Suspicions Confirmed

Last week, I raised the question of why the crew of the BAINBRIDGE had made no attempt to aid Capt. Phillips when he jumped into the water and attempted to escape from the pirates. I suspected that the reason was that they had been ordered not to, and therefore had no choice but to stand by helplessly as the pirates dragged the captain back aboard the lifeboat.

A few minutes ago on the O'Reilly Factor, Col. David Hunt, Fox military analyst and author of On the Hunt, confirmed my suspicions. According to Col. Hunt, even before the SEALs arrived on board, the BAINBRIDGE was fully capable of neutralizing the pirates and rescuing Capt. Phillips had they been authorized to do so. But at the time, they were operating under strict Rules of Engagement which prohibited them from firing a shot without obtaining prior authorization through the chain of command. Furthermore, that chain was far too long and cumbersome, stretching all the way from the Commander-in-Chief through a whole string of commands before it reached the skipper of the BAINBRIDGE. In fact, had he been authorized from the beginning to use his best professional judgment and take whatever action he deemed appropriate, the captain of the BAINBRIDGE, Cdr. Frank Castellano, could have brought the incident to a successful conclusion shortly after his arrival on the scene, instead of having to leave Capt. Phillips bobbing around on that lifeboat for 4 days.

Can you imagine how Capt. Phillips must have felt after he risked his life by jumping into shark-infested waters at night in order to give the BAINBRIDGE a clear shot – and nothing happened? It's very fortunate that he's such a level-headed, focused, strong-willed man that he was able to take such a bitter disappointment in stride, then plan for his next opportunity.

Noteworthy, too, is the fact that when Capt. Phillips arrived back in the United States and made a few public remarks, although he had the highest praise for the US military, and in particular, the Navy, the BAINBRIDGE, and the SEALs, there was not one word about our inexperienced young president – who is obviously still undergoing his on-the-job training.

UPDATE 4/23/09 1:39 AM: In EXCLUSIVE: Obama OK'd 2 SEAL teams for pirates, the Washington Times reports that National Security Adviser James L. Jones claims that the above account is false:

EXCLUSIVE:

President Obama dispatched two separate teams of Navy commandos to carry out last week's rescue of a merchant ship captain held hostage by Somali pirates but left the operational details and rules of engagement to military commanders, National Security Adviser James. L. Jones said Tuesday.

"I can tell you from a White House and presidential standpoint, there was no conflict, no gnashing of teeth, or excessive influence in trying to manage this thing," Mr. Jones, a retired Marine Corps four-star general, told The Washington Times in an interview.

He and other military officials gave the most detailed account to date of how Navy SEAL forces were dispatched - first from a base in Africa and later from the United States - to carry out the mission, and how Pentagon officials communicated with the White House. They sought to dispel Internet reports that the military was delayed from taking action by indecision inside the White House.

"I don't recognize" the information being circulated on the Internet, Mr. Jones said.

So the question becomes one of who do you believe, or "he said; he said."

To the best of my knowledge, both Gen. Jones and Col. Hunt have a reputation for honesty and frankness.

Gen. Jones is certainly in the best position to know what actually happened, but on the other hand is far from impartial. Because of his present position as Obama's National Security Adviser, he has a vested interest in vouching for the official version of events. Under the circumstances, he could hardly be expected to contradict it unless he were to simultaneously tender his resignation.

On the other hand, Col. Hunt's knowledge of the details of the operation comes to him second- or third-hand, since he was not personally involved in it. In stating his version of events during Bill O'Reilly's program, though, he spoke with great certainty, as though he had great confidence in his sources. In addition, since he had no personal involvement or vested interest, he would be more likely to be impartial.

There were a large number of military personnel involved in the operation, including the entire crew of the USS BAINBRIDGE. Chances are that during the next few months and years, a true account of what actually happened will gradually take form. Particularly as the members of the BAINBRIDGE's crew return to civilian life one by one, there will be no way that the Navy could possibly keep them from telling what they know. For now, though, we must content ourselves with this contradiction.

Although I have no firm justification for doing so, I am more inclined to believe Col. Hunt's account – primarily because during the years I have been watching him on Fox News, he has always proven to know what he's talking about, but also because he is free to speak his mind. On the other hand, while I respect Gen. Jones for his long and distinguished service in the Marine Corps, his post-retirement activities have been problematic. For one thing, he has a reputation as an Israel-basher and Saudi sympathizer – which, in my opinion, immediately calls his judgment into question. Then, of course, there's the matter of his position as a cabinet-level adviser to the PITOTUS. If he wants to keep it, he must pretty well toe the official line – which includes doing everything in his power to make his inexperienced, gaffe-prone boss look good.

Finally, there is the undeniable fact that already, during the three months it has been in office, this administration has earned a reputation for issuing misleading, contradictory, and downright duplicitous statements. The PITOTUS has shown a propensity to say one thing while brazenly doing the exact opposite, so why would we expect his senior staff to act differently from their boss?