Blogs and Stories
Obama's Pirate Coup
Roberto Schmidt, AFP / Getty Images
The president is receiving high praise for the rescue. Historian Julian Zelizer says that a thrilling episode from Gerald Ford’s presidency proves the good feelings may not last long.
Some Democrats are hopeful that Barack Obama’s calm demeanor and the Navy SEALs’ crack performance in rescuing Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates will undermine persistent Republican claims that this president will be weak on national security. Just last month, former Vice President Dick Cheney portentously warned that Obama was opening the country to terrorist attacks.
For Democrats, this isolated hostage rescue is being viewed as a step in the broader effort to rebuild the party’s image after decades of suffering from a national-security disadvantage to Republicans. The rebuilding effort began in the run-up to the election of 1992 when some Democrats criticized President George H.W. Bush's handling of post-war operations following Operation Desert Storm.
President Ford received glowing praise in the aftermath of the rescue. “It shows we’ve still got balls in this country,” boasted Sen. Barry Goldwater.
President Clinton was haunted by another episode in Somalia, when, in 1993, guerrillas shot down two Black Hawk helicopters carrying U.S. troops. Somali fighters killed 18 U.S. soldiers and dragged one of their corpses through the streets—a horrific incident—intended to humiliate the superpower. The failed mission would severely constrain President Clinton’s early efforts to strengthen the public image of the Democrats on national security, even though several polls showed he finally lifted the Democrats beyond their post-Vietnam and post-Black Hawk Down legacy. Then, after the September 11, 2001, attacks, President George W. Bush exploited terror as a political issue to put the Democrats on the defensive.
Should Democrats be clamoring about the political benefits that will come from the rescue of Captain Phillips? It would be a mistake if the administration allowed this early success to overshadow the much more pressing need to outline its strategic agenda on national-security policy and, in particular, to spell out a persuasive mission in Afghanistan. These are the questions that will determine President Obama's success.
While many commentators have recalled Thomas Jefferson and his battles with the Barbary pirates (“the shores of Tripoli”), a more instructive comparison to the latest encounter might be drawn from President Gerald Ford’s handling of the Mayaguez incident that started on May 12, 1975. Only a few weeks after South Vietnam had fallen to communism, the Cambodians took over a United States merchant ship called the Mayaguez. The 39 members of the merchant marine crew on board were taken captive in an act that Ford called “piracy.”
To confront the new government of the Khmer Rouge, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger urged President Ford to respond with an aggressive and forceful military rescue in order to demonstrate that the nation—as well as the president—was still willing to use force when threatened even after the humiliating withdrawal of Vietnam. “At some point,” Kissinger told the National Security Council, “the United States must draw the line. This is not our idea of the best such situation. It is not our choice. But we must act upon it now, and act firmly.”
The U.S. launched a military response that combined a rescue effort with attacks on Cambodians, who released the 39 men being held captive, although 41 marines were killed in the operation—the last names on the Vietnam Memorial. President Ford received glowing praise in the aftermath of the rescue. His approval ratings jumped. “It shows we’ve still got balls in this country,” boasted Sen. Barry Goldwater. The media depicted him as a skillful and decisive leader and claimed that he had restored the image of the nation abroad. Recalling the incident in his memoirs, Ford wrote, “The gloomy national mood began to fade.”
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Why Democrats Hate Summer
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books.
Is Clintonism Dead?
David Greenberg is a professor of history at Rutgers University and the author of three books, including Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image.
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books.
Will Obama Stumble Like Ford?
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books.
Remember when George H.W. Bush successfully routed Iraqi troops from Kuwait, had a huge popularity rating, and less than a year later found himself ousted from office?
It's always the economy, stupid.
Remember the poll numbers from just last week? Where Obama's standing with the majority in this country show they trust him? and if anyone thinks this won't last? They are not dealing with reality.
When the GOP popularity stands at the lowest in 50 years, when GWB has the lowest standing in the history of a President and when the leading contender for 2012 is known the world over as The Wack Job From Wasilla, i don;t think anyone who supports Obama is going to really care what 28% of the country says or thinks.
I find it interesting that liberals are suddenly touting the expertise of the military. Hmmm.... I guess they come in handy from time to time, don't they? Here's a news flash for you: It actually takes money to train these specialists. It takes a budget.
And please don't give Obama all the credit! He did what a president is supposed to do. Of course, his humming and hawing for five days was a little nerve racking, but...okay..in the end he finally ponied up. I'll give him that. I didn't think the old liberal had it in him!
I assume the 62 is for the year you were born, so congratulations on learning to use the computer. When have liberal ever bashed the military?
Saying it is a bad idea to invade a country, or that the war is being mismanaged, is not bashing the military. You conservatives are truly a pathetic lot of parrots. Criticizing your country is a truly patriotic thing to do. But I guess it's only allowable for you when it's a Democratic president.
I didn't take it that Margot62 was being negative about the military.
The American military is not owned by the right or the left and so-called liberals are not and never have been anti-military. It is an American right to disagree with the government over certain actions it takes, including military actions. The Constitution guarantees the right to free thought and speech.
There is a longstanding history of the president of the US getting both credit and blame for what happens on their watch. If this situation had gone badly, you can bet your last dollar that the right wing would have blamed Obama. It went beautifully, so, yes, Obama gets the credit.
The Battle of Mogadishu, which is discussed here, was not an operational failure for US forces. The Rangers had been given a mission - to capture a group of terrorists and thugs attending a high-level meeting - and they accomplished this mission.
The thing which painted the battle as a failure was precisely the Time frontpage depicting a US Ranger being dragged through the street. It demonstrated the importance of the media and issue control in painting an encounter a success or failure (operational purposes aside); it also demonstrated that military operations and tenacity in the face of casualties were a clear blindspot in the Clinton presidency (between the cack-handed planning prior to Mogadishu and the pusillanimous retreat following it - not to mention Clinton's draft-dodging baggage). Given that Obama himself is post-Vietnam, and possibly that post-Bush the American public is more hardened towards battlefield casualties, it is hard to say whether Obama will face the same constraints, either that Clinton faced in committing to military operations, or that Ford faced on the whole issue of resolve. Surely the lesson is that Obama, while clearly wanting the American people to be realistic, should ensure that Americans generally feel comfortable about their place in the world, and avoid talking the country down?
And P.S. Mr. Zelizer,
Why is the President receiving high praise for the rescue? Because sitting in his comfortable office in the White House he gave the nod to the military-devised plan? The military, sir, should be receiving high praise for the rescue, am I right? The same military you liberals despise.
Margot, clearly you've never served in the military to make such a disgusting, un-American statement as "the same military you liberals despise."
I served my country, and I'm as liberal as you get. My liberal father wore the uniform in Vietnam. Both of my liberal grandfathers served in World War II. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying something so blatantly stupid, uninformed, and ignorant.
I am pretty sure "us liberals" don't "despise" our military, quite the cotrary I feel the military should be held in higher regard then they are now. Meaning not sending them to fight stupid/worthless causes when they are needed to defend the citizens of this country. Like they just accomplished.
Proud to be an American - Even prouder now that its Bushless.
Margot62 - When did you serve in the military? We're one of the families you hate so much. My husband was a Navy fighter pilot for 25 years. Get over yourself. You have no clue about what or whom you're talking.
I think you mean 14 men killed, not 41.
I do think that Obama deserves some praise for having the cajones to authorize violence. This recognition, however, should not be unproportional to the act. In the end, one man's life was saved, which is a very good thing, and we showed the pirates that we're not messing around, also a good thing. Still, we did not solve the pirate issue, and there are still 200 hostages being held elsewhere.I think that the praise that Obama is receiving now is likely to be fleeting and isn't really going to strengthen him for longer than through the end of the week. He did a good job, but let's not get ahead of ourselves in proclaiming him the paragon on national security.
This user is no longer registered.
I had never heard of Monica Crowley until Saturday. I put on the radio, for a 5 minute drive to the gym. I like to get pumped up on weekdays by yelling myself hoarse at Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
Well to my surprise it was not a sports show on today but Monica Crowley chirping about how "Thebama is going to be rolling eggs tomorrow while an american has a sword at his throat! Thebama doesn't care! Why hasn't he made a statement? Squawk!"
This whole ordeal (pirates with swords and all) was Obama's fault. Obama didn't support the Navy or care! Never mind that Obama was authorizing the Navy to do it's work and now has spoken to the family.
How I loathe all conservatives. Never in the history of the country has there been a group of idiots with a shorter attention span or a bigger bias. Logical thought is not something they like to engage in. But I feel great! Because they are no longer in power.
I think that this article makes an excellent point, and Obama still needs to prove himself in the foreign policy arena. Personally, I think that he should increase the strategic foreign aid.
The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
TavernWench--
Thank you--and your family--for your service.
And Professor Zelizer--
Frankly, I'm glad that President Obama remained engaged and behind the scenes during this stand-off, rather than coming out to a podium and beating his chest (a la George W. Bush) about how we were going to handle these pirates,hunt them down,make them pay, etc., etc. In doing so, he made no false promises of rescue, resisted fomenting ignorant lynch-mob mentality in the already angry populace, and avioded having this incident branded as an indicator of some larger "strategic mission." And exactly how does dealing with the ongoing problem of these pirates factor into that strategic mission in your view? And what would that mission, in fact, be?? To thwart any and all "bad guys"??
Dr. Z, it's no grand revelation that Americans are prisoners of their own short attention spans. Shouldn't you, as an academic, help point them in the direction of deliberation and critical thinking--rather than pointing out the obvious(i.e. that our joy in seeing this captain saved and these pirates stopped will be fleeting)? This rescue won't put an end to the ongoing pirate problem. I admire President Obama for not hogging the limelight with respect to this rescue--a lesser politician wouldn't have hesitated to capitalize on it.
The good feelings definitely will not last. 4 years (or 8 years) is a long time for something bad to happen and the Republicans are just biding their time until it does.
None of us knows what the future will bring. Let's focus on today and try to be civil to each other.
Does President Obama actually entrust anyone in his Cabinet to do anything? He seems to do it all. He isn't doing a bad job but every day he comes in front of the cameras, says he's solved a problem and is on to the next case. How can he sustain this pace? Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State seems to have been a brilliant move - we haven't heard from her since.
Liberals have a long tradition of contempt for the military, as most recently exemplified by Dick Durbin comparing U.S. soldiers in Iraq to Nazis.
Riiiiiiiight. Like FDR, the big military-hating liberal. Or that big liberal pansy, Harry Truman. What about JFK? He was a pretty big lib too, so obviously he must've hated the Navy while serving in it. How about John Kerry? Such an Army-hating big, fat liberal that he actually joined up and served in Vietnam. Yeah, liberals sure do hate the military, don't they?
What was Dick Cheney's excuse for never serving? How about Rush Limbaugh? You GOP-bots with this anti-military talking point are completely full of crap. Point the finger back at yourself.
Liberals do not despise the military; rather, they understand the complexity of a situation and desire that the military remain in civilian control. I believe that General Shinseki's experience with the know-it-all neocons shows the real contempt that those chickenhawks had for real military leaders. President Obama understands power and its very real limitations.
I am so glad Banjo is back. He doesn't believe anything he is saying. He just likes interacting with people over the internet. Republicans have a long tradition of sending our military into battle without proper armor and equipment. The truth is they don't care. And if they screw up, hey, they said we should have less government.
Actually most Democratic party members don't care what the Far Right Wing thinks of Obama. A LARGE majority of AMERICANS support him..Check any poll. His numbers have remained as high as anyone could hope.
The Nut Jobbers on the right have taken the GOP down to it's lowest numbers in over 50 years and GWB has the lowest rate of any President in history while the front runner for 2012 is known the world over as the Wack Job from Wasilla.....and you think we care what those people think? Get real and write like an adult and surprise us all with an artical that isn;t pure partisan politics that has a real issue with reality.
I find it interesting that anything a Republican or Conservative is considered mindless or robotic, but it seems to me those on the left just repeat what their leaders say. If you want a poll that is so glowing, look at Rasmussen. Today it shows 54% approval, 45% disapproval. So just responding to the "check any poll" statement.
And didnt over 59 million voters vote AGAINST Mr. Obama? 69 million did vote for him. So it is clear that the country is still pretty much split.
So the last 8 years 69 million people bashed the President on a daily basis, now its only 59 million doing it.
It is a change, but not much of a change.
Lying again Banjo. He never said it and trust me everyone, he will be unable to cite where it can be found. You guys stoop to lying and it's just so sad.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Remember when the Chinese fighter collided with the U.S. plane near China and we had to do an emergency landing?
It took us 14 days to have those hostages released.
Here are some articles documenting Bush's role. Imagine if Obama had been in this position and waited 14 days and didn't allow any military action how the right would have attacked him. Not only that, China didn't release any information at all regarding the hostages for two whole days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/world/collision-with-china-negotiation s-bush-had-calm-hawks-devising-response-china.html
Anyways, I think a comparison of how the two handled their first international crisis would be a great comparison particularly how Bush interjected himself right off the bat openly and made the situation just that more complex and how Obama remained in the background and didn't interject Presidential politics when peoples lives were at stake.
Two different things all together. Teenager pirates in this case.
The country of China in the other.
Wait were the Chinese evil then? Because we trade with them and they are communist. Consult your bible and call me back.
Will the Wingnuts never grow weary of looking like fools? As Hume, Gingrich, Krauthammer and the friends of Fox blabbered all week-end long, President Obama quietly allowed our Navy to wield a "Big Stick." Unlike his needy and incompetent predecessor, this President isn't concerned about getting credit and contra-margot62, indeed gave all praise to the men and women who accomplished rescue.
and what did we hear from Fox after they finally got the story right? Crickets.
I'm not sure the deaths of 2 teens and capture of another is the stuff that will, in the long-run, give this mission much lustre. I mean, they were no match, right?! Well, they could have been is the logical reasoning.
That Capt Phillips was rescued unharmed; that the SEALS' calibrated and deadly use of force saved the day; and that the president is not soft on terrorist-pirates is all the media talks about. But the French have twice done gone this route successfully rescuing their nationals - both private yachts- and capturing the pirates. Their latest foray, however, resulted in the death of the young man who owned the yacht. Sarkozy is taking flack for having endangered the lives of innocents (the man's wife and child were aboard) with the use of special forces. So damned if you DO and damned if you DON'T.
The real success lies in putting in-place defensive measure that will help prevent a repetition of this incident. That the Somali are known rarely to harm (one fatality) or maltreat the hostages, it was their impression that they were expecting a sort of gentleman's agreement with the US: we won't hurt him, you won't hurt us. That the US has the worst of reputations vis a vis our previous dealings with that country means that the fallout of this rescue could, like Black Hawk Down, blow up in our face. The pirates of Ely have said on record that they will in future target American vessels in revenge for the killings. I don't think they have threatened the same for the two-time winners, the French, though they have taken two small private vessels.
Though the pirates are brazen they should not be confused as terrorists. Terrorizing, yes, they are that, for sure. When the US sits down to revamp its pirate prevention policies, it should remember this and not over react. Defense is better than offense for the implementation of any future strategems.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.