The Piracy Update

Now the information begins to filter in. . .

And those of us who questioned the true position of Mr Obama during the incident are now apparently being validated.

From an article from Jeff Emanuel (in part -- and please read the full article):

Phillips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Phillips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken. The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger (my emphasis).

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

Please understand that, at this point, had a command authority on the scene made a decision contraverting Mr Obama's edict, there would be a price to pay.

I wrote, in a comment on Texas Fred's blog yesterday regarding this matter:

In many ways I suspect we’ll not know. If Obama made no decision and a naval captain made the decision independent of Mr Obama, I submit it would be safe to say that that is one captain who has jeopardized the rest of what little career he has left.

With that in mind, please continue with Mr Emanuel's article:

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he’d had enough. Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK-47 one captor had leveled at Phillips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Phillips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spin-side to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort (my emphasis).

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four-day-and-counting standoff between a rag-tag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

And therein lies the rub, you see.

I and a number of other bloggers innately suspected, considering the history and philosophical bent of Mr Obama, these underlying actions and behind-the-scenes machinations.

The hostage situation turned out well. Our SEALs did their jobs. And Mr Obama takes great credit and many public bows whilst the DEM/MSM crank up the Glory Choruses.

The telling tale? Follow the career of this "on scene commander" and see how rapidly he either 1) is transferred or 2) retires.

Let this be a lesson for us all: trust our senses when it comes to Mr Obama and his Glory Chorale.

BZ