Obama '08?

It was one of the earliest tests of the new American president -- a small military operation off the coast of a Third World nation. But as President Bill Clinton found out in October 1993, even minor failures can have long-lasting consequences.

Clinton's efforts to land a small contingent of troops in Haiti were rebuffed, for the world to see, by a few hundred gun-toting Haitians. As the USS Harlan County retreated, so did the president's reputation.

For President Obama, last week's confrontation with Somali pirates posed similar political risks to a young commander in chief who had yet to prove himself to his generals or his public.

But the result -- a dramatic and successful rescue operation by U.S. Special Operations forces -- left Obama with an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad.

Throughout the past four days, White House officials played down Obama's role in the hostage drama. Until yesterday, he made no public statements about the pirates.

In fact, aides said yesterday, Obama had been briefed 17 times since he returned from his trip abroad, including several times from the White House Situation Room. And without giving too many details, senior White House officials made it clear that Obama had provided the authority for the rescue.

"The president's focus was on saving and protecting the life of the captain," one adviser said. Friday evening, after a National Security Council telephone update, Obama granted U.S. forces what aides called "the authority to use appropriate force to save the life of the captain." On Saturday at 9:20 a.m., Obama went further, giving authority to an "additional set of U.S. forces to engage in potential emergency actions."

A top military official, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of the Fifth Fleet, explained that Obama issued a standing order that the military was to act if the captain's life was in immediate danger.

"Our authorities came directly from the president," he said. "And the number one authority for incidents if we were going to respond was if the captain's life was in immediate danger. And that is the situation in which our sailors acted."

After the rescue ended, White House officials immediately offered expanded information about Obama's role, though the president simply released a statement praising the troops and expressing pride in the captain's bravery.

What a stupid post in a series of stupid posts, Okie. The rescue effort was a response to real situation with clear goals and a clear notion of what a victory would like at the end. Liberals (speaking as one anyway) are not against killing if it is necessary, I was not against the Afghanistan war, just the Iraq war because I didn't see the connection between Iraq and the attack on our country. (no desire to get into that discussion yet again)

revel wrote:

What a stupid post in a series of stupid posts, Okie. The rescue effort was a response to real situation with clear goals and a clear notion of what a victory would like at the end. Liberals (speaking as one anyway) are not against killing if it is necessary, I was not against the Afghanistan war, just the Iraq war because I didn't see the connection between Iraq and the attack on our country. (no desire to get into that discussion yet again)

Just pointing out the accusation of Bush creating more terrorists is a two edged sword. You can try to make the distinction that Iraq is different than Afghanistan, but I don't buy the idea that killing terrorists in Iraq creates any more terrorists than would killing them in Afghanistan create more. It makes about as much sense as arguing that arresting criminals in Kansas creates more criminals than arresting them in California. Criminals are criminals. Terrorists are terrorists. Pirates are pirates. Sure, there are some differences, but it doesn't change who they are.

Innocent civilians are sometimes injured or killed when criminals are pursued as well. Should we abandon that? Should we have never fought World War II, as many innocent civilians died?

It is your reasoning that is flawed, cyclops, and I am here to point out the obvious, that it is.

P.S. Innocent civilians are also killed in Afghanistan while killing the Taliban.

The main difference I see is if Bush killed terrorists, it created more, when Obama does it, it does not.

And if Obama kills terrorists or innocent civilians, suddenly it was necessary.

Sure, probably, but the principle stays the same. My reasoning is that if an evil exists, you should not argue that fighting it will only increase it.

I have ample examples to throw at you to show the argument is a two edged sword, as I pointed out. Killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan is not materially different than doing it in Iraq, and face it, Democrats have supported this war in Afghanistan and Obama has made it a centerpiece of his foreign strategy, even ramping up the effort.

And in regard to the pirates, there is no proven link to terrorists, but the link is out there as a possibility. It is suspected, and would not be surprising, in my opinion, as in other people's opinions.

And in regard to the pirates, there is no proven link to terrorists, but the link is out there as a possibility.

[...]
In one indication that the groups sometimes have conflicting agendas, members of the al-Shabab terrorist organization lashed out publicly at a group of pirates late last year after they attacked the Sirius Star, a Saudi oil tanker.

A senior U.S. military official familiar with the region, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence gathering, said the military is still looking hard at potential connections between piracy and the escalating terrorist activities in east Africa.