Walid Phares writes:

The so-called Somali pirates are strategically different from their historical predecessors in the Caribbean or from their contemporary colleagues in archipelagoes around the world. They aren’t a vast collection of individual thugs, acting as bands replicating what successful sea gangs have accomplished for centuries before them. There are too many of them, operating from extremely long shores, all using similar methods, and are backed from hinterland forces.

 

They may seem like pirates as they seize ships and negotiate for the ransom. But these water thugs actually belong to a wider chess game. The grand ensemble of the army of little boats is in fact part of a regional Jihadi apparatus being deployed in the horn of Africa and beyond. The Jihadi grand circle building in the region is not limited to the pirates but involves hostile forces from the mid Red Sea to East Africa. The Somali pirates are merely one facet of this grand circle…

 

The end aim is to create a vast zone of insecurity stretching from East Africa to the Red Sea. A closer look allows strategists to easily realize that these are the maritime passages from the Oil rich Gulf to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal and also parts of the East African alternative routes the most economic via Cape Town… This operation is of regional-international dimensions. It is about holding these passages hostage… It is a maritime Jihad striking at the Western/international lifeline on high seas to bring about a change in balance of power…

 

The so-called pirates are being used by land-based forces to drag the enemy [the non-Muslim world] into a wider war in the region …

 

Two months ago, Eritrea and the Iranian regime signed an agreement granting naval facilities to the Khomeinist military ships to use the country’s ports and eventually build a base on the Red Sea. Last month, reports signaled an alignment of military intelligence between the Sudanese and Iranian regimes and Hezbollah’s networks in the region…

 

 Dr Laurie Roth found out what really happened when Captain Richard Phillips was finally rescued. She writes with some anger in Canada Free Press:

First of all, President Obama wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to even go to the scene for 36 hours.  This by the way was going against the scene commander’s recommendation.  Of course, Obama, with his vast military experience knew much more!

The first time Capt. Phillips jumped in the water the SEALS had the pirate thugs all sited in but could not fire due to ROE restriction.

Just when your stomach starts turning green it gets worse!

When the navy Rubber boat was fired upon as it approached with supplies, they were not allowed to return fire due to the ROE restrictions.  Can we say mentally ill yet?

President Obama in his vast brilliance with Pirate and military situations denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.

Finally, days into this the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally had had enough and decided they had the authority to determine risk to hostage and fire if need be.  4 hours later it was done.  3 Muslim Somali Pirates were dead and 1 pirate,Wali-I-Musi was captured.  Miraculously and 5 days later Capt. Phillips was rescued. 

What is the bottom line?

If Obama had kept his nose out of this and let the SEALS do what they wanted to and could do, this would have been handled and concluded well in a few hours not 5 days!

Notice the media barely mentions that the Somali pirates were young, fundamentalist Muslims on a Jihad mission.  They were all 16-19 years old.  I can just see the media and some in this administration getting their knickers in a twist calling out such rash, violent responses to such young impressionable people. 

The only part in this drama that should have changed, now that we know the Pirates were such young men, was that Obama should have stayed out of this and the Pirate, Islamic thugs should have been killed within the first few hour by the SEALS.

You couldn’t help but notice the huge celebratory response of success from Obama and his administration, marking it as a huge success and victory.  That would be fine if it was true.  There was a great and miraculous victory all right…….in spite of Obama and his politically correct delays.

A final thought to the politically correct morons who apparently want people to die on the high seas…..why can’t all cargo ships, cruise ships and business ships of all sizes be heavily armed if Muslim terrorists are on a roll attacking ships, stealing and killing around the Horn of Africa?

 He concedes on the lesser things in order to seem ‘fair’  in his judgment, so that he can implement far more devastating policies when the big issues arise. 

Examples:

Yes, shoot the pirates – but  do not even acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is a threat. 

Announce, with regret, that the US will not send a delegation to the ‘Durban II’ conference (which advocates extreme racism against the Jews in the name of anti-racism) – but insist on a ‘two-state solution’ to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the Saudi plan which would ensure the annihilation of the State of Israel.  

AP reports:

The Obama administration will boycott "with regret" a U.N. conference on racism next week over objectionable language in the meeting’s final document that could single out Israel for criticism and restrict free speech, the State Department said Saturday.

The decision follows weeks of furious internal debate and will likely please Israel and Jewish groups that lobbied against U.S. participation. But the move upset human rights advocates and some in the African-American community who had hoped that President Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president, would send an official delegation.

 From Power Line, on the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from the Somali pirates, for which Obama –  desperate for a success – is claiming credit:  

The Defense Department sought Obama’s permission to use force against the pirates, and Obama either declined or failed to respond. When the President finally agreed, it was under the most restrictive conditions possible: force could be used only if the captain’s life was "in imminent danger."

I should hope so! It is inconceivable that a President would order the commander on the scene to stand idly by if a hostage’s life was "in imminent danger." What is still unclear, based on early accounts, is whether that condition was actually satisfied. The commanding officer has said that one of the pirates was seen pointing a weapon at Phillips, which satisfied the "imminent danger" standard and caused him to order the snipers to fire.

Perhaps so; I’m happy to take him at his word. (But was Phillips in view? I thought he was tied up, out of sight at the bottom of the boat. No doubt this will be cleared up in time.) But it appears that what triggered the rescue was that all three pirates stuck their heads into view at once, and the commanding officer took advantage of the opportunity by ordering the snipers to fire.

Whether the "imminent danger" standard was satisfied or not, its real effect (and, I suspect, its real purpose) was to give cover to our fledgling President’s rear end. If the affair had turned out badly–as could easily have happened, had the snipers been less accurate–the White House could either have distanced itself from the commander by saying he exceeded his authority, or taken the position that there was no choice but to act because the captain was in "imminent danger."

In fact, the White House gave the most cautious authorization for the use of force that it possibly could have. Obama–like, more significantly, Captain Phillips [a true hero – JB] – was saved by the willingness of the on-scene commander to stick his neck out and the skill of the Navy’s snipers [and Captain Phillips’s own conduct- JB].