SEALS take out pirates off Somali coast
Navy snipers on the fantail of a destroyer cut down three Somali pirates in a lifeboat and rescued an American sea captain in a surprise nighttime assault in choppy seas Easter Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between a team of rogue gunmen and the world’s most powerful military.
It was a stunning ending to an Indian Ocean odyssey that began when 53-year-old freighter Capt. Richard Phillips was taken hostage Wednesday by pirates who tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama. The Vermont native was held on a tiny lifeboat that began drifting precariously toward Somalia’s anarchic, gun-plagued shores.
The operation, personally approved by President Barack Obama, quashed fears the saga could drag on for months and marked a victory for the U.S., which for days seemed powerless to resolve the crisis despite massing helicopter-equipped warships at the scene.
I really, really like it when bad guys get killed. Let’s hope more pirates meet the same fate.
It’s good to see that Obama made the right choice and authorized the use of force. It is a difficult decision given the unpredictable outcome – just imagine how people would respond if Capt. Phillips had been killed or injured in the rescue attempt. I think it was the right decision regardless of the outcome, although I’m very happy with how it turned out.
I admit being surprised that Obama authorized swift, lethal force. When I heard about a hijacked tugboat originally identified as a U.S. vessel (later learned to be Italian) in addition to the Phillips hostage situation I half joked to my wife, “Now Obama will be really angry. He’ll send a stern letter to the U.N. demanding that they pirates stop or else he’ll write a harsher letter.” Glad I was wrong.
Now we’ll see if Obama has the steely resolve to cope with the problem of piracy, especially now that the likelihood for escalation is great.
Thanks to a group of liberals who are going to end piracy by staging a series of <b><a href=”http://bobmccarty.com/2009/04/11/live-raid-concerts-to-benefit-somali-pirates/”>12 benefit concerts for the Somali pirates</a></b>, Captain Phillips is likely to go down in the history books as the last ship captain to be kidnapped by pirates.
Congratulations to the SEALs and for the safe return of the Captain. However “Avast me hardies”, sooner or later someone is going to have to go onshore and clean these pirates out – arrgh
So glad the captain is saved. I hope U.S. realizes that those PIRATES are TERRIOSTS. We must treat them as such. Surely we could bomb these pirates’ headquarters. What are we waiting for!
I’m relieved that Capt. Phillips has been rescued – with a minimal loss of life. It seems it was the only viable solution to the situation since the pirates were unwilling or unable to surrender.
Eddie permalink So glad the captain is saved. I hope U.S. realizes that those PIRATES are TERRIOSTS. We must treat them as such. Surely we could bomb these pirates’ headquarters. What are we waiting for!
What would that mean to bomb these pirates? There have been pirates on the high seas for as long as man could put a boat in the water…why do you think dropping a bomb is going to make that go away?
Of course bombing them wouldn’t make them go away completely but it will help. If you have a hornet’s nest – you get rid of the nest. Elaine, I would like to know what do you suggest – wait for them?
I don’t think we have the resources at this time to divert our attention to a group of criminals who got lucky with one ship in 200 years (and ended up being not so lucky, after all). There are other countries with very big guns who have had a much bigger issue with the pirates and don’t have forces in Afghanistan. They’ve felt better about paying ransoms since Thomas Jefferson tried to get them involved, and if they didn’t see it as a big enough issue then, then I don’t suppose they will now. I’d rather go after the bigger fish for now.
Of course, if the pirates do feel like they want to start something, I’m sure our Navy will be more than happy to oblige them.
I know I’ve seen folks compare them to terrorists, but they’re really nothing like. First off, terrorists are more organized. Pirates operate in small groups with no real hierarchy of commanders. They’re rag-tag criminals. Second, terrorists are motivated by political and religious motives, while pirates are motivated by money. Terrorists kill people without much regard to anything else other than effect. Pirates tend to treat their hostages well and would rather have a ransom. Considering the differences, I see pirates as being no more of a threat to U.S. national security than a group of bank robbers in London who happen to have a U.S. citizen inside the bank. Osama is another story.
I just joined the Navy last december, and i dont ship out until October but one of my aspirations is to become a Navy SEAL. the training they receive is extremely rough and it pays off in teh end as you can tell by the three SEAL snipers taking out the Somali Pirates. i am glad too that Pres. Obama made a quick and decisive decison to eliminate the threat to the captain on the ship. GOOD JOB PRES. OBAMA!!!! GO NAVY SEALS!!!!!!!!!!!
aaron sayers thinks this is a great idea
Not to be a gad-fly, but if you notice the exact wording used and emphasized by all key personnel involved, “there was an eminent threat to the Captain’s life because there was an AK-47 pointed at his head”. These words constitute the legal grounds for the use of deadly force in almost any situation – especially this one. Its also most like self-defense, but a defense of another human being instead of self. This justification to kill is available to anyone – especially police officers and anyone else in positions of authority. Permission from Obama was not necessary or required to shot in this specific case. It is somewhat of a sham to “give” permission and receive praise when none is needed. My lifetime experience is in policing and military special operations such as this.
As to whether we should and could continue this role at sea. American shipping is less that 2% of global shipping. That percentage is comprised of US agriculture shipments, US charitable shipments, and military goods shipments – all of which are mandated by US law. Otherwise, the percentage would be much less because transport by American ships costs are up to 80% higher than many other countries. Because of our small American numbers on the seas and the availability of so many other easy target ships, I suspect we may not get very much action in the future.
Okay, how about this, Steve… How about the fact that he didn’t send in our military with guns a-blazin’ like the French, which likely would have resulted in the captain’s death? I can give him credit for his handling of the situation as a whole. The general order was given on Friday and again on Saturday, and the action was taken on Sunday. Meanwhile, there was no public announcement made which might have riled up the people involved in the situation– no tells, like a good poker player.
Honestly, if the captain had died, you’d better bet that folks would be screaming that it was his fault, so why not for once give him some credit when he does something right?
This person that we are discussing is the President of the United States, the most influential and powerful man in the world, picked form the best and the brightest in the United States – and you are pinning me down to give him credit for not doing something stupid. How absurd. I believe a reasonable routine expectation is that he will not only not do something stupid, but will nominally do things right. Should he do something great or spectacular, he should be praised. I am waiting.
They obviously didn’t have to go in guns-a-blazing like the French (never thought I would say those words).
Could they not have called for the snipers to eliminate the targets earlier and had (one would reasonably assume) the same outcome they had in the end, just with less hostage time for the captain?
Someone doesn’t understand the nature of a “general order”. It is a vague statement of purpose. Sort of a mealy mouthed, nonspecific thhreat. Fits our current president doesn’t it?
Steve, honestly, who would you have blamed if Captain Phillips had died? I think we both know the answer to that question. And while we’re at it, how is it that Obama seems to be given credit for delaying things but not giving the order for allowing the action to be taken? You seem to put our Navy in a position where it almost sounds like they directly disobeyed an order, which is more than a little insulting.
Jonathan, from what I’m seeing of how the operation was handled, it was textbook. The best case scenario is where you don’t have to fire any shots at all, which would put the hostage in the least amount of danger. If this could have been done more swiftly, you can bet that our naval commanders would have done so.
If shots must be fired, you wait for the best possible opportunity to do so. (Pray you don’t miss.) Real life is far from what we see in the movies, and snipers don’t normally have perfect shots all the time. In this case, the lifeboat was being towed and was slowly being pulled in closer to the Navy ship so that they might get a better shot.
Edward, I think you misunderstand the role of the Commander in Chief. Standing orders can change, and standing or not, confirmation was given TWICE by the Commander in Chief. Either way, it’s typically not the role of the POTUS to micromanage such a situation but rather to stay informed, give the general order, and let your commanders handle the details as they are trained to. In doing this, Obama did fulfill his role as Commander in Chief in this situation.
Again I say, if anyone here was willing to blame Obama for any failure to bring Captain Phillips home alive and well, then you must also be willing to give him credit for the opposite. I’m all for criticizing the president where it is due (see also his half-brained and later retracted idea to make disabled vets pay for their own healthcare), but this isn’t the case.
My concern is that it leaves any critics of the president in a “boy who cried wolf” scenario where any legitimate critique won’t be taken seriously, and I’d like for legitimate critique of the president to be taken seriously. Worse, it also leaves the impression (intended or not and correct or not) that you’d have rather seen the good captain injured or worse solely so that you’d have the benefit of political gloating. In other words, this lunacy isn’t hurting the president. It’s hurting those of us who’d like to be able to point out his REAL mistakes when he makes them.
Alabama Moderate, you are still not clever enough to get my point – let me try again by explaining in detail. Having commanded a rescue operation in Southeast Asia to rescue the cargo ship Mayaguez from the Cambodia’s in the gulf of Siam under President Ford, I believe I know what I am talking about. The US military’s regular day-to-day mission is not to protect commercial maritime shipping on the high seas, nor is it their mission to patrol the streets of Huntsville for burglaries, or to clean out the nest of pirates in Somalia at their home base (The latter would also require a Presidential Order). It other words, the US military could not, on their own, do anything to interfere with the piracy.
The US Commander in Chief can give an order to assign a new mission to a specific military unit to aid the US merchant ship and to take whatever action necessary within the laws of the US. Obama gave that specific order to the US ship on the scene involved based on the advise of the Joint Chief of Staff (JCS) of the US military, who has the constitutional responsibility to advise the President on all military matters.
As JCS operational plans developed, additional ships and other US recourses that included the SEAL were brought into play. These new military units also needed presidential authority to react outside their normal military duties and get involved with maritime civilians. This is the technical reason for the second specific order from Obama.
I said and I will say again, the President did not and was not required to give the order to shoot. The shooting occurred well within the parameters of existing US law and rules of engagement that I explained. This was in response to Rudy who said, “Pres. Obama made a quick and decisive decision to eliminate the threat to the captain on the ship. GOOD JOB PRES. OBAMA!!!! GO NAVY SEALS!!!!!!!!!!!”
I also said that Obama didn’t deserve praise for something he did not do which was that he did not give the order to shoot. He simply did his job by following a checklist in the White House Situation Room once he made the political decision to get the military involved with a civilian issue. And yes, if you want to say that Obama’s decision was a way of running for cover to escape possible criticism if things went bad, then I agree. He does not deserve praise for that.
By the way, this was not the only possible scenario. One of my SEAL friends agrees that a very plausible and possibly less risky plan might have been to have the SEALs operate underwater and sank the boat from below. While everyone was scrambling for their lives, heavy weapons would have been discarded making it easier to rescue the Captain. I suspect the uncertain difficulty of sinking that particular kind of boat may have militated against such a plan.
I understand real life is not like the movies – my main point was you are setting up a false dichotomy with the “french guns-a-blazin’” comparison.
Steve, while I agree that he didn’t specifically say over the phone, “Go ahead and shoot right now,” even you agree that the slightest bit of military involvement could not have been possible without an order from the Commander in Chief. That was MY point.
And you STILL failed to answer my primary question. Would you have blamed the president had the captain died?