Pirates
Question on the morning radio show: Are they terrorists or common criminals?
I assume the distinction lies in whether or not you think they should be given regular trials or pursued through law enforcement means rather than military means.
Personally, unless I think through it some more and change my mind, I think they are common thugs. Criminals. I think terrorist accords them far too much connatative importance.
That said, I have no problem shooting common criminals dead either. If someone is threatening the life of someone else, take them out. I have no issue with that at all, be it a jihadi with a bomb belt or a purse snatcher with a pocket knife. Once you step outside the law by threatening the health and life of someone else, you are walking a fine line as to what protection you deserve under it, in my opinion.
As far as the Obama thing, did he authorize use of force soon enough, with enough latitude, etc. – I don’t think we’ll probably ever know the actual answer and even if we do, it can and will be parsed from here to forever. The important thing is that the Captain is free and alive, his crew is free and alive, 75% of the pirates are dead and they weren’t allowed to extract real concessions from the US Navy. Should they ever have been allowed to stand off against the US Navy for more than the time it took to get Navy vessels and men into position? No. Personally, I’d have been happier if they had hung them outside of the nearest port and let them swing till they rotted. It seemed to deter piracy once before.
Whether Obama is at fault or not, whether it was all a matter of positioning and timing to ensure the safest possible scenario for the Captain - none of that matters. We sent two messages. One, that the US will come after and is concerned about even a single citizen. Two, that we are wussified enough that you *might* not die right away if you take an American hostage.
I expect more of this to come. The pirates have threatened retaliation. And why wouldn’t they? They already had a minor victory in the standoff and the fact that the US treated them as important enough to parlay with. Whether or not the parlay was merely to buy time doesn’t matter to them or their ilk.
Do I think we should have rushed in and taken them out at the expense of the Captain’s life? Certainly not. Would Obama possibly have made the situation worse if he had commented publicly on it? Quite possibly. I don’t really hold against him his public silence on the matter. I think it was a weak decision to authorize use of force only if the Captain’s life was endangered. Being taken hostage in the first place indicates your life is in danger. Or when they fired an automatic weapon into the water around him as he tried to escape. Kinda indicative of life threatening danger.
I think the situation resolved as it did by the skill of our Navy, the bravery of the Captain and the professionalism of all those on the ground for the incident. I think that any beneficial fallout this has for Obama is largely due not to his actions or inactions but to those of the people in the thick of it. I suppose, being fair, the same could be said for most presidents. The success or failure of any policy rests not on the commander in chief but on those who carry out the tasks. But looking past that, I think he could and should have made a bolder, more decisive statement earlier on. There seems to be little need for this to have lasted as long as it did.
