Category Archives: Trade

Update II: Comity Confirmed Between Israel & (Old) South Africa

Britain, History, Israel, Military, South-Africa, Trade

The Israel-hating West will begrudge the plucky Jewish State its close relationship with the Old South Africa, but not Barely a Blog and friends. It is common knowledge that Israel worked closely to help South Africa develop a nuclear arsenal. A new book confirms as factual what was previously presumed.

My own book most certainly does not tell “a troubling story of Cold War paranoia, moral compromises, and Israel’s estrangement from the left” (OMIGOD), to quote from the Random-House blurb about one Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s new book “revealing the previously classified details of countless arms deals conducted behind the backs of Israel’s own diplomatic corps and in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. Based on extensive archival research and exclusive interviews with former generals and high-level government officials in both countries.”

The South African documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky and published in today’s Guardian, include “top secret” South African minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries as well as direct negotiations in Zurich between Peres and Botha.

The Guardian:

The South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who attended the meetings, drew up a memo laying out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Israeli missiles – but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
Polakow-Suransky said the minutes record that at the meeting in Zurich on 4 June 1975, Botha asked Peres about obtaining Jericho missiles, codenamed Chalet, with nuclear warheads.

“Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available,” the minutes said. The document then records that: “Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes”.

The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue. Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear the South Africans were interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
The use of euphemisms in a document that otherwise speaks openly about conventional weapons systems also points to the discussion of nuclear weapons.
In the end, South Africa did not buy nuclear warheads from Israel and eventually developed its own atom bomb.
The Israeli authorities tried to prevent South Africa’s post-apartheid government from declassifying the documents.

The documents declassified in The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa have galvanized the festering “international community” even more against Israel. Whereas to me these secret agreements actually demonstrate how responsible both countries were with their arsenal; perceptions differ among UN functionaries, most of whom are either entirely sympathetic to or of the undeveloped world.

Israel will be made to pay for being friend to the ostracized country, as it pretended to abide international boycotts on South Africa. In an attempt to distance the adored Yitzhak Rabin from the deals, the author even floats the theory that Shimon Peres, who brokered the deal, was his own agent, working alone. Darn, those Israelis!

Thanks to Myles Kantor for sending the story, as it appeared in YNetNews:

According to the Guardian report, the documents indicate that the two sides met on March 31, 1975. Polakow-Suransky [“the American academic who uncovered the documents while researching a book on the military and political relationship between the two countries”] wrote in his book, which was published in the United States this week, “Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal.”
Among those who participated in the meeting was the South African military Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who prepared a memorandum that lists the benefits of acquiring Jericho missiles, but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, which was classified as “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israeli officials, was exposed in the past, but its context was unclear, as it was unknown that it served as a basis for the Israeli offer made on the same day.
In the memo, Armstrong wrote:” In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”

The documents published by the Guardian are of interest, although I find the greatest significance in this warm note Peres, who has always been a conservatively minded individual (most members of the Israeli Old Guard were tough and patriotic), pens to minister Eschel Mostert Rhoodie. In it Peres alludes to
the two countries’ shared determination to resist their enemies. He implies too that South Africa and Israel were both refusing to submit to the injustices against them.

This indeed is most revealing about the sympathy Israel harbored for South Africa. Having resided in both countries during those times, I can attest to the feelings of comity between the two countries.

Update I: Glisson is wrong (see Comments). The facts as they have emerged are significant—in as much as they cement what we know about a long-standing, close collaboration. Writes Jane Hunter, publisher of the monthly journal Israeli Foreign Affairs, in April of 1986:

“Essentially, the two nations pledged themselves to each other’s survival and freedom from foreign interference. Over the years this cooperation has taken on a symbiotic quality: from Israel South Africa gets advanced engineering, including military technology unobtainable elsewhere due to sanctions and embargoes; from South Africa Israel receives strategic raw materials and capital for a variety of purposes.”

Another “real event” ignored by our friend is the fact that, by the time this exchange occurred (1970s), Israel had already cobbled the weapons together. This is an infant country compared to the Afrikaner nation, which had settled the tip of the continent and forged an identity two hundred years prior.

Still, I must be one of the few Jews who’s proud of the fact that Israel, in the person of the tough, laconic Yitzhak Shamir (whom paleos are fond of calling a terrorist for fighting those wicked Britons—I bet a hate for the Brits was another Israeli and Afrikaner uniting factor), told the US it would take no part in its attempts to cripple South Africa:

Israel’s foreign minister, told a New York audience that Israel would not institute sanctions against South Africa. Instead, Shamir said, Israel would leave that task to the great powers and continue its “normal” relations with Pretoria.

Update II (May 26): Given Barbara’s prodigious knowledge and general fairness, I await a follow-up on what the Brits, not beloved by the Afrikaner and Israeli old guard, did to the Jews before they gained independence in Israel. Sink a ship with refugees from Nazi Europe? Quarantine them as the Americans did to the Japanese? Remove weapons intended for self-defense against Arab marauders? Have at it.

Update II: Comity Confirmed Between Israel & (Old) South Africa

Britain, History, Israel, Military, South-Africa, Trade

The Israel-hating West will begrudge the plucky Jewish State its close relationship with the Old South Africa, but not Barely a Blog and friends. It is common knowledge that Israel worked closely to help South Africa develop a nuclear arsenal. A new book confirms as factual what was previously presumed.

My own book most certainly does not tell “a troubling story of Cold War paranoia, moral compromises, and Israel’s estrangement from the left” (OMIGOD), to quote from the Random-House blurb about one Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s new book “revealing the previously classified details of countless arms deals conducted behind the backs of Israel’s own diplomatic corps and in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. Based on extensive archival research and exclusive interviews with former generals and high-level government officials in both countries.”

The South African documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky and published in today’s Guardian, include “top secret” South African minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries as well as direct negotiations in Zurich between Peres and Botha.

The Guardian:

The South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who attended the meetings, drew up a memo laying out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Israeli missiles – but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
Polakow-Suransky said the minutes record that at the meeting in Zurich on 4 June 1975, Botha asked Peres about obtaining Jericho missiles, codenamed Chalet, with nuclear warheads.

“Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available,” the minutes said. The document then records that: “Minister Peres said that the correct payload was available in three sizes”.

The use of a euphemism, the “correct payload”, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue. Armstrong’s memorandum makes clear the South Africans were interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
The use of euphemisms in a document that otherwise speaks openly about conventional weapons systems also points to the discussion of nuclear weapons.
In the end, South Africa did not buy nuclear warheads from Israel and eventually developed its own atom bomb.
The Israeli authorities tried to prevent South Africa’s post-apartheid government from declassifying the documents.

The documents declassified in The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa have galvanized the festering “international community” even more against Israel. Whereas to me these secret agreements actually demonstrate how responsible both countries were with their arsenal; perceptions differ among UN functionaries, most of whom are either entirely sympathetic to or of the undeveloped world.

Israel will be made to pay for being friend to the ostracized country, as it pretended to abide international boycotts on South Africa. In an attempt to distance the adored Yitzhak Rabin from the deals, the author even floats the theory that Shimon Peres, who brokered the deal, was his own agent, working alone. Darn, those Israelis!

Thanks to Myles Kantor for sending the story, as it appeared in YNetNews:

According to the Guardian report, the documents indicate that the two sides met on March 31, 1975. Polakow-Suransky [“the American academic who uncovered the documents while researching a book on the military and political relationship between the two countries”] wrote in his book, which was published in the United States this week, “Israel’s secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal.”
Among those who participated in the meeting was the South African military Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong, who prepared a memorandum that lists the benefits of acquiring Jericho missiles, but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, which was classified as “top secret” and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israeli officials, was exposed in the past, but its context was unclear, as it was unknown that it served as a basis for the Israeli offer made on the same day.
In the memo, Armstrong wrote:” In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere.”

The documents published by the Guardian are of interest, although I find the greatest significance in this warm note Peres, who has always been a conservatively minded individual (most members of the Israeli Old Guard were tough and patriotic), pens to minister Eschel Mostert Rhoodie. In it Peres alludes to
the two countries’ shared determination to resist their enemies. He implies too that South Africa and Israel were both refusing to submit to the injustices against them.

This indeed is most revealing about the sympathy Israel harbored for South Africa. Having resided in both countries during those times, I can attest to the feelings of comity between the two countries.

Update I: Glisson is wrong (see Comments). The facts as they have emerged are significant—in as much as they cement what we know about a long-standing, close collaboration. Writes Jane Hunter, publisher of the monthly journal Israeli Foreign Affairs, in April of 1986:

“Essentially, the two nations pledged themselves to each other’s survival and freedom from foreign interference. Over the years this cooperation has taken on a symbiotic quality: from Israel South Africa gets advanced engineering, including military technology unobtainable elsewhere due to sanctions and embargoes; from South Africa Israel receives strategic raw materials and capital for a variety of purposes.”

Another “real event” ignored by our friend is the fact that, by the time this exchange occurred (1970s), Israel had already cobbled the weapons together. This is an infant country compared to the Afrikaner nation, which had settled the tip of the continent and forged an identity two hundred years prior.

Still, I must be one of the few Jews who’s proud of the fact that Israel, in the person of the tough, laconic Yitzhak Shamir (whom paleos are fond of calling a terrorist for fighting those wicked Britons—I bet a hate for the Brits was another Israeli and Afrikaner uniting factor), told the US it would take no part in its attempts to cripple South Africa:

Israel’s foreign minister, told a New York audience that Israel would not institute sanctions against South Africa. Instead, Shamir said, Israel would leave that task to the great powers and continue its “normal” relations with Pretoria.

Update II (May 26): Given Barbara’s prodigious knowledge and general fairness, I await a follow-up on what the Brits, not beloved by the Afrikaner and Israeli old guard, did to the Jews before they gained independence in Israel. Sink a ship with refugees from Nazi Europe? Quarantine them as the Americans did to the Japanese? Remove weapons intended for self-defense against Arab marauders? Have at it.

Update VI: Blow Them Out Of The Seas! (& No Somali Nation-Building)

Africa, Bush, Crime, Europe, Founding Fathers, Iran, Justice, Military, Neoconservatism, Terrorism, The West, Trade, UN

Pirates! That in itself is a romantic euphemism. These are terrorists on the high seas. They’ve been operating a criminal enterprise that targets innocents with impunity–and with great success. Yet the West does nothing. China, a country that seems to act in its national interests more so than do we, is, by The Washington Times’ account, “deploying vessels to secure their shipping since they can no longer rely on other powers to keep trade flowing unmolested.”

To recap: North Korea has committed no real aggression against the US with its measly missile. The Iranians shoot their mouths off. Both countries know that if they deign to aggress against the US, why, we’ll obliterate them. Yet, on-and-on the debate goes as to whether America should kill the innocent people of these lands. Conversely, when confronted with evil in action—plunderers thwarting the lifeblood that is trade—nothing much is done.

Or murmurs of negotiations ensue.

“Pirates” operate near “ the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea and around the Strait of Malacca near Singapore,” and threaten peaceful commerce with raids on “cargo vessels, tankers, fishing vessels, cruise liners, yachts and the occasional tugboat.”

The first seizure of a U.S. flagged vessel by pirates in recent memory was thwarted yesterday as the crew retook the vessel. The taking and retaking of the Maersk Alabama has grabbed headlines, but it was one of six ships attacked in that area since last weekend. The only reason this ship was saved is that the American crew fought back.

This is an excellent opportunity for private companies to step in to fill the protection gap. But, knowing the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” “any vessels but clearly identified naval or other national forces,” are prohibited from “seizing pirate vessels.” As are “the rules of self-defense at sea somewhat murky.”

If ever there was a time to thumb the proverbial nose at the nosy UN, this is it. I say, “as President Washington said in 1786, lamenting payments being made to the Barbary Pirates, … ‘crush them into nonexistence.'”

Or, blow them out of the seas!

Update I: From the Wall Street Journal: “In the waning days of the Bush administration, the National Security Council issued a detailed yet little-noticed plan for combating piracy off the coast of Somalia.”

Commensurate with Bush’s emphasis on using force, mostly, when it was inappropriate to use it, the previous administration “was nearly silent … on what to do if a ship is taken by pirates and crew members are held captive. And what little guidance it provided was vague. U.S. naval forces were given authority to ‘terminate the act of piracy and any included hostage situation.’ Just how they were to do that was left unsaid.”

I hope he surprises me, but I doubt Barry will deviate from the perplexing policy of aggression against non-aggressors, and non-aggression against aggressors.

Update II (April 10): OBAMA AWOL The silence of this White House, so far, is deafening; the inaction of the best navy seals in the world perplexing. The brave captain of the Maersk Alabama attempted to escape. Stealthy seals were nowhere in sight to help him get away and annihilate his pursuers. He is recaptured.

Knowing that the US media would be covering for Obama, I went straight for the international coverage. The Times Online plasters an appropriate headline on its website: “US Navy misses chance to rescue American captain held hostage by pirates“:

Captain Richard Phillips fled through a back door in the covered lifeboat about midnight on Thursday local time and began swimming away, US officials said.

At least one pirate jumped in after him and brought him back aboard the boat, which is drifting without fuel, before the nearby US destroyer, USS Bainbridge, could intervene. The incident was captured on video by a US drone overhead. “He didn’t get very far,” one official said. …

The Bainbridge, backed by drones and surveillance aircraft, was standing guard a few hundred yards from the lifeboat, which had run out of fuel. The frigate USS Halyburton and the assault ship USS Boxer, armed with about two dozen helicopters and attack planes, sailed to the scene yesterday.

“[a] former US ambassador in Ethiopia and an expert on the Horn of Africa, advocated a tougher policy against pirates, including sinking their ‘mother ships.'”

This is a disgrace! Worse: it’s a disregard for American life.

While Obamby vacillates, President Sarkozy gave French commandos the order to storm a yacht captured by “pirates,” off the coast of Somalia. There is one casualty, but two families are freed. This operation is “the seventh in a year by French forces,” all ordered by the French president.

Hardly a softy is Sarkozy.

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, “Over the last few days the spike in new pirate attacks has been dramatic. Ten ships, including the MV Hansa Stavager, a German freighter, have been taken. A total of 20 ships remain in the hands of pirates.”

Update III (April 11): SOMALI SHAMANS AND FOOLISH FBI TO THE RESCUE. The US navy’s lackluster efforts to free Capt. Richard Phillips ran aground today… again. Yesterday, a US drone captured, on video, Capt. Phillips making an attempted escape. Had the “vigilant” marines been glued to their monitors, they might have blown the pirates’ dingy out of the sea as soon as the Capt. jumped the craft.

Today, U.S. sailors tried to reach the lifeboat, but the “pirates” did what “pirates” are wont to do: fired on them. The US Navy responded by doing what the Navy, apparently, does when aggressed against: retreat: “The gunfire forced the sailors, who did not return fire, back to the guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge,” reports CNN.

As if this faux pa were not enough, we learn that the this act of terror on the high seas will be bureaucratized:

“The U.S. Navy — which is in charge of the situation” [– and cannot handle it] has “requested help from the FBI to resolve the standoff.”

The FBI is launching a criminal investigation into the hijacking and hostage-taking, two law enforcement officials told CNN. The probe will be led by the FBI’s New York field office, which has responsibility for looking into cases involving U.S. citizens in the African region. Agents from the office were scheduled to leave for Africa sometime this weekend, the officials said.

Yes, I can think of nothing more appropriate in resolving a stand-off with criminals than to launch an “investigation.” Perhaps the FBI can call in their Behavioral “Sciences” pseudo-scientists, who can then draw up a profile of an African pirate. (Daddy had too many wives and didn’t spend quality time with pygmy pirate.)

Wait a sec, I know of an even better course of action for our bureaucrats. The Christian Science Monitor tells that “relatives of the four Somali hijackers, along with a group of Somali elders, are traveling to the coastal area nearby determined to ‘solve the problem peacefully … without any guns or ransom.'”

Now, if you believe that these are relatives of the hijackers rather than some wily old men from the tribe, who want to get their faces on CNN, and con stupid westerners, then, you must have believed, together with Fox and Friends, that WMD were probably moved to Syria, and al-Qaeda and the Ba’athists were an item.

I hope the savvy Somalis show the foolish FBI how to throw some bones and conjure the ancestral spirits. That ought to help free Capt. Phillips.

Update IV (April 12): To some degree, I agree with “Gunjam’s” comment hereunder. This is a top-brass issue. Although, the military is not exactly what it used to be any longer. Desperate people are being signed up these days. Affirmative action abounds in the military too. Read “OSAMA’S SNICKERING AT OUR MILITARY.” Enough of this Fox-News-type adulation of men just because they wear a uniform. This mission is a complete failure so far. Most of it may come from the top, but, it would seem, quite a bit of the blame rests on the men themselves. With the electronics the military has, with a drone straining on the poor captain as he jumped ship—not to have been there to fish him out is preposterous.

I am well aware that there are many forums where military groupies congregate.

(Update V): The details are still sketchy, but Capt. Phillips is free at last. What wonderful news! It is still unclear whether this exceptional mariner attempted, first, to escape again, and the navy picked him up as they picked-off the pirates. Or whether the order was finally given, and naval forces went in and did what needed to be done.

Either way; this is such a good day; such a fine conclusion to an unnecessarily protracted stand-off. The nightmare of a hostage unrescued, documented repeatedly during the unlawful, immoral invasion of Iraq in columns such as “AFTER THEIR HEADS ROLL, AMERICA’S DEAD REMAIN FACELESS,” has been averted.

Reuters: “Joseph Murphy, whose son, Shane, was Phillips’s second in command and took over the Alabama after pirates left with Phillips, said in a statement read by CNN, ‘Our prayers have been answered on this Easter Sunday.'”

Update VI: NO TO NATION BUILDING. Here’s what I’ve gleaned from all the disjointed reports: On Friday (only) the president had issued a standing order sanctioning force if the hostage’s life was in danger. Since the life of the captured master of the Maersk Alabama had always been in danger—is that not the definition of a hostage situation?—this would indicate only that Obama’s preferred option was to end this act of thuggery peacefully.

This, I might add, is in contrast to the French government’s actions.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said “the White House had given military operators ‘very clear guidance and authority’ if Phillips’ life was in danger.”

“The on-scene commander took it as the captain was in imminent danger and then made that decision (to shoot), and he had the authorities to make that decision, and he had seconds to make that decision,” he said.

Clearly Obama’s order gave the U.S.S. Bainbridge commander all the latitude he needed. All the while, negotiations had been ongoing, with the outcome that the pirate dingy was now fastened to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, was being towed by it, and was comfortably within sights. Supplies were being provided to the occupants.

A young pirate who’d been stabbed by the brave, unarmed sailors of the Maersk Alabama, was on board the Bainbridge, ostensibly “negotiating.” The mariners of the Maersk, incidentally, had never lost control of their vessel. If these stellar members of the American merchant marine had managed to hold off—and hurt—the pirates without any guns, just image what they’d have pulled off had they been armed!

While the navy had failed to rescue Phillips after he had heroically escaped the lifeboat the first time around, it is not exactly clear whether he had jumped this time too. What is apparent is that, “Capt. Phillips was pulled out of sea and transported to the Bainbridge.”

Sometime on Saturday, I believe, Navy Seals had been parachuted onto a vessel out of the pirates’ earshot. They made their way to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, and positioned themselves. “On the marksmanship of the snipers,” a very impressive Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said succinctly: “We pay a lot for their training and we got a good return on our investment.”

I’d say!

The Somali elders were disappointed that their “help” would no longer be needed, but judging from the prattle coming from neocon nation-builders on the left and right—these corrupt old coots may find themselves on call soon.

From CNN especially comes the notion that piracy is really poverty and powerlessness in disguise. (Donna Lemon, CNN’s cherubic, remarkably bad newsman-cum-woman, forgot to blame the “pale, patriarchal, penis people.”) Nevertheless, the consensus among the neocons, left and right, is that what Somalis really need is American boots on the ground to show them how democracy nullifies the need for piracy (NOT). And aid, lots of it.

Here we go again.

Update VI: Blow Them Out Of The Seas! (& No Somali Nation-Building)

Africa, Bush, Crime, Europe, Founding Fathers, Iran, Justice, Military, Neoconservatism, Terrorism, The West, Trade, UN

Pirates! That in itself is a romantic euphemism. These are terrorists on the high seas. They’ve been operating a criminal enterprise that targets innocents with impunity–and with great success. Yet the West does nothing. China, a country that seems to act in its national interests more so than do we, is, by The Washington Times’ account, “deploying vessels to secure their shipping since they can no longer rely on other powers to keep trade flowing unmolested.”

To recap: North Korea has committed no real aggression against the US with its measly missile. The Iranians shoot their mouths off. Both countries know that if they deign to aggress against the US, why, we’ll obliterate them. Yet, on-and-on the debate goes as to whether America should kill the innocent people of these lands. Conversely, when confronted with evil in action—plunderers thwarting the lifeblood that is trade—nothing much is done.

Or murmurs of negotiations ensue.

“Pirates” operate near “ the Horn of Africa, the Gulf of Guinea and around the Strait of Malacca near Singapore,” and threaten peaceful commerce with raids on “cargo vessels, tankers, fishing vessels, cruise liners, yachts and the occasional tugboat.”

The first seizure of a U.S. flagged vessel by pirates in recent memory was thwarted yesterday as the crew retook the vessel. The taking and retaking of the Maersk Alabama has grabbed headlines, but it was one of six ships attacked in that area since last weekend. The only reason this ship was saved is that the American crew fought back.

This is an excellent opportunity for private companies to step in to fill the protection gap. But, knowing the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” “any vessels but clearly identified naval or other national forces,” are prohibited from “seizing pirate vessels.” As are “the rules of self-defense at sea somewhat murky.”

If ever there was a time to thumb the proverbial nose at the nosy UN, this is it. I say, “as President Washington said in 1786, lamenting payments being made to the Barbary Pirates, … ‘crush them into nonexistence.'”

Or, blow them out of the seas!

Update I: From the Wall Street Journal: “In the waning days of the Bush administration, the National Security Council issued a detailed yet little-noticed plan for combating piracy off the coast of Somalia.”

Commensurate with Bush’s emphasis on using force, mostly, when it was inappropriate to use it, the previous administration “was nearly silent … on what to do if a ship is taken by pirates and crew members are held captive. And what little guidance it provided was vague. U.S. naval forces were given authority to ‘terminate the act of piracy and any included hostage situation.’ Just how they were to do that was left unsaid.”

I hope he surprises me, but I doubt Barry will deviate from the perplexing policy of aggression against non-aggressors, and non-aggression against aggressors.

Update II (April 10): OBAMA AWOL The silence of this White House, so far, is deafening; the inaction of the best navy seals in the world perplexing. The brave captain of the Maersk Alabama attempted to escape. Stealthy seals were nowhere in sight to help him get away and annihilate his pursuers. He is recaptured.

Knowing that the US media would be covering for Obama, I went straight for the international coverage. The Times Online plasters an appropriate headline on its website: “US Navy misses chance to rescue American captain held hostage by pirates“:

Captain Richard Phillips fled through a back door in the covered lifeboat about midnight on Thursday local time and began swimming away, US officials said.

At least one pirate jumped in after him and brought him back aboard the boat, which is drifting without fuel, before the nearby US destroyer, USS Bainbridge, could intervene. The incident was captured on video by a US drone overhead. “He didn’t get very far,” one official said. …

The Bainbridge, backed by drones and surveillance aircraft, was standing guard a few hundred yards from the lifeboat, which had run out of fuel. The frigate USS Halyburton and the assault ship USS Boxer, armed with about two dozen helicopters and attack planes, sailed to the scene yesterday.

“[a] former US ambassador in Ethiopia and an expert on the Horn of Africa, advocated a tougher policy against pirates, including sinking their ‘mother ships.'”

This is a disgrace! Worse: it’s a disregard for American life.

While Obamby vacillates, President Sarkozy gave French commandos the order to storm a yacht captured by “pirates,” off the coast of Somalia. There is one casualty, but two families are freed. This operation is “the seventh in a year by French forces,” all ordered by the French president.

Hardly a softy is Sarkozy.

According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, “Over the last few days the spike in new pirate attacks has been dramatic. Ten ships, including the MV Hansa Stavager, a German freighter, have been taken. A total of 20 ships remain in the hands of pirates.”

Update III (April 11): SOMALI SHAMANS AND FOOLISH FBI TO THE RESCUE. The US navy’s lackluster efforts to free Capt. Richard Phillips ran aground today… again. Yesterday, a US drone captured, on video, Capt. Phillips making an attempted escape. Had the “vigilant” marines been glued to their monitors, they might have blown the pirates’ dingy out of the sea as soon as the Capt. jumped the craft.

Today, U.S. sailors tried to reach the lifeboat, but the “pirates” did what “pirates” are wont to do: fired on them. The US Navy responded by doing what the Navy, apparently, does when aggressed against: retreat: “The gunfire forced the sailors, who did not return fire, back to the guided missile destroyer USS Bainbridge,” reports CNN.

As if this faux pa were not enough, we learn that the this act of terror on the high seas will be bureaucratized:

“The U.S. Navy — which is in charge of the situation” [– and cannot handle it] has “requested help from the FBI to resolve the standoff.”

The FBI is launching a criminal investigation into the hijacking and hostage-taking, two law enforcement officials told CNN. The probe will be led by the FBI’s New York field office, which has responsibility for looking into cases involving U.S. citizens in the African region. Agents from the office were scheduled to leave for Africa sometime this weekend, the officials said.

Yes, I can think of nothing more appropriate in resolving a stand-off with criminals than to launch an “investigation.” Perhaps the FBI can call in their Behavioral “Sciences” pseudo-scientists, who can then draw up a profile of an African pirate. (Daddy had too many wives and didn’t spend quality time with pygmy pirate.)

Wait a sec, I know of an even better course of action for our bureaucrats. The Christian Science Monitor tells that “relatives of the four Somali hijackers, along with a group of Somali elders, are traveling to the coastal area nearby determined to ‘solve the problem peacefully … without any guns or ransom.'”

Now, if you believe that these are relatives of the hijackers rather than some wily old men from the tribe, who want to get their faces on CNN, and con stupid westerners, then, you must have believed, together with Fox and Friends, that WMD were probably moved to Syria, and al-Qaeda and the Ba’athists were an item.

I hope the savvy Somalis show the foolish FBI how to throw some bones and conjure the ancestral spirits. That ought to help free Capt. Phillips.

Update IV (April 12): To some degree, I agree with “Gunjam’s” comment hereunder. This is a top-brass issue. Although, the military is not exactly what it used to be any longer. Desperate people are being signed up these days. Affirmative action abounds in the military too. Read “OSAMA’S SNICKERING AT OUR MILITARY.” Enough of this Fox-News-type adulation of men just because they wear a uniform. This mission is a complete failure so far. Most of it may come from the top, but, it would seem, quite a bit of the blame rests on the men themselves. With the electronics the military has, with a drone straining on the poor captain as he jumped ship—not to have been there to fish him out is preposterous.

I am well aware that there are many forums where military groupies congregate.

(Update V): The details are still sketchy, but Capt. Phillips is free at last. What wonderful news! It is still unclear whether this exceptional mariner attempted, first, to escape again, and the navy picked him up as they picked-off the pirates. Or whether the order was finally given, and naval forces went in and did what needed to be done.

Either way; this is such a good day; such a fine conclusion to an unnecessarily protracted stand-off. The nightmare of a hostage unrescued, documented repeatedly during the unlawful, immoral invasion of Iraq in columns such as “AFTER THEIR HEADS ROLL, AMERICA’S DEAD REMAIN FACELESS,” has been averted.

Reuters: “Joseph Murphy, whose son, Shane, was Phillips’s second in command and took over the Alabama after pirates left with Phillips, said in a statement read by CNN, ‘Our prayers have been answered on this Easter Sunday.'”

Update VI: NO TO NATION BUILDING. Here’s what I’ve gleaned from all the disjointed reports: On Friday (only) the president had issued a standing order sanctioning force if the hostage’s life was in danger. Since the life of the captured master of the Maersk Alabama had always been in danger—is that not the definition of a hostage situation?—this would indicate only that Obama’s preferred option was to end this act of thuggery peacefully.

This, I might add, is in contrast to the French government’s actions.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said “the White House had given military operators ‘very clear guidance and authority’ if Phillips’ life was in danger.”

“The on-scene commander took it as the captain was in imminent danger and then made that decision (to shoot), and he had the authorities to make that decision, and he had seconds to make that decision,” he said.

Clearly Obama’s order gave the U.S.S. Bainbridge commander all the latitude he needed. All the while, negotiations had been ongoing, with the outcome that the pirate dingy was now fastened to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, was being towed by it, and was comfortably within sights. Supplies were being provided to the occupants.

A young pirate who’d been stabbed by the brave, unarmed sailors of the Maersk Alabama, was on board the Bainbridge, ostensibly “negotiating.” The mariners of the Maersk, incidentally, had never lost control of their vessel. If these stellar members of the American merchant marine had managed to hold off—and hurt—the pirates without any guns, just image what they’d have pulled off had they been armed!

While the navy had failed to rescue Phillips after he had heroically escaped the lifeboat the first time around, it is not exactly clear whether he had jumped this time too. What is apparent is that, “Capt. Phillips was pulled out of sea and transported to the Bainbridge.”

Sometime on Saturday, I believe, Navy Seals had been parachuted onto a vessel out of the pirates’ earshot. They made their way to the U.S.S. Bainbridge, and positioned themselves. “On the marksmanship of the snipers,” a very impressive Vice Adm. William E. Gortney said succinctly: “We pay a lot for their training and we got a good return on our investment.”

I’d say!

The Somali elders were disappointed that their “help” would no longer be needed, but judging from the prattle coming from neocon nation-builders on the left and right—these corrupt old coots may find themselves on call soon.

From CNN especially comes the notion that piracy is really poverty and powerlessness in disguise. (Donna Lemon, CNN’s cherubic, remarkably bad newsman-cum-woman, forgot to blame the “pale, patriarchal, penis people.”) Nevertheless, the consensus among the neocons, left and right, is that what Somalis really need is American boots on the ground to show them how democracy nullifies the need for piracy (NOT). And aid, lots of it.

Here we go again.