Analysis: Obama beats first national security test

[Cleon]

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.

And your assumption that he did not has no basis in fact whatsoever.

 

[Prometheus]

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.

Of course this is a national security test. There are any number of ways an incompetent President could have screwed up and responded in a way that would be detrimental to national security. Obama didn't do any of them. Suppose he'd attempted to pay a ransom and the pirates got away with the loot. You think that wouldn't have encouraged other terrorists/pirates to go after U.S. interests?

 

[Ziggurat]

And your assumption that he did not has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Not so: it's based on the fact that OTHER orders are explicitly mentioned. Now again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe such an order was given. If so, then the order was kept secret. I do not know why such an order would be kept secret. I'd be happy to be wrong on this, for such an order to have been given and for there to be some reason to keep it secret. But I'm not seeing it.

 

[Cleon]

Not so: it's based on the fact that OTHER orders are explicitly mentioned.

Yes, because "take action immediately if the hostage's life is in danger" is completely in contradiction with "take action if you see an opportunity."

Now again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe such an order was given. If so, then the order was kept secret. I do not know why such an order would be kept secret. I'd be happy to be wrong on this, for such an order to have been given and for there to be some reason to keep it secret. But I'm not seeing it.

And I, for one, don't know why a rescue attempt was attempted on Saturday, if the commanding officer on the scene didn't have the authority to do so.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

A vessel approaching does not a rescue attempt make. The approach was not categorized as a rescue attempt in any of the news coverage I've seen, so why would you think it was? And it would be a remarkably feeble one if it could be repulsed by a tiny bit of light arms fire. Funny that you chided me for making an assumption after having written this yourself.

 

[Cleon]

A vessel approaching does not a rescue attempt make. The approach was not categorized as a rescue attempt in any of the news coverage I've seen, so why would you think it was?

You're absolutely right. They probably just wanted to ask the pirates if they could borrow a cup of flour for the cake they were baking.

And it would be a remarkably feeble one if it could be repulsed by a tiny bit of light arms fire.

Yeah, because they couldn't possibly have been concerned about the life of the hostage when the pirates started shooting.

Funny that you chided me for making an assumption after having written this yourself.

Not so much, actually. But you just keep right on trying.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, because "take action immediately if the hostage's life is in danger" is completely in contradiction with "take action if you see an opportunity."

I never said or even implied that they were contradictory, so this is a strawman. But they are not equivalent. Most news stories I've seen explicitly mention the order to act in the case of imminent danger. No news stories mention any order to act under any other circumstances. It is therefore rather reasonable to conclude that there were no other orders, or that a deliberate decision was made to keep silent about any other orders.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're absolutely right. They probably just wanted to ask the pirates if they could borrow a cup of flour for the cake they were baking.

Find me a news story which categorizes this as a rescue attempt and I'll believe you. As of now, I have no reason to think that it's anything other than them wanting to get close to keep an eye on things.

 

[Cleon]

I never said or even implied that they were contradictory, so this is a strawman.

And now you're just backpedaling.

But they are not equivalent. Most news stories I've seen explicitly mention the order to act in the case of imminent danger. No news stories mention any order to act under any other circumstances.

And therefore, since you've not seen an order, you're assuming it's not there.

It is therefore rather reasonable to conclude that there were no other orders, or that a deliberate decision was made to keep silent about any other orders.

Well, except for those pesky facts, like the prior rescue mission which you've decided never happened.

It's absolutely pathetic that virtually every conservative out there can give Obama props for this, but you can't bring yourself to give him the slightest bit of credit.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

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

Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in my response, but Meadmaker specifically mentioned moving against Pirate bases. Nobody is doing that. We cannot expect any international cooperation in doing that. That was my point.

 

[Ziggurat]

And therefore, since you've not seen an order, you're assuming it's not there.

Or it's being kept secret. Yes, I'm assuming that. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Just as I think it's a reasonable assumption that the order to act in case of imminent danger was given and not made up after the fact. There's nothing wrong with making assumptions, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think you do it all the time too.

Well, except for those pesky facts, like the prior rescue mission which you've decided never happened.

Evidence that it was a rescue mission? Or is that too just an assumption?

 

[Cleon]

Find me a news story which categorizes this as a rescue attempt and I'll believe you.

Done. But I don't think you will.

 

[Drysdale]

Of course this is a national security test. There are any number of ways an incompetent President could have screwed up and responded in a way that would be detrimental to national security. Obama didn't do any of them. Suppose he'd attempted to pay a ransom and the pirates got away with the loot. You think that wouldn't have encouraged other terrorists/pirates to go after U.S. interests?

So let me get this straight, capturing combatants against our soldiers should be treated as criminal, but pirates holding a hostage strictly for ransom is a national security issue?

I dont see it that way. Obama really did'nt have a choice the way I see it. He did exactly what he should have. Give the order to the officers to use force as necessary.

If Obama did negotiate with them that would be extremely stupid yes,but I dont think that's a national security issue. This is a criminal issue isnt it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in my response, but Meadmaker specifically mentioned moving against Pirate bases. Nobody is doing that. We cannot expect any international cooperation in doing that. That was my point.

A rather sweeping assumption. If the Europeans and Chinese are not deterred from fighting the pirates at sea, then I don't see why they should be more deterred from fighting them in their ports.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is therefore rather reasonable to conclude that there were no other orders, or that a deliberate decision was made to keep silent about any other orders.

What? The full scope of orders wasn't communicated to the news media? What were they thinking?

I'm fairly confident that if there was a way to effect a rescue without jeopardizing the hostage's life, they would have done it, and it would have been within the scope of the orders.

I wasn't aware of the 200 hostages being held by pirates. Given that, I think it's a safe bet that Obama won't order a frontal assault which would almost certainly end in the deaths of the hostages. He's not stupid.

I predict that there will be some sort of action, and there will be international cooperation in taking that action. I predict that a year from now the memory of the Somali pirates will be yesterday's news, and we can go back to thinking of pirates as fun guys like Jack Sparrow.

 

[Neally]

But why does he want to halt the rise of privacy in the region?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2009/04/13/obama.pirate.phillips.cnn

 

[Prometheus]

So let me get this straight, capturing combatants against our soldiers should be treated as criminal, but pirates holding a hostage strictly for ransom is a national security issue?

I dont see it that way. Obama really did'nt have a choice the way I see it. He did exactly what he should have. Give the order to the officers to use force as necessary.

If Obama did negotiate with them that would be extremely stupid yes,but I dont think that's a national security issue. This is a criminal issue isnt it?

Could you please point me to wherever you think I said anything even remotely like the False Dichotomy I've bolded for you?

I'm not sure why you think a hard line needs to be drawn between 'criminal' and 'national security' here, anyway. I'm not well-versed in the relevant law, but it seems to me that if this sort of piracy were regarded as strictly criminal then it would be a bit strange to send a US Navy destroyer after a group of teenagers in a disabled life-boat, don't you think?

 

[MattusMaximus]

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.

If you ask all the right-wing commentators who were lambasting Obama for "doing nothing" over the weekend, you'd have thought it was WWIII. I think, more than anything, the Obama critics were the ones who made such a big deal out of this - of course, they were making it a big deal in the hopes that Obama would flub it up badly, but it backfired on them. Oops.

For example, Newt Gingrich was talking smack on Obama on Saturday and then gave him some guarded praise on Sunday as a way of covering his own butt.

 

[Ziggurat]

Done. But I don't think you will.

Funny, but the word "rescue" is strangely absent from that story. All it says is that they tried to reach the boat. My guess is that they wanted to open up lines of communication, possibly for negotiations.

Funny too how your characterization of this rather directly contradicts what you said about how SWAT teams handle hostage situations.

 

[Cleon]

Called it.