Navy Seals in the sea of slander

By Capt. Fogg

I didn't have a chance to write about it last week. I've been out of town, but even before the rare glow from the successful recapture of the Maersk Alabama and the astonishing rescue of her captain had a chance to wear off by itself, the letter appeared in my in-box. It was signed by Admiral Lou Sarosdy saying that he had it on good authority from Navy SEALS that the rescue had been delayed, and almost didn't occur at all because of the dithering and interference from that weak, incompetent, Nancy-boy in the White House. It had been forwarded to me from someone who does a lot of this sort of thing and believes each and every screed that lights up his screen. He appended a tirade about the weakness of presidents and about how we need Teddy Roosevelt back again, perhaps to start another war to sell newspapers.

I had my suspicions, as constantly referring to the pirates as "raggies" stinks as though it were intended for the bottom of the barrel audience, so I wrote to Snopes.com, who at that point had nothing on it. After a couple of days research on their part, It turns out that Sorosdy retired 27 years ago, denies having said anything like it and insists he doesn't even know any Navy Seals. Wouldn't you know it, I soon got another copy which now assures me that it came:

From a Marine that lives just outside Coronado where the Seals train. He uses the Coronado Officers' club.

Seamlessly we segue from the Admiral to some guy in a bar who heard it from some other guy who heard it from a Navy SEAL.

"Having spoken to some SEAL pals yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation."

I'll spare you the rest because of course it's a lie and probably was constructed in the same basement chamber of horrors where most of the Republican propaganda of the last decade was sewn together like Frankenstein's monster. All reputable sources deny all the claims, of course, but I'm sure the bulk of the recipients will still go on and on about "weakness" and how we need exuberant and gratuitous aggression against all "raggies" just like good old Teddy would do.

It never ends and it never fails to find a sympathetic audience. Walking through a hotel lobby this weekend, I glimpsed Fox News on a giant screen, "Obama is increasing the size of the Federal Government" crawled across the bottom. Later, in the car, John McCain told us that there was an element of political revenge involved in prosecuting torturers. It never ends and if firefighters were Democrats, Fox would tell us every day how much private property had been ruined by pouring water on it while extolling the virtues of smaller fire departments, with smaller hoses filled with less water under lower pressure -- and while we're at it, let's privatize them and give the contract to Halliburton.

Hey, did I tell you about the e-mail I got from Jesus saying he's not coming back until we waterboard everyone at Fox News?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Canada vs. the pirates

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With so much attention on piracy off the coast of Africa, mainly because of the taking of the Maersk Alabama and its captain, there seems to be a stepped-up international effort underway to address the problem.

And -- Oh Canada! -- this was something:

Canadian sailors apprehended a band of Somali pirates at gunpoint early Sunday morning after a seven-hour pursuit across the Gulf of Aden, much of it under the cover of night.

HMCS Winnipeg, sailing off the Horn of Africa as part of a NATO-led anti-piracy mission, was escorting a United Nations food shipment when it happened on a skiff carrying seven bandits attempting to hijack the MV Front Ardenne, an 80,000-tonne tanker from Norway.

The Somalis ignored warning shots fired by a Canadian naval helicopter and fled the scene. HMCS Winnipeg, led by Commander Craig Baines, left the food shipment to other NATO vessels and gave chase.

An American ship also joined the pursuit. It was the Canadians who got to the pirates first.

The effort, which includes "a patrol of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that includes ships from Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States," is admirable -- and ought to be the start of further engagement. Joint military operations can focus both on rooting out the pirates and on protecting cargo ships in the region.

Prime Minister Harper is right, though, that, as of right now, there are serious limitations on what can be done, and hence on what can be achieved. First, there is the problem of Somalia itself. Until that anarchic country is stabilized, piracy will continue to pose a threat. Second, the Canadian military couldn't arrest the pirates, as it does not have the authority to do so. Until a legal process is in place that allows for the detention, as well as the prosecution of these pirates -- who, in this case, were disarmed and eventually released -- the international effort will lack the bite to go along with a bark that is getting louder.

Still, this incident proves that military engagement in the region, if only in the form of protection, can work. At the very least, cargo ships -- and 42 were captured in 2008, "including a Saudi supertanker called the Sirius Star and the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying tanks" -- aren't entirely sitting ducks.

Dear Leader Rush defends the pirates

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It seems Rush Limbaugh has a problem with how, at Obama's order, the U.S. rescued the captain of the Maersk Alabama, Richard Phillips, from the clutches of the pirates.

Snipers, you see, shot three of the pirates who were holding Phillips. But who were those pirates? "Muslim kids," notes Rush, "three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama."

Oh. Really.

Since when does Rush give a shit about Muslim teenagers? Obviously, he doesn't. And if it had been Bush giving the order, Rush would have applauded heartily, huge grin on his face, cigar dangling from his mouth, as per usual. Three more dead Muslims? So what? In Rush's world, the world of the radical right, the world of the Republican base, such lives have little meaning, if any meaning at all. To Rush and his ilk, Muslims are the Other, the enemy. And as for Muslim pirates, well, they're not much different than Muslim jihadists. If the U.S. should be out there killing jihadists, which is what Rush and his ilk enthusiastically promote, it should be out there killing pirates, too. And so what if they're under 18? That's never stopped them before.

In other words, this is naked partisan hypocrisy. It's just so amusing to hear Rush showing such obviously fake compassion for a few Muslim teenagers. It would be like Dick Cheney weeping over the deaths of a few Gitmo inmates, or of a few Pakistanis caught in the crossfire of Bush's war on terror.

I don't like the killing, but, in this case, I'm not sure what else could have been done -- and I'm sure that Obama considered a number of different options before settling on the one he chose. And it troubles me, as it no doubt troubles the president, that the three dead pirates were teenagers (Muslim or otherwise).

As for Rush, he's just full of shit, as usual, and his playing of the "Muslim" card to attack Obama, which is all he really cares about here, proves once more what an absolutely shameless partisan he is.

Another pirate attack...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

...on a U.S. cargo ship, this one the Liberty Sun, en route to Mombasa, Kenya. According to CNN, the pirates, who may have been "based on a mother ship somewhere in the area," didn't succeed in boarding the ship, which is "now being escorted by a coalition ship."

Yes, Obama needs to address this obviously very serious problem.

Obama vs. the pirates

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's a serious problem, and Obama intends to fight it in a serious way:

President Obama vowed Monday to "halt the rise of piracy" off the coast of Africa following the dramatic rescue of an American merchant captain, foreshadowing a longer and potentially more treacherous struggle ahead as he weighs a series of problematic options.

Well, sure. There's no easy policy. One imagines that the war on piracy would be less treacherous than the war on terror, but prolonged American military activity against a nebulous foe on and off the coast of Somalia would likely prove to be, well, challenging, not least because the American people are, especially post-Iraq, unlikely to get behind a war without obvious national security interests (although American national security is indeed at risk given the threat to American trade in and around the Middle East), without a clear end (or without the possibility of clear victory), and with the possibility of significant casualties.

Nonetheless, Obama should keep all options on the table -- in the end, some sort of prolonged military action in the region is probably needed.

What is not needed is what the neocons are pushing, which is, as you might expect, full-scale war. For example, John Bolton, one of Bush's U.N. ambassadors, has called for an invasion of Somalia. While targeted strikes may work, invading another Muslim country, one in which the U.S. has had problems in the past, would be a disaster -- yet another quagmire, yet another blow to America's credibility and moral standing.

Pirate hostage stand-off continues off Somali coast

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I realize that there's a serious piracy problem in and around the Gulf of Aden and along the Somali coast of the Horn of Africa, but the magnitude of the problem continues to amaze me.

The latest development in the current drama involving a U.S. cargo ship was the attempted - and failed -- escape of the ship's captain, Richard Phillips. He jumped out of a lifeboat and tried to swim to a nearby U.S. naval vessel but was recaptured. The crew of the Maersk Alabama somehow retook control of the ship from the pirates, and now the Navy and the FBI are attempting to secure the Phillips' release.

The problem is much bigger than a single American ship, though. Consider this passage from the N.Y. Times:

The standoff unfolding on the high seas off the coast of Somalia intensified Friday as American naval reinforcements moved toward the scene. There were also reports that the pirates, desperate to reach shore with their captive, had themselves called in additional vessels and men.

It's understandable that the U.S. would send in reinforcements -- and a longer-term naval presence in the region may be necessary -- but what's clear is that these pirates are actually part of a fairly sizable organization, at least large enough that there are "additional vessels and men" available to them.

One of the most lawless parts of the world -- where pirates even hijack ships carrying humanitarian aid, as is the case with the Maersk Alabama -- is fast becoming a war zone, the piracy problem so great that countries around the world have established a naval task force, Combined Task Force 151, to combat it. (For more on piracy off the Somali coast, see here.)

It's all quite amazing -- given that this is 2009, not 1809 -- but obviously the threat is significant.