According to the AP:
Capt. Richard Phillips was in “imminent danger” of being killed before snipers shot the pirates in an operation authorized by President Barack Obama, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said.
We can all be grateful that Capt. Phillips was rescued. That, by definition, is not a botched mission. But I’m left with serious questions:
1. Do we now require presidential approval for the rescue of U.S. citizens held captive on the high seas?
2. If we require presidential approval, what’s to stop congressional Democrats from constructing some right to oversee the president’s decision to rescue hostages? Will the president have to trigger the War Powers Act?
3. Why is there any need for a reference to “imminent danger”? Capt. Phillips had been kidnapped and was being held for ransom. Did this mission require some finding that he was about to be killed imminently – say, today as opposed to tomorrow?
4. If Capt. Phillips had succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome and been engaged in a game of Parcheesi with his captors, would the president have ordered the Navy to stand down?
5. Is there some explanation for why it took the Navy several days to defeat four dudes in an out-of-gas lifeboat?
6. Why did we allow this out-of-gas lifeboat to drift slowly to shore where the pirates could find help? Is the Navy out of grappling hooks? Would a frogman in the water risk harm to sensitive marine life? Were we waiting for an indictment?
7. If you were being held hostage by Somali pirates, wouldn’t you rather have Capt. Phillips in charge of your rescue (someone who was apparently able to think on his feet), or perhaps some Lieutenant Commander on the scene, than a bloated chain of command that extends all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Comments on this entry are closed.