Apr 13 2009
Far Right Is Now Officially “Around The Bend” – Updated
Update: Clearly someone in DC got their act together by calling in the experts – the Navy SEALS:
The operation to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips involved dozens of Navy SEALs, who parachuted from an aircraft into the scene near dark Saturday, landing in the ocean. The SEALs were part of a group of Special Operations forces involved in the effort, according to military officials.
Give credit where it is due. To authorize these forces was the right move, and they accomplished their mission quickly once on the scene. – end update
Listening this morning to talk radio was disappointing and brief (as I switched to music after listening to the far right go deeper into the fringes). The main thrust of today’s comments about the rescue of the hostage captain from the pirates was another indication the far right is completely lost. Some of the comments basically claimed Obama should have been clearer about his plans, supposedly so the critics would not make fools of themselves predicting failure. The other effort to deny the success of the outcome was some lame claims Obama did not give the actual order to shoot – which is actually a good thing. Team Obama authorized commanders on the scene to make the decisions, which is the right approach.
Hostage situations require patience. There comes a time where the criminals make a mistake and an opening presents itself. You have to let the people on the scene make the call. This is what happened and all the crew are now safe and celebrating.
The fact some in the conservative movement cannot recognize this as a success is a sign of how far around the bend they have gone. I and others could not tolerate the far left wishing ill will for Bush and not recognizing his achievements. I cannot fathom why anyone on the right would think those minimal standards do not extend to them as well.
Just another sign that the conservative talkers are out of sync and not up to the task of challenging the liberal forces at work in DC. If you cry “Wolf!” too many times and you are found wrong, then all credibility is lost. And credibility takes years to earn back.Â
It would be prudent for Obama critics to not be knee-jerk, the sky is falling about his every move. Team Obama did well in this case, and there is no reason to broadcast their moves in these types of situations. While Obama and our Navy succeeded, the far right has failed. Truly sad. It is not that hard to give credit where it is due. There will be plenty to criticize, we don’t need to make things up.
As objective as I can possibly be, here is what I think I know about the situation (I say “think I know” because everything I have access to is filtered through lots of different reporting agencies so I have to add them together and divide by seven, so to speak)
There was no plan for any rescue operation. Had that pirate not pointed his rifle at the captain when he did, we would still be here today with the same situation on our hands.
The pirates had given up in ransoming the captain for cash. At the time they were shot, the discussions were centered around exchanging the captain for their own freedom. At the same time, we were in negotiations with “elders” ashore to get guarantees that the pirates would be taken into custody and turned over to law enforcement of some sort if such an exchange were made. We could get no such assurance from authorities on shore so we were at that time refusing to exchange the captain for the freedom of the pirates.
The pirates made a call via sat phone shortly before they were shot. They said they were fearing for their own safety and afraid they would not be able to make it back to shore in the lifeboat even if the US allowed them to go. They were out of fuel, out of food, out of water and …. out of ammunition according to one of the pirates in a report published by McClatchy.
So you have three pirates who are coming to the conclusion that they may not get ashore alive even if they are set free. Their only chance is to keep the captain in their custody for as long as possible, at least long enough to be towed close enough to shore for them to have a chance at making it back alive. We were afraid they might just get away with it if they got back to shore.
You have a naval force commander who was authorized to use deadly force if it appeared that the captain’s life was threatened and was in a negotiation deadlock. Things were basically in a standoff situation where the pirates WANTED to give back the captain in exchange for being let go. We did not want to let them go, we did not have authorization for an out and out rescue operation, and we could not get guarantees that the pirates would face any consequences of their actions if they reached shore.
The naval commander on the scene broke the deadlock by interpreting the pointing of the rifle at the captain as a life threatening situation thereby allowing the pirates to be taken out according to the rules of engagement authorized previously in the situation. Three shots, three dead pirates. End of situation, end of negotiations. Excellent work by the people on the scene, no thanks to the people in Washington DC.
AJ:
“If, sadly, the next attack takes someone close to you maybe it will become clear.
Hope you never have to learn that lesson.”
The last attack DID take someone close to me – I lost a family member. I just didn’t lose my humanity over it.
Very classy of you there, BTW.
Oh, and:
“The difference is the waterboarding (which is lame to call torture) stopped hundreds of deaths.”
No, they didn’t. That was a crock.
Guy,
Your incomplete liberal reference aside, the waterboarding of KLM DID stop attacks, Please note the brain washing article only talks about one person who underwent the treatment.
There were more than one, and the others caved and attacks were stopped.
How does it feel to be lied to like that?
There are of course two sides to every story:
http://tinyurl.com/d8w3nf
Something that’s noticably missing from AJ’s comment, or gary’s NRO article:
Proof.
What attacks, AJ? When and where?
I think this pretty much meshes with what crosspatch says above:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023317.php
I would agree that it’s wrong to try and criticize Obama over this, at this stage of information at least. However, it appears he had very little to do with it actually, nor should he have perhaps. There was a whole lot of luck for all to be thankful for, as well as lots of skill at the trigger.
We shouldn’t attack Obama over this, but at the same time, we shouldn’t allow the Obama-voting media to portray the whole thing as some kind of heroic use of reasoned judgment on HIS part, when in fact the real crucial decisions were being made on scene.
I would hope that in the (unlikely) event Obama does truly take a stand on using American force in a substantial way, as did Bush regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, that we will ALL rally around him, and for the long haul. The left being unwilling to do this for Bush, especially given the degree of congressional agreement initially, sent a horrible message to others around the world. It’s like — gee, half their OWN COUNTRY opposes this, and they’re calling him a lying war-monger. We certainly now have the moral authority to not join in and help.
Imagine if the whole world, well, except for a few you wouldn’t expect to, had come down like a ton of bricks on Saddam and then his remnants and then Al-Qaeda in Iraq. How much easier might it have been, and how many lives might have been spared, on all sides?
GuyF,, you are hopeless.
Something that’s noticably missing from AJ’s comment, or gary’s NRO article:
Proof.
First, waterboarding has never been identified officially as torture, only as enhanced interrogation techniques. Most or all US special forces go through this type training, and much worse. If it is ‘torture’ why do US personnel go thru it?
Proof? you obviously didn’t read the article.
I lost a family member. I just didn’t lose my humanity over it.
your humanity seems to apply only to the bad guys.
I’m of two minds on this.
Tactically, Obama did the right thing…stayed out of the way and let the commanders in the field call the shots (literally, in this case) in real time. Those of you outside DOD have no idea how tempting it is for senior officials to play squad leader via satellite.
Strategically, Mr. Hutchison is right. Obama is cutting naval strength precisely when it is becoming more and more evident that seapower will be the trump card of the next decade. A foolish mistake.
I say we reactivate the US Navy Armed Guard. Rather than arming civilian employees of shipping companies, you place military service members trained in defense of a ship on board when a ship sails through dangerous areas. The only requirement being that the ship fly an American flag while the Armed Guard members are aboard.
Obama gave the authorization for use of force any way you look at it. He could have told the Navy to “stand down” (and hoped ransom/arrest efforts were successful). He made the correct decision here. The rescue attempt might have failed and resulted in the Captain’s death. I would not have blamed him for a failed rescue attempt (if the Captain’s life were in danger) either. It’s about his judgement in the rescue effort. I can congratulate him and be proud for that.
However, it has also escalated the situation with piracy. Other countries — even allies — will be upset with that. So, Obama’s true success will be in how he handles the issue of piracy from here on out. Will be all hot air and jaw jaw — or will he be a man of action? That is his true test.
Obama has been a pleasant surprise in his continuation of most of the Bush policies and personnel in GWOT issues. I am thankful for that. I just wish he had supported Bush all along instead of playing politics.
Back to my statement above that Obama’s real test will be in what action he takes to combat piracy in the future….
I understand that the Military’s authority to act may have already been there with or without an Obama affirmation. But, evidently he did call to affirm an ok on the rescue if the Captain’s life was in danger. And, just as with Bush, if you are CIC, success and failure of military operations does seem to be credited to the CIC. And, whether or not actual support is given matters.
I rememberd that Bush was active in the Somalia problem from a terrorist standpoint (more active than most have heard). However, I couldn’t remember what action he had taken on the piracy problem. So, I tried to find some background and came up with two good articles if anyone is interested.
Look, Bush was only starting to address the piracy issue. And, most of the Bush guidelines were about avoiding contact with pirates. “It was near silent” on what to do if a ship was taken by pirates and hostages held captive.
Although Bush left some good plans as a start to address this issue….it belongs to Obama. It is a bigger test for him than I thought. He passed the first part (a ship taken/hostage situation). Now the hard part comes……formulating detailed polices. Fortunately for us we have a great military Obama can fall back on for good advice on moving forward. Obama’s domestic agenda (and some foreigh policy) is hurting the country; however, from what I have seen…..he tends to listen to the military on most military matters.
Observing the Obama Administration Somali Piracy Policy
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/observing-obama-administration-somali.html
Bush Administration Had Issued Plan for Pirates in December
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123931064271506281.html
There could also be some fair criticism or concern of this, if true:
—–
Buyer questions Obama’s delay on using force against pirates
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090413/LOCAL04/90413058/0/ENTERTAINMENT
(Rep) Buyer said the U.S. Department of Defense had twice asked Obama for permission to use force against the pirates, who took Phillips from the Maersk Alabama on Wednesday and held him in a lifeboat.
“It is pretty stunning to me it had taken the president so long to say ‘OK’ to the Department of Defense to use force,” Buyer said. “Any time a captain of a U.S.-flagged vessel finds themselves in imminent danger, you shouldn’t have have had to ask that question.”
“The rescue attempt might have failed and resulted in the Captain’s death.”
That’s just it, Frogg … there WAS no planned, organized rescue attempt. The commander on the scene simply ordered the snipers to fire when they had clear shots at all three pirates. Had the pirate in the cabin not pointed his weapon at the captain, we would still be here today talking about the “hostage”. Washington had no clear plan to rescue Captain Phillips. It was a moment of opportunity and a liberal application of the ROE.
Crosspatch, I didn’t say it was a “planned” rescue attempt. I have another post which goes into more detail that is awaiting AJ’s moderation before it is posted.
Speaking of AJ….
it looks like “Rightwing Extremism” has now moved beyond AJ to an official Obama government report now:
http://rogerhedgecock.com/resources/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%20Climate%20Fueling%20Radicalization%20and%20Recruitment,dated%207%20April%202009.pdf
Against abortion? Against immigration? Against gun control? Extremism everywhere. And, now an official government threat assessment report….
gulp.
Frogg,
There are people out there who use these issues to rationalize violence. Skinheads, KKK, others shroud their envy and hate in such causes.
There have been people who have killed to stop abortion.
This is not a joke. There is a reason there is some concern, this is not just some PR campaign.
The eco-terrorists are Americans too you know.
The question is why would you consider this targeted at you? It is not the cause they claim which is the problem – it is the threat of violence for the cause.
Will you cover for people who reach out to violence?