position:u.s. official

  • U.S. envoy urges response “ short of war ” to Gulf tankers attack - Energy & Oil - Reuters
    https://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5N22Q22D

    The U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia said Washington should take what he called “reasonable responses short of war” after it had determined who was behind attacks on oil tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.

    Iran was a prime suspect in the sabotage on Sunday although Washington had no conclusive proof, a U.S. official familiar with American intelligence said on Monday. Iran has denied involvement.

    We need to do a thorough investigation to understand what happened, why it happened, and then come up with reasonable responses short of war,” Ambassador John Abizaid told reporters in the Saudi capital Riyadh in remarks published on Tuesday.

    It’s not in (Iran’s) interest, it’s not in our interest, it’s not in Saudi Arabia’s interest to have a conflict.
    […]
    COOL HEADS MUST PREVAIL
    Newspapers in the UAE, which are heavily controlled by the government, ran editorials urging caution in responding to the attack, which risks undermining the Gulf Arab state’s image as a regional bastion of stability and security.

    While further details are yet to emerge about this worrying incident, cool heads must prevail, and proper measures should be taken to ensure that this situation does not spin out of control,” wrote the editorial board of Abu Dhabi-based The National.

    Gulf News, a state-linked Dubai daily, said “rogue actors must be brought to book”.

    Saudi Arabia’s energy minister said on Monday that the attack aimed to undermine security of global crude supplies.

  • State Department Silent on #MH17 Anniversary Following Trump-Putin Firestorm – Foreign Policy
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/18/state-dept-mh17-ukraine-russia-netherlands-malaysian-airlines

    Every year since a Russian missile downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 passengers and crew, the U.S. State Department has issued a statement to mark the anniversary.

    But on the anniversary this year—a day after U.S. President Donald Trump met in Helsinki with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin—the State Department was conspicuously silent about it.

    Officials there prepared a draft statement that was sharply critical of Russia for its alleged role in the attack. But for reasons the State Department has not explained, it was never issued.

    Based on a cached version of the U.S. embassy’s website in Moscow, it appeared on the homepage briefly on Tuesday but then was quickly taken down. One U.S. official confirmed this account to Foreign Policy.
    Four years after the downing of MH17, the world still awaits Russia’s acknowledgement of its role,” read the draft, a copy of which was obtained byForeign Policy.

    It is time for Russia to cease its callous disinformation campaign and fully support the next investigative phase … and the criminal prosecution of those responsible for the downing of flight MH17.

  • Trump’s sending troops to the border to take on 200 kids and parents

    According to President Donald Trump, the mightiest, richest country in the world is under a threat so huge and scary that it will require the deployment of military forces — as many as 2,000 to 4.000, Trump said Thursday — along its 2,000-mile southern border. The danger consists of a ragtag caravan formed by several hundred impoverished people, many of them children from tiny Central American nations. Yes, the time has come to protect America from marauding youngsters and their parents.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/05/opinions/trump-has-no-shame-on-immigration-fernandez-kelly-opinion/index.html?sr=twCNN040518trump-has-no-shame-on-immigration-fernandez-ke
    #Trump #frontières #armée #militarisation_des_frontières #USA #Etats-Unis

    • The cost of 2 National Guard border arrests would help a homeless vet for a year

      President Donald Trump’s decision to send #National_Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border has drawn a mixed response. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey welcomed the move, while California Gov. Jerry Brown’s National Guard said it would “review” the request.

      Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., had a specific complaint: He said it was a poor use of tax dollars.

      “Using the National Guard to do border security is very expensive,” Gallego tweeted April 3. “For what it would cost the Guard to make just TWO arrests at the border, we could give a homeless veteran permanent housing for an entire year.”


      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/05/ruben-gallego/arizona-rep-cost-2-national-guard-border-arrests-w
      #USA #Etats-Unis #coût #économie #prix #surveillance_des_frontières

    • Guard border deployment creates issues for Pentagon

      Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have now sent two requests for assistance to the Pentagon’s new Border Security Support Cell, which was hastily established to help coordination between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security.

      It’s estimated that it will cost $182 million to keep 2,093 guardsmen at the border through the end of September, which represents just more than half of the personnel approved.

      The amount covers $151 million in pay and allowances for the 2,093 personnel, as well as $31 million for 12,000 flying hours for 26 UH-72 Lakota helicopters, according to a defense memo on the amount.

      http://thehill.com/policy/defense/386617-guard-border-deployment-creates-issues-for-pentagon

      #CBP #gardes-frontière #frontières

    • The Cal. National Guard Is Working At the Mexican Border, But Mostly Behind The Scenes

      In California - a state with strong differences with the White House on immigration policy - about 400 troops are on border duty. But they’re keeping a low profile.


      http://tpr.org/post/cal-national-guard-working-mexican-border-mostly-behind-scenes

      Signalé par Reece Jones sur twitter, avec ce commentaire:

      What are US National Guard troops doing at the border? Analyze intelligence, work as dispatchers, and monitor cameras “but not cameras that look across the border into Mexico”

    • L’armée américaine mobilisée pour défendre la frontière

      En campagne pour les élections américaines de mi-mandat, le président Trump a focalisé son discours sur la caravane de migrants d’Amérique centrale qui fait route à travers le Mexique. Il a promis de tout faire pour empêcher ces demandeurs d’asile de pénétrer sur le territoire américain (“Personne n’entrera”), y compris de déployer “entre 10 000 et 15 000 soldats” en plus de la police aux frontières et de la police de l’immigration.

      L’armée estime que seuls 20 % des migrants, soit 1 400 selon les estimations les plus hautes, iront jusqu’à la frontière qui se trouve encore à quelque 1 300 kilomètres et plusieurs semaines de marche, rapporte le Los Angeles Times. Le chiffre de 15 000 hommes correspond à peu près au nombre de soldats déployés en Afghanistan, observe le même quotidien. Les militaires envoyés à la frontière peuvent se poser des questions sur le sens de cette mission, comme l’illustre ici le dessinateur Chappatte.


      https://www.courrierinternational.com/dessin/larmee-americaine-mobilisee-pour-defendre-la-frontiere

    • U.S. Troops’ First Order at the Border: Laying Razor Wire

      Soldiers fill local hotels, joke about finding ways to keep busy.
      On Monday morning in this border town, about a dozen U.S. Army soldiers unfurled reams of razor wire on top of a wrought-iron fence alongside a bridge to Mexico.

      The soldiers from the 36th Engineer Brigade at Fort Riley, Kan., who wore helmets but didn’t appear to be armed, are among thousands of troops deployed in recent days to the southwest U.S. border as part of Operation Faithful Patriot.

      Around border crossings throughout Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, military personnel have filled up hotels and delivered trucks packed with coils of razor wire as they begin to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers.
      The personnel were sent in advance of the anticipated arrival of thousands of Central Americans, including children, traveling in caravans currently several hundred miles south of the nearest U.S. border crossing.

      At the DoubleTree Suites Hotel in McAllen, Texas, the bar did brisk business Sunday night as soldiers who had changed into civilian clothes chatted over drinks. Some joked about needing to find ways to keep soldiers busy during their deployment.

      The Anzalduas International Bridge, where the Kansas-based troops were working, is used only for vehicle traffic to and from the Mexican city of Reynosa. The wire was placed on top of fences at least 15 feet high along each side of the bridge that sat several dozen feet above an embankment.

      Outside the port of entry where vehicles from Mexico are stopped after crossing the bridge, shiny razor wire recently placed around the facility glistened in the afternoon sun.

      Migrants seeking asylum who cross the border illegally generally don’t come to the port, but swim or wade across the Rio Grande and turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents.

      Near another bridge connecting Hidalgo, Texas, to Reynosa, a concertina wire fence was recently erected along the river edge, a placement more likely to impede illegal migrants who arrive on foot.

      U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials have determined where the military placed razor wire, Army Col. Rob Manning, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Monday during a briefing.

      It is part of an effort previously announced by Air Force Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, to “harden the points of entry and address key gaps.”

      Near the Donna-Rio Bravo International Bridge about 22 miles southeast of McAllen, troops on Monday were working on what looked to be a staging area to prepare for coming work. Two armed military police officers stood guard, opening and closing a gate as flatbed trailers carrying heavy military trucks and transports with troops inside arrived. At least one tent apparently intended to house troops was in place Monday.

      President Trump ordered the deployment last month after the first caravan made its way into Mexico. He had described the impending caravan’s arrival as an “invasion.”

      The Pentagon said Monday that more than 5,000 troops are at or would be on their way to the U.S.-Mexico border by the end of the day, with about 2,700 in Texas, 1,200 in Arizona and 1,100 in California. Eventually, nearly 8,000 will be deployed, according to a U.S. official. Officials from the Department of Homeland Security have said the troops won’t be used to enforce immigration laws but will provide backup for Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers.

      At the Vaquero Hangout, an open-air bar within eyesight of the Anzalduas bridge, a flag declaring support for the U.S. military hung from the rafters. It was business as usual on Sunday evening. Some patrons watched the Houston Texans’ NFL game, while others were focused on a live band, George and the Texas Outlaws.

      A few folks briefly took notice of flashing lights from a U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle parked on the bridge as the soldiers lay down razor wire, an effort they would continue the next day.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-first-order-at-the-border-laying-razor-wire-1541509201
      #fil_barbelé #barbelé

    • Pentagon to begin drawdown of troops at border: report

      The Pentagon is planning to begin a drawdown of troops at the southern border as soon as this week, the Army commander overseeing the mission told Politico on Monday.

      Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan told the news outlet that the 5,800 active-duty troops sent to assist Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.-Mexico border should be home by Christmas.
      ADVERTISEMENT

      “Our end date right now is 15 December, and I’ve got no indications from anybody that we’ll go beyond that,” said Buchanan, who is overseeing the mission from Texas.

      Buchanan said engineer and logistics troops, which make up the largest parts of the deployment, will begin returning home soon.

      According to Politico’s report, some troops will begin leaving the area before the so-called migrant caravan arrives at the border.

      The news of the troops’ return comes as critics call President Trump’s request to send thousands of troops to the border a “political stunt.”

      Trump before Election Day stoked fears over an approaching group of Central American migrants heading towards the southern border, which he referred to as an “invasion.” He requested the deployment of thousands of troops to the border in a support mission just before Nov. 6.

      Some lawmakers have accused Trump of wasting resources and manpower on the mission, as reports have emerged that the troops are restless and underutilized.

      Thousands of participants in the caravan over the weekend reached Tijuana, Mexico, where they were met with vast protests. Some of the protesters are echoing Trump’s language, calling the group a danger and an invasion, The Associated Press reported.

      Most of the members of the caravan are reportedly escaping rampant poverty and violence in their home countries.

      https://thehill.com/policy/defense/417503-pentagon-to-begin-drawdown-of-troops-at-border-report

      –-> commentaire sur twitter:

      Just 3 weeks after deployment, Trump’s Pentagon is sending the military home from the border. They’ve served their purpose as the GOP’s 11th hour campaign force. Now we’re stuck with a hundred miles of trashy concertina wire and a $200 million bill.

      https://twitter.com/LaikenJordahl/status/1064644464726048768

    • Troops at U.S.-Mexican border to start coming home

      All the troops should be home by Christmas, as originally expected, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said in an interview Monday.

      The 5,800 troops who were rushed to the southwest border amid President Donald Trump’s pre-election warnings about a refugee caravan will start coming home as early as this week — just as some of those migrants are beginning to arrive.

      Democrats and Republicans have criticized the deployment as a ploy by the president to use active-duty military forces as a prop to try to stem Republican losses in this month’s midterm elections.

      The general overseeing the deployment told POLITICO on Monday that the first troops will start heading home in the coming days as some are already unneeded, having completed the missions for which they were sent. The returning service members include engineering and logistics units whose jobs included placing concertina wire and other barriers to limit access to ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border.

      All the troops should be home by Christmas, as originally expected, Army Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan said in an interview Monday.

      “Our end date right now is 15 December, and I’ve got no indications from anybody that we’ll go beyond that,” said Buchanan, who leads the land forces of U.S. Northern Command.

      The decision to begin pulling back comes just weeks after Trump ordered the highly unusual deployment.

      In previous cases in which the military deployed to beef up security at the border, the forces consisted of part-time National Guard troops under the command of state governors who backed up U.S. Customs and Border Protection and other law enforcement agencies.

      But the newly deployed troops, most of them unarmed and from support units, come from the active-duty military, a concession the Pentagon made after Trump insisted that the deployment include “not just the National Guard.”

      Buchanan confirmed previous reports that the military had rejected a request from the Department of Homeland Security for an armed force to back up Border Patrol agents in the event of a violent confrontation.

      “That is a law enforcement task, and the secretary of Defense does not have the authority to approve that inside the homeland,” Buchanan said.

      The closure earlier Monday of one entry point along the California border near Tijuana, Mexico, was only partial and did not require more drastic measures, Buchanan said.

      “About half of the lanes were closed this morning, but that’s it,” he reported. “No complete closures.”

      Other ports might be closed fully in the future, he said, but he did not anticipate any need to take more drastic measures.

      “If CBP have reliable information that one of their ports is about to get rushed with a mob, or something like that that could put their agents at risk, they could ask us to completely close the port,” Buchanan said. “You understand the importance of commerce at these ports. Nobody in CBP wants to close a port unless they’re actually driven to do so.”

      The troop deployment should start trailing off as engineer and other logistics troops wind down their mission of building base camps and fortifying ports of entry for the Border Patrol.

      Army and Marine engineers have now emplaced about 75 percent of the obstacles they planned to, including concertina wire, shipping containers, and concrete barriers at ports of entry. “Once we get the rest of the obstacles built, we don’t need to keep all those engineers here. As soon as I’m done with a capability, what I intend to do is redeploy it,” Buchanan said. “I don’t want to keep these guys on just to keep them on.”

      Logistics troops, too, will be among the first to head home. “I will probably ask to start redeploying some of our logistic capability,” Buchanan predicted. “Now that things are set down here, we don’t need as many troops to actually build base camps and things like that, because the base camps are built."

      Among the troops who will remain after construction engineers and logisticians start departing are helicopter pilots, planners, medical personnel, and smaller “quick response” teams of engineers who can help Border Patrol personnel shut down traffic at their ports of entry.

      In contrast to the speed of the deployment in early November and the fanfare surrounding it, the withdrawal promises to be slower and quieter — but Buchanan expects it to be done before Christmas.

      “That doesn’t mean it’s impossible,” he added. “But right now, this is a temporary mission, and we’re tasked to do it until the 15th of December.”

      https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/troops-us-mexico-border-come-home-1005510

    • Trump’s Border Stunt Is a Profound Betrayal of Our Military

      The president used America’s military not against any real threat but as toy soldiers, with the intent of manipulating a domestic midterm election.

      A week before the midterm elections, the president of the United States announced he would deploy up to 15,000 active duty military troops to the United States-Mexico border to confront a menacing caravan of refugees and asylum seekers. The soldiers would use force, if necessary, to prevent such an “invasion” of the United States.

      Mr. Trump’s announcement and the deployment that followed (of roughly 5,900) were probably perfectly legal. But we are a bipartisan threesome with decades of experience in and with the Pentagon, and to us, this act creates a dangerous precedent. We fear this was lost in the public hand-wringing over the decision, so let us be clear: The president used America’s military forces not against any real threat but as toy soldiers, with the intent of manipulating a domestic midterm election outcome, an unprecedented use of the military by a sitting president.

      The public debate focused on secondary issues. Is there truly a threat to American security from an unarmed group of tired refugees and asylum seekers on foot and a thousand miles from the border? Even the Army’s internal assessment did not find this a very credible threat.

      Can the president deny in advance what could be legitimate claims for asylum, without scrutiny? Most likely, this violates treaty commitments the United States made as part of its agreement to refugee conventions in 1967, which it has followed for decades.

      The deployment is not, in the context of the defense budget, an albatross. We are already paying the troops, wherever they’re deployed, and the actual incremental costs of sending them to the border might be $100 million to $200 million, a tiny fraction of the $716 billion defense budget.

      Still, we can think of many ways to put the funds to better use, like improving readiness.

      It’s also not unusual for a president to ask the troops to deploy to the border in support of border security operations. Presidents of both parties have sent troops to the border, to provide support functions like engineering, logistics, transportation and surveillance.

      But those deployments have been generally in smaller numbers, usually the National Guard, and never to stop a caravan of refugees and asylum seekers.

      So, generously, some aspects of the deployment are at least defensible. But one is not, and that aspect is the domestic political use — or rather, misuse — of the military.

      James Mattis, the secretary of defense, asserted that the Defense Department does not “do stunts.” But this was a blatant political stunt. The president crossed a line — the military is supposed to stay out of domestic politics. As many senior military retirees have argued, the forces are not and should not be a political instrument. They are not toy soldiers to be moved around by political leaders but a neutral institution, politically speaking.
      Editors’ Picks
      This Town Once Feared the 10-Story Waves. Then the Extreme Surfers Showed Up.
      China’s Women-Only Subway Cars, Where Men Rush In
      How a Common Interview Question Hurts Women

      Oh, some might say, presidents use troops politically all the time. And so they do, generally in the context of foreign policy decisions that have political implications. Think Lyndon Johnson sending more troops to Vietnam, fearing he would be attacked for “cutting and running” from that conflict. Or George W. Bush crowing about “mission accomplished” when Saddam Hussein was toppled. Those are not the same thing as using troops at home for electoral advantage.

      Electoral gain, not security, is this president’s goal. Two of us served in the military for many years; while all troops must obey the legal and ethical orders of civilian leaders, they need to have faith that those civilian leaders are using them for legitimate national security purposes. But the border deployment put the military right in the middle of the midterm elections, creating a nonexistent crisis to stimulate votes for one party.

      When partisan actions like this occur, they violate civil-military traditions and erode that faith, with potentially long-term damage to the morale of the force and our democratic practice — all for electoral gain.

      The deployment is a stunt, a dangerous one, and in our view, a misuse of the military that should have led Mr. Mattis to consider resigning, instead of acceding to this blatant politicization of America’s military.


      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/opinion/president-trump-border-military-troops.html

    • The Military Is ’Securing’ a 1,900-Mile Border with 22 Miles of Razor Wire

      #Operation_Faithful_Patriot” is nothing more than a very expensive, politically motivated P.R. campaign.
      Skim through the Pentagon’s media site for Operation Faithful Patriot—the fittingly ridiculous name for the deployment of some 7,000 American troops to various spots along the Mexican border—and you’ll see lots of razor wire.

      There are photos of American troops laying razor wire (technically known as concertina wire) along the California-Mexico border. Of wire being affixed to the top of fences and to the sides of buildings. Everywhere you look on the Pentagon’s site, you find wire, wire, and more wire. Photos of soldiers carrying rolls of unused wire, snapshots of forklifts bringing more of the stuff to the border, and even videos of wire being unrolled and deployed. It’s thrilling stuff, truly.

      The message is not subtle. President Donald Trump might not have convinced Congress to blow billions for a fully operational border wall, but good luck to any immigrant caravan that happens to stumble into the thorny might of the American military’s sharpest deterrents.

      The focus on concertina wire isn’t just in the Pentagon’s internal media. The Wall Street Journal dedicated an entire Election Day story to how troops in Granjeno, Texas, had “unfurled reams of razor wire on top of a wrought-iron fence alongside a bridge to Mexico.” Troops stringing wire also appeared in The New York Post, The Washington Post, and elsewhere.

      There is so much concertina wire deployed to the southern border that if it were all stretched out from end to end, it would reach all the way from Brownsville, Texas, on the Gulf Coast to....well, whatever is 22 miles west of Brownsville, Texas.

      Yes. Despite the deluge of photos and videos of American troops are securing the southern border with reams of razor wire, Buzzfeed’s Vera Bergengruen reports that “troops have deployed with 22 miles of the wire so far, with 150 more available.”

      The U.S.–Mexico border is roughly 1,950 miles long.

      The wire doesn’t seem to be getting strung with any sort of strategic purpose, either. That WSJ story about the troops in Texas hanging wire from a bridge says that the “wire was placed on top of fences at least 15 feet high along each side of the bridge that sat several dozen feet above an embankment” while the bridge itself remains open to vehicle traffic from Mexico. If there is a goal, it would seem to be making the border look more prickly and dystopian while not actually creating any sort of barrier.

      It’s no wonder, then, that the troops deployed to the border are confused about why they are there. On Wednesday, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited some of the troops stationed near McAllen, Texas, he was met with lots of questions and provided few answers.

      “Sir, I have a question. The wire obstacles that we’ve implanted along the border....Are we going to be taking those out when we leave?” one of the soldiers asked Mattis, according to Bergengruen. Another asked Mattis to explain the “short- and long-term plans of this operation.”

      “Short-term right now, you get the obstacles in so the border patrolmen can do what they gotta do,” Mattis responded. “Longer term, it’s somewhat to be determined.”

      Even at a time when most American military engagements seem to be conducted with a “TBD” rationale, this feels especially egregious. Mattis did his best on Wednesday to make the effort seem like a meaningful attempt to secure the border, while simultaneously admitting that he does not expect the deployed troops to actually come into contact with any immigrant caravans. Lately he’s been talking about how the deployment is supposedly good training for unconventional circumstances.

      It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Operation Faithful Patriot—a name so silly that the Pentagon has decided to stop using it—is nothing more than a very expensive, politically motivated P.R. campaign. Of the 39 units deployed, five of them are public affairs units. There seems to be no clear mission, no long-term objective, and no indication that the troops will add meaningful enforcement to existing border patrols.

      As for all that wire? It doesn’t really seem to be working either.

      https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/19/the-military-is-securing-a-1900-mile-bor
      #Faithful_Patriot #barbelé

  • Seven sailors missing, three injured after U.S. Navy destroyer collides with container ship off Japan | Reuters
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN1972SW

    Seven sailors are missing and three injured after a U.S. Navy destroyer collided early on Saturday morning with a Philippine-flagged container ship south of Tokyo Bay in Japan, the U.S. Navy said.

    The Japanese Coast Guard said the destroyer was experiencing some flooding but was not in danger of sinking, while the merchant vessel was able to sail under its own power.

    The U.S. Navy said in a statement the USS Fitzgerald, an Aegis guided missile destroyer, collided with a merchant vessel at about 2:30 a.m. local time (1730 GMT), some 56 nautical miles southwest of Yokosuka, a rare incident on a busy waterway.

    Three aboard the destroyer had been medically evacuated, including the ship’s commanding officer, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, who was reportedly in stable condition after being airlifted to the U.S. Naval Hospital on the Yokosuka base, the Navy said.

    The other two injured were transferred to the hospital to treat lacerations and bruises, it said. The Fitzgerald, the Japanese Coast Guard and Maritime Self-Defense Force were searching for the seven missing sailors.
    […]
    It was unclear how the collision happened. “Once an investigation is complete then any legal issues can be addressed,” the 7th Fleet spokesman said.

    The USS Fitzgerald suffered damage on her starboard side above and below the waterline,” the Navy said in a statement.
    […]
    Japan’s Nippon Yusen KK (9101.T), which charters the container ship, ACX Crystal, said in a statement it would “cooperate fully” with the Coast Guard’s investigation of the incident. At around 29,000 tons displacement, the ship is about three times the size of the U.S. warship, and was carrying 1,080 containers from the port of Nagoya to Tokyo.

    None of the 20 crew members aboard, all Filipino, were injured, and the ship is not leaking oil, Nippon Yusen said. The ship was due to arrive at Tokyo Bay around 4:30 p.m. (0730 GMT), the Coast Guard said.

    • USS Fitzgerald: missing sailors found dead in flooded area of ship | US news | The Guardian
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/16/us-navy-destroyer-collides-ship-japan

      Japanese and US officials were discussing how to conduct the investigation. Japan is permitted to investigate since the collision happened in its waters, but under the countries’ status of forces agreement the US has primary jurisdiction over incidents involving vessels such as the Fitzgerald.

    • U.S. destroyer almost foundered after collision, bodies found: Seventh Fleet | Reuters
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN199020

      Japanese authorities were looking into the possibility of “endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence”, Japanese media reported, but it was not clear whether that might apply to either or both of the vessels.

      The U.S. Navy said the collision happened at about 2:30 a.m. local time (1730 GMT Friday), while the Japanese Coast Guard said it was 1:30 a.m. local time.

    • An hour passed before Japan authorities were notified of Fitzgerald collision | Reuters
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN19913U

      The incident has sparked as many as three investigations by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, and two by Japanese authorities.

      Complicating the inquiries could be issues of which side has jurisdiction and access to data such as radar records that the United States could deem classified.

      Although the collision occurred in Japanese waters, under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that defines the scope of the U.S. military’s authority in Japan, the U.S. Navy could claim it has the authority to lead the investigations.

      The three U.S. investigations include a JAGMAN command investigation often used to look into the cause of major incidents, which can be used as a basis to file lawsuits against the Navy.

    • Excellent et long article d’un marin sur l’abordage et les responsabilités

      The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why. – gCaptain
      http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault

      While the media, with a very little hard data, attempts to understand the erratic maneuvers of the containership ACX Crystal on the night of her collision with the Destroyer USS Fitzgerald… professional mariners are certain that a long investigation will find the US Navy ship at fault.

      Is this conclusion the result of professional arrogance? Or maybe because of resentment and jealousy over the fact that Navy captains are praised and decorated by the public and media while merchant ship captains live mostly unnoticed. Or is it because they are correct?

      As a ship captain along with years working with the U.S. Navy both aboard ships and ashore – here are the reasons why I believe they are correct. The USS Fitzerald was at fault.

      Despite recent advancements in electronic collision avoidance tools like automatic identification systems (AIS), the three most important tools for avoiding a collision are a Captain’s eyes, tongue and ears.

      • Eyes, looking out the windows of his ship, are important because they can process information – like erratic course changes – faster and more accurately than electronic RADAR and charting systems that take time to aggregate data.
      • A tongue because the quickest and most effective way to predict how a ship is going to maneuver in the minutes before a collision is to call the Captain of the other ship on the VHF radio and ask.
      • Ears are important because language barriers and cultural differences are prominent at sea and you must listen intently to the other ship’s reply if you want any chance of understanding her intentions.

      It is likely that USS Fitzgerald’s Captain used only one, or possibly none, of these tools when communicating with the ACX Crystal.

      Avec cette question que je me suis immédiatement posée quand j’ai appris que le commandant avait été blessé parce que… bloqué dans sa cabine par la collision : qu’est-ce qu’il f… dans sa cabine ?

      Son navire était dans un endroit au trafic intense – depuis plusieurs années des voix s’élèvent pour y réclamer l’instauration de rails (ie Dispositif de Séparation de Trafic) – et le commandant se reposait !

      Why Was The Navy Captain In His Cabin?

      On peut ajouter que sur un navire de guerre la veille en passerelle est un impératif majeur.

    • U.S. Coast Guard interviews container ship crew after warship collision | World | Reuters
      http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN19B0DG

      “We are scheduled to interview the crew members,” said U.S. Lieutenant Scott Carr told Reuters, referring the crew of the merchant ship. The USS Fitzgerald crew will also be interviewed.

      The U.S. coast guard, which is undertaking the investigation on behalf of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, will gather electronic data and ship tracking information from the USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal.

      The investigation will also look into a time discrepancy in the ACX Crystal’s initial report of the incident south of Tokyo Bay, said Scott. “There is a contradiction. It will be part of the investigation,” Carr said.

      The Japan Coast Guard has already spoken to the Filipino crew and is also probing the inconsistency. It is in talks with the U.S. Navy for access to its crew members and data from the destroyer, a spokesman for the organisation said.

      The U.S. Navy did not immediately respond when asked if it would release tracking data to the Japan Coast Guard.

    • Investigators Believe USS Fitzgerald Crew Fought Flooding For An Hour Before Distress Call Reached Help
      https://news.usni.org/2017/06/21/investigators-believe-uss-fitzgerald-crew-fought-flooding-for-an-hour-bef

      Investigators now think Crystal was transiting to Tokyo on autopilot with an inattentive or asleep crew when the merchant vessel struck a glancing blow on the destroyer’s starboard side at about 1:30 AM local time on Friday. When the crew of Crystal realized they had hit something, the ship performed a U-turn in the shipping lane and sped back to the initial site of the collision at 18 knots, discovered Fitzgerald, and radioed a distress call to authorities at about 2:30 AM. U.S. Navy officials initially said the collision occurred at around the time of the distress call at 2:30 AM.

      Voilà qui expliquerait le « tiroir » observé sur l’enregistrement du Crystal

    • Du même article :


      View of the stateroom of Cmdr. Bryce Benson after the collision with ACX Crystal.

      Meanwhile, when Crystal’s port bow hit Fitzgerald, the warship was performing a normal transit off the coast of Japan, USNI News understands. Above the waterline, the flared bow of Crystal caved in several spaces in the superstructure, including the stateroom of commanding officer Cmdr. Bryce Benson.

      The impact not only ripped a hole in the steel superstructure in the stateroom but also shifted the contents and shape of the steel so Benson was “squeezed out the hull and was outside the skin of the ship,” a sailor familiar with the damage to the ship told USNI News.

      He’s lucky to be alive.

      Fitzgerald sailors had to bend back the door of the stateroom to pluck Benson from the side of the ship and bring him inside. He and two other sailors were later evacuated from the ship via a Japanese helicopter to a Navy hospital at Yokosuka.

    • La mise en cause du commandant de l’USS Fitzgerald a déclenché une véritable tornade. Réponse de l’éditeur, avec entre autres, un aperçu de l’état des relations entre MarMar et Royale outre-Atlantique.

      Why The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault, Part 2 - Questions And Answers – gCaptain
      http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-answers

      The recent editorial “The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why.“ has been read 103,667 times, shared by 9,699 people via social media and ignited a firestorm of over 500 facebook comments, forum posts, emails and phone calls to gCaptain HQ. Feedback I have received from Navy brass, journalists, pilots and Merchant Mariners working aboard commercial ships has been positive. We also received some highly negative comments from both current and former members of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare community. This is my reply to them… specifically to Navy sailors who have stood watch on the bridge of a warship.
      […]
      Naval destroyers have never been, and never will be, the first American ships to be attacked during times of war… that distinction has always been, and will always be held by the US merchant fleet.

      The Navy flew me literally half way around the world last year to advise them on why gCaptain gets some on scene information before Naval Intelligence does. And the reason is that merchant mariners and offshore workers are the eyes and ears of the ocean and gCaptain simply gives them a platform to share that information. If the navy wants civilian mariners to send them the information before posting it to gCaptain, then they must start by acknowledging the fact that the US Navy does not have the market cornered on the subject of naval war, combat and national defense because THE US MERCHANT MARINE also plays a vital role in both.

    • Il a fallu une semaine, mais il commence à circuler des interprétations loufoque dont une « théorie du complot » délirante… Je ne mets pas le lien, je résume :
      – initialement, une attaque électronique effectuée par le Crystal a rendu inopérants tous les systèmes de l’USS Fitzgerald, l’assaillant poursuit sa route
      – ayant transmis l’information du succès de l’attaque, il reçoit des instructions des « méchants » (nord-coréens, chinois ou russes, va savoir) de venir achever le destroyer désemparé
      – il aurait d’ailleurs visé spécifiquement la cabine du commandant
      – mais n’arrive pas à le couler et signale alors « l’accident »

      Variantes :
      – c’est un drone qui a lancé l’attaque électronique
      – c’est une attaque sous false flag qui aurait échoué le bâtiment états-unien aurait dû couler sans survivants, ce qui aurait permis de lancer des représailles contre l’auteur putatif de l’attaque (choisir dans la liste des méchants ci-dessus)

    • Je n’ai que les éléments qui émergent dans la presse (et que je rassemble ici) une expérience (lointaine…) d’officier de quart en passerelle pendant mon service national sur un bateau qui naviguait beaucoup et, indirectement, celle de mon père, commandant dans la marine marchande. Je penche assez pour l’analyse de gCaptain : responsabilités partagées avec un gros bout pour le philippin.

      Il est probable que la veille en passerelle de l’ACX Crystal (20 hommes d’équipage) était défaillante, c’est un reproche récurrent – ils dorment –, certains évoquent même l’idée qu’il aurait été en pilotage automatique. Cela expliquerait l’étrange tiroir de la trajectoire : ils ont continué, ont mis un certain temps à se rendre compte du problème, envoyer quelqu’un à l’avant du bateau et constater que le choc ressenti ne pouvait en aucun cas être causé par la rencontre d’un conteneur flottant à la dérive mais par un abordage. Ils ont fait demi-tour pour s’enquérir du navire abordé, réflexe normal de marin, et quand ils ont découvert l’USS Fitzgerald qu’ils ont donné l’alerte. Le Crystal a ensuite repris une route vers Tokyo ce qu’il n’a pu envisager qu’après avoir constaté que le Fitzgerald pouvait se passer d’assistance (ou s’être fait intimer l’ordre de s’éloigner…)

      Sur l’USS Fitzgerald il y a vraiment un GROS problème. On peut à peu près supposer qu’il était en conditions de route normales puisque le commandant se reposait dans sa cabine. Et là, en passerelle, on a du monde ! y compris une veille optique sur chaque côté et un des boulots de l’officier de quart, c’est de veiller aux veilleurs… Alors se faire aborder en plein travers, c’est assez difficilement concevable.

      Le problème c’est qu’il n’y a aucune information sur l’USS Fitzgerald. Est-il possible qu’il ait perdu toute source d’énergie lors de la collision (plusieurs compartiments inondés par la brèche provoquée par le bulbe du porte-conteneurs) ? La Navy dit que le bâtiment a failli couler, ce qui laisse entendre que ses moyens d’assèchement (les pompes) soit ne suffisaient pas à étaler la voie d’eau, soit étaient hors d’état de fonctionner. En tout état de cause, il a certainement prévenu de l’abordage dès qu’il a été en l’état de le faire. Quand ? ça, il faut le demander à l’US Navy

      Ceci dit, pour une catastrophe dans la Navy, il y a un (lointain, 1923) précédent célèbre …
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_de_Honda_Point

    • Première version émanant de l’abordeur philippin (du rapport du commandant de l’ACX Crystal à son armateur)

      Exclusive : U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain | Reuters
      http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-navy-asia-idINKBN19H143

      In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship’s captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald “suddenly” steamed on to a course to cross its path.

      The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula’s report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

      (l’abattée à droite est parfaitement attestée par les enregistrements AIS)

    • Point de vue – tranché – d’un «  vieux crabe  »

      USS Fitzgerald - Stop, Analyze, Dissect And Let’s Figure Out What Went Wrong – gCaptain
      http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-stop-analyze-dissect-lets-figure-went-wrong

      Regardless of how much vessel traffic exists, or how many background lights exist, or state of visibility, etc, a deck watch officer should be trained to successfully stand a watch. Most of us who have been at sea have sailed through fog, night, storms, high-density traffic, currents, rain, sandstorms, etc and done so successfully. That is what we do, that is what we are bound to do. If you call yourself a mariner, then you don’t have collisions with other vessels. Period. You cannot make excuses. If you cannot stand a competent watch, then don’t assume the watch.

    • On s’en doutait un peu, mais ça se précise : on sort les arguments juridiques…
      U.S. Likely to Bar Japan Investigators from Interviewing Fitzgerald Crew, Official Says – gCaptain
      http://gcaptain.com/u-s-likely-bar-japan-investigators-interviewing-fitzgerald-crew-official-s

      The United States will likely bar Japanese investigators from interviewing USS Fitzgerald crew manning the guided missile destroyer when it was struck by a cargo ship in Japanese waters killing seven American sailors, a U.S. navy official said.
      […]
      The U. S. Coast Guard, which is investigating on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board, has interviewed the crew of the container ship.

      But the U.S. navy official, who declined to be identified, said warships were afforded sovereign immunity under international law and foreign investigators were not expected to get access to the U.S. crew.

      It’s unlikely Japanese or Philippine authorities will have direct access to crew members,” said the U.S. official.

      The U.S. Coast Guard would instead provide summaries of crew interviews to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB), which would share them with the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), he said.

    • Navy struggles with approach to fix crippled destroyer Fitzgerald, as investigation continues
      http://www.defensenews.com/articles/navy-struggles-with-approach-to-fix-crippled-fitzgerald-destroyer-as-in

      The bulbous bow of the ACX Crystal left a 12x17-foot hole beneath the waterline, per three Navy sources who spoke on background, an enormous breach that rapidly flooded three spaces.

      Passage en cale sèche dans une semaine pour évaluer les dommages :
      • peut-on le retaper suffisamment pour qu’il rentre par ses propres moyens aux É.-U. ?
      • est-ce que l’antenne tribord de son super-radar a été atteinte ? ce qui ferait exploser le coût de remise en état (et… ce qui est très probable au vu du gauchissement du panneau concerné…)
      https://staticviewlift-a.akamaihd.net/dims4/default/61c03fe/2147483647/thumbnail/1000x563%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnagfilms-a.akamaihd.net%2F3b%2F32%2F1f

      Un précédent, la remise en état de l’USS Cole après l’attaque du 12 octobre 2000 au Yémen (coût 250 M$), à noter l’unité de mesure de la dépense, le F-35…

      Once the ship is in dry-dock, the Navy will complete a thorough assessment of what is wrong with the ship and will get estimates of how much it’s going to cost. In the case of the Cole, it cost the Navy about $250 million – or about two-and-a-half F-35s – to complete the repairs.

      ici lors de son rapatriement sur plate-forme (autre élément de coût…)


      550 tonnes de tôles posées plus les 2 machines, mais, semble-t-il pas les radars.

    • U.S. Navy temporarily relieves commander of ship struck in Japanese waters.
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN19W1HK

      The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said on Tuesday it has temporarily relieved, for medical reasons, the commander of a warship involved in a crash with a container vessel in Japanese waters that killed seven American sailors.
      […]
      Cmdr Bryce Benson, who is recovering from injuries sustained during Fitzgerald’s June 17 collision with the merchant vessel ACX Crystal was relieved temporarily,” the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet said in a press release.

      #pour_raisons_de_santé

    • Entrée en cale sèche pour poursuite de l’évaluation des dégâts. Note : on ne voit pas grand chose, l’ouverture dans les œuvres vives ayant été aveuglée et renforcée par des moyens de fortune…

      Damaged Destroyer USS Fitzgerald Moves to Dry Dock in Japan -PHOTOS – gCaptain
      http://gcaptain.com/damaged-destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-moves-dry-dock-japan-photos


      U.S. Navy photo by Daniel A. Taylor
      Released by FLEACT Yokosuka Public Affairs Office

      The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) entered dry dock July 11 at the Fleet Activities (FLEACT) Yokosuka base.

    • U.S. warship crew found likely at fault in June collision : official
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-idUSKBN1A62FX

      The crew of the USS Fitzgerald was likely at fault in the warship’s collision with a Philippine cargo ship in June and had not been paying attention to their surroundings, according to initial findings in an investigation, a U.S. defense official told Reuters on Friday.
      […]
      The official said that in addition to crew members not paying attention to their surroundings, they did not take action until it was too late.

      While the investigation is not complete, the official said crew members had given statements and radar data had been gathered, and it was unlikely the findings would change.

      On s’en doutait un peu (cf. supra) mais voir confirmer que la veille en passerelle est aux abonnés absents la nuit dans une zone fréquentée sur un navire de guerre états-unien, ça fait quand même quelque chose.

      Bon, mais il paraît qu’après l’abordage, ils ont tous été exemplaires. Ouf !

    • U.S. to haul stricken destroyer from Japan back to U.S. for repairs
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN1AO13O

      The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said it will haul the guided missile destroyer severely damaged in a collision with a freighter in Japanese waters back to the United States for repairs as soon as September.

      The collision killed seven sailors aboard the USS Fitzgerald and ripped a hole below the vessels waterline. Naval engineers in Japan have patched up the destroyer but extensive damage that nearly sank the warship means it is unable to sail under its own steam.

      The Fitzgerald may be moved in September but it could be later than that,” a spokesman for the U.S. Seventh Fleet said.

    • USS Fitzgerald, les sanctions arrivent… le commandant, le second, le chef mécanicien, plus divers autres (j’imagine toute l’équipe de quart en passerelle)

      Dozen U.S. sailors to be punished for June collision -U.S. Navy
      https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-navy-asia-idUSL2N1L323R

      About a dozen U.S. sailors are expected to face punishment for a collision in June between the USS Fitzgerald and a Philippine cargo ship, including the warship’s commander officer and other senior leaders of the ship, the Navy said on Thursday.

      Admiral Bill Moran, deputy chief of naval operations, told reporters that the ship’s commanding officer, executive officer and master chief, would be removed from the vessel because “we’ve lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead.

      Moran said that in total close to a dozen sailors would face punishment without detailing the exact punishment.

    • Warship captain in collision that killed 7 to lose command - The Washington Post
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/navy-hands-penalties-on-collision-both-ships-made-errors/2017/08/18/dc7a12fc-83d7-11e7-9e7a-20fa8d7a0db6_story.html

      Adm. William Moran, the vice chief of naval operations, told reporters Thursday that the top three leaders aboard the USS Fitzgerald, which was badly damaged in the June collision off the coast of Japan, will be removed from duty aboard the ship. They are the commanding officer, Cmdr. Bryce Benson; the executive officer, Cmdr. Sean Babbitt; and Master Chief Petty Officer Brice Baldwin, who as the ship’s command master chief is its most senior enlisted sailor.

      The collision was avoidable, and both ships demonstrated poor seamanship,” the Navy’s 7th Fleet said in a statement, noting that “flawed” teamwork among those assigned to keep watch contributed to the collision.

      The actions are being taken by Rear Adm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of the 7th Fleet, based at Yokosuka, Japan, because he lost confidence in the three, Moran said.

      The Navy said the three had shown “inadequate leadership.” Separately, seven junior officers were relieved of their duties because they had shown “poor seamanship” and bad teamwork, 7th Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Clay Doss said Friday.

      Administrative penalties were handed out to seven others that were members of the watch teams, he said, without giving details. All 14 remain in the Navy, but they will be assigned to other jobs, he said.

    • Le rapport préliminaire de l’US Navy sur les effets de la collision, la gestion des dégâts (damage control) et détails de l’intervention des équipes de sécurité à bord de l’USS Fitzgerald. Daté du 17/08/17.

      Avec schéma de l’abordage et photos intérieures. Rapport caviardé.
      https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1503000639.pdf

      Parmi les infos, dans l’annexe reconstituant le déroulement :

      |--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
      | ~ 0130 | Collision with the ACX CRYSTAL on the starboard side.    |
      |        | Berthing 2 is flooded within 30-60 seconds.              |
      | 0135   | Commanding Officer reported trapped in his stateroom.    |
      | 0146   | Commanding Officer freed from his stateroom              |
      |        | and brought to the bridge.                               |
      | 0150   | Commanding Officer reported as “down and XXXXXX”         |
      |        | Medical team called to the bridge to assist.             |
      | 0200   | FTZ makes initial report of collision at sea             |
      |        | to CDS 15 via personal cell phone at approximately 0220. |
      |--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

      Il a fallu une demi-heure pour que le bâtiment informe son commandement de l’abordage. Mais le commandant était très perturbé (son état est censuré) il est vrai qu’il vient de rester 10 minutes accroché à l’extérieur de la coque de son navire.

      Et on notera l’incohérence entre l’heure de l’entrée dans le déroulement et celle mentionnée dans le texte.

    • Sans surprise, attaque à boulets rouges par le rédacteur en chef de gCaptain contre le rapport préliminaire sur l’USS Fitzgerald

      Red Over Red, The Failure Of U.S. Navy Leadership – gCaptain
      http://gcaptain.com/editorial-red-red-us-naval-leadership-not-command

      The question is… why was this document released and to what benefit? The answer is that this document was written and released for one primary purpose: Public Relations.

      Decades ago each major media outlet had dock reporters; journalists who wrote exclusively on maritime affairs and had an extensive list of high level maritime contacts as well as a working knowledge of ships. Today I only know of one journalist with this background, Carl Nolte of the San Francisco Chronicle. All the rest are generalists who are too easily confused by complicated facts and too susceptible to emotional triggers. As Ryan Holiday, author of “Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator” says in this bestselling book… “today’s most effective public relations firms oversimplify facts and compensate by giving the public what it craves: an emotionally compelling story.

      The US Navy’s “Deaths of Seven Sailors Aboard The USS Fitzgerald” is just that, the vapid telling of a story about a few brave and honorable sailors fighting floods, destruction and death itself with a cursory acknowledgement of fault. It does nothing to prevent future collisions at sea and everything to send the message to the fleet that mistakes will not be tolerated and junior officers will be punished.

      As a work of fiction it would be praised for pitting man against machine and for well painted characters – with strong wills and moral courage – placed in extraordinary circumstances to save the lives of shipmates and friends. But this is not a work of fiction or, at least, it is not supposed to be. It is supposed to be a preliminary investigation report filled with hard facts and harder questions that remain unanswered. This report contains very little of either.
      […]
      It is maritime tradition which states the Captain is the primary party at fault for all failures aboard ship and for good reason. But maritime tradition does not extend blame down the ranks and not to non-commissioned officers like the USS Fitzgerald’s master chief petty officer who has been removed by Admiral Moran.

      Those who are responsible for the events leading up to the collision, not just those involved in the collision, are those who steered the naval fleet towards these errors. The U.S. Navy has experienced four major failures in navigation this year alone. The men who are cumulatively responsible for these incidents are the same men who are responsible for other troublesome oversights, like the widespread and pervading ignorance of US Naval Officers as to how merchant ships operate at sea. These men have not been called to face “administrative punishment”. At the very least they include Adm. John Richardson, Adm. Bill Moran, Admiral Scott Swift and, the author of the Damage Control Inquiry, Rear Adm. Charles Williams.

      With four collisions in under ten months, when is the Navy going to “lose confidence” in it’s own ability to decide who should be in command?
      […]
      This is a poor excuse. If this document has nothing to do with the collision itself then why release it alongside statements conceding “poor seamanship” and a loss of faith in leadership ability of the ship’s officers?

      If the document is supposed to provide a focused look at “the crew’s damage control activities” then why is it so lacking in information about the challenges and failures the crew experienced after the incident?

      Numerous problems of significant scope and size where barely mentioned in the report. Major problems, such as number 16: “The collision resulted in a loss of external communication and a loss of power in the forward portion of the ship”, are not explained at all. The most basic of commercial ships are required to have redundant emergency power systems. How then does half of the complex ship loose power completely? More importantly, why is this not explained? What lessons learned about this power loss could have been transmitted to the USS McCain? And how, in 2017, when any civilian can purchase a handheld Iridium satellite phone for less than the price of the latest iPhone and a portable EPIRB for much less, could the communications system of a US Naval warship be so damaged and the ship’s leadership so shaken, that it takes the ship a full thirty minutes to transmit a Mayday (via Cell Phone no less)?

      Another important question that goes unanswered is… did the damage control efforts result in a reduced situational awareness after the collision? If not then why did it take two and a half hours to identify the name of the ship they collided with? What would have happened to damage control efforts if this had been a terrorist attack or enemy combatant?

      Those facts are not even the most troubling. Both the civilian and military continue to fail to consider the design and construction of the ship itself. No experts from the vessel’s builder, Bath Iron Works, or the architect or the Admirals in charge of approving the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer design were mentioned. The report completely fails to mention the damage control done aboard the ACX Crystal because that ship suffered relatively minor damage. What design and construction tradeoffs were made that resulted in a the hull of a billion dollar warship having much less intrinsic strength than a Korean built containership that was delivered for a fraction of the cost?

      Where is the independent analysis?
      […]
      Because, one thing we have learned during the past few centuries is this: no organization can work alone, no ship owner – not Olympic Steamship, not Tote and certainly not the US Navy – can be 100% objective when investigating itself. Any attempt to do so is the result of ignorance or corruption or both.

    • De sérieuses questions sur la survivabilité des destroyers et donc sur leur conception. En revanche, la comparaison avec celle des navires marchands abordeurs, il exagère un peu :
      • dans les deux cas, c’est le bulbe d’étrave qui a percuté. Même s’ils avaient été détruits, ce qui n’est absolument pas le cas, les dégâts n’auraient absolument pas mis en danger les navires
      • à l’inverse les navires de guerre ont été abordé de plein flanc, apparemment, et heureusement pour eux, sous des angles assez fermés (ce que montre le rapport pour le Fitzgerald et qu’on devine assez nettement vu la forme de la brèche du McCain)
      • structurellement, un navire marchand n’a pas à prévoir de circulation entre ses compartiments

    • Sur l’incompétence des commentateurs, je remarque qu’aucun n’a fait la remarque que le navire de guerre coupe la route d’un bâtiment de commerce dans un rail…

      L’hypothèse d’une cyberattaque relève du délire. Mais peut-être que les hackers russes ou chinois dont déjà capables aujourd’hui de liquéfier les cervelles d’une équipe de quart en passerelle, après tout de quoi ne sont-ils pas capables ?

      Si le GPS est tombé en rade ou a été piraté, on dispose d’autres moyens de navigation, mille sabords, notamment en vue de terre. Bon sang, l’abordage a eu lieu à 5 miles du principal phare de la région et à 10 miles de la côte ! Si la passerelle a besoin du GPS pour naviguer, il y a lieu de s’interroger sur les compétences requises pour être officier de quart dans l’US Navy.

      Mais, de fait, on en est bien là : couper la route d’un navire dans le rail (je sais je me répète, mais ça ne passe pas !…)

      EDIT : là, en fait, je mords sur le fil du McCain

    • Et pour finir, le titre Red over Red fait référence à une maxime anglaise pour retenir les feux de signalisation

      Red over Red
      The Captain is Dead


      et de jour

      Vessel not under command
      http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/pneumonics.htm

      cf. il n’y a pas longtemps, mais dans un tout autre contexte :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/621727#message621731 Navire non maître de sa manœuvre

    • Je viens de regarder pour le McCain. C’est pas mal aussi. C’est surtout l’analyse de la vacuité des rapports officiels qui m’a intéressé ainsi que la manière dont les médias orientent leurs papiers pour intéresser sans pour autant fournir du contenu digne de ce nom, je veux dire, du travail journalistique, « à la papa » comme dirais davduf

  • U.S. Navy ship changes course after Iran vessels come close: U.S. official | Reuters
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-navy-idUSKBN16D1X3

    Multiple fast-attack vessels from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps came close to a U.S. Navy ship in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, forcing it to change direction, a U.S. official told Reuters on Monday.

    The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the boats came within 600 yards (meters) of the USNS Invincible, a tracking ship, and stopped. The Invincible and three ships from the British Royal Navy accompanying it had to change course.

    The official said attempts were made to communicate over radio, but there was no response and the interaction was “unsafe and unprofessional.

    • Ici, la légende de la photo est plutôt comique…


      The USNS Invincible, an unarmed scientific-research vessel.
      US Navy

      A swarm of Iranian fast-attack boats forced a US Navy ship to change course in the Persian Gulf
      http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/usns-liberty-iran-force-us-navy-to-change-course-2017-3

      Lawrence Brennan, a former US Navy captain and an expert on maritime law, said the Invincible is a scientific-research vessel and was unlikely armed except for “small arms for self defense.

      The US Navy officially lists the Invincible as a “missile range instrumentation ship” that monitors missile launches and collects data, so it was likely in the region because of Iran’s repeated ballistic-missile launches.

      The Invincible carries out a mission similar to that of the Russian spy ship that sat outside a US submarine base in Connecticut.

    • Dans l’autre sens, comme mentionné ci-dessus, ça donne ça :

      Russian spy ship lurks off Connecticut coast - CNNPolitics.com
      http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast

      CNN reported that the Viktor Leonov, which conducted similar patrols in 2014 and 2015, was off the coast of Delaware Wednesday, but typically it only travels as far as Virginia.

      The ship is based with Russia’s northern fleet on the North Sea but had stopped over in Cuba before conducting its patrol along the Atlantic Coast and is expected to return there following its latest mission.

      The vessel is outfitted with a variety of high-tech spying equipment and is designed to intercept signals intelligence. The official said that the US Navy is “keeping a close eye on it.
      The Leonov is a Vishnya-class spy ship, as is a Russian vessel that trailed the US ship that encountered close-flying Russian aircraft in the Black Sea on Friday.

    • version iranienne :

      U.S. ship changed course toward Iranians on Saturday : Iran commander | Reuters
      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-navy-idUSKBN16F0VP

      A U.S. Navy ship changed course toward Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, a guard commander was quoted as saying on Wednesday while issuing a warning.

      A U.S. official told Reuters on Monday that multiple fast-attack vessels from the Revolutionary Guard had come within 600 yards (550 meters) of the USNS Invincible, a tracking ship, forcing it to change direction.

      But guard commander Mehdi Hashemi said the incident, the first of note between the countries’ navies in those waters since January, was the fault of the U.S. ship, telling the Fars news agency: “The unprofessional actions of the Americans can have irreversible consequences,

  • CIA Memo: Designating Muslim Brotherhood Could ‘Fuel Extremism’ - POLITICO Magazine
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/cia-memo-designating-muslim-brotherhood-could-fuel-extremism-214757?mc_cid

    Trump administration officials pushing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization face at least one significant obstacle: analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency.

    CIA experts have warned that so labeling the decades-old Islamist group “may fuel extremism” and damage relations with America’s allies, according to a summary of a finished intelligence report for the intelligence community and policymakers that was shared with POLITICO by a U.S. official.

    The document, published internally on Jan. 31, notes that the Brotherhood—which boasts millions of followers around the Arab world—has “rejected violence as a matter of official policy and opposed al-Qa’ida and ISIS.”

    It acknowledges that “a minority of MB [Muslim Brotherhood] members have engaged in violence, most often in response to harsh regime repression, perceived foreign occupation, or civil conflicts.” Noting that there are branches of the group in countries such as Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco and Tunisia, it cautions that some of America’s allies in the region “probably worry that such a step could destabilize their internal politics, feed extremist narratives, and anger Muslims worldwide.”

    “MB groups enjoy widespread support across the Near East-North Africa region and many Arabs and Muslims worldwide would view an MB designation as an affront to their core religious and societal values,” the document continues. “Moreover, a US designation would probably weaken MB leaders’ arguments against violence and provide ISIS and al-Qa’ida additional grist for propaganda to win followers and support, particularly for attacks against US interests.”

    The CIA declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment. But the document threatens to pit the agency against a president who has dismissed its intelligence assessments and angered many in the intelligence community when he appeared before the agency’s Memorial Wall and exaggerated the size of the crowd at his inaugural address.

    And it would seem to put the agency’s analysts at odds with its new director, Mike Pompeo, who as a member of Congress co-sponsored a bill to ban the Brotherhood and once warned in a radio appearance that Islamist groups were infiltrating the United States. “There are organizations and networks here in the United States tied to radical Islam in deep and fundamental ways,” Pompeo told host Frank Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy and often promotes a conspiratorial view of Muslims. “They’re not just in places like Libya and Syria and Iraq, but in places like Coldwater, Kansas, and small towns all throughout America.”

    Even before President Donald Trump took office, outside groups like Gaffney’s and some members of Congress had been pressuring his team to make the designation, a process that usually takes months and requires teams of analysts sifting through reams of intelligence reports to determine whether an organization fits the legal definition of a terrorist organization.

  • La #Chine saisit une sonde sous-marine de la marine américaine | JDM
    http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/12/16/la-chine-saisit-une-sonde-sous-marine-de-la-marine-americaine

    WASHINGTON | La Chine a saisi une sonde sous-marine appartenant à la marine américaine qui évoluait en eau internationale de la mer de Chine méridionale, a affirmé vendredi un responsable américain de la défense à l’AFP.

    « Elle a été saisie » par la Chine au large des Philippines, a indiqué ce responsable sous couvert d’anonymat.

    La sonde était utilisée pour mesurer la salinité et la température de l’eau, des informations cruciales en particulier pour la flotte des sous-marins américains. Elle a été saisie sous les yeux de ses pilotes.

    Selon ce responsable, la sonde était opérée par des civils bien qu’elle appartienne à la Navy.

    #mer_de_Chine_méridionale #Etats-Unis

  • Exclusive: North Korea restarts plutonium production for nuclear bombs - U.S. official | Reuters
    http://in.reuters.com/article/northkorea-nuclear-usa-exclusive-idINKCN0YT2IU

    North Korea has restarted production of plutonium fuel, a senior U.S. State Department official said on Tuesday, showing that it plans to pursue its nuclear weapons program in defiance of international sanctions.

    The U.S. assessment came a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog said it had “indications” that Pyongyang has reactivated a plant to recover plutonium from spent reactor fuel at Yongbyon, its main nuclear complex.

    The latest developments suggest North Korea’s reclusive regime is working to ensure a steady supply of materials for its drive to build warheads, despite tightened international sanctions after its fourth nuclear test in January.

    The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Washington is worried by the new plutonium reprocessing effort, but he offered no explicit word on any U.S. response.

    Everything in North Korea is a cause for concern,” the official told Reuters.

    They take the spent fuel from the 5 megawatt reactor at Yongbyon and let it cool and then take it to the reprocessing facility, and that’s where they’ve obtained the plutonium for their previous nuclear tests. So they are repeating that process,” the official said. "That’s what they’re doing.

  • Turkish Jets Shoot Down Drone at Its Border With Syria - The New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/ap-ml-syria.html

    Turkey shot down an unidentified drone that flew into its airspace Friday near the Syrian border, while Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country’s air campaign backing a Syrian government offensive has killed hundreds of militants.

    A U.S. official said the downed drone was Russian, but Moscow staunchly rejected the claim.

    The incident underlined the potential dangers of clashes involving Russian, Syrian and U.S.-led coalition planes in the increasingly crowded skies over Syria. Russian and U.S. military officials have been working on a set of rules to prevent any problems.

    The Turkish military said it issued three warnings before shooting down the aircraft with its fighter jets. It didn’t specify how it had relayed the warnings to the operators of the drone.

    The drone crashed 3 kilometers (about 2 miles) inside Turkish territory, said Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu. “We have not been able to establish who the drone belongs to, but we are able to work on it because it fell inside Turkish territory,” he added.

    • Russia sets up contact with Turkish military after it downs aircraft : UNIAN news
      http://www.unian.info/world/1154919-russia-sets-up-contact-with-turkish-military-after-it-downs-aircraft

      Russia’s Defense Ministry says it has established direct contact with Turkey’s military to ensure flight safety of Russian combat aircraft near the Turkish border with Syria and prevent any future incidents, according to Radio Liberty. 

      It is reported that Russia has also established a hotline between a base used by the Russian air force in Syria and the Israeli air force command center, according to Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov.

      The statement came after Turkish military on Friday said it had downed an “air vehicle” of unknown origin which had violated Turkish air space close to the Syrian border, with a U.S. official suspecting it was of Russian origin. However, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Friday all its planes in Syria had safely returned to the base.

      Meanwhile, social network users pointed that the photos of the drone of unknown origin that was downed in Turkey were very similar to the photos of the drone that was shot down over Donbas by Ukrainian military in May 2014. It was said to be a modified version of a Russian Orlan-10, although it was significantly different from the basic version of this air vehicle.

  • محمد بلوط: واشنطن تخالف أنقرة: لا صفقة بشأن شمال سوريا :: الصفحة الرئيسة | جريدة السفير
    http://assafir.com/Article/1/433523

    لا صفقة مع الأتراك في شمال سوريا، بحسب ديبلوماسي أميركي لـ«السفير». لا اتفاق على منطقة آمنة، ولا شراكة في أي عمليات برية، ولا حتى تغطية جوية تركية لأي قوة معارضة «معتدلة» في الحرب على تنظيم «الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام» ـ «داعش».

    Suite de “non” étasuniens aux affirmations turques selon Al-Safir qui a interrogé un “diplomate US”. Pas d’accord sur une zone tampon, pas de participation à une opération terrestre, pas d’accord pour une couverture aérienne turque à des forces de “l’opposition modérée” dans le cadre de la guerre contre l’EI.

    Cela contredit très clairement les affirmations du ministere des AE turc : Turkey and the U.S. have reached an agreement in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which takes Ankara’s concerns into account, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has said... (http://www.turkishweekly.net/2015/07/25/news/turkey-us-agreement-against-isil-takes-ankara-s-concerns-into-account)

    Mais la CNN nous offre une version toute diplomatique : “U.S. official: Turkey air base pact has ’nearly the same effect’ as a no-fly zone”. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/27/world/turkey-isis-us)

    #turquie #ei #daesh

  • In policy shift, U.S. opens direct talks with Syrian Kurds
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/16/243690/in-policy-shift-us-opens-direct.html

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration acknowledged Thursday that a U.S. official for the first time met with a representative of a Syrian Kurdish political party that’s closely linked to a group on the U.S. terrorist list.

    State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said a U.S. diplomat met with a counterpart from the main Kurdish political party in Syria – the Democratic Union Party, better known by its Kurdish acronym as the PYD – to discuss the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State. The PYD’s militia is engaged in fierce battles with the Islamist extremists, especially near the town of Kobani along the border with Turkey.

    The direct talks are a sign of the shifting alliances created by the rise of the Islamic State. In Iraq, for example, the U.S. is providing air cover for Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim militias that once targeted American forces. And now in Syria, it appears the United States is willing to work with a group that’s tied to the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers Party, which has waged a guerrilla war for Kurdish rights in Turkey for 30 years and which has been on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations for nearly two decades. Turkey and the European Union also have blacklisted the PKK.

  • Mais du coup, #Ahrar_al-Sham c’est toujours des gentils ou pas ?!

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/us-goes-to-war-with-jabhat-al-nusra

    One U.S. official told BuzzFeed News that it was possible other hardline Islamist rebel groups — such as Ahrar al-Sham, a powerful Nusra ally — had been hit in the strikes as well: “We’re characterizing our targets as Khorasan and [ISIS] but it’s possible others were there. It is a toxic soup of terrorists.”

  • Doubts surface on Gaza destination of rockets seized by Israel | Reuters, 25th of March

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/us-israel-egypt-gaza-rockets-idUSBREA2O11720140325

    A U.S. official said Washington had confirmed the Syrian and Iranian provenance of the rockets and believed they were to have been used against Israel. But half of U.S. intelligence analysts thought Sinai, not Gaza, was the destination, the official said.

    “You look at those things and it’s obvious they couldn’t have been slipped into Gaza,” the official said, adding that the

    M302s were not designed to be disassembled for easier smuggling.

    Israel said it had also found 181 122mm mortar shells aboard the Klos C, and some 400,000 7.62-calibre bullets.

    The U.S. official agreed that the mortar shells were meant to go to Gaza, saying: “You can fit each of those in a backpack.” But the bullets, the U.S. official said, may have been meant for another client elsewhere in Africa.

    With their 160 km (100 mile) range, the M302s could have been launched from areas of Sinai well away from Israeli spotters along the Egyptian border, and struck Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

  • Syria lets U.N. inspect gas attack site, Washington says too late | Reuters
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130825

    (Reuters) - Syria agreed on Sunday to let the United Nations inspect the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack, but a U.S. official said such an offer was “too late to be credible” and Washington was all but certain the government had gassed its own people.

    The U.S. remarks appeared to signal that a military response was more likely. A senior senator said he believed President Barack Obama would ask for authorization to use force when Congress returns from recess next month.

  • Cet « officiel » américain se vante d’avoir informé les Israéliens avant sa propre hiérarchie concernant la réunion de Bagdad au sujet du nucléaire iranien. #wag_the_dog
    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/no-gaps-exist-between-the-u-s-and-israel-on-iran-nuclear-program-says-offic

    According to the U.S. official, the Israeli government was the first to be updated by them on what happened in Baghdad after the talks were over. “We updated the Israelis in detail before we updated our own government,” the official said.

  • U.S. says Israel’s inclusion on terrorist watch list was a mistake | JTA - Jewish & Israel News
    http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/06/3088429/israels-inclusion-on-terrorist-watch-list-was-a-mistake

    Israel was included erroneously on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security terrorist watch list, a U.S. official said.

    John Morton, the director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the department, said Israel’s recent appearance on a list compiled by the department’s office of the inspector general was a mistake.

    “The addition of Israel in the OIG’s list of ICE’s ’Third-Agency Checks’ (TAC) was based on inaccurate information provided to the OIG during the course of its audit,” Morton said in a statement sent by e-mail to JTA. “The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism. The United States maintains close intelligence-sharing relationships with Israel in order to address security issues within its own borders and in our mutual pursuit of safety and security around the globe.”

    Ah mais dis donc : ça c’est le gag qu’il est carrément excellent...

    Évidemment, dans ce monde orwellien, la véritable « erreur », c’est qu’Israël et les États-Unis ne figurent pas dans la liste des pays pratiquant le terrorisme.

    Le lapsus est révélateur.