Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I give Obama props for giving the go-ahead. But I would reason this act of strength is "small fish in a big pond" of world affairs. Every nation will have to step their efforts to battle piracy, but in the grand scheme North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. are much bigger concerns. I see no reason to dote on the subject personally.
The real pat on the back goes to the Navy Seals.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 04-14-2009 at 10:15 AM..
I actually think it's a little sad that the military has to get permission to do the obvious but by not getting in the way, Obama did good. I know the "getting permission" part is not just an Obama thing but had to be done with past Presidents, too. The Iran hostage thing under Carter comes to mind. You know, if it would have gone badly, though, Obama would have had an out.
Now that remaining pirate, I'm sure he'll get some stimulus money and an ACLU lawyer and of course he'll get off because CSI: Mogadishu won't have preserved the crime scene or because he had poor schooling, was a lonely poor child and was subject to peer pressure.
I'm wondering if the 0bama administration has a contingency plan and standing orders in play for events like the pirates or when/if Israel bombs Iran, or does he plan on just winging it with micromanagement.
First off, how do you know when the first opportunity for "good shots" arrived?
Were you there?
Do you have any training in hostage negoiations?
Do you understand the value of waiting until the hostage-takers are tired after being stuck on a small boat for several days?
Do you understand the value of managing to reduce by 25% the number of pirates capable of killing the hostage - the value of taking action when one of those pirates is NOT on the lifeboat, but rather is on the US warship in a position to be taken captive (and more to the point NOT in a position to kill the hostage)?
Do you understand the value of having the lifeboat tethered to the US warship - having it been towed into calmer water where the lifeboat isn't bobbing so much - the value of have the lifeboat secretly hauled in a little closer so the Marines can get a better shot?
Sounds to me like the Marines manipulated the situation to their best advantage then struck when the conditions were right (number of pirates diminished, boat hauled in close).
Ken
I don't argue the tactics used by the Navy and Seals (to the best of my knowledge Marine involvement was minimal, with the possible exception of Marines in the Navy SEAL team). My concern is with the order itself. By waiting until the Captian's life was in "imminent danger" (my understanding is that this was the order from the NCA), his life was PUT in danger.
According to CNN "U.S. Navy snipers fatally shot three pirates holding an American cargo-ship captain hostage after seeing that one of the pirates "had an AK-47 leveled at the captain's back," a military official said Sunday."
Wouldn't it have been safer for the US citizen involved if the order had been to kill the criminals as soon as the shooters had a safe shot, rather than waiting until a rifle was on the Captian? Why wasn't even this fairly weak order given until Friday? Why did President Obama seem to care as much about sparing the lifes of the pirates as those of an American citizen? Perhaps a better question is why does the president even need to micro-manage the US military at this level? The on-scene commander should have been free to make the call.
Woulda/shoulda/coulda 20/20 hindsight is always perfect. As reported on another similar thread from which I cannot steal, it is all pretty much explained. All your answers can be attained through research.
I don't believe the president was micromanaging at all. This is certainly not his style as you will see. I am sure the on-scene commander could not do this without the president's OK. Plain government protocol.
After Obama gave the go-ahead to have the Somali pirates killed to save Captain Phillips, I've seen no bashing by his opponents - those who said he had too little experience or was too weak to handle the job. I'd like to hear now from those who said this and what they think of what he did. Please don't bring up all the other things we've heard 1,000 times before i.e. socialism, taxes, etc. etc. which would be the expected tiresome typical response. See if you can stay on topic.
It was Bush!
Oh...you said not to say the same things we've heard over and over again.
Point blank, you can bash Obama from his first 3 months on the job all you like, but when it comes down to it, I suspect he will surprise people in his decision making overall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
