White House defends Obama’s silence in pirate ordeal: Puppy Over Pirates?

Almost, but not quite, blast. Obama did not “give authorization for deadly force to be used.” That authorization was always in place. What Obama *did* do was not countermand standard ROE and ask the military to stand down off authorized force. He gave them the blessings to follow procedure.

And yup, Hard Right… always hard to absorb the absurd gush over Obama. And most especially when it’s built up to heights of deity. But as I said…. let them lavish him with undue credit. Because as the situation elevates, American and French hostages are shot on the spot, and jihad movements rush to the side of the pirates, and the US military starts rooting out the nests on Somali land (even with the blessings of the UNSC), those that praise Obama today will be whining and stamping their feet.

I put this in the category of the foreign policy decisions Obama has made that I agree with. A checkmark in the “good” column.

blast, you have a two part question there.

First, INRE ROE. I only know what I’ve read in several places, i.e. Blackfive.

Gortney’s statement was clear: “our authorities came directly from the president.” Just to clarify, he added in response to a later question: “[T]hat was a standing authority from the president. He wasn’t on the phone with the skipper of the Bainbridge saying, oh, yeah, go ahead and at that time shot.”

This does not affect my point that the commander on scene already had the authority to deal with an imminent death situation in his standing rules of engagement. It means that when this situation was escalated to national command authority i.e. Obama those rules were suspended and Obama implemented new ones specific to this incident. Then he had to restore the authority the captain already had to use deadly force to save a hostage from execution. There is considerable talk that the initial new ROE that Obama instituted did not allow a rescue so as to allow the negotiations to proceed, and then a second set of ROE was instituted after the Navy could not respond to Captain Phillip’s escape attempt. That is unconfirmed but fits the facts as they happened.

More on the twice authorized force comes from Donald Sensing at his shared blog, Sense of Events. The URL for Sensing’s name is his very impressive bio.

In his briefing via telephone to Pentagon reporters Sunday, Vice Adm. William Gortney, speaking from Bahrain, openly acknowledged that SEALs played a key role, but he was rather unforthcoming as to just what that role was. He seemed comfortable letting the reporters assume that it was SEALs aboard USS Bainbridge, only 25 meters from the lifeboat, who shot the pirates after Bainbridge’s commander determined Phillips’ life was in imminent danger.

But the SEALs might not have been aboard Bainbridge at all. Judith Miller reports on FoxNews site,

Details continue to emerge. But it seems that hours before his rescue, a C-130 had secretly dropped a team of SEALS and their boats into the waters far enough away from the lifeboat that held Capt. Phillips to avoid being detected by the four Somali pirates who were seeking some $2 million for his release. The team quietly approached the boat and boarded the board [sic] as sharpshooters from the Bainbridge took deadly aim.
If true, the SEALs’ boats herein referenced could not have been surface craft. Obviously, a surface craft approaching the lifeboat would have been seen from some distance away, especially during the daytime hours of the rescue.

~~~

Again, the provenance of Miller’s report has not been confirmed. But it makes me wonder whether a SEAL rescue operation was already mostly underway when Bainbridge’s captain, Cmdr. Frank Castellano, gave the split-second order to shoot.

It would also explain why Vice Adm. Gortney says the Navy received permission twice from President Obama to use deadly force to save Capt. Phillips’ life, the first time Friday, the second time Saturday. Friday may have been explicit permission to shoot if necessary, as Cmdr. Castellano finally did. Saturday’s order might have authorized or even ordered direct action to rescue Phillips and would necessarily included using deadly force. (However, as I pointed out earlier today, the president would not actually have need to authorize shooting the pirates to save his life, since that’s pretty much standard procedure in any hostage situaton.)

What Sensing had pointed out in his earlier post was:

At no time did the US negotiate with the pirates in terms of paying ransom. Discussions were limited to measures to obtain the safe release of Capt. Phillips without rewarding the pirates.

Bainbridge’s commanding officer, Cmdr. Frank Castellano, had standing authority to use force to end an imminent risk to Capt. Phillips’ life. Vice Adm. Gortney said that President Obama had specifically authorized such action if it proved necessary. [Such contingency is routine in any kind of hostage situation, civil or military – DS.]

This should address both your questions, yes?