President, NAVY CNO: Standing Orders to Provoke Other Nations Into Combat
Admiral Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations [CNO] Needs To Explain His Rules of Engagement
It's interesting to watch the NAVY, supposedly assigned to conduct operations at sea, dig itself into a hole.
CNO issued issued some contradictory remarks raising issues warranting Congressional review. Ref This comes a few short weeks after another American Navy Admiral discredited himself; and one leading NAVY public affairs officer made inappropriate comments about the status of prisoners of war, apparently in violation of the laws of war.
The enforcement of the illegal military commissions act and continued reports of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo shows there is an emerging discipline problem in the United States NAVY. The NSA's underwater fiber optic tapping program has been fatally disclosed. Yet, rather than focus on imposing discipline on naval personnel who have violated the Constitution and laws of war, CNO pretends something else is important.
___ What's going on with enforcement of the SecDef 5100.77 laws of war program?
___ Why was DoD Counsel Stimson's resignation insufficient to awaken CNO to the laws of war and Geneva requirements?
___ Does DoD IG have any explanation why this breakdown in discipline is occurring now?
The Persian Gulf is a busy place. On any given day patrol boats, super tankers, and large craft from around the globe enter and exit the Gulf. This is well tracked by the Joint Staff. The Chief of Naval Operations well knows hoe important these tracking systems are. When the Pentagon was attacked on 9-11, the Navy experienced substantial damage.
Any US Naval personnel caught engaging in illegal activity in foreign waters may be lawfully targeted. If US military personnel attempt to resist, lethal force may be used to destroy their craft.
Arguably, CNO Mullens statement should give Congress pause. It appears Mullings and the President have jointly crafted rules of engagement designed to provoke other nations to oppose illegal US military movements.
Other nations are permitted to defend their sovereignty. The US has no legal basis to justify expanded combat operations against any nation which has lawfully opposed unprovoked US incursions or violations of their sovereignty.
The Admiral's comments warrant review.
Japanese Provocations at Pearl Harbor Are Not Precedent For US NAVAL Actions
Japan in WWII was mistaken when it argued that US opposition to Japanese expansion in South Asia justified the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
If US forces do regularly enter the airspace and waterways of foreign powers, it would be appropriate if the Senate and House openly discuss whether they plan to support US defense leaders who have agreed to provoke other nations.
Contrary to Mullin's assertions, "self defense" does not mean provoking the Iranians to respond; then using the Iranian lawful efforts to defend her shores, as a basis to engage in acts of aggression.
It would be appropriate for the Congress to examine Mullin's statements in detail. The doctrine of "self-defense" cannot be a pretext to provoke others forced to endure illegal activity, nor for the United States to expand illegal warfare.
It remains for the Admiral to explain why he believes US troops world be engaged in intelligence gathering operations inside Iranian waters; or required to use force to avoid capture. The United States and Iran are not at war.
The Admiral needs to explain himself. He remains under civilian control. If it is the position of the United States that all US combat forces around Iran may, without notice, attack Iran, the Iranian republic is permitted to work with other nations to engage in like retaliation against the United stats.
If US troops do enter foreign waters and engage in illegal activity, it is speculative that they would not be taken prisoner. The issue is why Admiral Mullins would permit his sailors to conduct illegal activity, or violate the sovereignty of other nations.
Indeed, intelligence gathering does require probing of foreign militaries. However, when these are acts of war, or other nations' sovereignty is volatized, all naval powers are authorized to use force.
If CNO does not anticipate that US forces will ever be seized in similar situations, it would be appropriate for the SASC and HASC to review the rules of engagement the Joint Staff, Admiral Mullen, and the President have discussed.
___ How does the United States plan to justify using deadly force to avoid capture when the US forces have illegally violated the sovereignty of another nation?
___ What does CNO Plan to do should other powers, other than Iran, engage in retaliatory acts against US vessels in other ports?
The Chief of Naval Operations issued contradictory statements.
Admiral Michael Mulling indicated he wasn't sure what US naval forces would do, indicating their rules of engagement are deliberately vague.
___ What is the plan of Admiral Mullings to know with certainty why is personnel would be violating the sovereignty of another nation?
Admiral Mullens is reckless in asserting that fifteen US Naval Personnel, if caught engaging in illegal activity, would necessary keep at bay the combined Naval Power of the world's navies.
___ How does CNO justify confidence in this statement?
___ What method does CNO propose to use to provoke another nation to attack the United States Navy?
___ What does CNO Mullens view as "acceptable" under his rules of engagement for his personnel to do to provoke a confrontation with a sovereign nation?
___ Is it the view of Mullens that as long as the United States NAVY doesn't get caught, it's acceptable for the United States to violate the sovereignty of other nations?
___ How does Mullens plan to explain his orders to provoke other nations into hostilities?