We are receiving reports that the United States Navy has killed three pirates and rescued Richard Phillips, captain of the Maersk Alabama (see Fox News report here). Navy SEAL snipers reportedly shot and killed all of the pirates holding Phillips and then brought him back aboard his ship.
President Obama has done the right thing. The next right thing that he should do is to go on television and announce that any piracy inflicted upon an American flagged vessel will receive precisely the same treatment.
How do we determine that this is the right thing to do? Pacifists will not be pleased. And indeed, there is a place for pacifism of a sort. Had First Baptist Church of Farmersville organized an armed band to sail out to the Somali coast and execute the pirates, then we would have done wrong. But government stands in a different role than do individual believers. Those who do evil are to be afraid of the government, "for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who practices wrath on the one who practices evil." (Romans 13:4b) The purpose for which God has ordained government to bear this sword of warfare and capital punishment is for "the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." (1 Peter 2:14b)
Did the United States of America have authority in this matter? Yes, for the Maersk Alabama is an American flagged vessel.
Were the captain and crew of the Maersk Alabama people "who do right" who are worthy of governmental "praise" and protection? Yes. They were doing their jobs. Incidentally, the Alabama was carrying 400 containers of food as relief supplies destined for Mombasa, Kenya. That's a pretty noble purpose, but any person pursuing any worthy line of work would be equally worthy of the praise and protection of the government.
Were the pirates "evildoers" worthy of meeting the governmental "sword" of "punishment" as they did? Yes. They are thieves and extortionists and murderers.
So, President Obama did exactly the right thing, and having done good, he deserves praise just as much as he owes it to innocents and those who do good under his domain.
18 comments:
Back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt, a certain American named Ion Perdicaris was kidnapped in Tangier, by some bandit named Rasuli. When he heard about the kidnapping, the President sent the U.S. fleet to Tangier with instructions concerning the Perdicaris kidnapping and ransom demands. His instructions were in these words: ‘Perdicaris alive, or Rasuli dead!’
We got Perdicaris back, safe.
I recall my dad telling me that story, and lamenting that we seldom see that sort of action any more. And that was 50 years ago he said that.
Glad to see Uncle Sam doing the deal again.
yes, it was the right move...
Thank God he is sovereign over all governments as well...
Blessings,
Chris
i think it's the right move too. but, i'm not sure "kudos" is the appropriate language for a situation involving death.
Amen. This was indeed the right move and more is and will be needed.
The kudos belongs to the SEAL commander on that Navy ship. He made the call, not President Obama. The White House is trying to take credit after the fact by claiming that Obama gave them the authority to shoot, however that authority is granted in the standard military code. I have not doubt that if the operation had failed, the White House would have thrown that commander under the bus.
I had prayed for the lives of captain Phillips AND the pirates to be spared. I am sadden at the loss of life. But if you take a hostage with a gun and "law enforcement" gets a chance to cleanly take you out, they will do it -- and rightly so to protect the life of the hostage.
The result is not unusual. Hostage taking often ends this way (with the death of the armed captors). Really.
Let me add I am thankful for the capabilities of the U.S. Navy and its contribution to keep the world from sliding into a tyranny of warlords and bandits.
I agree with all that you have said here, Bart, and I lean more toward pacifism as a Christian whenever possible. Also, great analysis of the role of government in protecting the innocent and promoting the common good. For those who say that life should not have been taken, I think that we all agree that it is unfortunate, but sometimes justice requires it in this type of situation. You are right to say that government should protect its people.
I also appreciate you giving kudos to President Obama. I have decided that being prophetic instead of political requires that we praise what is good in both parties and we condemn what is evil in both. I have major problems with much of what Obama is doing and promoting, but we should praise him when he does what is right.
Again, great post. It is thinking like this that gives us the moral authority to critique what we find to be unbiblical in our politicians.
Doug: The ... SEAL commander ... made the call, not ... Obama. The White House is trying to take credit after the fact by claiming that Obama gave them the authority to shoot ....
NY Times: The Defense Department twice sought Mr. Obama’s permission to use force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed, they said, if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger.
Assuming he OK’d this operation, I commend President Obama on a job well done. Also, thanks to the Navy for doing their job well.
Pirates and hostage takers should realize they have a dangerous profession. As you point out, our government’s job is to make that profession more dangerous.
David R. Brumbelow
Where are all the war protestors against Obama? I mean, we're still in Iraq. We're sending more troops into Afghanistan. And, we just killed three pirates. And, Obama ok'd their death. We are all the protestors who protested against Bush? Who said that Bush was a meany and a warmonger? Where are these people now?
Just some thoughts from an average guy.
David
David: [1] Where are all the war protestors against Obama? [2] I mean, we're still in Iraq. [3] We're sending more troops into Afghanistan. [4] And, we just killed three pirates. And, Obama ok'd their death. [5] W[h]e[re] are all the protestors who protested against Bush? Who said that Bush was a meany and a warmonger? Where are these people now ....
bapticus hereticus:
[1] What war has Obama started?
[2] And we are in the process of leaving. If Obama fails to leave, however, he will lose the support of his base.
[3] Probably a mistake. The base is watching closely.
[4] Yes, but after opportunities to preserve the life of all individuals was perceived to have failed. Bush Ok'd the death of Taliban responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan and received support from liberals.
[5] Here is one. At the time Iraq did not rise to just war criteria among religious groups except for the most conservative/ fundamentalist. Currently, most prople in the country view war against Iraq as a major US blunder.
Heretic who calls himself Baptist,
1. We are still in Iraq. We are still in Afghanistan.
2. We are still in Iraq. It doesnt matter if we have plans to leave, or not. We're still there.
3. If Bush had sent more troops into Afghanistan, then the "base" would have been howling. But, since Obama is their homey, then they are not.
4. The fact is that Somali Pirates were killed by US forces on the command of Obama. Once again, I imagine that if that'd been Bush giving the order, then there'd be howling from the "base." But, once again, Obama is thier homey. (Personally, I'd be for our Navy Seals and Marines going into the waters and/or land and deal with these Pirates in a more permanent manner).
5. I guess stopping a mad man, who is trying to control the oil, and who has his henchmen out raping women in front of their families, murdering husbands in front of their families, and committing genocide on the Kurds is not very important to the "base."
David
Dave: 1. We are still in Iraq. We are still in Afghanistan. 2. We are still in Iraq. It doesnt matter if we have plans to leave, or not. We're still there.bapticus hereticus: Liberals supported the latter, but not the former. But at this point in Obama's tenure, it makes little sense to criticize him for either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. He campaigned on ending the war in Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan, and thus far he appears to be doing such; and whereas I am in favor of the former, I question the efficacy of the latter, but with an open mind toward it, as I had when Bush was directing this war.
Dave: 3. If Bush had sent more troops into Afghanistan, then the "base" would have been howling. But, since Obama is their homey, then they are not.bapticus hereticus: Possibly, but not likely. Afghanistan was perceived as the just war, but more and more we are learning how inept Bush led this war, as well, and how such has possibly compromised any satisfying subsequent outcome. Whether with Bush or Obama, liberals will allow for more variance around this theatre of war for the near future. Should Obama, however, miss-step waywardly as Bush, he will own Afghanistan.
Dave: 4. The fact is that Somali Pirates were killed by US forces on the command of Obama. Once again, I imagine that if that'd been Bush giving the order, then there'd be howling from the "base." But, once again, Obama is thier homey. (Personally, I'd be for our Navy Seals and Marines going into the waters and/or land and deal with these Pirates in a more permanent manner).bapticus hereticus: Said command was also conditioned and when the conditions were plausibly met, the Seals acted. The US Navy vs. Luis and his cousin is hardly a match-up that we wish to be overly aggressive if we can maintain some degrees of freedom. A progressive escalation of behavior on our part was prudent given that undermining our ability to influence world affairs is not in our or the world's best interest.
Dave: 5. I guess stopping a mad man, who is trying to control the oil, and who has his henchmen out raping women in front of their families, murdering husbands in front of their families, and committing genocide on the Kurds is not very important to the "base."bapticus hereticus: It does not follow that if one disagrees on means that one must disagree on goals. Given our selected intervention strategy in Iraq more innocent people have died than under the control of the 'mad man,' an entire region of the world has been greatly destabilized, and our perceived moral authority to question, say, Iran, has been attenuated. It is no wonder that most people in this country now understand our behavior in Iraq to be a huge blunder.
Heretic who is not really a Baptist,
We're gonna have to disagree completely on this issue. You seem to be looking at the same thing that I am, but you have on very rose-colored glasses. And, I dont think that you want to take them off. So, what's the point of continuing this tit for tat?
David
David: Heretic who is not really a Baptist, We're gonna have to disagree completely on this issue. You seem to be looking at the same thing that I am, but you have on very rose-colored glasses. And, I dont think that you want to take them off. So, what's the point of continuing this tit for tat?bapticus hereticus: I am trying to figure out the rose-colored glasses comment, given my comments are factually-based, and I wonder on what basis you deny that I am a baptist. Is it that baptists may be conservative but not liberal? And why is (this) conversation a tit for tat? Have I not been respectful in responding to your comments?
Heretic,
Heretics cant really be Baptist, because they're not even Christians. And, you've not been mean nor nasty a bit. Thanks. And, by the tit for tat comment, I just mean that I'm convinced about what I see concerning this, and you seem to be convinced that what you're seeing thru your rose-colored glasses is what's right; so, there's no need to just keep going back and forth on this. I didnt mean that anyone was being mean nor nasty.
David
David: Heretic, Heretics cant really be Baptist, because they're not even Christians. And, you've not been mean nor nasty a bit. Thanks. And, by the tit for tat comment, I just mean that I'm convinced about what I see concerning this, and you seem to be convinced that what you're seeing thru your rose-colored glasses is what's right; so, there's no need to just keep going back and forth on this. I didnt mean that anyone was being mean nor nasty.bapticus hereticus: OK; I am a nice unbeliever with rose-colored glasses. Not a totally unexpected response, even if a disappointing one; however, I am still unclear on the rose-colored glasses comment. It's one thing to interpret a set of facts differently and assert a set of presuppositions behind said comments, but such is true, not just for some positions, for all positions. But the emphasis of my remarks are verifiable facts. Facts are not right or wrong; they just are; it is we that provide value judgements concerning them.
Post a Comment