Ed Morrissey writes, “Here’s a happy ending on Easter Sunday for Hot Air readers. Captain Richard Phillips is now free from the pirates holding him hostage, and three of the four captors are now free of oxygen use as a result.”
As David Thomson wrote in the comments to my post on the Obama administration’s foot-dragging:
We are honor bound to give credit when it is due. The U.S. Navy has rescued the merchant marine captain and dispatched the pirates. Thankfully, the politically correct FBI apparently took a back seat during the crisis.
Indeed. Although as Glenn Reynolds notes, “But though this may take the current story off the news, it doesn’t really solve the underlying problem.”
Update: Jules Crittenden notes:
It’s great news. But it isn’t over, though some people in positions of authority might like to think it is. There are 240 other captives of various nations. Needs a program. Meanwhile, those Somali elders the Americans were negotiating with might want the bodies of their clansmen. I’d suggest a delivery from altitude.
Sadly, (and I’d be more than happy to be wrong on this) we can probably rule out the use of an AC-130 as a aerial delivery platform.
Short run: Naval Armed Guards for US flagged ships.
Long run: Exterminate the ports and sink everything in those ports that floats.
What about follow up? Will Barack Obama get in touch with his inner Thomas Jefferson and wipe out the remaining Somali pirates? Are they to be treated like common criminals—or warlike thugs?
We are using the same term, “negociation”, for two different things: The first that comes to mind is negociation for reaching a practical agreement regarding exactly how the hostages and the ransom will be swapped for each other, a delicate maneuver that could be tricky, and about the gory details of which I don’t mind being ignorant. In that case “negociation” could be better understood “getting practical about surrender”, and we are right indeed to have ruled this option out.
By an often misunderstood choice of labels, the lengthy two-way communication with the pirates (and other hostage holders) is conducted to preserve any potential chances for a non-violent conclusion, as well as provide as much insight as possible regarding the state of mind of the hostage holders, and as much time as necessary for thorough operational preparation for the rescue, is also called “negociation”.
Perhaps it is so-called because this delicate operation is better executed by folks who are experienced in the art of negociating, (with the backing of language experts, psychology experts, ballistics experts, etc…) but it is not a real negociation, only a subterfuge in the sense that there is no intent to concede anything, but rather to get the attackers to concede the advantage of surprise, should they indulge in hesitation, which is a rather common possibility, opened for exploitation if you know how to go about it.
One remarkable thing became evident in yesterday’s dramatic rescue: Somehow, the pirates had been led into accepting towing service from the Navy ship! Now, if that does not come from virtuosity in the exercise of highly refined negociating skills, where does it come from?
So, let’s not be fooled by the double meaning of the word. It is meant to confuse the assailants, but it needs not confuse us. Congratulations USA! Now, What is the right follow-up, and how do we get it right? Probably not by some knee-jerk reaction.
Barack Obama deserves credit for essentially staying out of the way. Many leaders have a difficult time delegating their responsibilities. If nothing else, we should never forget the enormous damage caused by Lyndon B. Johnson’s insane insistence to micromanage the air strikes during the Vietnam conflict.