Obama's triumph .. or is it?

Barry just scored one for the Gipper. If you believe the press, that is.

Supposedly, Barry gave the order to take the pirates out if there was cause to believe that the captain of the Maersk Alabama was in immediate danger. That is the story and the administration is sticking with that. But it has so many holes in it with regards to leadership that it makes me nauseous to see all the lefties jumping around beating their chest that "their man" had stood up to the pirates. But when was this "order" (if it was) given?

Let's be clear about this: had the Administration (that is, Obama and his handlers) made that determination from the start, the captain would not have spent 5 days in captivity at gun point. Just how "immediate" does immediate have to be? Isn't being at gunpoint held by teenage pirates pretty damn serious and immediately dangerous to start with. Just how much more dangerous does it have to get? Or, how can it get more dangerous?

So, it is clear that the first time the captain jumped into the water -- to get separation from the pirates to permit the destroyer Bainbridge to blow it out of the water -- there was either: (a) an official policy of do nothing and watch (a favorite of Obama's that the Left continually applauds him for); (b) no policy at all, even though aware of the crisis -- a complete failure of leadership; or (c) Obama thought it beneath his consideration in the first place, preferring to let things take their course, maybe try some negotiation to look like a measured and careful statesman. To be sure, these options are pretty similar, but also sufficiently different to give pause to ask, "what the hell was going on here?" A fair thing to ask of the man with his finger on the button.

One hint as to the questions/options listed above is provided by Obama himself during a news conference (about another subject) on Thursday last: when asked about the hijacking crisis, he got "testy" with the press and chided in an angry tone, "[h]ey guys, we are talking about housing here!" No, President Obama, the NATION was talking about the hijacking of a U.S. flagged vessel by Third World pirates, Islamic pirates, something that had not happened since Thomas Jefferson was forced to send U.S. warships to the Med. to kick the ass of some other pirates -- who happened to be Muslim as well. The Bey of Algiers was known to have sanctioned attacks and piracy on the infidels -- who were beneath contempt as unbelievers. Not that I believe that this was the case here: the Somalis are operating under the "Golden Rule." Simply.

It seems that Obama was out of touch, just not too bothered by this historic event. A minor thing in the big scheme of global politics, unimportant compared to domestic housing issues. There was a time where a Roman citizen anywhere in the world was able to proceed about his business pretty much with impunity: if the locals decided to mug, kill or steal from him, the wrath of Rome would be visited on upon their miserable asses. It worked pretty well, and kept crime away from the citizens of that Empire.

Now while I am hardly an imperialist, I DO LIKE the notion that people should not feel free to mug me abroad as a defenseless foreigner. One of the benefits of being an American -- who is taxed on his world-wide income for the privilege of being one and enjoying those "benefits" -- is that your country will stand behind you, protect you and further your enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if you are rational (hence probably not Liberal), you probably share these thoughts.

I don't really care if, as the loonies on the left claim, the Europeans and Asians have fished the waters off of Somalia clean. Not my issue. I don't really care if their government is too corrupt to provide a stable environment for their welfare: if I did, then I would be interefering in their local affairs -- always condemned by the Left and characterized as imperialist. So I am content to let their tribal pettiness and brutality continue amongst themselves, so long as it does not touch or affect Americans. I draw the line there. And if American allies want to sign on to this mutual protection pact, all the better. The Left (including Obama) can't have it both ways: we can't be delicate hands-off diplomats and also ensure that things don't get out of hand locally -- the two goals are mutually exclusive. Anyone who thinks that the UN or international censure works has not being paying attention to history, either recent or at any time in the past.

Truth is this: force works. The playground bully stops his actions when his teeth are knocked down his throat ... when it becomes too expensive to the bully in real terms to continue. It has always been this way, and will continue to be this way no matter how much our touchy-feeley friends on the Left think otherwise. You can't merely legislate good behavior without the threat in the background to enforce it.

Back to Barry and the Pirates. Since there was immediate danger from the start, the obvious conclusion is that under the rules of engagement then outstanding, there was nothing for the Captain of the Bainbridge to do except shadow some pirates and hope something would happen. Subsequently, the opportunity arose to take out the pirates and someone in the military -- who are used to making decisions, no matter how much the Left would seek to knock this unpleasant trait out of them -- made the call to kill the pirates. Immediate danger my ass -- some determined to stop this nonsense before the pirates could do something stupid or get the captain ashore. You can be SURE that the shooting was not the result desired by the Administration, but seeing that the population approved, they'll take the credit, notwithstanding the fact that our SEALS killed three desperate teenagers (which would have been the call had a Republican president made it).

Obama deserves no credit here. None.