Obama’s first terrorism test
From a Seattle Times story on the rescue from pirates of American container ship Capt. Richard Phillips:
Two of the captors had poked their heads out of a rear hatch of the lifeboat and the third could be seen through a window in the bow, pointing the rifle at the captain, who was tied up inside the 18-foot lifeboat, senior Navy officials told The New York Times. It took only three shots — one each by snipers firing from a distance at dusk, using night-vision scopes, the officials said.
Within minutes, rescuers slid down ropes from the Bainbridge, climbed aboard the lifeboat and found the three pirates dead. They then untied Phillips.
First of all: Go Navy!
Second, this incident was widely viewed as the first test of how President Obama would deal with international terrorism. I have to say I’m impressed with Obama’s order to the Navy to attack if it appeared the Capt’s life was in danger. Very un-Clinton.
As a matter of fact, if Clinton hadn’t pulled our troops out of Somalia in 1993 after a single losing firefight (which became known as “Black Hawk Down”) history in that country might have taken a different course, preventing the anarchy we are seeing there today.
Good on ya, Mr. President…Obama, that is.
(For more on the captain’s rescue and aftermath, see Mickey’s post below.)

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top25 Comments to “Obama’s first terrorism test”
I don’t mean to take away from what Obama did right, but do you really think that Clinton or any U.S. president would have done anything differently in that situation? Would any of them have really given different orders. Something like, “Go and threaten and intimidate the pirates with your big ships and big guns, but if they’re really resolute, then just go ahead and let ‘em kill the captain.” I find that hard to believe.
Report comment to moderator
I am glad that the hostage situation ended successfully.
I am thinking about how we put credit and blame on Presidents in these matters. Some seem to be teflon and some seem to be tar babies. Carter’s ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran left him forever characterized as a dangerous loser. Reagan is forever characterized as noble hero who saved us from Communism despite the massacre at the base in Lebanon and the clumsy behavor in Central America.
Was Obama simply lucky? I don’t know if there is a luck test one can apply to Presidential candidates, but it might be as good a way of selecting them as the Electoral College.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, 1993. Yep, it’s all Clinton’s fault.
Quick quiz for you Lynn. Which US President bombed a Sudanese factory and a site believed to harbor Al Queda leadership before 9/11. And what was the Republican reaction to those actions?
And which recent Presidential warrior ignored various warnings, whiling away his hours cutting brush in Texas…
Report comment to moderator
Random Name, I started to agree with you that Obama was just lucky, and agree with Ree that there was really nothing different he could have done. But I’ll give him credit for giving the right order, for I would probably want to pile on the criticism if he gave the wrong one. He was wise to keep it a miltary matter and give the forces in the area the authority to end it with appropriate force.
Report comment to moderator
Obama got good advice and made a good decision. The Navy was trained sufficiently for such situations and carried it out well. Thank God the captain and the crew are safe and going home.
What media and other partixan hacks crow about is besides the real point. When it comes to things like this, partisan angling and campaign media rhetoric should stop at the water’s edge or even before that.
Our prayers were answered in a way for which we can be deeply grateful.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t mean to take away from what Obama did right, but do you really think that Clinton or any U.S. president would have done anything differently in that situation? Would any of them have really given different orders.
I can answer that question in two words: Jimmy Carter.
Report comment to moderator
Our prayers were answered in a way for which we can be deeply grateful. Because you WOULDN’T be deeply grateful if they were answered in a different way? Or are you just more grateful for certain things that your god does? I’m pretty sure your bible god is sovereign and you should be deeply grateful in ALL answers she gives to you. Hey, she’s the boss and you, her minion. Glory be to god in the highest.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, I too applaud the SEALS. The pirates were idiots to be so exposed. A ready target is just that: ready.
I had hoped no one would have blamed the current atrocious state on Clinton.
But yes, the Somali/Mogadishu fiasco (which led to the needless death of all those young Rangers) prompted not only a total abandonment of Somalia but later on the memory of the entire “Blackhawk Down” episode meant the USA would send no forces to halt the slaughter in Rwanda.
Moreover, the alQ leaders (Bin Laden in particular) saw our bugging out of Somalia and realized the USA would not react to attacks on the US embassies or the USS Cole.
Its not too great a stretch to see a direct line from the Somalia debacle to the WTC 9/11 attacks.
Report comment to moderator
I was impressed the president chose not to say anything at all–didn’t get drawn into a discussion of “what ifs,” and let the people on the scene make the calls. The military appreciates commanders in chief who let them do their jobs using their own judgement.
And despite what I’ve heard some commentators say, I don’t think the US military is afraid of the Blackhawk down memories. They remember what happened, but they’re not worried about dealing with Somalis again. You do the job you need to do; that’s the military way.
Report comment to moderator
. . two words: Jimmy Carter.
Republicans unfairly blame Democrats for supposed avoidance and bungling of military operations.
The navy commander didn’t call up Obama and recommend aborting the hostage rescue mission due to the fact that an unexpected haboob had degraded the operation below the predetermined requirements for success.
We don’t know for sure, but I don’t think that Obama is supplying arms to terrorists in order to accomplish his goals.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: . . . partisan angling and campaign media rhetoric should stop at the water’s edge or even before that.
Most of us would have expected President Bush to appear before the cameras on Easter to announce the hostage rescue by the expert Seals.
Obama couldn’t do that, because Republicans like Joel Mark have used the psychology of public opinion against Democrats. Obama was smart enough to realize that what was expected of Bush would have been unbecoming for a Democrat. Obama issued a written statement, praising the Navy. Talking to the cameras would have been criticized as mimicry, over-compensation, a need to brag, and taking advantage of the military.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, dragging Clinton and Carter into this is just a cheap political shot.
Perhaps if Regan didn’t cave to the terrorists and retreat from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing, history would have taken a different course. Perhaps if Nixon didn’t surrender in Vietnam history would be different. Perhaps if Reagan didn’t sell weapons and spare parts to Iran things would be different.
If you remember, it was the Republicans clamoring to get us out of Somalia.
Report comment to moderator
Go Navy! I am actually quite surprised that Obama authorized the use of force at all. It’s neither kinder nor gentler. It acknowledges that some people are actually still the ‘e’ word, ‘enemies’. It involves the use of the ‘g’ word, guns and our military is still authorized to fire before fired upon (with certain preconditions).
There was the sticky of issue of not firing unless the captain was in “imminent danger”. Luckily words these days are more loosely defined and we still have real men in military command … for now.
I wonder if any of this will change in the next few years.
Report comment to moderator
Heh … even when you have to grudgingly acknowledge Obama isn’t a total loser, you have to get in a dig.
Why can’t you just acknowledge he handled the situation well, and leave it at that?
Report comment to moderator
It is a little early to be praising Obama for courage in dealing with this relatively small individual incident. He allowed the Navy to do their job. Good, that’s what he was supposed to do. That’s all. Had there been some political risk to himself, he would be deserving praise.
IF, he does something substantial to effectively resolve this whole piracy situation, then he might be praised. For example, let him order surprise raids and capture every currently held ship and release their crews. We know where they all are and it can be done. There may be some casualties among the hostages, but only because we have let this situation drag on for years without doing anything about it. Then let him order the destruction, on sight, of every pirate individual, every pirate skiff, every dinghy, and every pirate mother ship. Hunt them down and destroy them all, period—no prisons, no trials, no lawyers. Then let him order raids on all their shore havens and destroy every vessel found. One hour notice will allow any innocents to flee the shore and harbor areas of those havens. All that should be left is splinters and burning and sunken hulks. This is similar to what we did to the enemy in WWII and we were successful.
Would such a military action really work? I don’t know for sure, but I believe that the military could devise an effective, similar plan of action and successfully carry it out, IF a courageous Commander In Chief ordered it to be done.
I believe such an action would solve the piracy problem within two weeks. The pirates would not recover for years, if ever. Of course, such an action would entail considerable political risk—risk that would take presidential courage to overcome. Let Obama do something of this magnitude and he might be worthy of praise. Otherwise, he’s just doing a minimal job, nothing more.
Report comment to moderator
I think the President did well.
And considering there was a lot of talk during the campaign about how we should soften our tone and who we should or shouldn’t label as enemies and all that, I think he made an important and decisive move.
I’ve even heard talk of the US possibly seeking out some of these pirate enclaves around Somalia and taking them out. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but, it may be a necessary next step.
Report comment to moderator
I’m proud of President Obama, too. It is, admittedly, a sensible decision that any president would have made, but I appreciate that Obama didn’t feel like he needed to “talk tough” in front of news cameras in order win PR points. There was an element of luck, too, because the operation could have ended badly. If it had, the right-wing news would have crucified him.
As they had already started doing.
But for the outcome of the incident, Obama really deserves little praise and would have deserved little blame. What praise he does deserve is in sensible delegation and not stooping to “playing cowboy” for the cameras.
Report comment to moderator
It is a noticeable change that the president is not on teevee pounding his chest and making challenges to people who have nothing to lose.
Did the Bushies do anything to curb piracy off the Somalia Coast? This is not a new problem. If 9/11 was Clinton’s problem after nearly a year of the Bush presidency, this is Bush’s, and Obama stepped up and covered his behind. Well done, Mr. President.
Report comment to moderator
I have a friend in NY who is understandably and appropriately outraged about western indifference to the genocide of Christians and animists in Darfur, Sudan.
Do I think the gun-wielding killers in Darfur or anywhere else will respond to sanctions, UN Resolutions etc? Have they ever?!
This is where I do wish the US would announce a special trainup of volunteers for our armed forces. They would come in and do boot camp etc for the exclusive purpose of becoming a reserve corps of humanitarian do-gooders in MOOTW (military operations other than war). They would be sent abroad to “put shoe leather” on their concerns–unloading food and medical supplies and doing the various unglamorous but necessary scut work chores that go with large scale humanitarian efforts. They would of course go over with a contingent of conventional gun-fighter security elements to neutralize the local threats (in this case, that would be the Sudanese ganjaweed militiamen).
Would there be folks willing to do this? You betcha! I think of all the poor saps who naively rushed off to join the military after 9/11. They became embittered and felt cheated when they wound up going to Iraq instead of Afghanistan
I still say ganjaweed sounds more Jamaican than Sudanese.
Report comment to moderator
RPN, not only is Obama not pounding his chest, I don’t think he really feels “proud” of himself simply for giving the Navy an authorization to use force. Obama pulled out a plum, but I’m sure he’s not saying, “What a great Commander in Chief am I.” The measure of that will be Afghanistan.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed, Scroop Moth.
Report comment to moderator
Call me a cynic, but I can’t help but think that if the standoff had ended badly, this thread would be hopping.
Sawgunner, I’ve thought the same thing you mention in #19.
American soldiers are to protect American lives and interests. They are not to sail around the world forging democracies out of blood and steel (the typical conservative cause), nor to sail around the world rescuing the perishing (the typical liberal cause). It is immoral to require an American soldier to give his life for someone else’s country.
But I still think there are situations where armed intervention from America could be a great help. Stopping genocide, where we have the power to do it and a reasonable expectation of success, seems a moral obligation. For such situations, we need a force that specifically volunteered for international aid and is specifically trained in guard and police duty. Their purpose should not be to topple foreign governments (which leaves us with the responsibility of propping up some other form of government in its place, and upsets the natural order of liberty, which is for indigenous people to rise against a tyrant and claim it), but only to provide “safe zones” where civilians can take refuge.
I realize it’s idealistic, but I’d like to see something like it discussed by people knowledgeable on the subject (I am not).
Report comment to moderator
LYNN: As a matter of fact, if Clinton hadn’t pulled our troops out of Somalia in 1993 after a single losing firefight (which became known as “Black Hawk Down”) history in that country might have taken a different course, preventing the anarchy we are seeing there today.
FRANK: And what was the constitutional justification for our presence in Somalia again, Lynn?
Were we attacked by Somali forces? Terrorists? Declaration of war, anyone?
This question is not rhetorical, Lynn. One veteran to another, I’d really appreciate an answer.
Report comment to moderator
I’m unaware of any constitutional justification such as delivering rice or imposing democracy in foreign hell-holes.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner (19): This is where I do wish the US would announce a special trainup of volunteers for our armed forces. They would come in and do boot camp etc for the exclusive purpose of becoming a reserve corps of humanitarian do-gooders in MOOTW (military operations other than war).
FRANK: Ah, but we already do have just such a force — our all volunteer military!
This is what I have come to call “the Big Bait and Switch”: Appeal to Americans’ patriotism and desire to keep their country safe in order to get them to enlist — and then send them on all manner of non-defensive missions.
And when a few of them have the cajones to look their commanders in the eye and say, “Hey, I didn’t sign up for this … I’m not going” (a la US Army Lt. Ehren Watada), the Chain of Command throws down the “Sorry, you volunteered” card.
Congress, all our recent presidents and the vast majority of military officers ought to be ashamed of themselves for foisting this bait-and-switch on patriotic Americans.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!