I'm sure the Obama White House did not require much persuasion to leak word of the President's role in approving the successful anti-pirate operation off the coast of Somalia, but I'm going to guess they won't be so quick to take credit the first time some military operation goes bad. As the administration will soon learn, the president is largely a prisoner of circumstance when it comes to external events like this. The flip side of taking credit for good news is that you're more likely to be held responsible for bad news.
(To be fair, it makes sense to take credit for positive news given the way voters tend to judge incumbents. The evidence suggests that the president will be blamed by voters for negative events that happen during their time in office so they might as well take credit for the good stuff.)
If the President wants to take credit, so be it, but to me it seems that his authorization for the use of force was more than a little pusillanimous. According to the New York Times,
Wasn't the fact that the pirates were holding the captain under duress and threatening his life sufficient to justify using sharpshooters to take them out? Was President Obama simply trying to leave himself some wiggle room if the rescue attempt was unsuccessful (i.e., blaming the Navy personnel for making the wrong judgment about imminent danger), or does he honestly believe that high-seas pirates are entitled to more solicitude than would be shown to any hostage-taker in any U.S. city who is threatening the use of deadly force?
Posted by: Rob | April 13, 2009 at 09:18 AM
I give the President credit for authorizing the use of force. Despite the point made by Rob, Obama did make the right decision IMHO. If his delay had allowed the hostage to be moved to some inacessible area, that would have been a different story.
Posted by: David | April 13, 2009 at 09:24 AM