House of Eratosthenes

This video went up a week ago, before that bold rescue supposedly ordered by President Obama. Perhaps the President managed to catch this segment and see the wisdom in Ambassador Bolton’s remarks:

The President’s response to a reporter’s question at 0:44 is one of many reasons I’m convinced he’s a one-termer. Nobody voted for someone to talk to people constantly like the school Vice-Principal talking to the stupidest third-grader who’s just been sent down to the office for the eleventh time in a week. Alright…maybe some people did vote for exactly that. But for those who ever did find that appealing, how long does it remain so? Four years or more? I’m skeptical. Skeptical at best.

Steven Crowder call this out, and does his customary excellent job doing so —

Don’t be too tough on President Obama. If I were Him, it would be awfully tough to convince me the typical American voter had any intelligence at all.

Getting back to this rescue operation, though: Fellow Webloggin contributor JoshuaPundit has a few more questions about what exactly went on here…

[W]e already know that the US forces involved (either Marine Scouts or SEALS) were under orders to hold off while negotiations with the pirates were continuing.Aside from this factoid being released by the Department of Defense, this was confirmed by the fact that Captain Phillips made an escape into the water and started swimming for the USS Bainbridge. The Naval/Marine forces involved thus had a clear shot to take out the pirates, but held off and did nothing to interfere with Phillips being recaptured by the pirates.

They were obviously under orders not to shoot. So if there was a White House call, it was to remove previous restrictions on our military placed on them by personal order of the President.

I still give him kudos for that if that’s how it went down, but it leads to other questions.

I wonder… just why did this drag on for so long? Piracy is the only thing Somalia can claim as anything like a growth industry, and in the past they’ve hijacked cargoes and collected ransoms with impunity. Was President Obama planning to emulate the Europeans and pay ransom? Was that why the pirates were allowed to chat with CNN and their cell phones were not jammed?

What if the lifeboat Captain Phillips was being held on had started to make for shore? Were the men on the Bainbridge authorized to stop them? I have a feeling they weren’t., based on the rules of Engagement and the probable orders from the President.

And finally, why exactly is Somali piracy still a problem?

The locations of the pirate bases are known, and the President has supposedly pledged to work with other nations to stop Somali piracy and protect the international waterway at the Horn of Africa. So why haven’t there been decisive attacks on the pirate bases and the pirate’s Islamist protectors like the local al-Qaeda affiliate Al Shabab, which takes a share of the loot as ‘taxes’? It could easily be done from the air or the sea.

Why haven’t the navies of interested parties participated in a joint naval blockade, with instructions to interdict any ship approaching Somalia with suspicious cargo or to blow any Somalian craft that strays out of a clearly marked safe zone out of the water?

I keep hearing that President Obama is more “curious” and “open-minded” than His predecessor. Well, actually…it’s been a few weeks since I heard that. But still, that’s supposed to be the prevailing theme. Nevertheless, when questions like these are brought up, and “Pee Wee” dismisses them all with some flippant comment about “we’re talking about housing right now,” it helps to cement His reputation more and more as the President of non-curiosity.

Does He have a shot at re-election in 2012? Of course He does. He can answer some questions that aren’t completely to His liking and stop controlling what “we’re” all talking about from moment to moment. Or…He could still have a shot…but only in a country that has lost any & all respect for ideas and information. Within a society that has embraced the paste-jar and devoted itself to a return to Kindergarten days, where the rules were simple, a teacher was constantly telling you what to think & what to say, and they even had nap-time.

For the time being, His methods are well-defined. No more questions need be asked, President Obama orchestrated a brave rescue, now move along folks there’s nothing else to see here.

Do the authorities know where the hostages are being held? I doubt it. There probably have not been attacks on the ports because of fear about the hostages, either killing them directly in the attacks or because of reprisal killings by the pirates.

An armed “public” on the seas is an obvious start at an answer to this. Too bad it will take so long for that to happen.
- Morenuancedthanyou | 04/17/2009 @ 13:00
“Hopefully we can get some allies to work with us, but uh … I think we should take this on ourselves unilaterally, that’s what we used to say in the Bush Administration, if need be. You know our military talked to NATO allies about this before, and many of our other NATO allies didn’t want to do anything about it because they were worried that they would be accused of violating the human rights of the pirates if they took military action.”

This is Europe. This is the “enlightened” countries Progressives want to emulate.

That’s insanity.

John Bolton for President. 🙂
- philmon | 04/17/2009 @ 17:49
Yeah, it’s like re-living those weird “debates” from very early in 2003 all over again, isn’t it? You know, you could come up with a name for this mindset — not something insulting or pejorative like “Kumbaya,” but something relatively dignified. Like “We solve it together, or not at all” diplomacy.

Those who are so passionate and dogmatic about promoting it, however, insist on pouring their energies into a philosophy that remains unnamed…which must be exceedingly awkward for them at times, like lifting a paper bag of beer bottles that is wet on the bottom. Why do they insist on doing this, tethering their good names and reputations, such as they are, to something that remains unnamed?

Answer: Because when you name things, you subject them to scrutiny. Not hostile scrutiny but not forgiving scrutiny either. And this doesn’t survive that. The middle-of-the-road guy who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Republicans or democrats, just automatically starts thinking to himself…”waitaminnit…if my house is on fire, do I solve that with strangers or not at all? If my wife is about to be raped, do I solve that with strangers or not at all?” It gets Joe-six-pack thinking about the fundamental rules of crisis management and personal defense: Accept help if it’s available, for heaven’s sake; take the initiative and go after it if that’s what you have to; but if your ass is up against the wall and there’s nobody else around to pitch in, get that ass moving.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2009 @ 18:45
Oh, and let’s not forget the psuedo-fairness of “it’s both sides”. I mean, in general it is to some extent, but it gets used as a substitute for “fairness” and balanced scrutiny. One side says “mean” things that are bullshit, one side says “mean” things that are true. But you don’t have to judge which is which if you just equally dismiss both in the name of intellectually fairiness. Ess. It’s intellectual nihilism.

I have a relative that likes to duck out of things like that with that “it’s both sides”.

That doesn’t mean one side doesn’t have better arguments than the other, even if that side is long on bark and short on bite.

And just because one side has better arguments than another, it doesn’t mean there are still better arguments somewhere else.

I’m not a Republican. I’m a conservative. I tend to vote for the most conservative party — but that doesn’t mean I’m happy with them.
- philmon | 04/17/2009 @ 21:45

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Looking Back at the Somali Pirate SituationFriday, April 17th, 2009

Looking Back at the Somali Pirate Situation
Friday, April 17th, 2009