Capt. Phillips Freed, 3 Somali Pirates Killed

It was a victory for America and a defeat for the Somali pirates.

Capt. Richard Phillips was freed and the pirates didn't get their ransom. They got killed.

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Navy SEAL snipers on the fantail of a destroyer cut down three Somali pirates in a lifeboat and rescued an American sea captain on Easter Sunday. The surprise nighttime assault in choppy seas ended a five-day standoff between a team of rogue gunmen and the world's most powerful military.

It was a stunning conclusion to an Indian Ocean odyssey that began when 53-year-old freighter Capt. Richard Phillips was taken hostage Wednesday by pirates who tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama. The Vermont native was held on a tiny lifeboat that began drifting precariously toward Somalia's anarchic, gun-plagued shores.

The operation, personally approved by President Barack Obama, quashed fears the saga could drag on for months and marked a victory for the U.S., which for days seemed powerless to resolve the crisis despite massing helicopter-equipped warships at the scene.

Negotiations with the three pirates were growing heated, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said.

One of them pointed an AK-47 at the back of Phillips, who was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed when the commander of the nearby USS Bainbridge made the split-second decision to order his men to shoot, Gortney said. Navy snipers took aim at the pirates' heads and shoulders, he said.

The lifeboat was about 25-30 yards away and was being towed by the Bainbridge at the time, he said. The pirates had agreed to the tow to move the powerless lifeboat out of rough water.

A fourth pirate surrendered after boarding the Bainbridge earlier in the day and could face life in a U.S. prison. He had been seeking medical attention for a wound to his hand and was negotiating with U.S. officials on conditions for Phillips' release, military officials said.

The rescue was a dramatic blow to the pirates who have preyed on international shipping and hold more than a dozen ships with about 230 foreign sailors. But it is unlikely to do much to quell the region's growing pirate threat, which has transformed one of the world's busiest shipping lanes into one of its most dangerous. It also risked provoking retaliatory attacks.

Retaliation?

The pirates were in the wrong.

The dead aren't victims. They aren't martyrs. They lived like thugs and died like thugs.

I'm so proud of the skill and bravery of our Navy SEALs. I am so thankful that the family of Capt. Phillips is looking forward to his joyous return rather than planning his funeral.

...Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding the Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, said: "Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," he told The Associated Press. "We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men."

Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old self-proclaimed pirate, told the AP from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl, that: "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)."

"Now they became our number one enemy," Habeb said of U.S. forces.

Abdullahi Lami is a bad guy. He and his colleagues are pirates.

He talks as if the U.S. actions were unjustified and the Somalis were victims. The Somali pirates were just doing their jobs.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Reuters quoted a pirate it called "Hussein" yesterday saying that "The French and Americans will regret starting this killing. We do not kill, but take only ransom. We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now on."

Yes, the pirates are a peaceful lot. They only take ransom. They don't kill.

Right. Literally holding a gun to an innocent person's head isn't a typical business transaction.

Adm. Rick Gurnon, head of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, describes the pirates' "business model."

"The pirates have a great business model that works for them: See ships, take ransom, make millions," he told reporters.

The pirates' "business model" wouldn't work unless the threat of great physical harm and death were part of it.

I don't see how anyone can seriously discuss the pirates' actions as if they're businessmen. They're terrorists.

(Read a great column by Joe Queenan on the new administration's new war terminology: "War By Any Other Name." Spot-on.)

This situation is resolved. It was resolved successfully, but not peacefully. Capt. Phillips is alive. But the crisis isn't over. The U.S. now must exhibit resolve.

In "Saving Captain Phillips," the Wall Street Journal makes the case for a continued display of U.S. strength.

The Easter Sunday rescue of cargo ship Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates is a tribute to his personal bravery and the skill and steel nerves of the U.S. Navy. Now the Obama Administration has an obligation to punish and deter these lawless raiders so they'll never again risk taking a U.S.-flagged ship or an American crew.

The story of Captain Phillips and the Maersk Alabama is full of the kind of divine providence or good luck that can't always be counted on. Not every merchant marine vessel will have a crew that fights back against armed raiders, or a captain willing to trade his own safety for that of his crew. It's also fortunate the U.S. Navy arrived before the pirates could make it back to land, where they would have been much harder to track down.

We can be grateful that the pirates exposed themselves long enough for U.S. Special Forces to shoot and kill three of them and free Captain Phillips. Any such rescue carries risks, as we saw when a passenger was killed during the weekend French rescue of a pirated pleasure boat off Somalia. Patience was rewarded in the U.S. case, but also so was preparation and the willingness to act when Navy officials say Captain Phillips appeared to be in "imminent danger."

White House and Navy officials say President Obama had issued a general authorization to use force in these circumstances, and that is to his credit. With all the world watching, the U.S. Navy couldn't afford to be long stymied by sea-faring kidnappers. No doubt Mr. Obama would have been criticized in some quarters -- though not by us -- had Captain Phillips been killed once the order was given to shoot the pirates. But that is the kind of decision that has to be left with commanders on the spot. The pirates made themselves potential targets of deadly force under the law of the sea the second they took Captain Phillips hostage.

A fourth pirate was captured, and we hope the Justice Department tries him under U.S. laws rather than transfer him to Kenyan control. Better still if he's transferred to Guantanamo and held as an "enemy combatant," or whatever the Obama Administration prefers to call terrorists.

Last week, I was criticized for saying Obama "has to make it clear that he's continuing President Bush's approach. It's a mistake to mess with the U.S. Those who do will suffer the consequences."

Turns out, that's the approach Obama chose to take. Sometimes, apologizing to the world, talking down America, and promising not to be arrogant, dismissive, and derisive, won't get the job done.

We know that Obama authorized the use of deadly force TWICE.

The Washington Post is praising Obama's handling of the incident. It's deemed a military victory for Obama.

I support Obama's orders, though I think it was a big mistake for him to fail to address the matter when asked by the press.

As president, he is the "comforter in chief" during times of crisis and tragedy. I think he should have said a few words, just a few words, like "Capt. Phillips is in our prayers."

Obama needs to learn what to say and when to say it. In this matter, he failed on that count.

But I give him credit for showing the spine to have the Somali pirates killed to save Capt. Phillips. He didn't let the Somalis mess with the U.S.

This was a very small "overseas contingency operation," but significant.

Obama will issue orders to kill.
__________________

Raw: Navy Releases Video of Captain Richard Phillips After Rescue

Capt. Richard Phillips

Capt. Richard Phillips did a heroic thing when he offered himself as a hostage to secure the safety of his ship's crew.

NAIROBI, Kenya -- A U.S. destroyer on Thursday reached the waters where Somali pirates held the American captain of a hijacked cargo ship that was later retaken by the crew in an hours-long high seas drama.

The pirates took Capt. Richard Phillips as a hostage as they escaped into a lifeboat Wednesday in the first such attack on American sailors in around 200 years.

...Phillips' family was gathered at his Vermont farmhouse, anxiously watching news reports and taking telephone calls from the U.S. State Department to learn if he would be freed.

"We are on pins and needles," said Gina Coggio, 29, half-sister of Phillips' wife, Andrea, as she stood on the porch of his one-story house Wednesday in a light snow. "I know the crew has been in touch with their own family members, and we're hoping we'll hear from Richard soon."

Phillips surrendered himself to the pirates to secure the safety of the crew, Coggio said.

"What I understand is that he offered himself as the hostage," she said. "That is what he would do. It's just who he is and his response as a captain."

What a brave man!

My thoughts are with Capt. Phillips and his family. This must be torture for them.

I hope the Somali thugs surrender and Capt. Phillips is quickly reunited with his family.

After he is freed, I hope the Obama administration sends a firm message to the pirates and to the world that this lawlessness will not be tolerated.

And no, a UN resolution condemning the Somali pirates will not suffice.

Unilaterally, Obama needs to show that he's not a wimp and an appeaser. He must start displaying a backbone, something he failed to do with the North Korean rocket launch.

He has to make it clear that he's continuing President Bush's approach. It's a mistake to mess with the U.S. Those who do will suffer the consequences.

This calls for an Overseas Contingency Operation.

Hillary Clinton and the War on Terror

Former community organizer Barack Obama's administration is very disorganized. Members are in disarray. They aren't on the same page.

Supposedly, the Obama administration had adopted its own lexicon.

"War on Terror" was discarded and replaced with "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano rejected "terrorism" for "man-caused disasters," making it clear that the administration made the change in order to move away from the "politics of fear."

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denies the new terms. She claims she's not banned from using "War on Terror." She's received no directive about it. She just is choosing not to use it.

Yeah, right.

From ABC News:

After days of confusion and denial about whether the Obama administration was officially no longer using the term "War on Terror," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration is no longer speaking of a "War on Terror."

"I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used," said Clinton during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane to the Hague to attend an international conference on Afghanistan.

"The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," she said at a different point during her trip. "Obviously."

...The story began after the Washington Post's Al Kamen obtained an e-mail from an official in the Office of Security Review, Dave Reidel, saying that, "This Administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' (GWOT). Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said, "There was no memo, no guidance. This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell added that he had "never received such a directive...Perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little over-exuberant."

What has gone unnoticed, however, is that the discontinuation of the "war on terror" phrase also marks a departure for Secretary Clinton and President Obama.

During an April 26, 2007, debate in South Carolina, the moderator asked the eight Democratic candidates to raise their hand if they believed there is such a thing as a "Global War on Terror."

Clinton and Obama joined Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., in raising their hands, indicating that they believed that there is such a thing as a Global War on Terror, or GWOT.

Future Vice President Joe Biden joined former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in not raising their hands, indicating that they did not believe that there was such a thing as a GWOT.

As reported at the time on ABC's "Political Radar," Edwards subsequently tried to use his misgivings with the "War on Terror" terminology to differentiate himself from Obama and Clinton. It didn't work. Though apparently Obama and Clinton may have been at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.

This is all so lame.

How are we supposed to trust Obama and Hillary and others in the administration to protect us from terrorists or, if you prefer, "man-caused disaster-doers," if they are so reluctant to utter the word "terror"?

Hillary's remarks sound like they came out of Bill's mouth.

"I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used."

"The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously."

What?

As they plot their next attack in their war against the U.S., Osama bin Laden and members of al Qaeda must be enjoying hearing Hillary and Obama and Napolitano dithering over terms.

AFGHANISTAN: OBAMA'S WAR

When the lib media say it, it must be so.

Associated Press writer Ben Feller has declared that Barack Obama "owns" the war in Afghanistan.

Obama widens al-Qaida war, making it his own

Widening war in "the most dangerous place in the world," President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort Friday to defeat al-Qaida terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, defending his strategy with shades of the dire language of George W. Bush.

Stirring echoes of Sept. 11 and making the war his own, Obama warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq but still has no end in sight.

Obama's tough talk doesn't reflect change in U.S. Middle East policy.

Sure, he sent a message, via YouTube, to the Iranians, wishing them a "Happy New Year" and telling them to knock it off when it comes to nukes.

And Obama has declared an end to the War on Terror. Now, it's "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has given up using the term "terrorism," preferring to say, "man-caused disasters."

That kinder, gentler approach seemed to indicate a shift toward weakness. Obama's naïveté was in full view.

It turns out that Obama and his administration were playing word games. At least that's how it seems today. Maybe tomorrow Obama and his team will flip-flop again. I'm betting on that.

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."

I've heard this before. I'm sure I have. President Bush said that! Right?

Obama is a plagiarist!

The president, who declared last weekend an "exit strategy" was needed for Afghanistan, never used those words in announcing his plans on Friday. His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011—and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them—so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.

That, he said, is "how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home."

There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.

What?

No timetable?

No estimate on cost?

This has all the makings of a QUAGMIRE.

What now, Lefties?

Obama is sending even more troops to Afghanistan.

...Since becoming president, Obama has ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, counting 17,000 combat forces who will try to quell surging violence. The Pentagon says that will put the U.S. total there at more than 60,000, the most to date. As the Iraq conflict winds down, the Afghanistan war is growing.

Taking firm control of the war that dominated Bush's presidency, Obama broke with his predecessor in significant ways but also used phrases that sounded strikingly familiar.

He described the ruthlessness of the enemy, the need to take on terrorists, the genesis of the fight. Bush often reminded the nation that terrorists were plotting to kill Americans, even as the public fear dissipated with each passing year after the 9/11 attacks.

"I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives."

Obama is definitely plagiarizing President Bush.

I thought the Obama administration was moving away from the politics of fear.

Obama and his hacks have consistently been playing on people's fears. He did it with the economy and then he had to backtrack when people listened. Now, he's using fear to justify his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

I wonder if Obama's faithful flock will lose faith.

Probably not.

Whatever Obama says is brilliant. Whatever Obama does is cool.

...Much of the security build up in Afghanistan this year is meant to provide security for fair, stable elections there in August.

"We've been on a path since 2006, 2007, 2008, where violence has gone up," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We add these troops, violence is going to go up in 2009 because we're engaged more. That said, we've got to have a year this year, I believe, that stems that violence."

Obama, too, warned of tough days ahead. He said al-Qaida, its allies and probably its leader, Osama bin Laden, were plotting in the Pakistani frontier.

The sad truth is more American troops will lose their lives fighting al Qaeda.

Will the lib media and the Leftist wingnuts keep count of the death toll and recognize the dreaded milestones as they did when President Bush was the Commander in Chief?

Will the anti-war activists march and hold protests in DC and all over the country?

What will CODEPINK do?

At the moment, the PINK ladies aren't happy.

Here's CODEPINK's statement on Afghanistan.

Let's Remind Obama of His Promises for Peace!



It's not just the CODEPINKIES who are troubled. Russ Feingold is critical of Obama's plans, too.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Sen. Russ Feingold said Friday he feared that the troop buildup in Afghanistan ordered by President Barack Obama could "make the situation worse, not better."

Feingold, who was a vocal critic of the Iraq war, stopped short of expressing outright opposition to the increase in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.

But the Wisconsin Democrat said a military escalation in Afghanistan could de-stabilize neighboring Pakistan, which he termed a much bigger potential security problem for the United States than Afghanistan.

"The problem is if you do this wrong, with too much emphasis on Afghanistan and not enough on Pakistan, you may be creating greater radicalization (in the region)," Feingold, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. "In the end, Pakistan is more dangerous than Afghanistan.  . . .  I do think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse."

Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more troops into Afghanistan, in addition to the 17,000 he approved adding earlier.

"I am not convinced that makes sense. It may be counterproductive," said Feingold, referring to the possible spillover effects of the buildup on Pakistan, where militants and terrorists have occupied safe havens along the border and where violence has also been on the rise. The bloodiest attack in Pakistan occurred Friday, when a suicide bomber struck a mosque near the Afghan border, killing at least 48.

Yeah, well. The ball's in Obama's court.

I wonder how many Obama followers are disillusioned. Do they feel let down?

They may spew the White House rhetoric that nothing is Obama's fault. Obama inherited the problems. Blah, blah, blah....

The fact is no president inherits a perfect nation.

But Obama wanted the job. He won the election.

HE is choosing to escalate the war, I mean, the Overseas Contingency Operation in Afghanistan. It's all his now.

Overseas Contingency Operation

On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush gave an address to a joint session of Congress and the nation.

Delivered just over a week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the speech was a defining moment in the history of the United States.

Transcript excerpt

Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"

We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

...After all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear.

Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them.

As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment.

Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us.

Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.

(APPLAUSE)

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines and that is good.

Even grief recedes with time and grace.

But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day and to whom it happened. We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing.

Some will remember an image of a fire or story or rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this. It is the police shield of a man named George Howard who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others.

It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does not end.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

(APPLAUSE)

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom and may he watch over the United States of America. Thank you.

That's history.

The Obama administration has shifted policy. Time to change.

The War on Terror is no more.

From the Washington Post:

The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.

"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.

"OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."

An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

Referring to the phrase "global war on terror," Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that would be stricken" from Hill testimony.

"Overseas Contingency Operation"?

What the hell is that?

It's a new world. Instead of terrorism, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano speaks of "man-caused disasters." Instead of a War on Terror, we now have an "Overseas Contingency Operation."

What's changed?

Nothing has changed in terms of Islamic terrorism and the threat to our nation. What has changed is Obama's approach.

The softer terms are indicative of weakness and naïveté.

Words have meaning. Obama is telling the world his America is different.

It's wimpy.

And we're returning to a state of dangerous vulnerability.