In the wake of the US military’s dramatic rescue of an American captain from Somali pirates, pundits and reporters are hyping the political implications of what should be considered a trivial foreign policy event.
For instance, Ezra Klein argues nonsensically that it proves Obama is not like Jimmy Carter:
Over the weekend, Navy Seals equipped with high-powered sniper rifles and night-vision scopes shot three pirates dead and rescued an American hostage. After dark. Using only three bullets. From 100 feet away. On a boat. Which raises the obvious question: Can we finally agree that whatever Barack Obama is, he’s not Jimmy Carter?
Actually, it proves that (a) defeating a handful of pirates who are adrift on a lifeboat on the open sea is easier than, say, a complex hostage rescue operation in a hostile foreign country and (b) the military’s capabilities are much more advanced today than they were in the 1977-1981 period.
TNR’s Michael Crowley also flags the Washington Post’s Michael Shear getting into the act:
It was one of the earliest tests of the new American president — a small military operation off the coast of a Third World nation. But as President Bill Clinton found out in October 1993, even minor failures can have long-lasting consequences.
Clinton’s efforts to land a small contingent of troops in Haiti were rebuffed, for the world to see, by a few hundred gun-toting Haitians. As the USS Harlan County retreated, so did the president’s reputation.
For President Obama, last week’s confrontation with Somali pirates posed similar political risks to a young commander in chief who had yet to prove himself to his generals or his public.
But the result — a dramatic and successful rescue operation by U.S. Special Operations forces — left Obama with an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad…
The operation pales in scope and complexity to the wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama’s adversaries are unlikely to be mollified by his performance in a four-day hostage drama.
Nonetheless, it may help to quell criticism leveled at Obama that he came to office as a Democratic antiwar candidate who could prove unwilling or unable to harness military might when necessary.
For the record, we’ve learned very little about Obama’s “ability to direct military actions abroad.” And I certainly wouldn’t expect criticism of Obama’s foreign policy beliefs to be quelled by such a minor victory.
Update 4/13 9:50 PM: Time’s Joe Klein calls Obama “crisp and decisive” — really? How does he know?
Also, via TNR’s Jason Zengerle, here’s AP’s Jennifer Loven going even further than Shear in spinning out elaborate implications based on nearly zero evidence:
The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama’s “no drama” handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.
…Obama’s handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did.
But it also showed a new commander in chief who was willing to use all the tools at his disposal, bringing in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis.
…[The crisis] goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war — Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion — doesn’t have the chops to call on U.S. military power.
However, as Zengerle notes, it’s unclear that anyone outside fringe elements on the right believed Obama would not be “comfortable … relying on the U.S. military”? Who else was going to take out the pirates — the Olympic target shooting team? How is this new information?