Comments on: SEALS take out pirates off Somali coast

By: Alabama Moderate

Alabama Moderate — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:16:43 +0000

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?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:13:49 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:23:25 +0000

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.

By: Alabama Moderate

Alabama Moderate — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:31:26 +0000

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.

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:52:33 +0000

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?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:21:26 +0000

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?

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:37:32 +0000

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.

By: Alabama Moderate

Alabama Moderate — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:55:35 +0000

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?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:24:19 +0000

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.

By: aaron sayers

aaron sayers — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:52:10 +0000

aaron sayers thinks this is a great idea