Analysis: Obama beats first national security test

[Ziggurat]

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.

Hostages. I already said that. Most of the 200-odd hostages the pirates have are on land now, making any attack on pirate headquarters a risky proposition. And frankly, there's precious little fighting going on even at sea. For the most part all they're trying to do is scare the pirates away, and stop any in-progress hijacking attempts that they might happen across. Nobody is attacking suspected pirate ships at sea, why would they be willing to wade ashore?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nobody is attacking suspected pirate ships at sea ...

Chaos's post gives a rather different impression.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Hopefully that's the case. I'm not optimistic, but it's a possibility.

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.

I predict little will have changed within a year. The problem has been festering for a lot longer than that so far, and nothing has fundamentally changed even if the problem is getting more attention. What CAN be done? Not much, because going ashore is basically not a politically acceptable option. We're a long ways away from the days which gave birth to "the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marines' hymn.

 

[Drysdale]

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?

I dont know your personal stance on the Gitmo detainees, but the prevailing wisdom of many is that they should be given criminal trials. I was just drawing a parralel.

I'm not an expert on international law either. I do think that a naval destroyer is a little overkill though yes. But my point is directed to the OP.
I just dont see how this can be construed as a natioanl security issue unless they started landing on our shores. It is an international crime issue.

It's not a national security issue. Terrorists flying planes into buildings,anthrax attacks,etc yes. Unless they threaten our national security it's not a national security issue.

Pirates holding a hostage for ransom though no.

 

[Ziggurat]

Chaos's post gives a rather different impression.

I don't think Chaos has posted in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Prometheus]

I dont know your personal stance on the Gitmo detainees, but the prevailing wisdom of many is that they should be given criminal trials. I was just drawing a parralel.

I'm not an expert on international law either. I do think that a naval destroyer is a little overkill though yes. But my point is directed to the OP.
I just dont see how this can be construed as a natioanl security issue unless they started landing on our shores. It is an international crime issue.

It's not a national security issue. Terrorists flying planes into buildings,anthrax attacks,etc yes. Unless they threaten our national security it's not a national security issue.

Pirates holding a hostage for ransom though no.

I would agree that these pirates were not a threat to national security. US policy towards piracy in general, however is most definitely a national security issue. Had our response to this incident been incorrect, it could have had a negative effect on our ability to deal with future attacks, and could even have increased the chance of other US flagged ships being attacked.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think Chaos has posted in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

See post #19.

 

[Toke]

Does the US navy need specific autorisation to kill pirates to protect US merchant mariners/citizents.
Don´t they have standing orders?

 

[Upchurch]

No: I consider your mentioning of Bush to be an off-topic appeal to emotion, and a sign that you can't address the current issues in any coherent manner.

Oh, that's cute.

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.

So, there were no other additional actions you would have like to have seen done? You just would have liked for there to have been extra contingency plans in place, even though you don't actually know that there weren't any?

 

[Ziggurat]

See post #19.

So European nations are willing to fight pirates on the seas. Good. But that doesn't indicate anything about their willingness to wade ashore, or even to give us support in wading ashore.

 

[dudalb]

BY giving the Officer in charge of the Task Force the authority to act, Obama did the right thing. If there is one thing that makes me nervous, it's the White House getting involved with tactical military details and having a bunch of political advisors trying to run military operations. That way lies disaster. I think Obama remembers that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton took big hits by trying to micromanage military operations.

 

[dudalb]

I would not be surprised if Obama did not end up taking getting fire from the far left on this. There is already a lot of "explanation" going on which amounts to de facto justification of the pirates:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-international-media-isnt-telling

Of course taking fire from the loony left will actually help Obama IMHO.

 

[Toke]

Sure overfishing and waste dumping are bad.
I still want pirates shot on the spot.

This beats last time where the US navy backed off due to some national waters bs.
Somalia and national water.
Will the major of Mocadisio be complaining or what?

 

[gdnp]

I would not be surprised if Obama did not end up taking getting fire from the far left on this. There is already a lot of "explanation" going on which amounts to de facto justification of the pirates:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-international-media-isnt-telling

Of course taking fire from the loony left will actually help Obama IMHO.

Wow. If radioactive waste is being dumped off the Somali coast at concentrations high enough to make the population sick, I wonder what it's doing to the people eating the fish that are being stolen from the Somali waters?

 

[Freddy]

I would not be surprised if Obama did not end up taking getting fire from the far left on this. There is already a lot of "explanation" going on which amounts to de facto justification of the pirates:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-international-media-isnt-telling

Of course taking fire from the loony left will actually help Obama IMHO.

I don't know, I think a long term solution to the problem has to involve trying to do something about illegal fishing and dumping. If it were your coastline and you had no government and no military, what would you do? Wouldn't you feel justified in doing something about it? I'd be mad as hell, so I understand where the pirates are coming from. Almost. Seizing ships that are not fishing or dumping (even allegedly) and demanding ransom money is beyond the pale.

I would have much more sympathy if they demanded that the international community do something about illegal fishing and dumping in return for the release of hostages. The international community should do something about that. And the individuals and companies responsible should be financially liable for damages. But letting people get away with piracy encourages more of the same, and it is clear that the intentions of many of the pirates are not so noble. So you have to deal with piracy the way the US and France did. Perhaps a large multinational naval presence in the region would have the added benefit of curtailing illegal fishing and dumping. It would definitely increase the risk of such activities.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So European nations are willing to fight pirates on the seas. Good. But that doesn't indicate anything about their willingness to wade ashore, or even to give us support in wading ashore.

Well, I think it does.

If the existence of these hostages doesn't deter the Germans from fighting the pirates at sea, then why should it deter them from fighting them on shore? Why should the geographical location of the battleground make any significant difference?

 

[Dr Adequate]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-international-media-isnt-telling

Curious.

The headline is: "What The International Media Aren't Telling You About Somalia Pirates".

The conclusion is: "I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?"

But the body of the text is a verbatim quotation of an article from The Independent, which I must therefore conclude is an underground samizdat publication produced by a commune of anarcho-syndicalists. Rather than being part of the "corporate media", as I had previously assumed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why should the geographical location of the battleground make any significant difference?

Geography alone doesn't make any significant difference. But it's tactically, strategically, and politically VERY different. The high seas are common territory, land is not, so any land operation is automatically an invasion, which is more problematic politically. But more importantly, the actual fighting would be very different. There are far more potential enemies, it's harder to know where they are and what they're doing, it's far easier for them to set up ambushes and counterattacks, and there will be lots of civies to get in the way or be used as human shields. Land-based operations will be far more dangerous, to the troops, to the hostages, and to any potential collateral.

This problem is not new. It's been going on for years now. Various navies have even been patrolling the water for years now too. But nobody is moving against the pirate bases on land. Because nobody wants to. I see no reason to expect that to change.

 

[gdnp]

I don't know, I think a long term solution to the problem has to involve trying to do something about illegal fishing and dumping. If it were your coastline and you had no government and no military, what would you do? Wouldn't you feel justified in doing something about it? I'd be mad as hell, so I understand where the pirates are coming from. Almost. Seizing ships that are not fishing or dumping (even allegedly) and demanding ransom money is beyond the pale.

I would have much more sympathy if they demanded that the international community do something about illegal fishing and dumping in return for the release of hostages. The international community should do something about that. And the individuals and companies responsible should be financially liable for damages. But letting people get away with piracy encourages more of the same, and it is clear that the intentions of many of the pirates are not so noble. So you have to deal with piracy the way the US and France did. Perhaps a large multinational naval presence in the region would have the added benefit of curtailing illegal fishing and dumping. It would definitely increase the risk of such activities.

Gee, I would think the long term solution would be for the Somalis to form a government that could then form a civilian-controlled military authorized to act in a legal fashion with UN support to stop illegal fishing and dumping in their territorial waters.

I do not recall anyone criticizing Somalis for arresting people who are illegally fishing or dumping in their territorial waters.

Of course, your way might work too.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would have much more sympathy if they demanded that the international community do something about illegal fishing and dumping in return for the release of hostages.

I don't think that much dumping is happening. And I think a lot of the overfishing is being done by Chinese ships. What are the odds the "international community" will do anything serious to crack down on overfishing? I'd say slim to none.