Some in military challenge Shane Osborn's view of 2001 heroism (R candidate NE US Senate)

[Omaha Steve]

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]

1. This is the guy who gave our aircraft secrets to the Chinese?

I wondered at the time if someone was really that stupid or was paid to get the plane safely to his Chinese counterparts.

[uncommonlink]

6. Didn't read the article did you.

Read the whole article and see if you still think like that.

[Omaha Steve]

7. He could have pushed the destruct button on his way out the door

He did smash his butane lighter. Than is classified.

[uncommonlink]

8. How do you know there was a destruct button?

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]

9. He has highly flammable fuel

He forgot about that perhaps?

[uncommonlink]

10. Oh please.

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]

11. Notice the soldiers weren't there as he left the plane

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]

12. What are you talking about that the soldiers weren't there when they exited the aircraft?

Once on the ground, the plane was surrounded by Chinese soldiers toting AK-47 assault rifles. Osborn said he kept the engines running long enough that a radio operator could send a message out that they had landed safely in China. Though he told the Chinese soldiers that the Americans wanted to remain aboard their aircraft, the Chinese — with increasingly threatening gestures — insisted that the crew leave. Osborn and his crew felt they had little choice but to comply. He ordered the airplane's stairs lowered. Then the crew exited. “We didn't turn over the airplane,” he said. “We were taken off at gunpoint. We locked the door behind us.”

From the article you linked to.

Osborn said the rules of engagement changed in the early 1990s, after the Cold War ended. He said his crew's orders at the time permitted emergency landings in all but one country in the Far East (which Prueher identified as North Korea), as long as the crew destroyed secret communications gear and materials.

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]

13. A Pentagon preparing for a phony war?

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]

15. An American military aircraft was just involved in a mid air collision with a Chinese fighter jet,

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]

18. Armed Chinese soldiers who surrounded the aircraft only minutes after it had landed!!!

What part of that from the OP don't you understand?

Plenty of time to destroy the plane.

[uncommonlink]

19. You said that those soldiers weren't there as the crew exited the aircraft.

Notice the soldiers weren't there as he left the plane

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]

21. He was to busy taking a crap to worry about destroying the plane?

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]

22. Your own link tells why they didn't immediately exit the aircraft.

Once on the ground, the plane was surrounded by Chinese soldiers toting AK-47 assault rifles. Osborn said he kept the engines running long enough that a radio operator could send a message out that they had landed safely in China. Though he told the Chinese soldiers that the Americans wanted to remain aboard their aircraft, the Chinese — with increasingly threatening gestures — insisted that the crew leave. Osborn and his crew felt they had little choice but to comply. He ordered the airplane's stairs lowered. Then the crew exited. “We didn't turn over the airplane,” he said. “We were taken off at gunpoint. We locked the door behind us.”

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]

23. IF this was a D I'd still be of the same opinion

Maybe a soft landing in deep water would have been easier?

[uncommonlink]

25. A soft landing in the water? In an aircraft that size? With the nose cone ripped off?

A damaged wing?
From your own link again.

So he ordered the crew to strap themselves in and prepare to ditch — also a bad option, he thought, because the missing nose and the heavy radar pods underneath the plane made it likely that it would flip when hitting the water. Ditching, he said, was “virtual suicide.”

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]

27. Preferable to handing over the plane!!!

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]

29. Again, from your own link.

Osborn said the rules of engagement changed in the early 1990s, after the Cold War ended. He said his crew's orders at the time permitted emergency landings in all but one country in the Far East (which Prueher identified as North Korea), as long as the crew destroyed secret communications gear and materials.

Get it? He was following standing orders of the day.

The Pentagon and the SecDef disagree with you on the medal.

[Omaha Steve]

24. If YOU were a D and not a low count post count to boot...

Maybe YOU might think the plane was worth destroying. I'm done with you.

[uncommonlink]

26. You're only done because I've shown that your assertions that he could've destroyed

the aircraft were completely false.

BTW, what does a low post count have to do with this thread?

[Omaha Steve]

28. False?

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]

33. Again.

Osborn said the rules of engagement changed in the early 1990s, after the Cold War ended. He said his crew's orders at the time permitted emergency landings in all but one country in the Far East (which Prueher identified as North Korea), as long as the crew destroyed secret communications gear and materials.

He followed the standing orders of the day.

You and a few may not like it, but he did nothing wrong.

[Omaha Steve]

34. Fine

Move here and vote for the HERO.

[uncommonlink]

36. Why would I vote for a Repug?

I can admire a fellow service member's heroism while opposing his political views.

[Omaha Steve]

38. Common ground

[uncommonlink]

39. Common ground.

[Omaha Steve]

40. Please accept my sincere apology

I was off base with my interpretation of your comments.

OS

[uncommonlink]

43. No apology needed.

I enjoy a spirited debate.

[uncommonlink]

2. I wonder how his crew members feel about him saving their lives?

Oh wait.

But those on board bristle at the critics who haven't walked a terrifying mile in their boots.

“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]

3. I'll say this about the guy, even though he's a Repub and I don't give

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]

4. Apparently a hell of a pilot to boot.

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]

5. I have to agree with you even though it was a huge embarrassment for the USA at the time.

We are not at war and China is not our enemy. Nobody needed to die over supposed secrets that China probably already had.

[idendoit]

14. It is a naval tradition dating to ancient times.

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]

16. Rules changed in the early 90's.

Osborn said the rules of engagement changed in the early 1990s, after the Cold War ended. He said his crew's orders at the time permitted emergency landings in all but one country in the Far East (which Prueher identified as North Korea), as long as the crew destroyed secret communications gear and materials.

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]

32. I don't know the source of the quote about ROE.

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]

35. When I say standing orders,

I mean the regs. that were changed in the early 90's.

[yeoman6987]

30. I hope the Democrats have more on him then this

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]

37. EXACTLY!!!

Bashing him on this is counterproductive, oppose his political views and agenda but not this.

[idendoit]

42. Looks like more popped up.

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]

17. All this enlightened discussion is meaningless....

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...

[Bigmack]

44. Geezus... you are dense, aren't you? nt

[uncommonlink]

45. So are you saying you forgot to add this?

If so, then I apologize for my comment.

[Bigmack]

48. Like I said... dense... You need a....

for:

"Child molester... animal abuse...."?

[uncommonlink]

49. In that case, I apologize and will delete the post.

[JI7]

31. i don't have a problem with what he did

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]

41. Yeah, this is a non-issue.

I doubt many of us would have sacrificed our lives for an aircraft.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. If human life is on the line, I don't give a single fuck about state secrets.

[joeglow3]

47. As an omaha resident myself, I hope we can do better than this

He has PLENTY that we can attack politically. This reeks of desperation.

[hack89]

50. As a 20 year Navy veteran, I have no problem with his actions.

the lives of his crew were much more important.