# Great news! Phillips free



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Details are skimpy, but it sounds as though the captain once again jumped off the lifeboat and was able to give U.S. forces the opportunity to open fire on the pirates, killing all three on board and capturing the one who was on the Bainbridge.

https://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Very good news!

I am still amazed at the 19th century sound of this sort of thing. I mean, pirates? Pirates on the High Seas! Quite a dramatic, timeless quality about the whole thing.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Quay said:


> Very good news!
> 
> I am still amazed at the 19th century sound of this sort of thing. I mean, pirates? Pirates on the High Seas! Quite a dramatic, timeless quality about the whole thing.


I thought Pirates were 18th century,I mean what are they doing in today's world?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

This is how you deal with pirates. Now if the international community grows a backbone and goes after the pirate's land bases, they could resolve this issue.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Quay said:


> Very good news!
> 
> I am still amazed at the 19th century sound of this sort of thing. I mean, pirates? Pirates on the High Seas! Quite a dramatic, timeless quality about the whole thing.


These pirates aren't nearly as elegant or gentlemanly as the ones in the movies. Another big difference from the 19th century is that the pirates of yore focused on treasure on the captured ships - today's pirates hold the crews for ransom for cash.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Awesome indeed! I can't wait to see the movie.

I've spent a good bit of time in the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagos, which share 35,000 islands between them, most of them uncharted; there's always been a good amount of piracy there, though nothing of the kind of organization or high-seas scale of the Somalis. Crews are always vigilant in those waters, though.

My understanding is that modern pirates are among the most desperate and dangerous people imaginable, so I'm certainly pleased by the happy outcome of this episode.

DH


----------



## Bartolo (Mar 2, 2009)

The pirates don't seem that "desperate," as plenty of ship owners are paying the ransoms. It sounds like they have an entire fleet of captured ships of all shapes and sizes, and literally piles of money.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I suspect it's kind of expensive to have $20 or 30 million in Somalia.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

If those Somali' pirates knew they faced certain death, each time they initiated one of their acts of piracy/terrorist acts on the high seas, they just might be more inclined to find other means of employment! Kudos to the Navy SEALS!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm very happy with this. It appears that Obama did marvelously. He waited patiently; authorized the proper strategy and let the military do their thing. Whether this will deter other attacks seems like a reasonable debate, but certainly it could have invited future attacks. Well done, Mr. President. This is one of the good things I hope for regarding Obama; and while I am distraught at some of his policies I never thought he would lay down; simply from observing the way he treats his family. I think some of the things he is doing with continuing some Bush policies that are controversial also prove he's growing into the Presidency. If only he was a better, or more experienced, Administrator ... he is ill-served by staff and cabinet. Gates (the holdover) is doing the honorable thing.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I'm very happy with this. It appears that Obama did marvelously. He waited patiently; authorized the proper strategy and let the military do their thing.


I will begin by acknowledging that I obviously don't have all of the facts and may reach a different conclusion if I did. That said, based on what I know, I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion. I am believe the US's position should be that we will kill anyone who attacks an American flag vessel.

I think sending FBI negotiators, waiting around, and then only shooting when Phillips had a weapon pointed at him show distinct weakness. I believe the immediate reaction should have been to unleash the SEALs with extreme prejudice.

If the US took a clear position that American vessels are untouchable, pirates would quickly find other prey.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think there is plenty we don't know yet, but from the reports I've read it seems pretty clear that the U.S. position was that these guys weren't going to get anything of value in exchange for releasing the captain. We weren't going to pay ransom, and apparently the negotiations broke down when it became clear that we weren't even going to agree to let them go if they released him.

I think this was the correct position to take. What we learned when Reagan was agreeing to give weapons to terrorists who captured Americans and held them for ransom was that it encouraged them to capture Americans, and established a market price for Americans held hostage. We clearly don't want to go down that road again.

I think it's clear that the tactics adopted in this case saved Phillips' life, whereas if our forces had just gone in with guns blazing he would likely be dead now (so would the pirates, but at a large cost to us). Maybe we want to take the position that we will always go in with guns blazing, and that killing or capturing the pirates is a higher priority than saving the lives of our fellow Americans, but that may be a hard policy to sell to the public at large.

With regard to the bigger question, it seems that there are at least a couple of problems. First, the sea area considered to be a danger zone is so big that it's going to be hard to cover the whole thing and respond to any incident in a timely way. Second, apparently there are international law considerations that make it problematic to arm the crews of merchant vessels. Third, the odds of any particular ship being boarded by pirates are so low that it's probably not a good investment for the companies to hire mercenaries to ride on them just in case they encounter pirates.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

smujd said:


> I will begin by acknowledging that I obviously don't have all of the facts and may reach a different conclusion if I did. That said, based on what I know, I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion. I am believe the US's position should be that we will kill anyone who attacks an American flag vessel.
> 
> I think sending FBI negotiators, waiting around, and then only shooting when Phillips had a weapon pointed at him show distinct weakness. I believe the immediate reaction should have been to unleash the SEALs with extreme prejudice.
> 
> If the US took a clear position that American vessels are untouchable, pirates would quickly find other prey.


Agree with ksinc on this. Going in with extreme predjudice might have resulted in a dead captain. Don't get me wrong, my gut reaction would be to go in with guns blazing, but cooler heads should prevail.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I think this was the correct position to take. What we learned when Reagan was agreeing to give weapons to terrorists who captured Americans and held them for ransom was that it encouraged them to capture Americans, and established a market price for Americans held hostage. We clearly don't want to go down that road again.


Now, now Jack. Be nice to Saint Ronnie.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> I will begin by acknowledging that I obviously don't have all of the facts and may reach a different conclusion if I did. That said, based on what I know, I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion. I am believe the US's position should be that we will kill anyone who attacks an American flag vessel.
> 
> I think sending FBI negotiators, waiting around, and then only shooting when Phillips had a weapon pointed at him show distinct weakness. I believe the immediate reaction should have been to unleash the SEALs with extreme prejudice.
> 
> If the US took a clear position that American vessels are untouchable, pirates would quickly find other prey.


Are you saying killing the pirates is the primary requirement? I'm all for killing people (frankly I would love to see child molestors and a host of others eliminated from the herd on a regular basis). However, I view it as a secondary requirement to saving an American. If the best qualified people to handle a hostage are the FBI (and I think they are) then I'm glad they were sent to make an assessment. It appears they made their assessment and an opportunity was taken and executed successfully.

I find it dubious to think that was the first or only time Phillips had an AK pointed at him. I think that's just part of the rationalization.

As long as Obama did the right thing, I don't care if he has to say "I'm not Bush" 1,000,000 times before and after. In the context, I think that's what they are doing by saying "imminent danger." I'm fine with that. They killed three people. Dead is dead. Even the sociopaths working for Obama can't spin dead into diplomacy.

And I'm also glad that whatever Obama's academic/philosophical rationalizations on a daily basis, as POTUS he realized this wasn't about fairness or social justice, but life and death. I'm just glad he didn't respond by signing the pirates up for Social Security and Health Care. I take what I can get.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Somailia is a country of roughly 10 million people with a per capita income of $600 a year.

These pirates are living in a lawless, war torn country that is 5th poorest country in the world. They have nothing to live for, so in turn nothing to loose.

There is no way the US Navy killing these pirates will stop them from continuing to hijack ships. It might make they think twice about going after American ships, but until there is some stability in Somalia and a real central government there - this kind of lawless behavior will continue.

President Obama performed brilliantly here. He kept his mouth shut in public, and behind closed doors gave the go ahead to use deadly force to bring this situation to an end. Well done by our president, and of course our fantastic men and women in the field.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This is one place where Obama has done the right thing. I also like that he does not seem to be all over TV trying to take personal credit for this. Maybe he will grow into the job, at least the foreign policy parts.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

KenR said:


> Agree with ksinc on this. Going in with extreme predjudice might have resulted in a dead captain. Don't get me wrong, my gut reaction would be to go in with guns blazing, but cooler heads should prevail.


The time for extreme prejudice is now. The Captain and his crew are safe. Send a message to the pirates, "Don't screw with us" but do so with a major follow-on strike against their support bases...and do so within the next 48 hours!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> The time for extreme prejudice is now. The Captain and his crew are safe. Send a message to the pirates, "Don't screw with us" but do so with a major follow-on strike against their support bases...and do so within the next 48 hours!


Yep, at least within the next week or so, if possible. We need very soon to follow up and this will be much more important WRT to future piracy than killing the 3 pirates on the lifeboat.

It will be this action that tells us more about Obama than the rescue of Captain Phillips.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> And I'm also glad that whatever Obama's academic/philosophical rationalizations on a daily basis, as POTUS he realized this wasn't about fairness or social justice, but life and death. *I'm just glad he didn't respond by signing the pirates up for Social Security and Health Care. I take what I can get.*


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I would certainly see a market for a private "Marine" service. A detachment of these private sector Marines with appropriate firepower placed on a few of these ships would certainly deter the pirates. I think the real problem is that many of the shipping companies are too cheap to pay for arming their ships.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't know if this is true (I never took international law), but I heard on C-SPAN today that it would be a violation of international law for these cargo ships to be armed.

In addition, there are countries that would deny entry to their ports to armed merchant vessels. This seems logical. How would we feel about armed Libyan flagged ships docking at Baltimore, or Albany, or any of our ports? I suspect we'd be less than enthusiastic about it.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't know if this is true (I never took international law), but I heard on C-SPAN today that it would be a violation of international law for these cargo ships to be armed.
> 
> In addition, there are countries that would deny entry to their ports to armed merchant vessels. This seems logical. How would we feel about armed Libyan flagged ships docking at Baltimore, or Albany, or any of our ports? I suspect we'd be less than enthusiastic about it.


I wouldn't mind as long as we're not talking about heavy artillery. Its ridiculous that ships traveling internationally can't be armed. I remember one time years ago when I was passing through a small south pacific nation that they had arrested the owners of a visiting sailboat that was found to have a shotgun on board. I thought it was stupid then and still do.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> This is one place where Obama has done the right thing. I also like that he does not seem to be all over TV trying to take personal credit for this. Maybe he will grow into the job, at least the foreign policy parts.


My first thought was that maybe he wasn't Carter all over again. But then I remembered that Carter tried to rescue the Iranian hostages too. Maybe the difference is that Obama inherited a more capable military.

And I say this as a Carter era veteran.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I disagree with putting armed forces of some kind on commercial vehicles because it's not cost-effective. It would drive up the price of shipping and goods. Technically speaking, the American Flag flying on a vessle should be all the deterence anyone needs. Once the American crew is safe, we need to turn to deterence. "Somalia, the NEW three mile island" works for me just fine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

norton said:


> My first thought was that maybe he wasn't Carter all over again. But then I remembered that Carter tried to rescue the Iranian hostages too. Maybe the difference is that Obama inherited a more capable military.
> 
> And I say this as a Carter era veteran.


That could be true. It could also be Gates.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

It could also be that we learned out lesson after the Pueblo and the Iran hostage crisis.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

smujd said:


> I think sending FBI negotiators, waiting around, and then only shooting when Phillips had a weapon pointed at him show distinct weakness. I believe the immediate reaction should have been to unleash the SEALs with extreme prejudice.


I think that they did "unleash the SEALS" at the first good opportunity and much of what was going on was to simply buy time to allow them to get into position. A military operation like this requires more planning than many might suspect.

For example, the SEAL team had to be brought to the scene secretly so the pirates weren't aware of their presence. As I understand it they made a high altitude (10,000 feet) parachute jump into the ocean in the middle of the night a significant distance away from the Bainbridge and then made their way to the Bainbridge in a small boat dropped with them. You can't do something like this on the spur of the moment. They then secretly took up concealed firing positions and waited for their opportunity. There is speculation that they weren't yet in position when Captain Phillips first tried to escape.

Speaking of SEALS, has everyone noticed how the SEAL team has quietly disappeared. We will likely never see any television interviews with them or even know who they are. I had the very unique opportunity to spend a couple of hours with a SEAL team back in 1971 in the California desert and all I can say is that they are very unique individuals. I think it's best that they are so secretive and that we, as ordinary citizens, don't always know what they are doing. I'm not sure I want to know.

Cruiser


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

norton said:


> My first thought was that maybe he wasn't Carter all over again. But then I remembered that Carter tried to rescue the Iranian hostages too. Maybe the difference is that Obama inherited a more capable military.
> 
> And I say this as a Carter era veteran.


We've come a long way since Operation Eagle Claw.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> *As I understand it they made a high altitude (10,000 feet) parachute jump into the ocean in the middle of the night a significant distance away from the Bainbridge and then made their way to the Bainbridge in a small boat dropped with them. You can't do something like this on the spur of the moment. * They then secretly took up concealed firing positions and waited for their opportunity. There is speculation that they weren't yet in position when Captain Phillips first tried to escape.


I disagree with the bolded part of your statement. I think this is what they are routinely called on to do in a rapid deployment fashion.

I agree with the last part. I think the reason they did not intervene earlier when Phillips jumped into the water was they they were simply much too far away to have a good chance for kills (which they needed to execute on all the pirates to insure Phillips safety). The shots they ended up taking were reportedly only about at the 30 yard range (ship and lifeboat tethered together).


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I disagree with the bolded part of your statement. I think this is what they are routinely called on to do in a rapid deployment fashion.


I didn't mean that they couldn't make a high altitude jump on short notice; of course they can. I was referring to the overall planning of the specific mission and subsequent execution of the mission. I'm also sure that they could have moved in faster, but less prep decreases the potential for success and given the past history of such pirate attacks there was no reason to believe that they didn't have the time needed to do it right.

I mentioned that I spent a couple of hours with a SEAL Team back in 1971. They were going to conduct a brief mission in the desert associated with the Charles Manson gang that was about 1,000 times less difficult than the pirate mission, and I think they prepped for about two days for that. The mission was scrubbed at the last minute.

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Something I was wondering about.

Here's an article on what's involved in shooting three guys on a bobbing lifeboat:

https://www.slate.com/id/2216031/


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I didn't mean that they couldn't make a high altitude jump on short notice; of course they can. I was referring to the overall planning of the specific mission and subsequent execution of the mission. I'm also sure that they could have moved in faster, but less prep decreases the potential for success and given the past history of such pirate attacks there was no reason to believe that they didn't have the time needed to do it right.
> 
> I mentioned that I spent a couple of hours with a SEAL Team back in 1971. They were going to conduct a brief mission in the desert associated with the Charles Manson gang that was about 1,000 times less difficult than the pirate mission, and I think they prepped for about two days for that. The mission was scrubbed at the last minute.
> 
> Cruiser


And I don't mean to insinuate that they could deploy and put a plan together in 3 hours, but it would not take them 2 days to do it, either. There's no way they take a couple of days to put together a plan. This was not a typical Somali pirate/hostage scenario.

This was not at all 1,000 times more difficult to plan re: a Manson in the desert scenario, imho. Four (later, three) AK-47-armed pirates and a hostage basically trapped in a small boat out at sea, and the seals are operating from a nearby US Navy guided-missile destroyer. There are not that many options to debate and they are highly trained to do basically anything necessary once the appropriate option is decided upon. A plan to board the lifeboat and take out the pirates would have taken some time, sure, but again, single digit hours at most, esp with a hostage's life a stake.

In the end, the final action that was taken, three snipers shooting from the ship after getting approval/orders to do so wouldn't take that much "planning", just finely honed skills.

Really a moot point, but just mho.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Relayer said:


> ...In the end, the final action that was taken, three snipers shooting from the ship after getting approval/orders to do so wouldn't take that much "planning", just finely honed skills.
> 
> Really a moot point, but just mho.


IMHO, this may be just a bit of an understatement! These things are always a whole lot more complicated than they may appear...and we may never know just how much so, in the present case. Cruiser is right...it takes time...that's how the SEALS and other special ops teams make it look so easy to the rest of us.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Beresford said:


> I would certainly see a market for a private "Marine" service. A detachment of these private sector Marines with appropriate firepower placed on a few of these ships would certainly deter the pirates. I think the real problem is that many of the shipping companies are too cheap to pay for arming their ships.


On a regular ship it might make some sense to hire guards but, as I understand it (poorly), no one in his or her right mind would want bullets flying around on a tanker. There are apparently plenty of explosive fumes etc floating around on these ships and one bullet creating a spark as it hits metal could set off the whole ship.

It's a lot cheaper for the tanker companies to pay the ransom than lose a ship permanently and/or pay for the environmental cleanup required when one of these ships leak their product. (I have read however that some of the shipping companies are starting to avoid the Suez Canal and shipping south around the Cape of Good Hope in SA.)


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't know if this is true (I never took international law), but I heard on C-SPAN today that it would be a violation of international law for these cargo ships to be armed.


In addition to possible violations of international maritime law, as I understand it many of the major ports in the world do not allow armed merchant ships to dock. Bringing it closer to home, would the U.S. allow an armed Libyan merchant ship to dock in New York? I doubt it.

Cruiser


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> IMHO, this may be just a bit of an understatement! These things are always a whole lot more complicated than they may appear...and we may never know just how much so, in the present case. Cruiser is right...it takes time...that's how the SEALS and other special ops teams make it look so easy to the rest of us.


We all agree that it takes time... the issue is how much. Personally, I don't think the seals make it look easy. I see it as pretty amazing stuff.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I always thought that pirates were mean angry men who had tattoo skulls on their arms,spoke a strange language,wore hats and always carried a sword with them on their ships.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Somehow, I'm sure you did, Howard.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Howard said:


> I always thought that pirates were mean angry men who had tattoo skulls on their arms,spoke a strange language,wore hats and always carried a sword with them on their ships.


You'd be amazed how much things can change in 300 years.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Howard said:


> I always thought that pirates were mean angry men who had tattoo skulls on their arms,spoke a strange language,wore hats and always carried a sword with them on their ships.


Parrots, you forgot the parrots, Howard!


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Howard said:


> I always thought that pirates were mean angry men who had tattoo skulls on their arms,spoke a strange language,wore hats and always carried a sword with them on their ships.


I thought they looked like this:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> You'd be amazed how much things can change in 300 years.


Maybe I've been watching too many pirate films.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

fenway said:


> Parrots, you forgot the parrots, Howard!


and a hook for an arm.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This is a bit odd. The original post comes from a Baylor Fans site. Someone should figure out which verion of events is true. Many blogs are linking to or incorporating the original post in a message forum; such as this Atlas Shrugs blog.

https://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...e-bho-blocked-navy-from-rescuing-captain.html


----------

