Analysis: Obama beats first national security test

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting headline... especially in light of the fact that some conservative commentators (Ann Coulter, specifically) started to publicly bash Obama for "rolling over" for the pirates.

Analysis: Obama beats first national security test

The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama's "no drama" handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in one of its first critical national security tests.

Obama's two quiet backstage decisions to authorize the Defense Department to take necessary action if Capt. Richard Phillips' life was in imminent danger gave a Navy commander the go-ahead to order snipers to fire on the pirates holding the cargo ship captain at gunpoint.

For Obama, the benefits were instantly clear: an American life saved and a major victory notched against an increasingly worrisome scourge of the seas off the Horn of Africa. ...

I wonder if that crow tastes good to Ms. Coulter?

 

[drainbread]

I wonder if that crow tastes good to Ms. Coulter?

Fairly sure it tastes like caw caw.

 

[Upchurch]

Interesting headline... especially in light of the fact that some conservative commentators (Ann Coulter, specifically) started to publicly bash Obama for "rolling over" for the pirates.

Linky?

 

[Meadmaker]

I listened to Stephanie Miller patting Obama on the back today over his handling of the pirate affair, and I had to admit to a bit of puzzlement.

Let's give credit where credit is due. Obama handled this one right, which is to say, he backed off, did practically nothing, and gave the people in the area the authority to do what they needed to get done. In other words, from a presidential perspective, this was a no brainer. Yes, he did the right thing, but so would almost anyone.

On the other hand, the folks who actuall did the work, the Navy people on the scene, should be given two way big thumbs up. It was a fantastic job with lots of potential for failure. They really deserve a hand for a job well done.

Back to the presidential front, this is probably one of those situations that make your job so stressful. If it turns out well, everyone says, "So, what?" If it turns out badly, everyone says you did something wrong. In reality, you have very little control of the outcome, unless you do something terribly stupid. In this case, he did the right thing, but, in my humble opinion, he really shouldn't be overpraised for it. He passed an easy test.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obama gave permission for the military to act if the hostage's life was in imminent danger. That is what I would consider a minimum acceptable action on his part: he would have been grossly negligent not to have given such permission. But it doesn't impress me. I would have liked Obama to have given permission for an actual rescue attempt, meaning that the military could have moved against the pirates if they saw an opportunity even if the hostage wasn't in imminent danger. It appears no such order was ever given.

So not that much of a test (a Navy destroyer against 4 pirates in a tiny boat with no gas), and not a terribly impressive response. He passed because things turned out well, but there's nothing for Obama to be actually proud of (though the shooters and on-scene commander should be, though). But this won't be the end. The pirates will attack again, and the resolution probably won't be so easy next time. What will he do? And will he do anything to change the current dynamic? Piracy remains lucrative and fairly low risk. Is Obama willing to try to change that? That's the real question, and I'm not seeing a good answer yet.

 

[theprestige]

I have no idea what Ann Coulter thinks (nor do I care to find out), but my favorite conservative applauds Obama. So do I.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGYzYjE0MmIyYzY1MDQ4MzEzMTEwZDFkZTNlYTI1YWQ=

Good For President Obama.
He approved the rescue. It was the right thing to do, with no small amount of risk. And God bless the SEALs.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjlmYTE0YmU2Yjk2Zjk3ZDczOWMwOTRjZjBmNWI5ZGQ=

Obama & the Rescue
My morning in-box is full of snark and bile from some folks who think I shouldn't have congratulated President Obama for the rescue last night...Look, I think my credentials as a critic of Obama are pretty solid. But I find the idea that I have to be critical no matter what Obama does to be exhaustingly unappealing.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY1ODU0ZDBmYWZlMDVhMzFiMWQ5OTY1ZjhhMmIwMGI=

Re: Congratulating Obama
I am strongly pro-tax cuts, pro-free market, pro-federalism, anti-judicial activism, pro-school choice, pro-gun rights, and pro-shooting pirates who take Americans hostage or harrass our ships. When Obama's policy choices overlap with mine, I will congratulate him for it as much as I think warranted.

[Emphasis in original.]

 

[Upchurch]

He passed because things turned out well, but there's nothing for Obama to be actually proud of (though the shooters and on-scene commander should be, though).

If Obama had only invaded some country in the region that was otherwise unrelated to the pirates, that would have been something to be proud of.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Obama had only invaded some country in the region that was otherwise unrelated to the pirates, that would have been something to be proud of.

We're going to have to come up with a new name for this Bush version of Godwin's law. Maybe we can name it after you.

 

[Tricky]

Linky?

This is about all I can find. Dated April 8

Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."

Not all that bad. But just in case you think she's going soft, here's the next line.

Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

 

[Cleon]

Obama gave permission for the military to act if the hostage's life was in imminent danger. That is what I would consider a minimum acceptable action on his part: he would have been grossly negligent not to have given such permission. But it doesn't impress me. I would have liked Obama to have given permission for an actual rescue attempt, meaning that the military could have moved against the pirates if they saw an opportunity even if the hostage wasn't in imminent danger. It appears no such order was ever given.

So not that much of a test (a Navy destroyer against 4 pirates in a tiny boat with no gas), and not a terribly impressive response. He passed because things turned out well, but there's nothing for Obama to be actually proud of (though the shooters and on-scene commander should be, though). But this won't be the end. The pirates will attack again, and the resolution probably won't be so easy next time. What will he do? And will he do anything to change the current dynamic? Piracy remains lucrative and fairly low risk. Is Obama willing to try to change that? That's the real question, and I'm not seeing a good answer yet.

When some local thugs take over a bank and hold people hostage, the SWAT team is called. Snipers are positioned. Negotiators are brought in. And...they all sit there and wait.

Sending in the troops and storming the bank is the very last thing they do, and then only as a last resort. Why? Because doing so risks the hostages' lives, far more than any other action (or inaction).

The situation here is almost identical. The only difference is that this is happening on open water, which makes any rescue attempt exponentially more difficult than an urban setting.

If you don't give a **** about the life of the hostage, by all means, shoot first, and assign blame later. But if you want a resolution to the situation with the innocent people alive at the end of it, sending in the troops immediately is not your best course of action.

I realize some people feel the need to find fault with Obama no matter what, but in this situation he acted entirely correctly.

 

[Drysdale]

Wow, 3 pirates on a dingy are a national security test?

I mean dont get me wrong I'm glad it turned out like it did and props to Obama for giving the go ahead but this is a national security test?

Our military is in bad shape if this was a national security test.

 

[Dr Adequate]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY1ODU0ZDBmYWZlMDVhMzFiMWQ5OTY1ZjhhMmIwMGI=

And ...

Update: Apparrently Rush Limbaugh is attacking me now. Or so say listeners via email.​

 

[Upchurch]

We're going to have to come up with a new name for this Bush version of Godwin's law. Maybe we can name it after you.

You consider Bush to be somehow equivalent to Nazis? Weird, but whatever.


What else would you have liked to have seen Obama do? The way I see it there are (at least) three options:

1. Invade wherever we think the pirates' port of call is.
2. Send the Navy to protect the shipping lanes.
3. Do nothing.

Number 1, assuming we're right, scrambles the pirates for a bit before they set up shop somewhere else; lather, rinse, repeat. Number 2 is a possibility, but a never ending one. Number 3 puts the onus of protecting the shipping lanes back on the companies that use them.

Which one is something to be proud of?

 

[Meadmaker]

I would have liked Obama to have given permission for an actual rescue attempt, meaning that the military could have moved against the pirates if they saw an opportunity even if the hostage wasn't in imminent danger. It appears no such order was ever given.

It does? To whom? I'm fairly confident that if the commander had the ability to effect a rescue without endangering the life of the captain, he had the authority to do so. That's even more of a no-brainer.

I'm pretty confident that Obama will now move against the pirates in their bases, although not before securing international cooperation. Of course, that remains to be seen, but that's what I would expect. So far, so good. Not really difficult. Now we move to the next phase, where there is somewhat more risk and more chance for failure.

 

[Ziggurat]

When some local thugs take over a bank and hold people hostage, the SWAT team is called. Snipers are positioned. Negotiators are brought in. And...they all sit there and wait.

Yes: because the first thing you need to do is get information before you can decide on the best course of action. And that usually takes time. And even if you do decide you want to storm the place, you usually want to wait for a good opportunity to do so, which may involve waiting for prolonged periods.

Sending in the troops and storming the bank is the very last thing they do, and then only as a last resort. Why? Because doing so risks the hostages' lives, far more than any other action (or inaction).

Which is why I said he should have authorized a rescue attempt "if they saw an opportunity". You seem to have ignored that rather critical part. I'm not asking that the Navy just go in guns blazing, with no concern for the safety of the hostage. So you've done a great job at demolishing your strawman, but that's got little bearing on what I actually said.

 

[theprestige]

And ...

Update: Apparrently Rush Limbaugh is attacking me now. Or so say listeners via email.​

Rush Limbaugh isn't one of my favorite conservatives. Coincidence?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm fairly confident that if the commander had the ability to effect a rescue without endangering the life of the captain, he had the authority to do so. That's even more of a no-brainer.

Then why do all the stories specify that the commander was authorized to act if the hostage was in imminent danger? If the commander was authorized to act whenever he saw a good opportunity (which I think he should have been), then it wouldn't have mattered whether he was in imminent danger or not. There wouldn't be any need to authorize the captain to act specifically in the case of imminent danger, and there would be no reason to dwell on such an order (even if it was also given) in any coverage of the events. So either no such orders were given, or such orders are being kept secret. The latter seems less likely to me.

I'm pretty confident that Obama will now move against the pirates in their bases, although not before securing international cooperation.

You will not find any international cooperation. The pirates have hostages (something on the order of 200), and those hostages could get killed if we act directly against the pirates. Which would upset people, and make for very bad PR. So we either act alone, or we do not act against their bases. Those are the only real options available to us.

 

[Ziggurat]

You consider Bush to be somehow equivalent to Nazis? Weird, but whatever.

No: I consider your mentioning of Bush to be an off-topic appeal to emotion, and a sign that you can't address the current issues in any coherent manner.

What else would you have liked to have seen Obama do?

I already said that in this case, I would have liked him to authorize a rescue attempt if a good opportunity presented itself even if the hostage wasn't in imminent danger.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You will not find any international cooperation. The pirates have hostages (something on the order of 200), and those hostages could get killed if we act directly against the pirates.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, other nations have already acted against the pirates:

But the pathetic 1st Coastal Bathtub Flotilla (aka German Navy) is still ahead of you guys, having taken out (and captured, too!) nine pirates and assisted in capturing seven more.

Take that, oh mighty United States Navy!

European and Chinese naval vessels are already patrolling those waters.

 

[Cleon]

Then why do all the stories specify that the commander was authorized to act if the hostage was in imminent danger? If the commander was authorized to act whenever he saw a good opportunity (which I think he should have been), then it wouldn't have mattered whether he was in imminent danger or not. There wouldn't be any need to authorize the captain to act specifically in the case of imminent danger, and there would be no reason to dwell on such an order (even if it was also given) in any coverage of the events. So either no such orders were given, or such orders are being kept secret. The latter seems less likely to me.

Well, you seem to be forgetting the minor fact that there was a prior rescue attempt. Saturday, a USN vessel tried to approach, but withdrew after being fired on.