Commander of USS Cole taken off promotion list

kappapi99 · Aug 22, 2006

Most of you probably remember what happened to the USS Cole in October of 2000. I have met her commander, CDR Kirk Lippold, personally and heard a first hand account of what happened that day. I also know another officer who was onboard that fateful day.

Thus, it was with interest that I read the Reuters article about CDR Lippold. He was selected for the rank of Captain in 2002, but has not been "frocked." Recently, the SecNav has taken his name off of the promotion list and stated that he will not be promoted. What was not in the article was the fact that the SecNav was ordered to remove his name by Senator John Warner, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Both the SecNav and CNO want this man promoted, but one senator is stopping that from happening.

I for one am very sad to see this happen. The JAG investigation found that there was nothing he or his crew could have done to prevent the attack. The threat condition was Alpah plus and his crew was at ThreatCon Bravo (that is a higher level of security). This man saved his ship and his crew, and gets rewarded by being removed from the promotion list.

I would like to ask you all for help. Please contact Senator Warner at the link below and ask him to reconsider. CDR Lippold will be up for promotion again next year. Let's not punish this man another year for the actions of some cowardly terrorists.

KP

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/offices.htm

dclary · Aug 22, 2006

You should see what Grant did to McClelland.

Once you're an officer, *especially* a high-ranking officer, your rank IS politics. It's no longer merely a function of military prowess and seniority. It's who you know, how you network, and how high your personal stock has risen in the eyes of both the military AND the nonmilitary alike.

Haggis · Aug 22, 2006

And McLellan deserved every bit of it.

dclary's right, of course. Anything near field grade requires political savvy. Sadly, many of the finest officers never reach the highest ranks because of that.

kappapi99 · Aug 22, 2006

dclary said:
You should see what Grant did to McClelland.

Once you're an officer, *especially* a high-ranking officer, your rank IS politics. It's no longer merely a function of military prowess and seniority. It's who you know, how you network, and how high your personal stock has risen in the eyes of both the military AND the nonmilitary alike.

That's right. That's why I'll never make Admiral...

Still, it does not make what Senator Warner is doing, right.

KP

Robert Toy · Aug 22, 2006

He has an impressive military record!

1945-1946 - Petty Officer 3rd Class, electronic technician's mate
1950 – 1960 – Marine Corps – Communications officer 1st Lt
1960-1970 – Marine Corps Reserve – Highest rank - Captain

rtilryarms · Aug 22, 2006

If it were a military ruling, I would understand.

But Senators getting involved smack of scapegoat and fovoritism.

They are not supposed to have that kind of influence. ( I know they do but it was not suposed to hapen).

Robert Toy · Aug 22, 2006

All flag rank promotions have to go that route unfortunately.

Unique · Aug 22, 2006

kappapi99 said:
Still, it does not make what Senator Warner is doing, right.

KP

It isn't right. What's the Senator's excuse? He thinks it's the Commander's fault his ship was attacked?

Frankly, I wouldn't waste my time writing to the 'honorable' Senator Warner, I'd write to all his colleagues and ask them (politely) WTF?

(sorry - extra dose of vitamin snark ingestion today)

Peggy · Aug 22, 2006

Wow, I had no idea that the Senate had any say in military promotions. I always assumed promotions had to do with merit and leadership ability (yup, no clue about the military at all). Has Warner made any statements as to why he was against the promotion?

dclary · Aug 22, 2006

vitamin snark

This is my favorite jamba juice boost.

kappapi99 · Aug 22, 2006

Unique said:
It isn't right. What's the Senator's excuse? He thinks it's the Commander's fault his ship was attacked?

Warner has taken an unusually personal interest in Lippold's case. In a letter to the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs two years ago, he asserted that Lippold had "exhibited questionable qualities of judgment, forehandedness, and attention to detail."

In what might have been an unprecedented move, Warner asked him in the letter to review the Cole attack investigations and advise him on Lippold's fitness for promotion.

"Quite simply, has Commander Lippold … exhibited the basic values we have come to expect from our military officers?" Warner wrote.

The chiefs' answer was a resounding "yes." After study of Lippold's record and investigations of the Cole attack, "we all concluded that Commander Lippold is fully suited and qualified for promotion," Gen. Richard Myers, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote Warner in April 2004.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=103456&ran=222956

LightShadow · Aug 22, 2006

As a former Navy man myself, I am bothered by the fact that politicians and judges have so much say in things that they truly do not understand. The problem is, they see on the surface. . . and as you well know, there is always more in the water than what floats on the surface.

Warner has no business doing this when SecNav and the CNO have made the recommendation. He is not in the know as the Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of the Navy is, and it is unfortunate that he is even able to make a hold on the frocking like this.

K1P1 · Aug 22, 2006

kappapi99 said:
Warner has taken an unusually personal interest in Lippold's case. In a letter to the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs two years ago, he asserted that Lippold had "exhibited questionable qualities of judgment, forehandedness, and attention to detail."

May I point out that this is coming from a man who had the bad judgement to marry Elizabeth Taylor?

I do what I can every election - I vote against him.

And for those of you who don't know, he is the chair of the senate armed services committee, which gives him plenty of power in this arena.

SC Harrison · Aug 22, 2006

LightShadow said:
As a former Navy man myself, I am bothered by the fact that politicians and judges have so much say in things that they truly do not understand. The problem is, they see on the surface. . . and as you well know, there is always more in the water than what floats on the surface.

Warner has no business doing this when SecNav and the CNO have made the recommendation. He is not in the know as the Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of the Navy is, and it is unfortunate that he is even able to make a hold on the frocking like this.

He used to be the SecNav and is now the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Which doesn't mean this is the right thing for him to be doing, but I just wanted people to know he's not totally out of bounds.

As others have said, commisioned officers are at the mercy of many issues that can impact their career, which is one of the reasons I turned down OCS. Heck, if your wife farts at the Officer's Ball, you might end up stamping requests at a warehouse somewhere.

Bayou Bill · Aug 22, 2006

K1P1 said:
May I point out that this is coming from a man who had the bad judgement to marry Elizabeth Taylor?

I do what I can every election - I vote against him.

And for those of you who don't know, he is the chair of the senate armed services committee, which gives him plenty of power in this arena.

Just to follow up on what K1P1 said, the US Senate must "advise and consent" on the promotions of all senior military officers, just as they do federal judges and members of the President's cabinet.

It would be nice if Warner let the public know why he has it in for Lippold.

Bayou Bill

Robert Toy · Aug 22, 2006

Maybe Lippold is a Democrat?

blacbird · Aug 22, 2006

There was a time when commanding officers took responsibility for things that happened under their command. I think the My Lai "incident" in Vietnam signalled the death of that principle. Nothing that has happened in the American military since then has changed my perception. Can we all say "Abu Ghraib"?

caw.

SC Harrison · Aug 23, 2006

blacbird said:
There was a time when commanding officers took responsibility for things that happened under their command. I think the My Lai "incident" in Vietnam signalled the death of that principle. Nothing that has happened in the American military since then has changed my perception. Can we all say "Abu Ghraib"?

caw.

As in most well-known military debacles, the trail of responsibility can be traced up the chain of command. In this case as many others, pertinent intelligence uncovered by Able Danger was not disseminated to Lippold before making port, so he wasn't apprised of specific dangers before the attack. To make matters worse, those who failed to communicate this information have been promoted, while Lippold has not.

That being said, Yemen (even the good one) has been a sensitive and relatively dangerous place for decades. From everything I've read on this, it appears Lippold gave the go-ahead for three garbage scows to approach his vessel, without first sending a launch to inspect them. After everything that took place in the Persian Gulf nearly a decade before, where terrorists attempted to penetrate the defensive perimeters of fleet vessels using small craft, for him to allow this shows (me) a lack of good judgment, if not gross negligence.

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but that's how I feel.

kappapi99 · Aug 23, 2006

I love Monday morning quarterbacks...

DCR Lippold was investigate by the Navy. A JAG investigation found that CDR Lippold did everything he could to prevent the attack. M60 and .50 Cal Machine Guns were manned and tracked the garbage scows as they arrived. Currently there are no procdeures for inspecting the containers on garbage scows.

As for pulling into Yemen, the ship needed fuel. The neares Oiler was up in the Med, that left Yemen and Djibouti. Djibouti was considered the higher threat so he was instructed to go to Yemen. The USS Donald Cook had been there to refuel without incident just before the USS Cole.

There were NO INDICATIONS OF A THREAT as far as the Cook or the Cole knew.

KP

PS. If you will look in my initial post you will see the Cole was at a HIGHER Threat Condition then intel warranted.

Joe Unidos · Aug 23, 2006

Boy, I'd be mad too --if your initial post had accurately characterized the results of the Navy's investigation. It was an issue of how/if he should be punished, not one of a reward.

from CNN:

Despite the Navy's finding that the skipper of the USS Cole failed to fully implement a plan to protect his ship, a senior Pentagon official tells CNN that Cmdr. Kirk Lippold will face no punishment.

Pentagon sources say Navy investigators found that Lippold failed to take some basic security measures, including not preparing fire hoses to repel boarders, not inspecting work boats, and not briefing the crew about the threat of a terrorist attack. But sources say top Navy officials have concluded Lippold's actions were within the acceptable range of conduct expected from a ship commander, and that the security measures he failed to take would likely have not prevented the attack.

The decision by the Navy's top admiral, Vern Clark, upholds a finding of another four-star admiral who reviewed the case, but overturns the recommendation of the investigating officer, who concluded some of the measures might have mitigated the attack, according to sources.

In Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen's own words:

The Navy's JAGMAN investigation looked at whether the captain and crew of the USS Cole were negligent or deficient in the execution of their force protection duties. And while the commander of the ship didn't take every specific step that its force protection plan called for, the reviewers of the investigation, including the chief of Naval Operations and the secretary of the Navy, concluded that under the circumstances, the full implementation of the force protection plan probably could not have prevented the attack.

Navy leaders have concluded that the overall performance of the captain and his crew does not warrant punitive action. And I agree with that conclusion. However, the question of accountability is deeper and more complex than the performance of the crew alone.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/t01192001_t0119sn.html

kappapi99 · Aug 23, 2006

Sorry, Joe, I will take the firsthand account of what happened over CNN's spin any day. The "basic security measures" the article mentions were not applicable to the situation, and the article even admits (although barely) that taking such measures would not have mitigated the disaster. Fire hoses were not charged, but machine guns were manned.

You want to know what some of the "security measures" were?

You are supposed to have an armed guard at the bottom of the brow. No brow was put out, so an armed guard was not required.

You are supposed to control vehicle access...they were not moored to the shore, so there was no vehicle access.

THOSE were "security measures" not taken, and that is why they were not mitigating factors in the attack, and THAT is why CDR Lippold was absolved.

My initial post was accurate and I resent your attack on my integrity.

Joe Unidos · Aug 23, 2006

kappapi99 said:
Sorry, Joe, I will take the firsthand account of what happened over CNN's spin any day. The "basic security measures" the article mentions were not applicable to the situation, and the article even admits (although barely) that taking such measures would not have mitigated the disaster. Fire hoses were not charged, but machine guns were manned.

You want to know what some of the "security measures" were?

You are supposed to have an armed guard at the bottom of the brow. No brow was put out, so an armed guard was not required.

You are supposed to control vehicle access...they were not moored to the shore, so there was no vehicle access.

THOSE were "security measures" not taken, and that is why they were not mitigating factors in the attack, and THAT is why CDR Lippold was absolved.

My initial post was accurate and I resent your attack on my integrity.

Take it up with Secretary Cohen:

Q: Mr. Secretary, what would you say, just very briefly, to the families of the 17 who died on the Cole, who would ask why is no one being punished?

SEC. COHEN: Well, it's not correct to say no one is being punished. The highest naval officer in our country has indicated his dissatisfaction with some of the steps that the commander -- the captain of the ship failed to take.

Q:But you don't believe that any of those rose to the levels of requiring some sort of formal punishment or accountability, is that correct?

SEC. COHEN: Well, the accountability is there. The Navy has made an assessment that the failure to take certain measures did not warrant punitive action in the form of courts martial, and I agree with that assessment.

If that sounds like a man being singled out as a hero to you, then I guess we'll agree to disagree. Or is the briefing transcript from the DOD website also "media spin?"

SC Harrison · Aug 23, 2006

kappapi99 said:
I love Monday morning quarterbacks...

Yeah, well. Welcome to the world of diverse opinions.

You didn't ask for us to contact the Senator to get him out of the brig, your complaint was about him being kept from promotion. He's still cruising towards retirement, which is a damn sight better than some officers I've known who were RIF'd for downright stupid reasons.

Commander of USS Cole taken off promotion list

kappapi99

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua

kappapi99

Robert Toy

rtilryarms

Crossbows and Handgonnes

Robert Toy

Unique

Agent of Doom

Peggy

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary

kappapi99

LightShadow

defender of the blahs!

K1P1

Procrastination is its own reward

SC Harrison

Dances With Hamsters

Bayou Bill

AW Ne'er-Do-Well

Robert Toy

blacbird

SC Harrison

Dances With Hamsters

kappapi99

Joe Unidos

kappapi99

Joe Unidos

SC Harrison

Dances With Hamsters