Phillips’s rescue
Capt. Richard Phillips was
rescued alive yesterday when Navy Seal snipers shot dead his three captors, one of whom, it was feared, was about to kill him.
Surprisingly, the rescue was made possible because the pirates consented to have their closed lifeboat pulled behind the destroyer Bainbridge, giving the snipers close enough shots, an extraordinarily stupid move by the pirates, but very fortunate for Capt. Phillips. (Though, as several commenters at Lucianne.com point out (see Reply 70 below), it would have been better if we didn’t know how the pirates were killed, since it gives an advantage to future hostage takers.)
Richard Phillips, right, with Cmdr. Frank Castellano,
the commanding officer of the Bainbridge.
(Excuse me, but that unprepossessing guy is the commander of a U.S. destroyer?)
Here’s the
Times’s account of how the killing of the pirates became possible:
Meanwhile, members of the Navy Seals were flown in by fixed-wing aircraft. They parachuted into the sea with inflatable boats and were picked up by the Bainbridge. On Sunday, the pirates, their fuel gone, were drifting toward the Somali coast. They agreed to accept a tow from the Bainbridge, the senior officials said. At first, the towline was 200 feet long, but as darkness gathered and seas became rough, the towline was shortened to 100 feet, the officials said. It was unclear if this was done with the pirates’ knowledge.
At dusk, a single tracer bullet was seen fired from the lifeboat. The intent was unclear, but it ratcheted up the tension and Seal snipers at the stern rail of the Bainbridge fixed night-vision scopes to their high-powered rifles, getting ready for action.
What they saw was the head and shoulders of two of the pirates emerging from the rear hatch of the lifeboat. Through the window of the front hatch they saw the third pirate, pointing his AK-47 at the back of Captain Phillips, who was seen to be tied up.
That was it: the provocation that fulfilled the president’s order to act only if the captain’s life was in imminent danger, and the opportunity of having clear shots at each captor. The order was given. Senior defense officials, themselves marveling at the skill of the snipers, said each took a target and fired one shot.
“This was an incredible team effort,” Admiral Gortney said when it was over. “And I am extremely proud of the tireless efforts of all the men and women who made this rescue possible.”
It’s a great relief. Over the last few days, reading that the U.S. was demanding that the pirates release Phillips and accept arrest, and that the pirates were refusing, I had a feeling that this was heading toward a bad ending.
* * *
Here are some comments from Lucianne.com, in reference to the Washington Post’s account of the rescue (which is pretty similar to the Times’ account). Be sure to see Reply 34:
Reply 11—Posted by: NorthernDog, 4/12/2009 10:21:31 PM (No. 5431752)
Wow. He was staring death in the face. I bet Navy recruiting offices will be jammed tomorrow—even in Berkeley!
Reply 34—Posted by: sagman, 4/13/2009 6:42:06 AM (No. 5432199)
What Really Happened
In an interview with the Times today, Vice President Biden revealed that he was more involved with the pirate incident than almost anyone knew.
”When we heard what was goin’ down, I said, ‘Boss, Lemme go out there and take charge. Those guys are just working-class, blue collar pirates. I know howta get down ‘n dirty with people like that if I have to.’ So the Big O says, ‘Go for it, Joe.”’
Twelve hours later, Mr. Biden said, he was aboard the Bainbridge and had assumed temporary command of the ship. ”I parleyed with the pirates in Somali, which I speak fluently. They musta been hopped up. Wouldn’t listen. Finally , I decided to move on ‘em.”
Mr. Biden said he nixed a proposal to have a SEAL dive team surface near the boat, climb in, and overwhelm the pirates. ”No waterboarding, I said. Not in this administration.” Instead, the Vice President assigned sniper teams to the ship’s fantail, spotting for one of them.
”Soon’s my boys took ‘em down, I dove in, grabbed our hostage, and got ‘im back to the ship in twelve foot seas. Don’t make me out like a hero, now. Just doin’ my job.”
s/off
Reply 37—Posted by: fiesta del sol, 4/13/2009 6:52:55 AM (No. 5432212)
I never doubted the US Military and certainly not the Navy Seals. My doubt lay with Hussein, and his lack of any kind of leadership. This is a great story, but I think the US Navy got it done *in spite* of Bambi.
Reply 41—Posted by: Bevan, 4/13/2009 7:36:59 AM (No. 5432282)
Read the gushing comments. Funny how liberals treat our military with disdain until a liberal president needs them
Reply 48—Posted by: dcbroome, 4/13/2009 8:17:40 AM (No. 5432395)
I know alot of people like me were praying for the Capt during Easter services yesterday.. Thanks be to God and our incredible Navy Seals!!
Reply 51—Posted by: cap MarineTet68, 4/13/2009 8:31:06 AM (No. 5432441)
3 shots, 3 dead. The way it should be. True ”Gun Control.”
And Thanks again to #34 for the wonderful levity!
Reply 60—Posted by: LZK, 4/13/2009 9:21:01 AM (No. 5432582)
I wonder if anyone else is feeling—what I’m feeling…..
Americans are taking back their identity. We are Americans first and then we think in terms of our elected representatives.
Stay with me—now…..
I don’t see myself answering to anyone in Washington DC—not even the President. It’s a US against “them” attitude that I’m picking up from everyone in the streets wherever I go.
I think BO and his Chicago thugs have turned We The People around and we’ve taken control of our identity once again. This rescue just put a “finish” on what I’m seeing and hearing out here in fly/over country, i.e. Washington get out of our way…..
LZK
Reply 64—Posted by: Had2, 4/13/2009 9:51:50 AM (No. 5432673)
This unilateral action against muslims will create more hatred for us and casuse more kidnappings.
Oh I forgot, they love us now
Reply 68—Posted by: countrybar, 4/13/2009 10:44:32 AM (No. 5432826)
the trouble with this win is that the USA now thinks we have an actual military leader in time of crisis. Read Caroline Glick to find out the real state of affairs.
Reply 70—Posted by: Hazymac, 4/13/2009 10:46:32 AM (No. 5432833)
Many of us were afraid that the situation might become complicated if the pirates had made it to shore with their hostage. It was a smart move for the USS Bainbridge to tow them back out to sea. This is a good account of what happened, but I’d prefer that the world guess what happened instead of knowing. The next time another boat is hijacked the pirates will likely be wilier. Now would be a good time to to clean out the rats’ nests on the Somalian coast.
All I needed to know was that the captain had been rescued (apparently, just before his captors were about to kill him) and his would be murderers had had their craniums ventilated by pinpoint accurate SEAL lead. So I find myself in agreement with #4 and #12.
- end of initial entry -
Adela G. writes:
You write: “Surprisingly, the rescue was made possible because the pirates consented to have their closed lifeboat pulled behind the destroyer Bainbridge, giving the snipers close enough shots, an extraordinarily stupid move by the snipers.”
Why is it surprising that the pirates made an “extraordinarily stupid move”? Piracy is not exactly rocket science. The skill set of primitive hunters, with some nautical knowledge and modern technology thrown in, is all that’s required. (The AK-47 is easy to fire and maintain and is virtually indestructible, unlike sniper rifles.) Further, the pirates, as most people do, based their future calculations on their past experiences. They had been “taught” by their captives and those paying them ransom to expect little or futile resistance. I would have been surprised to learn they’d been canny enough to reject the offer to have their lifeboat towed. [LA replies: Obviously, if you’re holding an American hostage and you know that the the U.S. Navy would like nothing better than to kill you, to allow your boat to be towed by a U.S. Navy destroyer so that your boat is very close to the destroyer and thus a far easier target is a stupid move, even for African pirates.]
I see the Daily Kos has condemned Phillips for his “misguided” actions and even surmised that he might be guilty of barretry. Naturally, the pirates were not described as being guilty of any crime. Indeed, in this article, piracy is cast as just another occupation, albeit one now with increased risk to life as a result of the captives being unwilling to submit to the “discomfort” of being held for ransom.
LA writes:
This is the quoted excerpt from The Daily Kos:
The pirates’ modus operandi is that they hold the crew, ship, and cargo harmlessly until a lot of money is paid to them. Phillips “heroic” actions put his crew and himself at risk. If he’d done nothing except acquiesce to the pirates’ demands, there would have been no risk, just possible discomfort until the extortion money was paid. Instead he put himself and the Seals at grave risk.
I applaud the crew, the Seals, and the military chain of command for their actions. I think Phillips was in error—if not a grandstander, then greatly misguided. Does anyone know what Maersk’s orders to Phillips and the other Maersk masters are in a piracy matter? Probably to do nothing to incite trouble and to notify the shipowner and the U.S. Navy. The captain works for the shipowner and must follow those orders. The master who fails to follow the shipowner’s orders is guilty of the crime of barratry if a financial injury to the shipowner results.
LA replies to Adela:
I didn’t know the word barretry and had to look it up. I was redirected to barratry, which means:
(Maritime Law) Wrongful conduct on the part of a ship’s officer or crew that results in loss to the owners
That seems awfully vague. In any case, Phillips’s action saved the ship and the crew, so how could it be barratry?
I asked that question before reading the excerpt from the Daily Kos. They think Phillips put crew and ship at risk by not instantly surrendering to the pirates and waiting for ransom to arrive.
Dan K. writes:
You wrote:
“Excuse me, but that unprepossessing guy is the commander of a U.S. destroyer?”
I met only one Metal of Honor winner in my life close up. It was at a dinner in California in the mid 1970s. He was no more than 5’6” tall, thin and soft spoken. He earned the Metal as a marine fighting on some hell hole of an island in the pacific during WWII. Earlier that evening he carried the American Flag into the Banquet Room draped in total silence. I was in awe at the time. Hell, I still am.
The problem is that men who look like Robert Redford usually act like Robert Redford.
Mike Berman writes:
The only man I met who was awarded the Metal of Honor is also under 5’6”. That would be Retired Army Colonel Jack H. Jacobs. He is also humble about his achievements and bravery, attributing his success in combat to his stature by claiming that he made a smaller target with equal firepower.
Charles T. writes:
I was surprised at the comments about the appearance of the commander of the destroyer. I can guarantee you, that anyone who is chosen to command a destroyer has fire in the belly regardless of how easygoing they may appear to be. Based on what I have read from other sources Cmdr. Castellano gave the order to shoot the pirates once they presented themselves as a target to the snipers. His timing was perfect.
US Navy 3. Somalian pirates 0.
Way to go Navy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LA replies:
I accept Charles’s criticism. But at VFR I do not repress my instinctive reactions to things and people, including people’s physical appearance; or, to be more precise, I allow those reactions to be expressed in some form. I feel that such reactions are a legitimate part of the discussion. Of course they can be criticized and corrected.
Laura W. writes:
Small people often have mettle (as well as medals).
LA replies:
HA HA.
I’ve often observed that short people are more concentrated than large people, in the same way that a small apple has a more vivid flavor than a large apple.
Laura replies:
Yes, more tart and to the point, without the mealy excess of big apples.
There’s so much waste in this world, isn’t there? Small people are proof that big things can be accomplished with less.
Van Wijk writes:
FYI, SEAL is an acronym for the U.S. Navy’s SEa, Air, and Land teams. I’ve noticed that you and several other bloggers using “Seal” and “seal” when these are technically not correct. While most nations have amphibious commandos, only the U.S. Navy has SEALs.
LA replies:
Ok, we’ll be sure to use it as an acronym, not a regular word. But you know, some countries turn acronyms and abbreviations into words. In England, they write Nato, not NATO. They write Aids, not AIDS. Now I don’t agree with that. But what about when the acronym spells an actual word? Since the SEALs acronym was chosen precisely because it looks like a certain real word, would it be unreasonable to write it as that word, Seals, instead of as the acronym, SEALs?
Also, not that the NY Times is my authority on English usage (and it isn’t, since it now uses the split infinitive all the time, in addition to frequently making a variety of other mistakes), but the Times article I was quoting at the beginning of this entry, by copying and pasting, used “Seals.”
Here is Wikipedia’s article on the Navy SEALs.
Van Wijk replies:
I personally view acronyms like NATO morphing into proper words (Nato) to be a further degradation of language. When you see “NATO” you know you are looking at an acronym and that each letter represents its own word. “Nato” (which is very likely the product of a cabal of journalists too lazy to hold the Shift key) could mean anything; when I see it by itself my first reaction is that it’s an exotic fruit-bearing tree native to the South Pacific. “The Nato tree’s fruit has been a staple food on the island of Pupu Kaka for thousands of years.”
“Since the SEALs acronym was chosen precisely because it looks like a certain real word, would it be unreasonable to write it as that word, Seals, instead of as the acronym, SEALs?”
I would say that it is unreasonable to write it as a word when it is an acronym. Acronyms should always be capitalized in order to avoid confusion. Most of my coworkers thought that Navy “Seals” were so named because they are seal-like, which is part of the reason I wrote to you.
LA replies:
But wasn’t the acronym SEALs chosen because it looks like “Seals,” meaning creatures that live both under water and on land, which is what SEALS do? I see from Wikipedia that the major part of the SEALs’ year-long training course consists of:
24 weeks Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) training at the Naval Special Warfare Center, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 13, 2009 09:10 AM | Send