their 3rd academic year, but I’d have to research that to be sure. Pretty sure that was the case at one time and that that hasn’t changed, but I’m not positive. I knew two guys who’d gone to a service academy and didn’t graduate who ended up ordered to duty in an enlisted status. The first quit (technically, he resigned) shortly into his 3rd year. At the time, by that point he’d acquired a military service obligation due to starting his third year. He was ordered to active duty as an E3. The other guy managed to fail a course the last semester of his senior year, and ended… Read more »
Okay, the man I’m referring to got an appointment to Annapolis in 1964, so I think it was his third year. His lack of math skills made him wash out, but he said he still had an obligation to fill. That was the 1960s, so I don’t know how many years he had to put in, but he was given the E-5 rank when he left the USNA.
Now, in my niece’s case, she had a full 4-year ROTC scholarship and was obligated to 4 years AD after graduation, plus 2 years in the Reserves.
That’s consistent with what I saw years ago, except for the man’s rank on entry into enlisted service after resignation. And that (rank on entry) is likely the service’s call.
Years ago Cadets and Midshipmen incurred an active duty service obligation on starting their third year. I’m pretty sure that’s still the case.
If I recall correctly, standard active duty service obligation for full ROTC scholarship is indeed 4 years (or was, some time back), with remainder of statutory obligation spent in the reserve components. Shorter-duration ROTC scholarships have shorter active duty requirements, or used to anyway. That could have also changed.
Prior to the 1980s (1984?), the total military obligation on initial enlistment or appointment was 6 years – so if your niece had a 4 year scholarship prior to the change, “4 + 2” years would have indeed been standard. Since the 1980s change, the standard total obligation is now 8 years.
Pretty sure the standard obligation from the academies is now “5 + 3” due to the MSO change (min 5 yrs active plus 3 in reserves).
Wow, just wow. LT, you just confirmed all the charges against you.
As I paraphrase good old Mark Twain.
We thought you were and idiot.
Now that you spoke. You confirmed it.
“The louder he proclaimed his Honor, the quicker we counted our spoons”
R.W. Emerson
So this is what the Academy churns out these days?
What the fuck kind of CPO’s are left in the fleet? 20 years ago my Chief would have slapped this fucker in the back of the head a long time ago. (Behind closed doors of course.)
Too many fuckers worried about upward mobility, getting warfare pins, and their college degrees; and not concerned with doing what’s right for the Navy, and the men and women that serve under them.
Someone needs to wake the fuck up and remember this is a FIGHTING force…not a Global Force for good.
“…not concerned with doing what’s right for the Navy,and the men and women that serve under them.”
Game. Set. Match.
Did they at least destroy the Comm gear before being taken? Did they at least do that right, or was there a need for worldwide code changes as a result?
Damn this pisses me off…whiny little cocksucker.
“whiny little cocksucker.”
Perfect adjective for the LT.
GOD HELP AMERICA if our Military Forces are that infested with whiny-assed pus-nutted no-loads like that!
Word ^^^^
“incompetent boob”
Sounds accurate.
You damn right you embarrassed the Navy, millions of sailors who served over the last 200 plus years and all Americans who have a love for this country. Please don’t try to put a spin on this, just admit that you are a chickenshit sob without the balls to take care of your people. Please go away!
Yeah, you may be the only one who mentioned that. Embarrassing one’s employer is a damn good reason to get shitcanned. He says it as if an employer would be wrong in taking that approach.
You think someone will punch him in the face one day?
It’s jerks like this that remind me why we should have shot LLoyd Bucher upon his return from North Korea. Never surrender while you still have the means to resist.
This jerk doesn’t have the personal courage to take responsibility for his actions. First rule I learned in the infantry: When in command, I am responsible for everything I and my men do or fail to do. Second rule: their successes are theirs and they take the praise. Their failures are my failures and I take the heat for those failures.
All my guys could navigate, every vehicle had maps, and every leader had compasses. Not just gps. My guys made sure all our trucks could run properly and they briefed routes and contingencies to every soldier.
I still remember talking with my sergeants prior to deploying to Kosovo in 2000. We were discussing some soldiers in a couple gun trucks that got captured by Serbs in Macedonia because they got lost and fell asleep. I specifically told them if they got captured, they better have expended every round of ammo on their trucks and persons and stacked the bodies high before being taken fighting. Told them I would seek court martial on them if they didn’t. I also told them if they got heat for my orders that I would take the responsibility. Those guys did me proud and I miss leading them.
It’s said that on the eve of the allied landings in Normandy in 1944 that Gen. Dwight Eisenhower carried two pieces of paper in his pocket. The contents of only one of them would be read to the press when the results of the landings became known the following day. The first statement praised the allied forces for their courage and good fortune in carrying out a successful operation; the other statement said that any failure of the allied landing was the fault of Eisenhower alone.
Eisenhower was a great commander.
Nartker’s response in Foreign Policy is the best evidence so far he should not have been in command of anything more than a rubber duck.
Well said sir.
I’m wondering – do they teach the LTs how to navigate at all?
My brother (82nd AB in the ’80’s) had an LT who couldn’t navigate his was from the drop zone to the pickup zone, and they ended up spending the night wrapped around the base of the trees in a swamp.
In the morning, the Sgts forcibly took the map from him, looked at it a bit, sent a squad to find the p/u vehicles and let the rest to dry ground to wait.
As my brother was one of the Sgts and didn’t get busted, I suppose the LT was educated by someone on the necessity of using their Sgts to save their shaved tails.
“navigate his way” not “his was”
fat fingered it.
The tradition of the lost LT has to continue.
In this case the lost Captain (USA, USAF,& USMC) would have been more appropriate…as in the way Captain Sobel was portrayed.
Navy Lieutenants are O-3. The Navy does teach navigation, and has returned to sextant and compass training. The island in question shows up on a Google map.
This is the second time a lack of ability to navigate open waters has resulted in some truly stupid stuff. In 2013, it was a minesweeper, which ran aground on a coral reef in the Philippine Sea because the navigation charts were incorrect and no one was on the weather deck keeping an eye out for hazards.
What’s next? A strike force sent to the wrong location, 5,000 miles from where they’re supposed to go?
Just trying to understand here.
It wouldn’t be the first time someone has gone a bridge too far…
Maybe a sub running into an undersea mount at speed? Oh wait…
OH, God! Not that! EVER!
Um, Ex-PH2 . . . it’s already happened. Over a decade ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Collision_with_seamount
I know, Hondo. I remember it quite clearly.
And I know some of the folks who were not only in Guam, but on the SF as well.
I can only imagine being on that boat when TSHTF.
c’mon Hondo. You know we’re all a little on the snarky side here…
Couldn’t tell that time if it was snark or real. Kinda hard to do that based solely on written material sometimes.
My error. Wasn’t the first one, and won’t be the last. (smile)
Try the USS San Francisco.
Uncharted seamount. And they very nearly lost the whole boat.
I’ll send you some hi-res pictures of them in Drydock and you’ll thank God you were never there.
Can’t speak for the Navy. Army, we did a fair bit of Land Nav (infantry guys at minimum would have done land nav a couple times in ROTC, at least once in IOBC and at least once in Ranger School).
Maps can show you different things based on the area you’re in. In Ft Bragg, there’s not really much in the way of elevation changes – so those contour lines on the map may or may not show you anything. If the LT was from, say Vermont, and used to seeing lots of hills / ridgelines to navigate off of, it can become easy to become lost.
I was mech, so map and compass worked to a degree, but mostly I relied on either terrain association or plugger and map (always using the other to check myself). I never ended up horribly lost. Of course, I take hints pretty good too. As in, “Sir, WTF, over?”
Saw a group of local Reserves, or maybe the ROTC out of the local U, standing on the corner taking a sight with their compasses the other day.
From teaching Boy Scout Land Nav I recognized their positions immediately.
In Venturing (the older, coed Boy Scout program) one of the requirements for the Ranger Award was Land Nav – including night GPS use.
If an 11 year old Boy Scout or a 14 year old Venturer has more Nav skilz than Nartker or whatever his name is, he needs to turn in his man card.
Maybe things have changed more than I realized, but it used to be that middies on their midshipman cruises were taught navigational skills. If that has gone out the window in favor of tech geek stuff, that is not a good thing. Basic seamanship – how to find your way across a water body – is part of being in the Navy.
Should have brought some Marines. All the dinghies would have been sunk.
I hope he goes to a Class Reunion at Canoe U, and they literally run him out on a rail.
Naw, no running out on a rail.
Ignoring him works far better.
The more attention-whoring he does, making all kinds of excuses for his failure, the less responsible he appears to be. I don’t see much future for him, even in selling life insurance.
Yeah, this is the part that I don’t get. Does he think that somebody is going to have sympathy on him, if only he can speak is case? WTF. Oh.. you saved your guys by allowing yourself to be embarrassed.. well ok than. Let’s just promote you straight to admiral so you can surrender something bigger next time, like maybe an Aircraft Carrier or Ballistic Missile Sub. That’d be great. To steal a phrase from Commissioner Burrell from the Wire, “This is the US Navy, gentlemen. The Gods will not save you.”
For the record;
i agree with everything Jonn wrote in his blog post.
I just do not agree with some of the idiotic “never surrender” comments that people posted in their threads.
And to avoid further confusion; I am not saying surrendering is OK.
I am saying the notion does not even apply in this case because we are not at war. He could not use for to resist without committing an illegal act of war. He merely could try to escape. Once that was impossible without force he had to comply with the Iranians attempt at detaining the vessel.
If they’re at war with us, as they have said repeatedly over the last 40 years, then we have the obligation to return the favor.
What part of “Great Satan” confuses you, numbnuts?
We were at war with the Empire of Japan on 6 December 1941. They let us know the following morning.
Note that the Empire of Japan was under no obligation to seek a Declaration of War from the US Congress. Nor did they.
Neither is the Islamic Republic of Iran under any such requirement. -They- have certainly indicated that they consider us ‘enemy’, you know “Death to America, etc”, much as the Soviet Union referred to us as “The Main Enemy”.
The Islamic Republic of Iran works on dominance and humiliation. You seem to think there is a winning strategy in taking a submissive pose for them, in submitting to them. You are quite wrong. Any cursory exploration of Muslim governments such as Iran, will indicate that surrender and submission do not help, ever.
A peaceful equilibrium is reached with someone gets tired of getting their teeth kicked in.
But facts do not trouble your thoughts. You Know The Truth. You apparently derive your self-worth from how many people are pointing at you and laughing. Why not try clown college instead of military service? You are clearly unsalvageable as an officer.
When your head finally pops out of your ass, the shockwave generated will cause an earthquake alert.
Well, if it wasn’t surrender and a US Navy officer turned himself, his crew, and his boats over to a foreign power willingly, it must be treason and any number of other crimes related to relinquishing government property or failing to safekeep it.
And the crew weren’t prisoners. They were kidnap victims, I suppose. The ransom was an apology, happily delivered by the LT.
In the eyes of the applicable law, I would guess, the territorial waters of Canada and Iran are indistinguishable. If that’s not correct, due to US/Canada treaties, insert another sane and stable country in its place. As a practical matter, is anyone going to maintain that an American vessel that is intercepted by Canada (or country x) is facing the same circumstance presented by an American vessel intercepted by Iran? Are the reactions and responses to be the same? Are the issues and concerns and potentialities the same?
The best way to keep from getting lost is to know where you are. Even if you have to keep a finger on the map, an eye on a compass or just use old fashioned reckoning.
Hell, even Bernath knew where the airport was… and still took off without enough fuel to go anywhere. Between SkyDan, the disgraced/disbarred non-CPO, and Lt. Nartker… ahh, never mind.
The Iranians don’t board our armed vessels period.. We had weapons and the means to call for help. They don’t touch the property of the US Navy. You allow our men and women to cower, hands on head while the Iranians tear up everything? Ah NO!. No leadership. Not a good situation for anyone to have to handle but he wanted to be an Officer..
I was not there.
And I was not Navy.
Under O’bummer and his “Political Secretaries and Flag Officers”, who knows?
Not defending this guy, but Four Billion dollars equals opinions, and unfortunately, judgements.
I will leave it at that.
Also, where was O’bummer during this? Vacation?
His usual AO… some golf course four putting his useless ass off.
The incident happened a day or two before we
paid Iran a the first $400M cash payment of a $1.7B ransomreturned some assets we’d frozen in 1979 in response to Iran seizing our Embassy in Tehran. Maybe he was helping count foreign currency.Martinjmpr: I knew a Corpsman who was a real life MD. Said he wanted a change of life at about 28-30 years of age. Did his time and out the door. He then went to dental school. He was experimenting until he found what he liked. For all I know he came back into the Navy as a dentist … or a Corpsman. Dude was one smart guy and was a great worker. Heck, he might still be going to school. He came from money so that was not an issue. Trust fund baby or whatnot. Like to run into him again. Well, that was 40 years ago so he’s probably retired … or going to welding school.
What this guy should have ‘saved’ was whatever navigational skills the Navy taught him. A total unnecessary soup sandwich.
On principle, not going to weigh in regarding the Sailors involved. I wasn’t there, and wasn’t in theater within +/- 1 year to know anything about the relevant commands.
I will say that I have zero doubts that if those were DBGs (Dirty Boat Guys), that encounter would have gone down like a nautical version of the ending of ‘The Wild Bunch’.
As a junior Sailor, I was, uh, well, a screw up. True. (But I turned out great .. Smile.)
Had a salty Chief pull me aside once (literally) after yet another colossal HN (E-3) soup sandwich, and gave me some great advice.
If you fuck up, you fess up and then you pay up.
Commit a mistake, admit it and take your lumps. Doesn’t get much simpler than that.
SPC D had a similar lesson from a big badass Samoan SFC that wore the 173rd patch on his right shoulder. “D, you will fuck up, and I will chew your ass, and you will learn, and we’ll move on. But if I have to chew your ass for the same thing again, even Jesus won’t save you”
Let us not confess our sins and youthful; indiscretions. I can’t stand lines and those lines would be loooooooooooooooooong..
“Don’t give up the ship”, John Paul Jones.
^^This!!!!^^
Actually the quote is from Captain James Lawrence of the USS Chesapeake – during the fight between the Chesapeake and HMS Shannon during the War of 1812. Oliver Hazard Perry flew a flag with those words on his flagship during the Battle of Lake Erie three months later.
John Paul Jones said “I have not yet begun to fight!”
Too bad Natker didn’t put as much intellectual effort into preparing and executing his mission as he does in making excuses and “polishing the turd” that he turned it into.
What really has me a little shocked is the naivete, and maybe hubris with some of the key USN personnel involved. Depending on who you are dealing with, ‘mexican standoffs’ happen all the time in the gray areas of the world when there ‘technically’ isn’t a shooting war going on. Hell, it happens from time to time with groups of armed fellows who are ostensibly more ‘friendly’ than ‘hostile’. Successful resolution of these ‘encounters’ usually relies on a little bit of ‘wary gunfighter diplomacy’ that is only really learned from your elders & some OJT. The basis for all encounters however is the principle of ‘you are either a hard target or a target’. This is especially applicable to Arab types, where perceived strength is basically required for cordial interaction and relations. The short version – being ‘nice’ to someone who is perceived as a weak bitch makes you at least partially a weak bitch. Bargaining with a clearly dangerous, and possibly violent opposing leader or group and coming out of it alive after securing a square deal is a ‘win’ however. So maybe sometimes if it’s 4 of you going to meet some former Republican Guard types who are now on board with the plan of hunting and killing AQI scumbags instead of (as opposed to in addition to) American and/or Coalition personnel…well if you’re meeting them in their town after dark maybe 3 guys are packing belt guns instead of the norm (which might be 1). Not necessarily because you remotely expect needing the extra sustained firepower in case of a back-stabbing, but because you *clearly appear* to be packing a lot of firepower. You are perceived as the type of guys *who deal in lead* (all credit to Steven McQueen). That’s a good thing. It makes it easier for an amicable, calm, meeting with an air of mutual respect. ‘These Americans are the kind that KP&BTS for fun. They will be good to have nearby. They will smoke a lot of the people we hate more than them. I like them for the time being.’ Now, during… Read more »