House of Eratosthenes

The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama’s “no drama” handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.

Obama’s quiet backstage decision to authorize the Defense Department to take necessary action if Capt. Richard Phillips’ life was in imminent danger gave a Navy commander the go-ahead to order snipers to fire on the pirates holding the cargo ship captain at gunpoint.
:
…[I]t goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war — Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion — doesn’t have the chops to call on U.S. military power.

The sniper operation Sunday, with pirate guns aimed at Phillips, was a daring, high-stakes gambit, and it could have easily gone awry. If it had, the fallout would have probably landed hardest on Obama.

Okay, I’m in full agreement with every sentence right up until that last one. It was certainly a test, and Obama did pass it. But President Obama would’ve gotten slimed if things didn’t work out? He’d have taken the fall? Really? On what planet?

Now I realize Obama has been President for less than three months by now. Still and all, it’s a fair question to ask — when has anything “landed hardest” on Obama?

He has a way of speaking that influences the weak-minded — be willing to admit it or not, but that’s some 75%, maybe 85% of us — to come to the opinions He wants them to reach, nevermind how problematic the facts may be. He has this talent, and He uses it. It is why He is where He is.

Things don’t “land hardest” on this type of boss. This is the kind of boss who ends up being the boss, and I think we’ve all had at least one of these…because nothing is ever His fault. No matter what. Ever. No, if this whole thing had gone south it would’ve been on the Commander.

Go on. Find something in that much-discussed community-organizer resume, or even better, in those autobiographies. Prove me wrong.

Update: The best article on the web I’ve seen that illustrates how far removed is this mindset from reality, is at Blackfive. Yes, it would be equally offensive to reality to deny President Obama any credit at all; He does deserve some. And, let the record show, I did give it to Him. Maybe not in the way a democrat voter would like me to, but I did.

The comparisons to war are what get me. This was essentially a law enforcement operation. We’re talking about a few pirates, not a war against another Government with a trained military and a budget for powerful weapons and all kinds of U.N. handwringing over soveriegnty.

Yeah, I’m glad he didn’t say “woah, hit the brakes” — but come on. This was nothing approaching even Jimmy Carter’s attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages — Carter was very bold by comparison.

Oh, I saw another headline yesterday … “We can stop the comparisons to Carter now.”

Really? Well, maybe you can.
- philmon | 04/14/2009 @ 09:43
This was nothing approaching even Jimmy Carter’s attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages — Carter was very bold by comparison.

Well that’s true, and given the circumstances Carter probably made a very sensible decision in aborting the mission. The reason this is used to slam Carter is because this one instant in history just highlighted a far more enduring trend, in which Carter would use any excuse in the book to avoid action or confrontation, and if things got tough, just pack it in and run away. It had a tangible effect on how other nations saw was the best way to treat us. When the time came to speak the language of horse-heads-in-beds, Carter either didn’t know what was going on, or he represented other people who were wholly unacquainted with that language. Does it really matter which one it was?

Contrasted with that — even if Obama fully intended to take a Carter approach and simply forgot to water down the ROE, even if his first reaction on hearing the news was “oh shit, I left a loophole open!” Even if it was a mistake, the fact remains this was a foreign-policy victory for the United States. It makes a lot less sense, in Planet Horse-heads-in-beds, to pick on us now…compared to how much sense it would’ve made four days ago. My opinion is you just have to give Obama some credit for that. It never would have happened under Carter.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2009 @ 10:03
Planet “Horse Heads-In-Beds” …. heh heh! good one.

Yes. I do give Obama credit. It shows he’s not a complete wuss. And that is a Good Thing.
- philmon | 04/14/2009 @ 14:28
Mind you, I’m not staying for the record that He did it on purpose. After reading BlackFive’s summation, the impression under which I labor is that the Commander was familiar with the ROE, which was his job; he looked for the opportunity to bring things to a resolution and act within the ROE, and once he saw it, he acted. And, absolutely, if one of the pirates had any postumous media-darling credentials in any way whatsoever, the Commander would’ve been thrown under the bus. I didn’t know he’d do that; bad Commander.

Planet Horse-heads-in-beds is at the opposite end of the same orbit, as Planet Kum-ba-ya. Guess which one we’ll be on for most of the next four years.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2009 @ 14:37
Even if it was a mistake, the fact remains this was a foreign-policy victory for the United States. It makes a lot less sense, in Planet Horse-heads-in-beds, to pick on us now…compared to how much sense it would’ve made four days ago.

You ARE aware that there was another attack on a US-flagged vessel today, correct?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515875,00.html

While I’m in full agreement with everyone else that using the military to punish these dirtbags is the right approach, it appears that what happened on Sunday with the snipers isn’t going to be enough by itself. I found myself hoping that there at least would be a bit of a lull in attacks on American vessels after our navy men put bullets through the heads of three of them. No such luck.

Here’s my question. What kind of idiot volunteers to travel through that part of the ocean on an unarmed freighter? I think I’d quit my job with Maersk before accepting THAT assignment. Our good friend the brave sea captain even knew about this situation ahead of time…what was he thinking?
- cylarz | 04/15/2009 @ 02:11
You ARE aware that there was another attack on a US-flagged vessel today, correct?

Horse-heads-in-beds is a game of averages, one operating on the principle of — it’s far better to be picked on just by the stupid bullies, than by all of them.

The Somali pirate situation is a better-than-usual illustration of the necessity of playing this game, since the area under consideration is vast and cannot be patrolled constantly by any authority. It simply cannot improve in any way other than by means of the Tarkin Doctrine: Fear keeping the local systems in line.
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2009 @ 06:29

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Would’ve Landed Hardest on Obama?Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Would’ve Landed Hardest on Obama?
Tuesday, April 14th, 2009