I'm sure by now all of you are as sick as I am of the day-in, day-out coverage of the failed cargo ship hijacking off the coast of Somalia. However, there are so many things that I have to say (in my own twisted-hippie way) about the events of the past few days. There is insight here into President Obama's character, our future foreign policy, as well as a few laughs. So, step inside my psychedelic mind and let's see what's been running around.The events, just in case you've been living under a rock or are watching a 7-day Spongebob marathon, went down like this; The U.S. flagged cargo ship, Maersk Alabama, was hijacked a few hundred miles off the Horn of Africa. The ship was carrying emergency food relief to Mombasa, Kenya when it was seized by four men armed with AK-47's. Apparently, the crew of twenty men were not allowed to carry weapons for fear of mutiny. I guess hijackings were not among the fears that the owners had, despite a rash of hijackings in that area. In a quick twist of situations, the crew of the Maersk, despite being unarmed, managed to overtake one of the hijackers. The other three, sensing a turn of fate, fled with the Captain of the ship, Richard Phillips, as a hostage onto one of the Maersk's lifeboats.
Now here's where it gets funny.
Since the ship's crew were holding one of the pirates and the pirates were holding their Captain, a swap seemed to be in order. Oddly enough, the crew took the pirates at their word and released their man first. The pirates then, of course, refused to release the Captain. Fer Christ's sake, didn't a single person on that ship watch "Pirates of the Caribbean"??? They're pirates!
After realizing their incredibly stupid mistake, the crew, now backed up by the American Navy destroyer, the USS Bainbridge, and several other vessels, began negotiating for the Captain's release. You have to hand it to the U.S. Navy for over-kill, The Bainbridge is a guided-missile destroyer carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles, torpedoes and two MH-60 Knighthawk helicopters armed with Hellfire missiles. All that vs. four men with light weapons in a glorified row-boat. Despite all that show-of-force, the four men managed to hold the U.S. Navy at bay for several days.
Now, this is the part where I wish I was a fly-on-the-wall.
To negotiate with the U.S. Navy, one of the pirates came aboard the reclaimed Maersk. During the negotiations, per President Obama's orders, the officers in charge sensed things were going badly and O.K.'ed sharpshooters to take out the three remaining pirates in the lifeboat. Three shots from our nation's finest and three pirates lay dead. Now, this is the other part I find funny. When the remaining pirate was told of this change in his bargaining position, how did he react? Did he try to play it off? "O.K. then, here's my final offer. You let me go with the lifeboat and my dead friends and we'll call it even. Deal?" One thing's for sure, I'll bet his attitude changed very suddenly.
The fact that there's still pirates boarding ships in the 21st century is a strange test for our new President. But I have to say, I give him high marks for this one. As I've said before, I love a story where the bad guys get theirs in the end. I have been somewhat worried that Obama had bought into the Liberal idea that fighting back just creates more enemies. Sure, the pirates immediately spouted off that the U.S. would pay for it's refusal to submit. Trash always talks trash. But if I'm a pirate, or a terrorist, I have to be thinking to myself, "These damn Americans have a nasty habit of fighting back." And that's the America I love. Great job crew of the Alabama Mearsk, excellent work sharpshooters, and good call Mr. President. H.C.
6 comments:
I have to admit, when I heard that the crew of the Maersk Alabama had essentially freed themselves, I was a bit disappointed. I thought that, w/ all those on the right still reeling about Obama winning the election, & saying that this administration will be no different than that of the Carter administration, this was an opportunity for Obama to flex some muscle, & @ the very least, hush the mob a bit, if not shut them up entirely. A liberal who wasn't afraid to utilize military force in defense of US citizens in eminent danger? Christ...I'd be smitten.
So here we are, after the fact, however my guess is this is just the beginning. While I'm certain we won't see US boots on the ground in Somalia, somebody will likely be doing something. W/ attacks increasing (4 new hijackings today) in an area w/ 22,000 ships frequently passing through, the ransom payments won't last forever.
-n
Hey Nic,
I think Barack did shut down the right on this crisis. Hannity and Rush were probably working on their next show trashing the O- Administration when the word came down that 3 Pirates now need wooden heads. They were all strangely quiet today on the matter.
I'm not so sure we won't see boots on the ground in Somalia. If this keeps up I could see them sending in a multi-national force. I wouldn't bet on it though. More likely, they'll do more patroling along the coast of the Horn, maybe use some hi-tech methods. At some point we are going to have to address this problem, Al queda is setting up big time in Somalia (remember that tape OBL sent out) and it's possible these ransoms are going to fund them.
I know there's people quick to connect Somalia w/ Al Qaeda, but I'd be verrrry careful walking down that road (again). "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."Addressing something that you touched base on in your OP, merchant vessels cannot carry arms not by fear of mutiny, but rather many nations have articles within their respective Constitutions that prohibit foreign armies (or in this case, armed foreigners...same thing legally I suppose) from setting foot on their soil, or sometimes, their territorial waters. In other cases, it's a "rule" as implemented by a specific port. Either way, when you have a ship that doesn't just go from port A to port B & back, but rather goes the route of many ports before it arrives @ it's home port, it's easy to see why a merchant vessel cannot arm itself, @ least legally.
-n
Hey Nic,
I understand your point considering how quick we are to yell "Al Qaeda!" every where that we have a problem. However, I was going by OBL's own statements. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/osama-bin-laden-rallies-s_n_176784.html) If even the Liberal Huff Post believes it, there may be some truth there. Thanks for the info on why the crews don't carry weapons. I was going by statements I had heard during the crisis, but your explaination makes much more sens
well i was glad to hear the pirates got theirs at the hands of the navy. it's what should have happened to the terrorists who attacked the USS Cole under clinton's watch.
have you heard about ron paul's proposal that we invoke some sort of late 18th/early 19th century clause in the constitution about permitting bounty hunters to aid in patrolling waters prone to piracy (i think it was called letters of marque, they'd still have to abide by geneva convention and such). the last time we used this was during the war of 1812. i haven't looked into it too much but it sounded like something that might not be too bad and idea.
Hey Lime,
I have to admit I was rather shocked to hear that Obama himself gave the order to shoot the pirates if the Captain's life became in immediate peril. Finally, a Dem with a spine. I haven't heard anything about the Letters of Marque being used, but since it was reveamped in 2001 as the Marque and Reprisal Act, it seems it could have some value. There was a legal catagory for pirates, terrorists, and such that I heard several nations were considering implementing called "Hostis humani generis" or "Enemy of Mankind" and I have also heard of increased use of Public International Law. In the past, we had several such universal laws for the high seas, maybe it's time to bring them back.
Post a Comment