Obviously your host is pleased that a heroic mariner such as Captain Richard Phillips has been liberated from his captivity. I am not displeased that those who wrongly held him have shuffled off their mortal coils. I’m very proud of the SEAL snipers whose precise application of firepower – 25-35 yards is no great distance for a marksman, but the shooters were on a moving platform, shooting at mobile targets who were themselves bobbing around in a lifeboat – eased the pirates into the next life without harming Captain Phillips.
The “on-scene commander” – an ingeniously ambiguous construct, I take it to mean the SEAL platoon commander rather than Bainbridge‘s CO – made a good call at the right time. And the ROE were in place for him to do so. Opportunity and capability intersected and the moment was seized.
But about that: Much is being made about the president’s issuance of authority to use lethal force against the pirates should their captive’s life appear to be in jeapordy. The Washington Post calls this “an early military victory” for the president. And senior Navy officers are doubtlessly pleased to throw laurels at the feet of our new caesar, after all, they’ll be living under his thumb for most of the next four years.
But the Navy has an inherent right and obligation to protect and defend US citizens on international waters. No new ROE guidance should have been necessary. A lethal threat is proportionately responded to with lethal force. The best we can say – and it’s not nothing – was that Washington didn’t get in the way here.
This has much to do with the eternal campaign style of today’s political class. And we must admit that had things gone another way, the president would have suffered body blows to his prestige, blows gratefully delivered by legions of those who would happily have seen him fail even if it meant that poor Captain Phillips’ family had received less pleasant news on Easter Sunday.
We saw far too much of that sort of thing over the last eight years. We here, at least, ought to have the level-headedness to see things as they are. Piracy ought not become a political issue, beause it’s not going away anytime soon, hard decisions will have to be made and there will probably be setbacks.
How to sum this up?
Nice shot.
My comparison has been that it is like the mayor giving the SWAT team authority to use lethal force to end a hostage crisis.
That should only be news if the mayor had WITHHELD authority, which is presumed to exist.
Damn nice shooting indeed!! Did you see the pic of the three neat holes in the glass of the fwrd observation port? Talk about a tight grouping for the circumstances! I had thought from earlier rpts that two of the bad guys had stuck their heads out on either side of the boat for fresh air or something, but looks like they were all inside bunched together. Helluva shot thru glass that can obscure vision–let alone the relative motion problem. Those guys earned their salary for sure.
With all the negative press the armed forces has gotten from the MSM over these past years it’s great to see a successful example of the professionalism of the armed forces and what the tax-payers are getting for their money.
But the Navy has an inherent right and obligation to protect and defend US citizens on international waters. No new ROE guidance should have been necessary. A lethal threat is proportionately responded to with lethal force.
This is what has been nibbling at the corners of my mind for the last 24 hours… why did the president need to “twice” give them authority, as widely reported in media praising Obama for “authorizing the action?” Doesn’t that imply that prior to Friday morning (the first time authority was given) they did NOT have the authority to use force to protect/free the hostage?
And if they always had authority, how in the world was the decision not to fire on the pirates when the captain jumped into the water on Friday? I mean, if the pirates recovered their hostage, are we to believe it didn’t happen under threat to the life of the hostage? In other words, when he jumped overboard, they had to have pointed their weapons at him in the water and told him they’d shoot if he didn’t do what they told him to. And yet the snipers and such on Bainbridge did nothing? But according to the DoD, the ROE allowed them to shoot on Sunday morning because the hostage’s life was suddenly in danger?
Lots of questions that don’t seem to have answers that are consistent with each other. I’m honestly confused…
FbL…
I read that the “original”authorization was given on Friday. The so -called second authorization was only so the second group would have the same authority as the first. So, leave it to the MSM to spin it in a way that would make Obama look like a hero.
My question is: why would the on scene commander need approval from the President to take action? Color me uninformed; but, it looks like a serious case of micro-management to me. I would have thought that the standing ROE would have included those orders anyway.
As it was explained by C5F-geography was the difference between Friday and Sunday:
Sure. That part of the — on the east coast of Somalia is a vast stretch of water. To put it in perspective, it starts from — draw a box from Houston to Chicago to New York City down to Jacksonville, Florida.
It’s an immense body of water. When the “Maersk-Alabama” had their problem, our closest vessel from all the navies that were out there, we have 16 navies patrolling those waters, and the closest one was the “USS Bainbridge” and it was over 300 nautical miles.
The day before, they had made an announcement through their company that they were fending off some pirates and then when — and they said it was under control.
And then the next day when this one that they ultimately got on board, we were closing Bainbridge as quickly as we can, but 22 knots, 300 nautical miles, it take as while to get there.
And there’s about a 10 minute window from when the pirates are able to get on board that we have time to act. Up in the Gulf of Aden, north on the north coast of Somalia where it’s a little bit more concentrated, we’ve had more successful attempts when a ship was being attempted to be pirated where one of the navies of the 16 navies down that are down there that could react and assist with breaking up the attempt. But out on the east coast of Somalia, such a vast area, we simply do not have enough resources in order to cover all those areas…..
I want to make one thing perfectly clear, that the on-scene commander determined that the captain was in imminent danger. If he was not in imminent danger, they were not to take this sort of action they were supposed to let the negotiation process work it out.
The on-scene commander took it as the captain was this imminent danger and then made that decision and he had the authorities to make that decision and he had seconds to make that decision.
“the ‘on-scene commander,’ an ingeniously ambiguous construct…”
Boy, you’ve got that right, Lex. Hearings about the capture of the USS Pueblo revealed that the “on-scene” commander (i.e., the one coordinating the rescue effort–not the Pueblo’s Capt.) was considered to be the naval HQ in JAPAN!!
I’m inclined to give some credit to the politically aware people who got the permission. The mind’s eye pictures the exchange …
Q: “Do we have permission to shoot if the hostage faces an imminent threat?”
A: “hem, haw … let me get back to you on that, it’s a difficult question …”
Q: “If we do not have permission to shoot, can we have that in writing?”
A: “Um …”
Nice one, Ray. I wonder if that scenario would explain some of the questions I have….
Nice SHOTS!
When Obama first got briefed on this he should have said “Navy, you now have weapons free. Update me every 12 hours”
The posturing about “Obama authorized sniper team, etc” makes me sick.
Does ANYONE think that Obama and his civilian staff have expertise over the Navy to end a conflict like this?
Lex and Fbl … I’m so glad that you made this point about the Navy having “an inherent right to protect and defend US citizens in international waters.” We didn’t need Obama’s “permission” to do this, although the fan-mag mainstream media is going ga-ga about Obama’s “military victory. ” From where I sit, he was a reluctant non-participant, not a great military strategist. The heroes were our Navy SEALs, and the other Navy personnel who controlled the situation while the SEALs did their magnificent job. Oh, and Captain Phillips himself, who kept his head and his courage. Bravo to all who performed magnificently.
Now you White House guys… sit down and shut up. This was not your finest hour.
Marianne
Lex, I’m not exactly a Liberal, but I think we can give some praise to the White House on this one.
Remember another democrat president, again in Somalia, when political decisions overruled common sense and military procedures, and the whole Black Hawk Down frak-up happened?
Not this time.
BTW: Those SEAL snipers are ninjas or what?
I agree with the idea that it’s good that Obama didn’t micromanage like Clinton did, and (eventually) have the people with the knowledge/skills the room to make the right decisions. But isn’t it a bit condescending to say, “You did a great job of staying out of the way, Mr. President?”
“hell week” in the surf at Coronado Beach paid off again !!!
Lex/
“inherent rights” and no new ROE or no, anytime we have a crisis situation in this “wired” world we live in ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES the President will be involved in a positive, active manner–wise in the event or not. Graham T. Allison, in his seminal work “The Cuban Missile Crisis” describes how SECDEF MacNamera went down to flag plot to quiz CNO Admiral Radford (supposedly one of the smoothest and most intellectual CNOs the Navy has ever had) as to just what–considering a nuclear war hung in the balance– the exact procedures would be if there was a need to send a boarding party over if a Soviet ship ran the “quarantine.” The story goes that Radford held up a book of Navy regs, pointed to it, and said, in so many words: “No need to get all worried, it’s all right in here, the Navy knows what to do, we’ve been boarding ships for hundreds of years.” To which MacNamera exploded in reply: “I don’t give a damn about what John Paul Jones would have done, I want to know PRECISELY what orders YOU have given!”
SOOoo—the upshot of that little confrontation was that a pissed-off MacNamera who didn’t think the Navy was as sensitively attuned to the President’s needs as it should be, managed to find an excuse to force Radford into early retirement and out of the CNO’s slot within three months after the crisis was over.
Moral? Don’t tug on Superman’s cape.
Cardoso ~ keep in mind that this time, unlike ’93 in Somalia, we didn’t have the U.N. to work around…I mean, contend with.
How about “Mission Accomplished”
Lex;
Thanks for a great summary of the vague thoughts chasing around in my head on the entire affair.
HSN
HSN/
I left a note for ypu once, don’t know if you got it–about how I got a kick out of your call-sign as my Father went to HS in Normal, ILL. LOL!
Cap’n,
On the positive side, Commodore Bainbridge’s reputation got a very slight upgrade from this action.
However, when did piracy ever become a ‘hostage situation’ in the first place? Unarmed merchant ships scuttle from one port to another via the most economical sea routes. Indeed, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa are known areas for both merchies and pirates. I believe the ‘bellum’ construct makes piracy a crime against all shipping and, thus, punishable at the time of the event. Somehow, Western countries have gotten out of enforcing anti-piracy laws in favor of ‘negotiation’.
Bushwa! A pirate is fair game and negotiations are not needed.
It is past time to remind the Somali Elders the price they pay when their youngers go pirating. I propose two scenarios:
1. A pirate caught in the act is sufficient proof and is subject to death immediately. The Commanding Officer pronounces the sentence and the offending pirate is raised by the neck.
2. A pirate, killed in the act, is returned to his homeland b helicopter. An indelible mark is placed on the corpse which is then dropped from altitude.
No quarter is given to a pirate. They are scum and deserve no ‘second chance’.
SeniorD/
Man, you got to get with the “progressive” program. We can’t have no retrograde knuckle-dragging antediluvian dinos running around here giving all us acolytes of the Lightwalker Obamassiah a bad name! Got to give ‘em their Constitutional civil rights–complete with the whole Bill of Rights! What sort of horrid, heartless people do you think we are?!
Well, at least send a JAG to read them their rights and represent them.
Damn right, Coco, the VERY LEAST we should do!
When do pirates get rights? Do they give the same rights to their hostages?
Mmm, use of certain SOF requires Presidential authority. Not that they were involved, not that I know, but, you know, something to consider.
And folks, in a wired world like this, every decision will go back to the White House. Be glad, at least, that the White House is very clearly setting a pattern (more than you have seen in the press) of letting the on-scene commander decide what to do. I don’t care much for this President, but please stop bitching about these ridiculous ROEs as if they were his own personal project. He inherited them from numerous predecessors, he probably won’t improve them, but he didn’t create them, either.
Congratulations to the SEALS.
As for the administration—the ROE should have ALWAYS been to deal with pirates as leathely as those on the scene determine can be done at minimal risk to the kidnapped.
And now some precision in weapons delivery should be mandated on the nest. There are at least 150 merchant seamen being held against their will, and the damn payoffs to the pirates must stop.
This should never have been a political question. If the navies of the world are not allowed to protect commercial shipping from pirates, then the question comes to mind: Why have navies. We could use the money just to pay tribute, and President Jefferson will roll over in his grave.
The Navy deserves the Kudos, Not President Pantywaste!
Events would have been a lot different if GWB was Commander….. 1. Initial GWB response…’we’ll smoke them out dead or alive…” ….. 2. Possibly Aruba or Bolivia would be attacked in response to the Somalia pirates. …..3. ‘Mission Accomplished” would be declared while the US Military is in Bolivia.
Will we get to see the new Commander in Chief dressed up like a cowboy or a rancher or a fighter jock soon? That was cool and it made me feel safe. However he probably won’t feel the need to fly out to the ship and give a speech under a great big “Mission Accomplished” banner. If he does though I hope they remember to align the ship so the coast isn’t in the background so it looks like you’re far out of sea.
Events would have been a lot different if Bush was still in charge….. 1. Initial response…’we’ll smoke them out dead or alive…” ….. 2. Possibly Aruba or Bolivia would be attacked in response to the Somalia pirates. …..3. ‘Mission Accomplished” would be declared while the US Military was in Bolivia.
Very proud to see we have a president who will take action, not just run to the UN for guidance: (11/19/0 “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush has been briefed about increasing attacks by Somali pirates off east Africa, and the United States is consulting with other U.N. Security Council members on ways to combat the threat, the White House said on Wednesday.” Obama signed this standing order in February: (ABC News 2/11/09) “Counter Piracy Execute Order that charged the military with pursuing and apprehending pirates who threaten commercial ships in the Horn of Africa region off the coast of Somalia.”
Will we get to see the new Commander in Chief dressed up like a cowboy or a rancher or a fighter jock soon?
Why the hate of former President Bush?
Y’all WON! Can’t you at least have a little class?
Class? Unkawill, they’re far too intelligent to have class. Besides, EVERYTHING is Bush’s fault! But I got to ask one little question. I’m not as smart as you fellas, so I know you’ll have the answer: Now that a Socia…I mean, Democrat has usur..won the election and now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, could you please tell me just exactly what he will do to stop piracy and help the poor black people of Somalia? It’s just a simple question; God knows Bushhitler couldn’t handle it. The One should be able to settle it in a day or two. Can you tell me? Please?
This has been an interesting discussion. Points of order, I’m neither conservative, nor liberal. I do believe there are issues open for discussion. Obama was required to address specific issue with individual target audiences. The confusion occurs when we listen to the message that doesn’t apply to us. We need to see each message in its context. Was it necessary for Obama to seek approvals for the SEAL’s actions? The answer is both “yes” and “no”. As you all well know, there are portions of Presidential options which must be taken in consultation with Congress, on the other hand you have the “Laws of the Sea”. Obama established this as a “Laws of the Sea” issue. There is no difference between this event and 9/11. @Zane (18), you raised the lack of a Presidential Order, the situation did not meet the needed requirements.
@coco, I agree, their rights were not read to them. I do believe a signed copy of their rights, under the “Laws of the Sea”, was sent to them by a US Navy SEAL.
C’mon Grumpy,
Piracy has always been a concern for the jus gentium. Such actors are, using the socially correct verbiage, mere players on a larger field.
I prefer the sort of justice applied by the Royal Navy, American Navy and even the French Navy – death by hanging.
Grumpy, you misread me. I did not raise the lack of a Presidential Order. I only pointed out that the use of certain forces requires one. I specifically did not say that these forces nor this situation required one.
Just sayin’.
SeniorD, You are so correct about “social correctness” in my verbiage about the consequences This is only true if we come to the some same conclusion. Keel hauling is also to be construed as an an acceptable conclusion.
OK, I am a novice at this, but here is what caught my eye. The Prez gave authority to all involved to Kill. What does that mean.? It means that they can use their Skill and their Experience without the worry of who gets the blame if something goes wrong. He gave them the ability to complete the mission WITHOUT worry, they could simply focus on the issue in front of them which is what they are trained to do. What does Obama get? the blame if it goes wrong. Do you really think that he just wanted to play.? I think he gave those men the clear consience that is needed for mistakeproof decision making. And it worked. He didn’t foul the situation with details or pretend to have experience and take over. He IS the president and Commander-in-Chief and is held responsible for other’s actions all day everyday. As supreme commander, he did what he is supposed to do. Take responsibility not control. USA Mission: Accomplished. BTW, I believe in Hang’em now. They are true terrorists and there is no dispute or question which might require a jury. They boarded, they are guilty. There is one sentence, and Captains have the Authority to carry it out. Looks lengthy…I ‘ll end with :my Dad served on the SS Shasta.