Posted on 04/11/2009 5:56:12 AM PDT by kellynla
When Somali Muslim pirates raided the Alabama on Wednesday, the U.S.-flagged cargo ship was cruising the Indian Ocean en route to Mombassa. The 21 Americans in the crew were trying to deliver tons of food and other agricultural materials for the World Food Program, to be distributed among destitute Muslims in that Kenyan port city, and beyond.
“Hearts and minds” — that has been the theme music of the anti-anti-terrorism chorus for eight years. George W. Bush freed 50 million Muslims from tyranny and gave them a chance to make better lives even as the rigors of doing so devoured his presidency — all the while launching, for Africa, the most generously funded program for AIDS prevention and treatment in history. For his trouble, he was branded an unfeeling, unilateralist cowboy by Democrats and the international Left, the erstwhile champions of nation-building and universal health care.
His successor has been only too quick to cement the slander. When not bowing to the Saudi monarch (admittedly, only slightly more nauseating than Bush’s “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” jaunt with His Oil Highness), Pres. Barack Obama bleated across Europe that America has been “arrogant.” By his lights, our actions since 9/11 (which include writing constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan that enshrined sharia, the Muslim legal code, as governing law) have suggested we are “at war with Islam.”
For Barack Obama, hearts and minds are about Barack Obama — things to be fondly turned to him at the expense of a country that does more for human rights, and more for Muslims, than any nation has ever done. Indeed, Obama’s signature (and thankfully failed) legislative proposal during his short warm-up act in the Senate was the “Global Poverty” bill, a trillion-dollar redistribution from the American taxpayer to the “international community.” Back then, Senator Obama chided his countrymen for not doing their part while the lavish American foreign-aid spigot — far and away the world’s most munificent — poured out the perennial $21 billion, not counting additional billions in emergency military expeditions to aid victims of earthquake, tsunami, and war.
But as the hearts-and-minds game goes on, the “international community” on the receiving end stands unimpressed as ever. Turns out it’s a jungle out there. What impresses, as all America’s enemies from the Barbary pirates through Osama bin Laden have always known, is the strong horse against the weak horse. What makes possible global trade, which turns into American wealth, which turns into unparalleled American largesse, is American might — American might and an American commitment to use that might as necessary to ensure a civilized global order.
“Civilized” is a much-misunderstood word, thanks to the “rule of law” crowd that is making our planet an increasingly dangerous place. Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.
There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem.
The men who founded our country and crafted our Constitution understood this. They understood that the “rule of law” was not a faux-civilized counterweight to the exhibition of might. Might, instead, is the firm underpinning of law and of our civilization. The Constitution explicitly recognized that the United States would have enemies; it provided Congress with the power to raise military forces that would fight them; it made the chief executive the commander-in-chief, concentrating in the presidency all the power the nation could muster to preserve itself by repelling evil. It did not regard evil as having a point of view, much less a right to counsel.
That’s not our position anymore. The scourge of piracy was virtually wiped out in 19th century because its practitioners were regarded as barbarians — enemies of the human race (hostis humani generis, as Bret Stephens recently reminded us in a brilliant Wall Street Journal essay). They derived no comfort from the rule of law, for it was not a mark of civilization to give them comfort. The same is true of unlawful enemy combatants, terrorists who scoffed at the customs of civilized warfare. To regard them as mere criminals, to assume the duty of trying to understand why they would brutalize innocents, to arm them with rights against civilized society, was not civilized.
We don’t see it that way anymore. Evil is now just another negotiation. Pirates and terrorists are better known for their human rights than for their inhuman wrongs. On Thursday, America’s commander-in-chief didn’t want to talk about the pirates — “Guys, we’re talking about housing right now,” he chided a reporter who dared to raise the topic as the Somalis held the American ship’s captain hostage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, was dispatched to assure the public that the world would come together to deal with this “criminal activity” — a relief if you were wondering whether the naval destroyer on the scene was equipped with Miranda-warning cards.
This is the self-destructive straitjacket for which transnational progressives are fitting us. Indeed, the Law of the Sea Treaty — a compact Obama would commit us to — has hopelessly complicated the rules of engagement under which the pirates have thrived, just as Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (a treaty Ronald Reagan was prudent enough to reject) has become an offensive weapon for jihadists everywhere. Having harnessed ourselves, we are once again the weak horse.
Except for one thing: The Americans on the Alabama, like the Americans on Flight 93, didn’t wait for the international community to send the pirates a strong letter. They saw evil, they took it on, and as a result they took their ship and their lives back. The president may not think the United States is a particularly exceptional country, but you can bet Islamic radicals on land and sea noticed that dealing with a U.S. crew is an exceptional experience. There remains something in the American character that won’t slide so easily into the straitjacket.
FYI, genius, I walked point for the 5th Marines in 1969 & 1970.
I guess I am just going to have to defer to your superior experience then. Being unarmed in hostile territory is clearly the best way to protect yourself, because Mr. "I killed a man" says so.
Do you really think so? That’s be a kick in the pants if that were the case...esp. considering his attitude towards those folks in w/ ice storms in KY and flooding in ND.
The Bush-held-his-hand defense is really getting a little worn. Holding hands, kissing, hugging aren’t BOWING. If anything, they’re paternalistic, they’re kind, and yes, they’re respectful in a way that could never be construed as demeaning to the actor. Age, not position, is what Bush “deferred” to.
Hear, hear!
> Who made those rules, the pirates?
Close! As I understand it, it was their cousins in the UN.
that's right, genius...the first half-ass intelligent thing you've posted on this thread...now run along and quit bothering me with your blather!
So are you going to turn in your own weapons since you have clearly and irrefutably proven that not being armed is the best way to go?
When the terror boats approach, open fire.
shezzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
You’re losing the conversation with the other poster.
It’s one thing to talk tough, it another to be in lethal situations. Go watch your favorite Rambo movie.
We need to go back to this.
Our forefathers understood well.
True, true. I have no problem accepting the other poster's premise that being unarmed is the best way to protect oneself, because he clearly has the experience thing worked out and I do not.
Maybe I’m missing it, but what exactly is the solution? If we don’t use military force to take out these pirates once and for all, this will just keep happening over and over. So what is the solution for these ships? Understand that these are merchant sailors who signed up to sail, not shoot. But it seems sensible that they have arms on board and people who know how to use ‘em when they go through these pirate-infested areas.
And, BTW, I appreciate your service, but lets face it: being in combat doesn’t make you an expert on how to handle every military situation—not all privates get promoted to 4-star general. Next time, show some intellectual chops before trotting out your service record as a means of shouting someone down.
......but what exactly is the solution? If we don’t use military force to take out these pirates once and for all, this will just keep happening over and over......
There are two aspects to the pirate problem. There is the immediate crisis and the long term festering sore.
There have been reports of elders sent in to effect the release of the hostage. The elders have obviously been put on notice to get the man released or face destruction. This destruction will also take place if the piracy doesn’t end.
Time is against the pirates. They are surrounded and have no way out other than release the hostage. They don’t realize that yet because they are still on an adrenaline high. When it wears off fear will set in and with fear, doubts and then a different perspective on reality.
For the long term problem, if the elders can’t handle their people, the course becomes different. Then there can be embargo or other military action against their port.
kellynla makes a valid point. How many times have we read about a robbery where the gun owner fires several times and does not hit anything? With a weapon you need practice and drills. It is the training that takes over when you are in a fire fight. No, never killed anyone but was a D.I.
One of the best paragraphs ever appearing in any column.
So...concealed carry is wrong unless you’ve killed a man before? And you cannot have a political opinion on guns, the military or use of force without having first killed a man?
I gather us men can’t discussion abortion, either.
I spent 25 years in the military. I’m sure I’ve taken part in actions which killed people, although I personally was flying EW support at the time. I’ve never looked in a man’s eyes while shooting him - but I think ships ought to carry big enough weapons to make big holes in the little boats that pirates use.
You don’t have to like my opinion, but it sure isn’t superseded by yours based on your experience in Vietnam.
The other poster said that even training could be useless. But the problem with your scenario is the times in which weapons did not help resolve a problem doesn't validate the notion that weapons would solve a lot of these problems.
I use historical facts as the basis for my argument that weapons are the answer. Armed people worked quite well against the Barbary pirates back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
But as the other poster pointed out, I am clearly wrong about weapons. He whipped out his experience to prove it. Heck, he even killed a man. I clearly cannot win an argument against with someone who killed a man about how wrong weapons are when it comes to defending property.
You missed the analogy completely.
No, it isn't. How many times have we read about a store owner (or cop!) who missed everybody...and still foils the robbery? How many times have we read about someone shooting and hitting a robber/whatever, in spite of never having shot a gun before?
30 years ago, some guys wanted to rob me (based on their actions). I had a 6 shot S&W .22 with me. There were 8 of them. None of the 8 had any desire to see if I really could shoot them in the head or not. They didn't complain that my gun wasn't large enough, or point out that I had fewer bullets than they had people. They just backed away and I left the area. I was carrying illegally and didn't file a report of any kind.
These 'pirates' don't strike me as any braver than the folks who wanted to rob me. The ships don't need to be able to repel the Vietnamese Navy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.