General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome in military challenge Shane Osborn's view of 2001 heroism (R candidate NE US Senate)
I agree with the questions.
OS
http://www.omaha.com/article/20140323/NEWS/140329455/1685#some-in-military-challenge-shane-osborn-s-view-of-2001-heroism
By Steve Liewer / World-Herald staff writer PUBLISHED MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014 AT 12:30 AM / UPDATED AT 11:48 AM
Shane Osborn takes pride in his popular image as a Navy hero, the cool-as-ice aviator who pulled his crippled reconnaissance plane out of a fatal dive and landed it safely in China, saving the lives of his 23 crew members.
He's ridden a wave of public acclaim to a term as Nebraska state treasurer, success in business, and a strong position in his bid this year for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate.
Yet questions have followed Osborn ever since the April 2001 incident especially from others who have served in the military. Some veterans say, in strong terms, that Osborn should have ditched his four- engine EP-3E ARIES II propeller craft in the South China Sea instead of handing over a highly sensitive electronics platform to Chinese authorities even if it meant killing himself and much of his crew.
Our standing order was 'If you can't get back to the carrier, you put it down in the water,' said Danny Mason, a retired Navy captain from Papillion who flew EA-6B Prowlers in the western Pacific during a military career that stretched from 1980 to the mid-2000s.
In the 20 years I was flying any aircraft you weren't going to take it into China.
FULL story at link.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)I wondered at the time if someone was really that stupid or was paid to get the plane safely to his Chinese counterparts.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Read the whole article and see if you still think like that.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)He did smash his butane lighter. Than is classified.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)That sounds more like Hollywood fantasy.
Notice no where in that article did anyone mention a destruct button, could it be because there isn't one?
Probably not a good idea to have a destruct button on an plane.
I'm not going to second guess his or his crew's actions that day, I wasn't there, but from what I read of the article, he did exactly the right thing and the Pentagon obviously thought so also, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, that's a pretty significant honor.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)He forgot about that perhaps?
uncommonlink
(261 posts)What's he supposed to do? Grab a flare gun, exit the plane, climb up onto the wing, open the fuel access panel, open the fuel tank, fire the flare into the tank, all while those nice armed Chinese soldiers are watching?
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)And yes he should have risked at least his life to destroy the plane after landing in China.
Our standing order was 'If you can't get back to the carrier, you put it down in the water,' said Danny Mason, a retired Navy captain from Papillion who flew EA-6B Prowlers in the western Pacific during a military career that stretched from 1980 to the mid-2000s.
In the 20 years I was flying any aircraft you weren't going to take it into China.
They also question Osborn's decision to obey the commands of the armed Chinese soldiers who surrounded the aircraft only minutes after it had landed and ordered the crew to leave. Abandoning a ship to opposing forces violates a powerful Navy tradition that dates back to the early days of the republic.
Or was W and friends right to decorate him for this?
Friend of Shane Osborn, not Navy, issued memo that supports him: http://www.omaha.com/article/20140323/NEWS/140329454/1694#friend-of-shane-osborn-not-navy-issued-memo-that-supports-him
uncommonlink
(261 posts)From the article you linked to.
The Pentagon is the one who recommends the medal, the President approves it on the recommendation of the SecDef.
So, tell us how he was supposed to destroy the aircraft once on the ground?
I've got this tingly feeling that if this were a Democrat running for office under the same circumstances, you wouldn't even have posted this.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)From the link & in bold in the reply: armed Chinese soldiers who surrounded the aircraft only minutes after it had landed.
That is time to destroy the plane even after he saved the crew.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)that same aircraft lands on a Chinese military airbase, you're really telling us that those Chinese soldiers weren't armed? You really want to stick to that?
And once off the aircraft, you say that there was still time to destroy the aircraft? Under the watchful eyes of those Chinese soldiers?
Ok, tell us how he was supposed to destroy the aircraft.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)What part of that from the OP don't you understand?
Plenty of time to destroy the plane.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024719978#post11
So, once again, how does he destroy the aircraft, which is surrounded by armed Chinese soldiers?
How would you do it?
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)Why didn't they exit the plane immediately after bringing the plane to a stop? That flare in the fuel idea wasn't my idea. But it seems any military crew would have at least ONE member that would have thought of it.
Locked the door. Now that stopped them.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Now, tell us how you would destroy the aircraft with armed Chinese soldiers surrounding the plane?
Why are you so critical of this guy, which in turn, would be critical of the whole crew?
If this was a Democrat running for political office with the same exact story, would you be slamming him also?
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)Maybe a soft landing in deep water would have been easier?
uncommonlink
(261 posts)A damaged wing?
From your own link again.
I commend you for being of the same opinion if it were a D.
The bottom line is that this outstanding pilot took control of a crippled aircraft, set it down safely and saved his crew.
Other than committing suicide and killing the whole crew, how would he have destroyed the aircraft?
Could you have ditched that aircraft knowing that it meant certain death for you and the other 23 crew members?
I couldn't.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)Committing suicide and killing the whole crew, how would he have destroyed the aircraft?
Now you get it. Destroy the plane at all costs.
You don't decorate what he did!
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Get it? He was following standing orders of the day.
The Pentagon and the SecDef disagree with you on the medal.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)Maybe YOU might think the plane was worth destroying. I'm done with you.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)the aircraft were completely false.
BTW, what does a low post count have to do with this thread?
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)He only had to put it in a dive to destroy it.
I guess low count and low comprehension go hand in hand. I don't care about him. Ask anybody at the air base down the road from me their opinion.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)He followed the standing orders of the day.
You and a few may not like it, but he did nothing wrong.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)Move here and vote for the HERO.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)I can admire a fellow service member's heroism while opposing his political views.
Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)uncommonlink
(261 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,737 posts)I was off base with my interpretation of your comments.
OS
uncommonlink
(261 posts)I enjoy a spirited debate.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Oh wait.
The armchair quarterbacks probably don't know as much as they think they do, Bensing said. There are 24 people on this planet who are qualified to judge what happened.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)a rat's ass about the Osborne "gods" of Nebraska: having read the article, it makes sense to me that he didn't want to risk the lives of his crew. I'd always heard that in life or death situations, military personnel aren't thinking of country, or plane, or equipment, or secrets--they are most concerned with the lives and safety of the fellow soldiers or crew members right next to them. Can't fault him for that.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Yeah, I can't fault him for trying to save his crew and himself.
There are alot of other issues to fault him on, just not this one.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)We are not at war and China is not our enemy. Nobody needed to die over supposed secrets that China probably already had.
idendoit
(505 posts)You scuttle the ship to keep it out of enemy hands. In modern times that includes naval aircraft. You don't hand it over.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)He did exactly what his standing orders were and I'll bet his crew and the families of that crew are grateful to him for saving their lives.
What he did was perfectly acceptable under the standing orders of the day.
idendoit
(505 posts)Rules of Engagement (ROE) are rules or directives to military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. (Wikipedia) There was no provocative engagement with an enemy combatant. Standing orders are different and require a regulation change. I haven't heard of any that allows anyone the discretion of turning over highly classified US government property. Not doubt the crew is grateful, as well they should be. They will carry on in fine naval tradition and back whatever their Captain says.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)I mean the regs. that were changed in the early 90's.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)First of all Nebraska is a red state and patriotic to boot whatever that means .but that is the Republican thinking. So to bash a military person especially on this probably is not the way to go. What issues can they use against him? That is what is important.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Bashing him on this is counterproductive, oppose his political views and agenda but not this.
idendoit
(505 posts)Read about the fake memo supporting Osborn's actions over at Daily Kos. Either he wrote it or some really stupid/drunk sailor did. The Navy can reconsider the awards he received and court martial him, but I doubt they will, for the same reasons that Bucher of the Pueblo and Lippold of the Cole were allowed to stay in the service.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)After the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry, anything goes.
The guy was a coward who gave US secrets to the enemy. Goddam traitor!
Probably a child molester, too.
And animals... lots of animal abuse.
Osborne needs on of those Band-Aid purple hearts...
Response to Bigmack (Reply #17)
uncommonlink This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)uncommonlink
(261 posts)If so, then I apologize for my comment.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)"Child molester... animal abuse...."?
uncommonlink
(261 posts)JI7
(89,275 posts)he probably sucks on just about every issue politically because he is a republican so that would be my problem with him.
but i don't really have a problem with him saving himself and others.
delta17
(283 posts)I doubt many of us would have sacrificed our lives for an aircraft.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)He has PLENTY that we can attack politically. This reeks of desperation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the lives of his crew were much more important.