After foolishly setting up the hostage situation with Somali pirates as a test of Obama's mettle, the right has been really desperate to convince themselves that President Obama could not possibly have authorized the use of force to take out the pirates in the event that Captain Phillips' life was in danger. As such, they've all latched onto this post from Uncle Jimbo at BLACKFIVE contending that the on-scene commander already had the authority to use force under the rules of engagement, and therefore all the reports saying Obama issued that authority are incorrect.
He did affirm the military's authorization to use force if the captain's life was in danger, but they already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement. If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an imminent execution unless the ROE specifically forbid it.The AP is making it sound like there was an active rescue ordered by the President. It was not, there was an imminent threat and the local commander gave the order to fire. Good on Obama for ensuring their authorization was clear, but let's also be clear that he did not authorize or order an active rescue attempt.
I'm no soldier, but like everyone else I can sign up for transcripts of the DoD press briefings like the one with Vice Admiral Gortney on Sunday. Gortney's statement was clear: "our authorities came directly from the president." Just to clarify, he added in response to a later question: "[T]hat was a standing authority from the president. He wasn't on the phone with the skipper of the Bainbridge saying, oh, yeah, go ahead and at that time shot."
But in case Jimbo was correct, I emailed the DoD and asked if authority was granted by the standard rules of engagement in this case or if presidential authority was required. Bryan Whitman from the Office of the Secretary of Defense told me that "The Secretary of Defense requested the required authorities which were approved by the President to conduct this military operation." Whitman adds that "In this particular circumstance, it was a matter of providing authority to the folks on-scene to immediately react to a very fluid situation. Not really unusual."
The high profile nature and visibility of this event may have meant that the White House wanted to be more directly involved. I'd say in general though, it's probably a mistake to assign a great deal of credit to the President either way--I think it's clear that those who carried out the operation deserve the plaudits.
-- A. Serwer
