Sean Spoonts
Florida
- 1956 comments
- 1478 likes given
- 3714 likes received
Former Navy Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator and SAR Aircrewman in SH-2f LAMPS II Sea Sprite. Graduate of Naval Aircrewman Candidate School NAS Pensacola, AW "A" School NATTC Millington, HS-1 SAR School NAS Jacksonville, FASOTRAGRUDET SERE NAS Bruswick. Duty with HSL-30, NAS Norfolk and HSL-36, NAF Mayport.
@Tango9 @MkFiber @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) With fairly simple answers. Syria's threat to us is to our ally Israel. Iran uses Syria to funnel weapons and money to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Especially rockets, lots of rockets. Giving a refueling base to the Soviets(rebranded as "The Russians) means our Navy has to work harder in the Med. Giving the Russians a black eye by watching one of their client states hit the wall is good for us and bad for them. It means that the Russians backing your regime is no guarantee of staying in power. As for AQ in Syria I actually like the idea. Let them go there by the thousands. Syria isn't like A-Stan, a landlocked remote country that Alexander the Great would still recognize as just the way he left it. Syria has a coast line which means Carrier Battle Groups can unleash hell on them. The Marines can land if need be an be easily resupplied by sea lift. No tenuous, supply lines through Pakistan will all kinds of political strings attached. We have bases in Jordan for the AF too. It would be a giant kill box if we could get AQ to commit resources and personnel to it. I would like to hope that the POTUS is that crafty, but it's probably the Joint Chiefs and JSOC that are driving this strategy, if there is one.
@Bee Aich Wetwork You're going to have a greater influence on this thing than any of us will have. You just don't see it yet standing so close to it. Big Navy has gone through tons of changes. Sometimes its weapons and systems and sometimes its policies. Sometimes the changes work out great and sometime they go to shit on a giant flaming ferris wheel. In the run up to WWII the Navy thought the Torpedo bomber was going to be the most kick ass strike aircraft in the fleet. Then they got slaughtered in battle after battle without getting any payback against the Japanese. They took 99% casualties at the battle of Midway. By war's end the torpedo bomber was pretty much phased out and were used for level bombing. Someone asked me once who I thought were the bravest warriors in WWII. I said it was the Navy pilots who sortied in Torpedo bombers after Midway, cause they knew the odds. During my time in the Navy the CH-46 seemed to kill or break a bunch of guys every month somewhere.. It got so we didn't ask if anyone was hurt. We'd ask if anyone made it out. They seem much more reliable now. But a bunch of guys died getting the bugs out of that bird I here to tell you.
They've spent a ton on the Littoral Warfare vessel. I've never read anything about how bad ass a job its doing, so I don't know if its a scow or a good ship. But here's the thing, after the Falklands war when UK frigates were hit, caught fire and literally melted down to the waterline, the lesson learned was to not make ships out of aluminum. Yet, there we are with a million pounds of that shit in each LCS. Maybe we've improved aluminum so it doesn't melt in high temp fires.
Back when I was in the Navy there was no way anybody from a communist country could be a Navy SEAL and get a clearance. Now you've got guys like Drago as Navy SEALs and not just passing through but making legends of themselves. So here's my point. The success or failure of this thing with women is almost entirely going to be up to you and your fellow SEALs. If you do everything in your power to make it fail, you and your guys will end up getting blamed for it. But, if you do everything you can to make it work and it doesn't, the nation and the Navy will know something we really don't know right now, which is; "Will women in combat jobs cut it?"
Finally, there isn't any consensus here about women in combat. As I understand Chief Webb's position his view is if they can pass BUDs and do the job then have at it. My view is that women should be in SOF as it suits their talents and abilities. They might do good work in intel gathering and covert work. What do you need in the Teams that guys can't do? What could females do to help with the mission? You need the big tall guys to hump the heavy stuff, but you send the shorter guys down the holes and into the narrow spots, right? Find a job for them that they can do well and do yours as well as you can do it. You know that being a SEAL is more than push ups and humping Ol Misery up and down the beach. It's mindset that counts, mental toughness and determination. There's no SOP for SEALs and their missions. What they are now is very different than what they were in the 80s and 90s. And that is different than what they were in the 60's. Just like the Navy evolves and changes with the times and missions, so will the SEALs. That's why we put the hurt down so well, because we can adapt and the other guy can't,...or won't. Hang tough man, after A-Stan and Iraq its all gravy.
@14charlie @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) Sure, I like the idea of training them. Assad going down isn't a given. Assad stands a good chance of winning if we do nothing. The tribes allied with his regime have no where to retreat to. If they lose they are all going to be butchered by the winners.. I'm sure his pep talks are really brief; "We have no where to run to, fight as if your survival depends on it, because it does."
There are lots of people here saying "Fuck em'" let them all kill each other" and other such nonsense. Livefyre should have a "I Don't Give a Shit" button next to the "Like" one to spare us paragraph after paragraph of variations on the same IDGAS position.
And you didn't over simplify it. In Real Political terms that's about as good as it gets. Assad goes into retirement in Russia, the Iranians get screwed, Hezbollah is crippled, Hamas overwhelms them, Israel catches a break and Syria goes though 10 or 15 years of tug a war between rival factions being backed by different regional players. Will AQ settle in Syria? Yeah, most likely. But if you are a rival faction wanting to attain power you will get all the US and NATO support you could ask for by positioning your faction against against the AQ.
@Bee Aich Wetwork No, not crazy at all. You're just missing the big picture. This isn't being done because its going to improve the war fighting ability of the SEALS. This purely political. Chief Webb hasn't let you guys down, the Joint Chiefs have. The Sec. Def. has. This decision was made at their pay grade and they flinched. For my own part I'm not opposed to women in combat roles if those roles are tailored to their unique abilities and talents. I think it does a great disservice to women to tell them that their worth as females depends entirely upon their ability to be just like men. It's a denial of their gender rather than an affirmation of it and it sets a lot of them up for failure. Some will get themselves(and others) killed or seriously trying to be like men instead of being what they are. Here is how it will probably effect you as an operator. The standards will be lowered so that an acceptable number of females can pass BUDs. They will then go to the teams and the culture will change. The females will say that they want to be treated just like any other SEAL and then be appalled to find out what that means. They will complain about it. Some guys will go too far with the hazing and get hammered by the command. Some will refuse to haze her and won't give her a chance to join the team. They will get hammered for that too. Some will work to screw her up and unsat her out on her FITREP. That will generate complaints of unfair treatment and get people hammered too. In a very short time the message will out be to tread lightly around the ladies because the pressure to integrate them will come from the Flag level down. You will then find you have a hard time getting rid of females who can't cut it on the teams. Instead, they will get shifted to staff positions at the team level. After a decade or so there will be retention problems because so many of the shore billets are taken up by female SEALs who couldn't cut it operationally and the command couldn't unload because of political pressure from the flag command. Guys will start quitting after 8 years instead of 12 because they will be constantly operational without a break for those 8 years and won't be looking at a 12 month shore billet until they've done 10-12 years. You'll have female SEAL CPOs at staff with just two deployments that are running things in 15 years. That's when the damage will really occur, because the people running the admin and logistics side won't have the operational experience.
@MkFiber @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) Its a fair point and one I've considered. I don't know how you could give SOFs support and air strikes without risking American lives in doing so. There is another thing. There are 30,000 Russians living in Syria, many of whom are military advisors operating equipment, maintaining aircraft and advising Assads military. There are Russian crews manning and operating Syria's air defense radar and missile systems. If we started bombing those targets we would be killing Russians. That would be a problem. Our support ought to go through Turkey and Jordan. We could provide Sat intel to them on Assads positions. From what I've seen the Rebels could also use a lot of help in the basics, like aiming their weapons and firing from cover.
@majrod @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) I'm "eyes open" on the notion of secular rebels. The best we could hope for is to have influence with a tribe that has 'cousins' in a friendly country like Jordan or Turkey. Right now the rebellion appears to be several groups all split along tribal and sectarian lines notionally allied while fighting Assad. After he calls it quits they will all turn on each other. To see who gets to be boss. In that vacuum is where we could have the greatest influence. You could also expect Russia and Iran to then try to exert influence in one or more of those groups themselves so Syria isn't a total loss.
@Old PH2 @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) Alright, if I just agreed with Obama I must be wrong. lol
I've been one for US non-involvement in the conflict thinking that Turkey has the most compelling state interests in Syria(and even a claim of sovereignty if you go back to WWI). Lately I've been having second thoughts.. Here's where I see US interests in the region.
1) The Assad regime a state terrorism sponsor. The fact that it supports Hezbollah against Israel and not AQ against us is not really material.
2) If Assad falls it will stiff the Soviets(err Russians) who have spent millions on a refueling port in Tartus. If the Reds lose this port they will have to return to the Baltic to refuel their ships. That's good for the US in terms of keeping watch in the Med. The Assad regime is also on the hook with the Russians for billions in military aid. If the regime falls, Russia will get stiffed. The quasi-private Russian companies that sell arms around the world will take a major financial hit and perhaps be more reluctant to trade in arms they may never get paid for. Putin putting the Russian taxpayer on the hook for these loses will not be popular.
3) If Assad falls it's a disaster for Iran which has poured its own millions into the region. Iran has also used Syria as a safe destination for weapons and supplies for Hezbollah. Hundreds of Hezbollah fighters have already perished fighting the rebels. Without Syria to funnel arms and materiel to them, Hezbollah is crippled for the foreseeable future.
4) If we support the rebels there and Assad falls there will be a period of consolidation while the various tribal factions sort out their grudges against each other. The US can then chose which rebel group to support within that reduction. Perhaps we will arm all of them against each other?
Anyway, arm the rebels. The upside to seeing Assad get dumped looks better to me than the downside of AQ affiliated groups getting arms through Jordan or Saudi Arabia that we have facilitated. If Syria becomes a haven for AQ, it would not be nearly as hard to hammer them as it was in Afghanistan. Syria has a sea coast and everything in that country is in range of Carrier borne strike aircraft and it has a border with Israel. I friendly country we could stage and strike from if need be.
@shooten @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) Well, he must have been superbly skilled. After the fall of communism there was a political purge in countries like Poland. Being a part of the old communist regime was a 1st classs ticket out of the Democratic one.
It would have been interesting to hear about his days spying on the US and NATO during the Cold War. If Polish Intelligence followed the Soviet model his posting in New York would have had him spying on Canada or perhaps the UN. He looks like he would have been a serious adversary to deal with.
@ScottMcEwen You know the weird thing is that if they get this guy on the right meds(after a correct diagnosis of his actual mental disorder) He's going to be fairly normal again. schizophrenia is a brain chemistry problem. He's also going to have a rational awareness of the terrible crimes he committed while he was out of his head. And he's going to be in prison for the rest of his life to think about it. He's not insane by the legal definition of insanity which supposes the inability to distinguish right from wrong(he did try to get way), but his mental state is certainly a mitigating factor in his crimes. He'll probably escape the death penalty.
@JHR13 @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) I'm skeptical of some of these studies. When there is funding from the government involved the numbers tend to get inflated. Case in point. The Veterans council here is town used to hand out tents and sleeping bags to so called homeless vets donated by the public. More and more kept showing up each year for them. Then they decided that they would require proof of prior service for this gear and; Poof! The number showing up for them dropped 75%. See, here's the thing. If I was homeless and living on the street the last thing I would want you or anyone esle to know is that I served in the military. I'd be too ashamed.
Interesting piece of work. I admire the author and his credentials as a scholar in Middle Eastern Studies. His book about Rhodesia and the bush war there(which he fought in) is a solid and interesting read. I also think that Nigeria will become a flash point in the "War Against Islamist Expansion"(newly coined term of mine). This administration probably won't do anything in Nigeria. It seems to prefer quasi-interventions in countries seemingly picked because there is no compelling US interest at stake at all.
The absence of a compelling US interest is certainly present in Nigeria. Oil is an excellent reason to go to war if you're looking for one. I've noticed that just about everything runs on it or is moved by it in this country. To have 25% of our oil imports in the hands of an Islamist government is foolhardy. That government will use its oil revenue to fund jihad against us, our allies and just about everybody else in the non-Muslim world. Interesting thing about Jihad, it uses every weapon at its disposal, even economic warfare. In Europe they are even using the birthrate to wage jihad. Nigeria isn't a flash point by accident. There are vast though unproven reserves of oil in Africa that are said to be of very high quality. The danger of one Islamist country in the midst of all that cannot be overstated. There is no such thing as enjoying a quiet peaceful border with an Islamic country. Where there is oil or some other strategic commodity of interest to the West, Jihad will go there. In the 10th Century the Muslims cut off European trade in the Mediterranean. It crippled Europe economically. Even Jefferson and Adams found themselves fighting Barbary pirates raiding trade routes til the end of the 18th century..
I also agree about our mixed record regarding nation building. Though I don't agree that we can't do it. We rebuilt Germany and Japan as pluralistic democracies which are not only politically stable and economic powerhouses in their own right, but they are also friendly US allies. What made nation building possible in Germany and Japan was that we had laid waste to both of them. Their cities were destroyed, their industrial capacity was wrecked and their armies destroyed. Those countries had no choice but to accept nation building on our terms. The alternative was to starve to death. I agree that democracy is more than just elections. Democracy consists of public and civic institutions that a government is chartered to protect on the behalf of the stakeholders in that society. In order for them to be stakeholders the citizens require basic human rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a right to life, something akin to personal liberty, a free press and capitalism. The absence of the forgoing in Iraq and Afghanistan probably dooms both governments.
So the Guardian admits it got the story wrong about the NSA being able to listen to private phone calls without a warrant and then the NSA admits that it can and does do it.
"NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants"http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/"The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
@Tango9 I'm not fragging anybody Tango. We just went over this in the Team Room about guys like this. Just ignore the guy if he's a pain and report him if he's offensive. That's all I saying..
I was always skeptical of a PTSD diagnoses on this guy. What came thru in the early accounts of his statements to his sister and mother was paranoid schizophrenia which often shows up in their early to mid 20's. What I'm wondering is if the VA is funded for treating PTSD but not more serious mental disorders, because. I can't understand how they could miss PS(delusional and hearng voices) and confuse it for PTSD. If this is the case the VA is doing a disservice to a great many vets in need of mental health treatment.
@13thBama @Old PH2 @SEAN SPOONTS(MAFIA) My recollection is that the senior ranking person in command of the boat or ship is called the Captain whatever his rank. On a Naval Vessel only one person may be referred to as the Captain. A Marine officer embarked on a Naval vessel with the rank of Captain would be referred to as "Major" to avoid any confusion. If a Naval Officer at the rank of Captain was aboard a ship commanded by a Lt, the Navy Captain would be called Commodore. Skipper is a familiar term to describe the commanding officer of any naval ship or air squadron. It's an impersonal way to address the commanding officer, tolerance of which tends to decrease as the rank of the OIC increases. A LT might allow his crew to call him Skipper but not a LCdr. Air squadrons are mush less formal. My squadron had a full Cdr. in charge and an informal "Good morning Skipper" was permissible(I waited a year and had earned my A/C wings before I ventured to do it). Among the crew speaking of the CO as the Skipper would not get you Masted on an Art. 89.
Jeez! The troll posts one comment and draws in Tango9, Clluelo, bharrison and Recon6. If he pitches all four of you just swing at it?