The arrrrbitrary nature of pirate politics

In the wake of the US military's dramatic rescue of an American captain from Somali pirates, pundits and reporters are hyping the political implications of what should be considered a trivial foreign policy event.

For instance, Ezra Klein argues nonsensically that it proves Obama is not like Jimmy Carter:

Over the weekend, Navy Seals equipped with high-powered sniper rifles and night-vision scopes shot three pirates dead and rescued an American hostage. After dark. Using only three bullets. From 100 feet away. On a boat. Which raises the obvious question: Can we finally agree that whatever Barack Obama is, he's not Jimmy Carter?

Actually, it proves that (a) defeating a handful of pirates who are adrift on a lifeboat on the open sea is easier than, say, a complex hostage rescue operation in a hostile foreign country and (b) the military's capabilities are much more advanced today than they were in the 1977-1981 period.

TNR's Michael Crowley also flags the Washington Post's Michael Shear getting into the act:

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...

The operation pales in scope and complexity to the wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama's adversaries are unlikely to be mollified by his performance in a four-day hostage drama.

Nonetheless, it may help to quell criticism leveled at Obama that he came to office as a Democratic antiwar candidate who could prove unwilling or unable to harness military might when necessary.

For the record, we've learned very little about Obama's "ability to direct military actions abroad." And I certainly wouldn't expect criticism of Obama's foreign policy beliefs to be quelled by such a minor victory.

Update 4/13 9:50 PM: Time's Joe Klein calls Obama "crisp and decisive" -- really? How does he know?

Also, via TNR's Jason Zengerle, here's AP's Jennifer Loven going even further than Shear in spinning out elaborate implications based on nearly zero evidence:

The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama's "no drama" handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.

...Obama's handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did.

But it also showed a new commander in chief who was willing to use all the tools at his disposal, bringing in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis.

...[The crisis] goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war — Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion — doesn't have the chops to call on U.S. military power.

However, as Zengerle notes, it's unclear that anyone outside fringe elements on the right believed Obama would not be "comfortable ... relying on the U.S. military"? Who else was going to take out the pirates -- the Olympic target shooting team? How is this new information?

Comments

[News Reference]

Had the operation gone badly there are a significant number of right wingers who would have seen it as "proof" of Obama's failure.

After all, just 24 hours ago there were loud denunciations by right wingers that Obama was "failing" to act decisively.

Now that there has been a decisive conclusion of the situation many of those same voices are saying that what they were complaining about just yesterday now doesn't count.

AAAARGGH!

[David]

Right-wingers must have behaved pretty well, because News Reference has to make something up to criticize. Furthermore, his/her criticism of our imaginery behavior doesn't seem to work.

Those who criticized Obama when he was failing to act decisively would naturally praise him when he did act decisively. That's not inconsistent. Obama changed his behavior.

In fact, critics who wanted decisive action (rather than an excuse to blast the President) would presumably have supported decisive action even if it turned out badly -- a point explicitly made in a WSJ editorial today http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958568421112479.html )

I don't disagree with anything Brendan wrote. However, I am struck by the fact that Brendan, Klein and Crowley address the impact on "Obama's adversaries", meaning conservative Americans. Sometimes I think that some liberals are more concerned with defeating conservatives than defeating American's enemies. The Obama adversaries I worry about are people like Ahmadinajad and Osama bin Laden.

[Ken Lovell]

I'm simply bemused that anyone believes this petty incident would have occupied Obama for more than about 30 seconds ... time enough to say "Of course normal rules of engagement for piracy situations should apply." In a rational world it would have zero political implications for anyone.

[rone]

David, please don't turn the "Obama's adversaries" thing around. Brendan is referring to politicians who oppose Obama, not on whoever you think Obama considers his adversary. Don't play the mind-reading game.

[News Reference]

"David," your point isn't helped by citing a Murdoch opinion piece. In fact, if you are living in Murdoch's FOX fantasy world it's quite possible that you are immune to facts and evidence.

David you refer to "our imaginery behavior"* regarding the right wing's tantrums. Did you catch Time Magazine's Joe Klein's reference to Newt Gingrich's twitter'ing advice Friday and Saturday exclaiming Obama's "major mistake in not forcefully outlining the rules of civilization for dealing with pirates We look weak[.]"

Actually, right winger Gingrich looks like the cry baby he's always been, mewling for attention and demanding to be in charge like a tantrum driven narcissist. Newt's TWITTERING ADVICE, whining in 140 characters or less. What a cl ass ic Republican.

And Gingrich was being nice. The right wing blogosphere was going nuts about the pirate escapade and Murdoch's FOX Republican puppets were doing the same.

At the link above is a brief video compilation of right wingers at FOX barfing up the criticisms you claim are/were "imaginary[.]"

I won't hold my breath waiting for those same partisan FOXes to "praise" Obama for acting decisively.

* FYI: imaginary is spelled with an -ary not an -ery

[Rob]

An historical perspective: http://14.media.tumblr.com/oaDQWwRAbm98xg3mZqG8JbV2o1_500.jpg

[HowardCraft]

Looks like the Republicans have locked in the pirate vote for the foreseeable future.