There's been a lot of comment going after the spectacular rescue of Captain Richard Phillips buy the US Navy, where three Somali pirates were shot dead by Navy snipers faster than you can say "What the...?" in Somali. Aside for the well-wishes for Captain Phillips and the just praise for the sailors and Marines who carried out the rescue there has been the supposedly more important question of how this impacts Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.On the one hand, you have the pro-Obama crowd who declare that taking out three pirates puts paid to anyone ever, ever, ever characterising Mr Obama as "President Pantywaist" while others point out that if Mr Obama hadn't sent in the FBI to negotiate with the pirates this all would have ended sooner. But I think that the most interesting observation is that if Mr Obama did anything, it was that he did nothing. Apparently, the captain of the US destroyer's standing orders were to fire on the pirates if Captain Phillips was in imminent danger and Mr Obama only came into the loop when the situation escalated into an international incident. By all reports, Mr Obama simply confirmed those standing orders and the commander on the scene executed those orders according to his best judgment. If this is the case, then Mr Obama should be praised, because the best course of action in such a situation is to trust the man on the spot and stay out of the way.
That being said, the real test of Mr Obama's mettle is not what he did or did not do in this situation, but what he does next. The piracy problem is still extant and growing and if nothing is done, things will only get worse until the freedom of the seas itself is threatened. Some, and I agree with them, say that the way forward is to take the fight to the enemy; wiping out pirate bases ashore and sinking every pirate vessel at sea, leaving the crews to literally swim home. It may not pacify the pirates, but such a sustained policy would certainly end up with a load of buccaneers stranded ashore with few new recruits and nothing to do except jump up and down in impotent rage.
Not that this seems very likely, given Mr Obama's typical well-read, but meaningless speech after the event:
I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy (sic) in that region. To achieve that goal we're going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, we have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise, and we have to ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes.
Any more wiggle room than this would have involved him finishing by saying "Or not".
Time will tell if this episode will end in action or filed away as another distraction.
3 comments:
In this case, voting "present" was the right thing to do, and Husseinovich did it. And then took credit for the rescue as if he'd personally pulled the trigger. As you say, we'll see what next.
What's with the "rise of privacy(sic)"? Was he trying to sight-read off the teleprompter or something?
"...because the best course of action in such a situation is to trust the man on the spot and stay out of the way."
If only the government would treat the economy and health care this way.
That's why I can't believe His Presidentness didn't listen to the advisors that had to be telling him to order the Navy to stand down and allow the pirates time to get to land where proper negotiations with lawyers and politicians could take place.
If there's an advisor saying "let our people over there handle this and end it", and it worked, perhaps B will consider listening to that voice of reason more often.
"... wiping out pirate bases ashore..." Um... people's houses? Somali pirates aren't some kind of army, they're more like insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan - just people (probably fishermen, given that they need boats) with a cash-flow problem, few scruples and a Kalashnikov under the bed. The only way to stop them by 'wiping out bases' would be to blow up every fishing boat in Somalia. The source of the problem is the breakdown in law and order on shore.
@Neil Russell: Newsflash! Private healthcare is inferior by every measure to properly run state healthcare: doctors suffer conflicts of interest because they make more money prescribing more-expensive drugs and treatments; not everybody knows what medical treatment is best for their condition due to the amount of misinformation around (much of it drug-company spin) and so can't ask for it; and of course if you happen to be poor and sick you're screwed because you can't afford treatment, or you have to bankrupt yourself to get it. And the consequences don't just affect the sick person - because of the cost of treatment, maybe their kid can't go to college, or doesn't get their immunisations and so is at risk of disease; and, if their condition is infectious, other people will become infected and possibly die (depending on the disease) because the patient has no access to the expensive treatments that would prevent them being infectious. America spends a fantastic proportion of its GDP on healthcare, more than any other developed country, and yet has worse health than most of Europe, where healthcare is state-delivered and free at the point of use.
The economy is another, more nuanced matter, but i can tell you that the British rail network is in dire need of nationalisation.
Post a Comment