wrote in message

Do you believe that incidents like this should be deliberately
suppressed?

No, probably not in most circumstances -- they can't be, unless members of
the opposite force are killed. But the nature of the press is such that it
is impossible for the Navy to issue a simple two line statement, which is
all something like this deserves. The press will make a large event of it,
whether warranted or not.


It wouldn't be ridiculous to conclude that the original source of this
story to the wire services was probably the Navy itself, (who else was
out there?), and in that case the Navy must have evaluated the pros and
cons of publicly releasing this information.

The Navy would *have* to release the story, for if they did not, the
pirates' cohorts certainly would, and then the Navy would have the
additional PR problem of appearing to be trying to suppress.

The accounts I have seen all state that the suicidal maniacs in the
small boats fired first. Not a smart move. If you fire at a warship,
it's hard to characterize the crew as bullying opperssors when your
boat gets vaporized in return.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa....ap/index.html
Somalis say U.S. fired first in high-seas gunbattle

Sunday, March 19, 2006; Posted: 1:50 p.m. EST (18:50 GMT)

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) -- Somali militiamen who skirmished with U.S. Navy
vessels claimed Sunday they did not fire the first shot and that they had
been patrolling Somali waters to stop illegal fishing vessels.


Of course, this tactic is expected, and for the Navy it is a no-win
situation among those whose first presumption is that the US is in the
wrong.