Obama: I will continue to kick pirate ass

Sorry, but that’s not good enough.

Obama did the right thing in this case, and I’m not going to fault him like some are for waiting so long to do something. Launching an attack when there was no obvious immediate threat to the hostage may not have worked out as well, and in fact I’d be surprised if it wasn’t our own military guys on the scene who counseled against it.

But confronting them “when they arise” doesn’t cut it. We need to lay waste to them before they can even put to sea.

flipflop on April 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM

It seems to me there are four types of enemy America might face:

1. A determined, implacable foe that will take any opportunity to attack, using asymmetrical warfare or striking at the overseas interests of the United States.

2. A gang of lawless barbarians that attacks targets of opportunity for political gain or profit.

3. A declared opponent who is not totally committed to war, and can be negotiated out of hostilities.

4. A hostile state that avoids hostilities because they fear the power of the American military, or are intimidated by the prospect of sanctions and economic retaliation.

Of those four types, I suspect number 4 is the largest group: the silently seething collection of rogue states, leftover Communist satellites, and jihad wannabes that never come onto the radar screen of the American public, because they never get around to doing anything except act like blog trolls at United Nations meetings.

The best method of dealing with the other types of enemy may vary, but one thing that seems universally clear is that displays of weakness and hesitation make our position worse with ALL of them. The opponent who isn’t fully committed to hostilities is more likely to come to the negotiating table and settle things peacefully if he fears the consequences of provoking an American military response – we often celebrate soldiers for the wars they win, but we don’t celebrate them enough for the wars they prevent. Likewise, the only thing that will hold committed enemies and barbarians like the Islamofascists at bay is fear – if they are not afraid to attack, they will do so. No other consideration weighs in their decision. Look at the example of Israel, which has avoided endless shooting wars by demonstrating its unquestionable superiority at conventional military engagements… but suffers endless terror attacks and rocket barrages from its vicious, fanatical neighbors, because it has been understandably reluctant to do the horrific things that would be required to make them afraid to continue their attacks. Heroic concessions, relatively comparable to offering the Somalian pirates half of the Pacific Ocean, have gotten them nothing.

The lawless barbarian, like the domestic criminal, is making a deliberate calculation. In the case of Somalian pirates, their high-seas attacks carry very high rewards with very low risk. It is Obama’s responsibility to change that equation, and make the pirate life terrifying for the pirates, instead of appealing. Only the most hopelessly infatuated worshiper of the Lightworker could believe the Somalian pirates look at the events of the last five days and shiver in terror. Indeed, they wasted no time in lobbing mortar shells at the first American politician to come within range. A Somalian pirate would be likely to conclude the guys who died on that lifeboat were stupid and unlucky, not fearsome examples that keep the other pirates awake at night. The American response thus far has been something they can adjust to – kill the crew of your target ship faster, especially if they’re flying an American flag, and handle your hostages more efficiently. It will take a much more aggressive response to change their thinking from “adjust our tactics” to “piracy is suicide, so let’s try something else.” This is especially true if they watch the global news networks, or have any understanding of American politics. For the moment, I think the pirates still like their odds.

Doctor Zero on April 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Anyone know how old the pirates were?

At work someone claimed the “Pirate Capt.” was 16. I’m praying that these weren’t pirate kids forced by “elders” to do this. I’ve seen enough and read enough about child and slave labor in Africa to believe that such a situation is possible.

I’m not going to be all that pumped if our SEALs had to gun down children. Especially if the AP isn’t lying and they were out of ammo.

Newagegop on April 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM

A strong argument in favor of an aggressive response to the Somali pirate gangs… the youth of these individuals would not make them any less dangerous, or remove the need to deal with them as the SEALs did, but the passive “law enforcement” approach will inevitably mean more tense standoffs, and more young footsoldiers getting blown away.

We’ve seen again and again that the only way to deal with this kind of barbarism is to take out the leaders, which requires a very high level of focused aggression. Something tells me the Somali pirate chiefs look at the idea of sending kids to die under the guns of the U.S. Navy as a strategy, not a tragedy.

Doctor Zero on April 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM