It’s time for some blunt language. Use of terms like ‘double tap’ or ‘kinetic’ strikes are meant to cover up what you see in the title pic. Blowing up a small boat and those aboard with high explosive missiles. We’ll get to other considerations but it’s past time to let anyone, especially in the administration try to sanitize (minimize) what they ordered with spy movie terms or military engineering terminology. Leaving aside the legality of what happened the plain fact is our military blew a small, open boat out of the water. Then, when it became apparent a couple of the 11 people on board had somehow survived THEY got blown up by another missile!
There’s a short story from The Sacramento Bee that touches the basic outlines of what’s become a huge national debate. That debate is growing and more far reaching with each passing day. But it all starts with the basics set out in the linked article which takes less than a minute to read. Basically Team Trump is saying everything was legal and proper and others are calling bullshit on them. I’m firmly in the latter group if you didn’t know, but will after reading what I have to say tonight.
I saw a pundit, a retired flag officer who’s name I can’t remember bluntly call out the use by the news anchor of the term “double-tap.” He pointed out it is an actual special ops term which means two bullets fired into a bad guy/gall in rapid succession. (more blunt, faster than you can say bang bang) SpecOps troops practice this and it’s second nature to them. THIS he says was no double-tap because more than a half-hour went by between the first and second missiles being fired. They looked after the smoke cleared, realized there were survivors clinging to a piece of wreckage of the overturned boat and made a deliberate choice to go back and fire a second missile. Which killed them.
He also didn’t care much for use of terms like ‘kinetic’ and other such terms. Engineering stoicisms can soften what actually happens. I still recall first reading The Right Stuff and something two Naval Aviators from my hometown had never put into words with me about carrier landings. In the Navy “recovery and arrest” is a bland sounding term for budding carrier types in manuals and classroom lectures. They even usually make their first landing with little trouble. It’s once they are on the deck and watching additional aircraft come in for “recovery and arrest” they understand. It’s actually and intentional controlled crash. More than a hundred tons of jets at 120 knots (faster than most of you have ever been in your car) smashing down on the deck trying to catch an arresting wire. It’s not uncommon for some to wash out then and there.
The point is that clever language can obscure breathtaking reality. Spectacular things that are often dangerous and/or deadly. So it is with hitting boats in the middle of the ocean with missiles tipped with high explosives. It creates one HELL of a fireball (yes, emphasis intended) and for an open craft that’s maybe 25-30 feet long to begin with your only hope of survival is having something or someone between you and the blast and being blown overboard. That’s what happened to the two survivors of the Sept. 2 attack. There they were in the middle of the freaking ocean, no doubt injured but able to get to a piece of overturned wreckage that hadn’t yet sunk.
What do you think went through their minds when they saw and heard an aircraft overhead? It wouldn’t matter if it was a manned aircraft or a drone. For them it was a chance to signal they were still alive (reportedly at least one waved) and more or less ask for rescue. Even if they were actual drug smugglers they’d have preferred prison to drowning in the ocean. Well they didn’t have to worry about the latter happening. SOMEONE had somewhere along the line, whether before the initial attack or after the first missile ripped the boat in two there would by god be NO survivors.
The specific timeline and orders are now a subject of considerable scrutiny and debate and damn well should be. After initially promising to have video of the second strike released earlier this even Trump, in no surprise for me at least rescinded his promise. Well of course he did. It’s probably as appalling as Democratic lawmakers who’ve seen in have publicly stated, and some GOPers privately admit the same. Trump would at this point probably rather finally release his full, unredacted (except for his SSN) taxes before releasing either the Epstein files or the video of the second strike.
We are talking about a blatant WAR CRIME. It took place at sea and as I’ve already explained on Politizoom different rules apply at sea. The DOD Manual and both Navy and Coast Guard regulations cover this and one their boat was blown up those survivors were by definition shipwrecked and should have been rescued if a boat or helicopter could get to them in time. Instead they were flat-out murdered and it was only after reaction was the opposite (both here and abroad) of what the Trump administration expected did they stop BRAGGING about the incident.
If only we had journalists who would en masse make a point of calling out use of terms like ‘Kinetic Strike” or ‘Double Tap’ to Hegeseth, Leavitt and Trump himself. If only they’d say something like doesn’t that term mean blowing up the boats with missiles which will almost always kill everyone AND destroy any evidence they were actual drug smugglers?’ Or ‘Double tap is what SpecOps types use to describe two shots in less than a second into their target. Over a half hour went by between missile strikes.’ I know that’s too much to asked of the mostly gutless Washington Press Corps these days, but at least news hosts and pundits should start using plain terms instead of this sanitized crap.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula
Denis:
You state that the second missile was a blatant war crime.
What everyone seems to miss is that the FIRST missile was a murder.
They didn’t blow up “survivors”, they murdered witnesses and sent all the evidence to the bottom of the sea!
(Presumably) Ordinary people are going about their ordinary business when destruction rains down from above.
Seems to me that it’s only scope — one boat at a time instead of a fleet — that makes this different from Pearl Harbor. I don’t get why other people don’t make that connection. At the time we — and much of the world — were outraged. Why do the idiots at the top not realize that the rest of the world will regard these actions with equal horror?
(Denis, I’m from a military family, but don’t have a military mindset. If I’m overstating the similarity to Pearl Harbor, I’d appreciate an explanation. I just flail at every one of these strikes. “Laws” and “due process” are a thing, dammit!)
I see where you’re coming from but there’s actually is a difference other than scope. Tensions between the U.S. and Japan had been ramping up for quite a while and their alingnment towards Germany also made things different. When FBR cut off their oil it was real trouble and hauks in Japan kicked planning the Pearl Harbor attack into high gear. For years Japan had lied about it’s military buildup. From the number of warships and planes to their size (the ships – especially the carriers) and capability. They’d also been researching new technology. For example their plane dropped torpedoes would have stuck the bottom of Pearl Harbor so they developed a special ‘breakaway’ wooden device that would shallow them out before it happened. That’s just one thing. Another is that right up to the attack they pretended they still wanted a diplomatic solution. FDR wasn’t buying it but it was enough to keep a still sizeable chunk of Congress in ‘isolationist’ mode. For years he tried to tell them Japan was building up war fighting capability and not even their excusions into China and elsewhere in Asia would get Congress to allow him to beef up our own military to the degree that would be needed.
Add in racial prejudice on our part, even from FDR and others that Japan was as advanced as they turned out to be and the outrage you speak of was in part shock/ambarrassment. But the main difference was this was global geopolitical forces moving inexorably towards conflict. Admiral Yamamoto had served in American and both he and his most trusted staff had friend in the U.S. Navy. He knew his America and that once American production got rolling Japan would lose ground. And the war. He felt the only hope was to take out the home of our Pacific fleet and especially U.S. aircraft carriers and force us all the way back to the west coast. Then there were the other places Japan intended to and did attack like Clark AFB and the Phillipines, Singapore and signs were they were staging for Australia. In conjuction with Pearl Harbor. Oh, and they attacked in the Aluetions at the same time. All this became apparent the day after Pearl Harbor so that’s why we reacted the way we did.
From where I sit that’s a helluva lot different than periodic strikes on suspected drug running boats we know will result in the deaths of those aboard. It’s still murder, as there’s no legal or military justification. But there’s a big difference between dick-waving attacks, even ones that are murder and planning and executing major attacks across the Pacific incluiding the massive attack at Pearl and other places on Oauhu. Had Nagumo who commanded the actual striking force of carriers sent a second wave of planes to attack the fuel storage tanks at Pearl (as Yamamoto assumed he would if they didn’t get hit in an initial strike) that would have been it. Our Navy and any civilian with any sense would have retreated to our west coast. Military historians will always look back at Nagumo’s decision, especially since his forces DID catch us by surprise and took few losses was a mistake. A couple of squadrons could have been launched while the intial strike was headed back to their carriers and done the job. Yes, since our carriers weren’t in the Harbor there was a concern they might find and attack the Japanese fleet but at that point of the war Japan’s carriers could almost certainly have fended them off. We had nothing that could match the speed and manuverability of the Zero and a good CAP would have protected them.
Thank you for explaining so thoroughly.