David Custis Kimball - blog

History, Fable

Another view of the story; an analysis from an onlooker to the deluge, where Apples and Horse Turds meet. A good comment, and I suggest you read others:

149. Sdharms:
The first clue (that Emanuel is right) was when it was made public that the Bainbridge asked TWICE to take action. If the answer was YES the first time, why would they ask again.? Obviously, the parameters were too narrow so they thought. Then when the Capt came out immediately after the rescue and said at least a dozen times that Phillip life was in danger so they took the shot, I knew what he meant. He was telling the Pres. “we met your requirements, now shut up”/ And what would have happened if it had gone badly? Why, BHO would have denied giving permission and blamed the Capt of the Bainbridge. Apr 13, 2009 - 7:09 pm

This brings up the good point that you can trust only if you can verify. I think it’s naive to believe that the Top Guy ever wants to be blamed for the underlings’ performance, and certainly in game theory, both would like to blame the other if it goes wrong. A too hasty decision on the part of Top Guy, if shown to be hasty which only the underlings who where there would know, especially if all tools were not in the toolbox to proceed. Also to assure best result, pressure to prove best practices were taken into account. Making sure that the underlings know that if it does go wrong, it is theirs, not the authority from the Top Guy. Time was luckily on the Top Guy’s side. He knew that and he made sure that underlings had everything to do the deed correctly. The captain’s first exit off the boat was a signal of what could happen. Ultimately that did happen and the next time deadly force was ready and waiting. I go hesitantly with the Top Guy on this. The fact that insurance companies have accepted these as business-as-usual losses is bazzare, but the fact that we are to feed the poor pirate Somali community is equally bizzare. Where is Natural Selection when you need it?

Also:
41. ajacksonian:
So what was President Obama’s standing orders on pirates before this? Did he have one? Believe it or not that *is* part of the job description of ‘Commander of the Armies and the Navies’ and is his direct and accountable responsibility to ensure that these mobile pieces of sovereign US territory are looked after when at the high seas (as given by the 19th century SCOTUS precedents of being within reach of the high seas, thus not past the mouths of rivers or in bays).

Trying to say he had a ‘more important job’ to ‘fix the economy’ requires one to point to where that is in the Executive job description (or, indeed in any job description in the Constitution). He ran for this office and this is a primary and fundamental duty of each and every President as it deals with the safety of US maritime vessels or those operating under US flag: we extend our laws and full protection to each and every vessel under US flag in the world.

So what is his stance on piracy which was referred to before the founding as those that are enemies of all mankind reverting to the Law of Nature and stepping away from the laws of civilization? Can we get some clarity and standing orders on this? And just why is it that US citizens have their civil rights violated on sovereign territory by not being allowed personal side-arms or other personal defense? You have a position in which a speedboat of a few men trying to board a ship have to clamber up quite a long distance and are most amenable to a light handweapon being used against them. Even a Chu Ko Nu would do fine, that ancient repeating cross-bow… and with modern materials that would be one wicked weapon… so you don’t even need firearms although they are handier, easier to use and tend not to over-penetrate a target. One decent shot with a Colt 1911 would have stopped this before it started. And if it was an ancient arm, well, just what do pirates do with cross-bow bolts stuck through vital organs? Why are our citizens on sovereign territory denied even personal side-arms?

Off the coast of Somalia is not the only place with modern Pirates around, and the South China sea has its share as do parts of the Caribbean with its lovely tourist trade so easily found by motorboats… robbery at sea is piracy too, you know.

So how about it? How about seeing the President take a firm stand against those breaking all laws of man, calling them outlaw and letting US citizens defend themselves against them? Would that really make us viewed as a ‘global enemy’? Or would it ‘create more pirates’ to know that one country will resist them… well, two after France showed the way recently, which does point out the problem the current POTUS has as he would now have to follow France’s lead, just as he hinted at wanting to do at the G-20. That should embolden him! Let him take an anti-piracy stance and cower behind France for political cover!

So howsabout it? A bit of ‘hope and change’ against the enemies of mankind, hmm? And stepping away from the failed policies of non-confrontation that got us here? Could we hope about that and some actual, real, recognition of the President’s responsibilities and powers and not trying to use those he doesn’t get as reasons he can’t do his job? Apr 13, 2009 - 6:09 am

The last reminds me of the story of Aruba and Ms. Holloway, where the Urine VanderSnout was finally implicated in her disappearence by admitting he sold her for $10k. He described her drunken, bewildered look as she was aboard a boat heading off with strange men, and she was vanishing as she pleaded for him to join the party.
(He is apparently under arrest in Thailand for similarly selling off attractive young women) And who were the buyers? Wealthy old men of Islamic, piece-loving persuasion?
FYI - my sister described a similar situation when she was in Switzerland in 1962 at the American School in Lugano. One of their classmates either did or nearly disappeared.