The incidents that occurred on-board the USS Cole and USS Vincennes were very complex. In both situations, the commanding Officers of the ships had to make split second decisions in a war environment. Commander Kirk Lippold of the USS Cole was the commanding Officer when Al Qaeda terrorists piloted an explosives-filled rubber boat into the side of the USS Cole. The crew of the Cole followed US Naval rules of engagement and it was later determined that Commander Lippold had done everything he could have done to protect his ship. Commander Lippold was responsible for what had happened that day but to a certain extent.
Commander Lippold was responsible because he was the Commander of the ship at the time and everything went through him first. However, Commander Lippold did what he was trained to do in these situations. For that reason, I believe the treatment of Commander Lippold was not justified. Commander Lippold was cleared by the Navy’s Judge Advocate General stating that the Captain of the Cole had done all he could to protect his ship and had committed no act of …show more content…
His treatment was coming from the Senate. I wonder how many people from the Senate were on the Cole when it shook from the initial blast and confusion began to break out. Commander Lippold was the one that had to make the best decision in that split second. I believe it was wrong to deny Commander Lippold subsequent promotions for doing the right thing in a moment where split second decisions are life and death. What would have happened if the small ship was a small fishing boat with a driver that accidentally strayed too close to the ship? If the crew had opened fire and wounded an innocent fisherman, we could only imagine the problems could have erupted from that confrontation. The actions not only taken by Commander Lippold, but also by the crew were fully justified and therefore, neither Commander Lippold or the crew should have been