Patterico's Pontifications

1/14/2016

Obama and Kerry on Iran Actions: Thanks, Iran!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:36 am

So Iran took pictures of our sailors in a posture of submission and distributed them throughout the world — and forced a female sailor to wear a hijab. Verdict of Obama and Kerry: success! Thank you so much, Iranians — and, once again, we are so, very, very sorry!

If you publicly put yourself in a position where you absolutely can’t break a deal with a bad actor, don’t be surprised when the bad actor pushes you around a little.

P.S. As some have noted, publishing the photos violates the Geneva Convention. Of course, it’s not like we didn’t do the same when we captured Taliban in the Afghanistan war.

50 Responses to “Obama and Kerry on Iran Actions: Thanks, Iran!”

  1. Thanks for not raping our gal! After all, she was uncovered. So sorry, those camo hijabs are regulation wear now!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  2. The fact they didn’t rape her was due to the fear instilled by Sec. Kerry.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  3. They’ve been whacked on their backside, and Kerry and Obama’s only response is, “Thanks I’ll have another.”?

    Comanche Voter (1d5c8b)

  4. eyes on the prize

    these peeps are gonna do the genocide on israel for us

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  5. There being no declared war or armed conflict between the United States and Iran, the Geneva Convention does not apply. The sailors could have been prosecuted for illegal immigration and unlawful possession of weapons and explosives, just for starters.

    What would we do with a couple of boatloads of Iranians armed with machine guns and rocket launchers off the Florida Keys? These guys are the luckiest sailors alive. They should light a candle to St. Nicholas.

    Is a U.S. Navy uniform the equivalent of diplomatic immunity and carte blanche which entitles the wearer to stroll, armed, across any nation’s border? And where does that rape stuff come from?

    nk (dbc370)

  6. Pictures and (non)apologies are distracting US from the new reality in which the US recognizes territorial claims and exclusions that have been in dispute under international law. There’s a lot more going on here than allowing/accepting simple humiliation of our military. Accepting Iran’s territorial claims to the islands Iran claims makes the already small Gulf ridiculously difficult to navigate. Standby for the eventual withdrawal of US naval forces.

    crazy (cde091)

  7. Greetings:

    Elsewhere in the blogosphere, there seems to be questions about what if any equipment (USofA property) was removed from the boats and retained by the mullah’s minions.

    Obviously, this brings to mind the Pueblo’s encounter with the North Koreans back in the ’60s and I can’t help but speculate that they are observing.

    11B40 (69b9c8)

  8. There being no declared war or armed conflict between the United States and Iran, the Geneva Convention does not apply.

    Not an overt armed conflict, any way.

    Maybe something along the lines of a 30-year Quasi-War, albeit one that includes more than a few other parties (Israel, Hezbollah, etcetera).

    JP (7047d9)

  9. Let me point out that the Geneva Conventions only apply to combatents who comply with it’s requirements. And the Taliban do not, they don’t wear uniforms, don’t have a command structure and so on. They fall under the Partisan category and could legally be hung from the nearest tree.

    agesilaus (5e185e)

  10. This whole story doesn’t pass the smell test. First it was a mechanical failure, then it was poor navigation. Nonsense. Neither story line explains how 2 US Naval vessels fully armed and capable were captured by Iranians. American sailors don’t surrender their vessels without a fight. It’s one of our longest and most revered naval traditions. Don’t give up the ship is drilled into every US sailor from the Naval Academy to boot camp. American sailors fight unless they’re ordered to stand down.

    Someone gave orders to surrender without a fight. It’s Benghazi all over again. Who gave the order? Were was President Obama. What were those boats doing so close to Iranian waters? Who was in command of the operation? Why wasn’t help sent? Who ordered the US Aircraft Carrier battle group to do nothing to protect the American crews? etc, etc, etc.

    ropelight (b71ffb)

  11. When exactly did the Taliban become signers of the Geneva Convention? Beheading, suicide bombing, terrorism in general are all banned, so stop with the moral equivalency.

    Rich (ddc02c)

  12. Neither story line explains how 2 US Naval vessels fully armed and capable were captured by Iranians.

    ropelight, I’m going to have to be convinced these boats were fully armed and fully mission capable.

    Steve57 (17e737)

  13. The POINT of the Geneva Conventions was to spare civilians from being treated as combatants, both by making it illegal to do so, and by requiring combatants to distinguish themselves.

    So, uniforms and/or distinguishing emblems visible from a distance. So, carrying arms openly. So, a structure for command and responsibility. So, punishment for atrocities against civilians.

    In return for these actions, quarter is mandated, and terms of surrender are established.

    HOWEVER, persons who do NOT follow the rules for combatants cannot expect quarter, nor can those who do not offer quarter to legal combatants.

    The Taliban, the Viet Cong, and other partisans hiding among the civilian population do not follow the rules, endanger civilians in PRECISELY the way the Conventions were designed to avoid, and generally offer no quarter. They can legally be shot and dumped on the roadside.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  14. We sill know a lot more when we see how the senior officer is treated for apologizing on Iranian TV. If nothing happens to him, we’ll know he was acting under orders. If it was his idea, to spare his men, it was in contravention to UCMJ and action should be taken.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. Steve, those 2 boats were operating in hostile waters, they were bristling with machine guns, and operating with augmented crews. The default assumption is engaged in an operation and fully mission capable. To assume otherwise just doesn’t fit the facts.

    ropelight (b71ffb)

  16. New R.O.E.
    Sails up don’t shoot.

    mg (31009b)

  17. Pirates of the Caribbean. Heck most boats down on the Florida keys have machine guns and rocket launchers.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  18. Apology accepted with conditions. The Iranians were “fantastic” and appropriately thanked for their hands on head, on your knees, give us your weapons and your boats, cover your head, you harlot “hospitality”.

    Colonel Haiku (933076)

  19. Operation Bendoverspreadem…

    Colonel Haiku (933076)

  20. When Iran seeks to protect the integrity of its sovereign borders, Obama says, “Whatever’s with cool with me, dudes!,” but when we Americans seek to protect the integrity of our sovereign borders, he calls us ‘racists’ and gives us the middle finger.

    …but don’t you dare question Obama’s patriotism!

    I don’t question that Barack’s patriotic—I just question which country it is that he loves.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  21. Come on NK, don’t give into such facile analysis. Law of the Sea provides the “right of innocent passage” – especially in the instance of claimed engine malfunction, where the duty of ALL Coastal Nations is to give aid – not arrest and make propaganda films. These are the historical norms, and are codified in the UN Law of the Sea Treaty.

    In both Territorial Waters, and even disputed international waters, the peaceful world escorts the extra-national navy out of the contested waters, and there is no cause for belligerence.

    This was purely a powerplay by Iran to score some cheap drama for the region at our expense.

    That our Navy was so ridiculously played is distressing.

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  22. Sadly, yet another example of a Clear and Pres’ent Danger …

    (Pres’ent Obama, that is)

    Alastor (497f16)

  23. As some have noted, publishing the photos violates the Geneva Convention.

    They were not prisoners of war, so the Geneva conventions don’t apply.

    Of course, it’s not like we didn’t do the same when we captured Taliban in the Afghanistan war.

    They were POWs, but they were not protected by the conventions. We treated them humanely, but not according to the conventions, and we made no bones about that. Hence the term “illegal combatant”. That means someone who has the legal status of a POW (i.e. no habeas corpus, may be held indefinitely), but without the Geneva protections.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  24. So Iran took pictures of our sailors in a posture of submission and distributed them throughout the world — and forced a female sailor to wear a hijab.

    Yes, and they didn’t make them sit through James Taylor.

    Iran 1, Kerry 0

    JP (7047d9)

  25. that would violate the Vienna convention,

    narciso (732bc0)

  26. Consorting with a foreign power to sabotage american foreign policy as congressional republicans have is treason sedition and breaks the logan act.

    nate (f0991f)

  27. Did anyone else get a kind of “Stripes” vibe from the whole affair?

    Colonel Haiku (933076)

  28. You are effin insane, Perry.

    JD (34f761)

  29. he needs to come up with some new material,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. 15. Steve, those 2 boats were operating in hostile waters, they were bristling with machine guns, and operating with augmented crews. The default assumption is engaged in an operation and fully mission capable. To assume otherwise just doesn’t fit the facts.

    ropelight (b71ffb) — 1/14/2016 @ 9:21 am

    They only had five crewmembers per boat. They were shorthanded considering they intended to transit hostile waters. To operate the boat they require three crewmembers in the cockpit. Then at a minimum you’ll need four more to man all the crew served weapons if you plan on fighting the boat. There are four weapons mounts aft of the cockpit.

    They only had two additional crewmembers. They couldn’t have manned all the weapons, but it appears to me that not all the mounts had weapons anyway.

    In addition to the crew served weapons these boats are equipped with two remotely controlled
    weapons which can be operated from inside the cockpit. For instance there should be a mast mounted .50 cal (or other weapon) on the mast aft the cockpit. I don’t see it.

    https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/rcb-920-0.jpg?w=919&h=613

    Remember, there are another three crewmembers in the cockpit. I count seven on deck.

    Quite a crowd, isn’t it? That’s the size crew you’re going to need to successfully defend yourself. Five per boat just wouldn’t cut it.

    http://i.imgur.com/OEqRW9H.jpg

    Here’s another pic; you can easily see the remote controlled .50 in this shot. It’s fair to say it’s conspicuous. I don’t see it in any of the photos or videos on either boat the Iranians captured. I don’t see how I could miss it, if it were there. And it can’t be that simple or easy to remove that the crews could have accomplished the task before they surrendered.

    Nor can I picture the IRGCN waiting around with their thumbs up their butts while the American sailors played around with a machine gun.

    So, again, based on these and other factors I don’t see how these boats were in any way in the state of readiness they should have been in to conduct this transit.

    Steve57 (17e737)

  31. Speaking of acts, perry’s is trite and not a little tedious.

    Colonel Haiku (933076)

  32. really worthy of a graham chapman walkthrough,

    narciso (732bc0)

  33. I just found this article. It concerns another class of patrol boat, but here’s the key
    takeaway.

    http://navaltoday.com/2014/05/14/us-navy-sailors-drive-potent-new-riverine-boat/

    The unnamed craft – numbered 65PB1101 – arrived here aboard a cargo ship in February, shipped from San Diego. The 65-foot, 50-ton CCB was built by Bremerton, Wash.-based SAFE Boats International.

    The craft is similar in form and features to the larger Mark VI patrol boats being built by SAFE Boats. The first of six Mark VIs is scheduled for delivery in the early fall.

    Until the Mark VIs get here, CTF 56 will use the CCB to prove new operating concepts.

    The craft, steered by a joystick and able to top 35 knots, got a thumbs-up from crew members on a recent trip.

    The craft is a major step up from the U.S. Navy’s riverine command boats operating in the Persian Gulf.

    The craft carries a crew of 10 to enable port-and-starboard watches of five Sailors with a boat captain in command – the same setup used on the RCBs.

    With only five sailors per boat they were extremely undermanned for this evolution.

    Steve57 (17e737)

  34. Perry/nate’s posts are shallow, dishonest and rarely, if ever, rise above the truly excremental.

    Colonel Haiku (933076)

  35. Steve, undermanned for a mission, but this was portrayed as a delivery, something like 240nm. These small boats had no business out in the middle of the Persian Gulf. My understanding is they’re designed and equipped for stealthy operations in shallow coastal water. Like inserting an observation team into enemy territory and making a clean getaway.

    ropelight (b71ffb)

  36. ropelight, they were undermanned even for this ship movement. As others, such as bobathome, have pointed out this transit was actually 300nm. The RCBs have an official, unclas range or 240nm at 20kts. They would have had to refuel somewhere between Kuwait and Bahrain. That adds time. Plus in any sort of sea state other than dead calm they would have had to slow down to perhaps 10kts. More time added.

    According to the article I cited they should have departed with 10 sailors and a boat captain just to maintain the underway watch rotation. They left with half that complement. So were these sailors really supposed to remain awake and alert for what probably would have been over 30 hours? That’s one way screw ups happen. This was a major screw up, if we being told something that remotely resembling the truth. Making this transit with slightly less than half of a full crew was as good as planning for someone to make a mistake due to sleep deprivation and inattention.

    Then, how are you supposed to deal with that error-caused emergency if your boat isn’t even crewed for normal underway, uneventful operations? Take the engineering casualty that one of the boats supposedly had. If they had rigged for a tow they would have set a watch on the tow rig. That requires two sailors on deck because of the risk of a man overboard.

    Now, with one boat taking another under tow, these boats will be going even slower. So now the transit will take even more time.

    You can see how at this point only having five sailors per boat is stretching it really, really thin.

    On top of that you have to be prepared to defend your vessel. Especially in a bad neighborhood like the Persian Gulf. I don’t of any sailor who has been there who isn’t aware of the Iranian small boat threat, and doesn’t take it seriously. It doesn’t matter if you set out with the intention of just transiting between ports. What matters is that you are ready in case you mission turns into something else.

    I respectfully submit that the fact they were sailing with skeleton crews is part of the evidence that these boats were in no condition of readiness to undertake this ship movement.

    Steve57 (17e737)

  37. We should always give the benefit of the doubt to Iran.
    Nobody can say they’ve threatened to wipe a country off the map or anything psychotic like that.
    I mean, come on, I hear Reagan once traded an old Rolex watch for a Persian rug.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  38. Tonight-
    Rino shoot out in a rubber raft.

    mg (31009b)

  39. still too many poopers on stage

    happyfeet (831175)

  40. Hope for cross fire

    mg (31009b)

  41. Some people believe sober minds should rule the day. While some people don’t.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  42. I’m sober and have been for many, many years.
    Cheers, your highness.

    mg (31009b)

  43. I wonder if Cruz will talk about his behind the scenes borrowing scheme from Golden Hacks?

    mg (31009b)

  44. nk. There being no declared war or armed conflict between the United States and Iran, the Geneva Convention does not apply. The sailors could have been prosecuted for illegal immigration and unlawful possession of weapons and explosives, just for starters.

    If they detained them, taht would be the start of aconflict and the Geneva Convention would indeed apoply. They were in uniform and therefore they are not to be considered spies.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  45. What do I need to do, send up a flare, it was on another thread, sheesh.

    narciso (732bc0)

  46. mg, the first post (4:25 pm) just puts you in the same boat as those who thought Rubio wasn’t ready for prime time because he bought a small fishing boat. The significant difference is that you cared enough to make a clarification (4:50 pm). Would that the LHMFM had slightest whiff of your concern for the truth. Don’t quit your day job, you just don’t have what it takes to be a member of the political elite[‘s arse kissers].

    BobStewartatHome (f23946)

  47. BobStewartatHome
    hasty on my part.

    mg (31009b)

  48. obama and his minions are the leaders of ISIS. Hard to imagine this petulant prick is still in office. We need a second party to defeat the Democrats before obama enforces sharia law.

    mg (31009b)

  49. this definitely tells the saudi royal perverts exactly how isolated they are

    if failmerica lets its own sailors get treated like this

    you think it’s gonna go to bat for a buncha saudi child molesters?

    lol

    allies

    happyfeet (831175)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4091 secs.