More Piracy Near Somalia [Archive] - Page 2

Bill Moore

02-20-2011, 12:06 AM

Posted by motorfirebox,
Because the root cause is political, the solution can also be political. The cost effective solution is to simply kill Somali pirates whenever there gets to be too many. Whether that solution--especially that solution alone, with no attempt made to address the root issue--is morally or ethically defensible is, again, arguable.

I enjoyed your post and while I'm not aware of the allegations you are making I suspect they're all very much true and "contribute" to the raise of piracy.

Political is a hard to define, because war is political, and if we decide to take more draconian measures against the pirates that would obviously be a political decision/solution also. I think I know what you mean, but since there is not an effective State structure to represent Somalia in the modern sense, and the West has demonstrated reluctance for nation building (being reinforced due to Afgahnistan and Iraq), what political solution would you recommend?

I agree that more aggressive is not the solution alone, but at this point based on what I think I know it definitely plays a role to initially suppress this activity. It is also arguable that allows one's citizens to be held hostage by criminals is also immoral. I realize it is more convoluted than that with ships that are frequently flagged by one country and manned by another (or multi-national crews), but regardless those conducted legimate sea trade are innocent victims. If the Somalis attacked those conducting illegal fishing in their waters then that wouldn't be a major global concern. Instead their attacking and kidnapping all ships (are you aware of any exceptions)? Second point, if this goes unchallenged we're going to send a signal to other areas of the world that piracy is a lucrative business. SE Asian nations have done a relatively good job on cracking down and reducing piracy in recent years, but based on the Somali experience they and others may want to relook the risk versus gain equation for conducting this type of activity.

jmm99

02-20-2011, 01:30 AM

Actually, they do - 2007 Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations.pdf (http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9b8e92d-2c8d-4779-9925-0defea93325c/1-14M_(Jul_2007)_(NWP))

from Bill
Is there a law of the sea that actually permits killing pirates on the spot? Is there a law that prohibits it?

Yes, if they resist or flee (Tennessee v Garner probably would allow deadly force); but usually it's Rule of Law (international law enforcement) - see snip attached:

3.5.3 Use of Naval Forces to Repress Piracy

Only warships, military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on governmental service and authorized to that effect, may seize a pirate ship or aircraft.

3.5.3.1 Seizure of Pirate Vessels and Aircraft

A pirate vessel or aircraft encountered in or over U.S. or international waters may be seized and detained by any of the U.S. vessels or aircraft listed in paragraph 3.5.3. The pirate vessel or aircraft, and all persons on board, should be taken, sent, or directed to the nearest U.S. port or airfield and delivered to U.S. law enforcement authorities for disposition according to U.S. law. Alternatively, higher authority may arrange with another nation to accept and try the pirates and dispose of the pirate vessel or aircraft, since every nation has jurisdiction under international law over any act of piracy.

Now, you will undoubtedly find some historical evidence of pirates being hanged on the spot.

However, the SROEs default to self-defense and seizure:

(5) Piracy. US warships and aircraft have an obligation to repress piracy on or over international waters directed against any vessel, or aircraft, whether US or foreign flagged and are authorized to employ all means necessary to repress piratical acts. For ships and aircraft repressing an act of piracy, the right and obligation of self defense extends to persons, vessels, or aircraft assisted. If a pirate vessel or aircraft fleeing from pursuit proceeds into the territorial sea, archipelagic waters, or superjacent airspace of another country, every effort should be made to obtain the consent of the coastal state prior to continuation of the pursuit.

So, that's present legal reality for US ships.

---------------------------
This is hypothetical.

If the conflict with the pirates were an "armed conflict" (Declaration of War or AUMF), the members of the targeted pirate group could be designated as a "hostile force" (from SROEs):

5. ... i. Hostile Force. Any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or terrorist(s), with or without national designation, that has committed a hostile act, exhibited hostile intent, or has been declared hostile by appropriate US authority.

6. Declaring Forces Hostile. Once a force is declared hostile by appropriate authority, US units need not observe a hostile act or a demonstration of hostile intent before engaging that force. The responsibility for exercising the right and obligation of national self defense and as necessary declaring a force hostile is a matter of the utmost importance. All available intelligence, the status of international relationships, the requirements of international law, an appreciation of the political situation, and the potential consequences for the United States must be carefully weighed. The exercise of the right and obligation of national self-defense by competent authority is separate from and in no way limits the commander’s right and obligation to exercise unit self-defense. The authority to declare a force hostile is limited as amplified in Appendix A of this Enclosure.

Note that, even under the Laws of War, summary executions (e.g., in a field commander's discretion) have been barred since WWI - though trial by military tribunal is still theoretically possible.

Regards

Mike

carl

02-20-2011, 03:04 AM

Somalis turn to piracy because they don't have any other good options for survival. Their waters have been emptied of sea life by illegal non-Somali fishing operations and poisoned by illegal non-Somali waste-dumping operations. Whether or not that justifies piracy is arguable, but it's inarguable that if you put people in a desperate situation they will inevitably turn to desperate, and probably violent, measures.

Because the root cause is political, the solution can also be political. ...

I think not. I think those that are doing piracy are doing it because it is exciting (always a plus for violent teenager), it is lucrative and it is easier than working. There are lots of poor countries on the ocean that don't have pirates, have been throughout history. There wasn't much piracy off that part of Africa 10 years ago. But now there is. Somebody had an inspiration and it paid off and, man being inclined to adopt good ideas, all the other Somalis in that area imitated. And boy is it paying off. Plus add in that the pirates are...Somalis. They are rather inclined to mayhem.

The cause isn't political, it is criminal. Or I guess you could call it political if the political culture is criminal, which being that part of Africa it probably is. But that is a distinction without a difference. You deal with it like you deal with any criminal, you kill him or frighten him into submission.

Besides, TIA man, TIA.

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 04:07 AM

carl

02-20-2011, 04:40 AM

Those factors are certainly part of it. But they're part of any society. There are several factors that Somalia has which many other societies lack. One is opportunity; the Gulf of Aden is an incredibly target-rich environment. Piracy off the Puntland coast has been an issue for quite a long time, now--it was a problem long before the media caught ahold of it, and it continues to be a problem after the media lost interest. The IUC which arose as a system of government in the early to mid 2000s struggled with piracy and brought incidence of piracy down sharply.

Which leads to another factor that is, if not unique to Somalia, then at least fairly select: Somalia's government has been a hilarious farce, completely lacking anything resembling authority over the state. The one organization that had begun to restore order was crushed by our proxies, the Ethiopians.

Which, in turn, leads to the most salient factor: without a functional state, there's nobody to keep out the fishers and the dumpers (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55463.shtml). And without that, there is no alternative to piracy available. Sure, there are some, maybe even many, who simply said "Hell with it, why should I work when I can take hostages and get paid for it?" But there are a lot more who said "I'm not making any money fishing, I have to get money somehow, those pirates seem to be doing okay; I think I'll try it myself."

To simply blame Somalis for being Somalian is short-sighted in the extreme. Not that it was ever a paradise, but Somalia is a smoking crater now because of outside intervention. In such a situation, there actually isn't any good alternative to picking up a gun. Frightening criminals into submission is only an option when alternatives to criminality exist.

You are very right the Gulf of Aden makes for rich pickings, but I don't see many pirates from the other countries that surround the place. The Straits of Malacca are good pickings. Not much piracy there now, most all the pirates are dead, killed by the tidal wave. But the economic conditions in that area are the same, just the criminals are dead, so no piracy, at least for a while.

If you are talking about al Shabaab as the agent that was going to do us all a big favor by restoring order, you may be interested in this Rueters story about how they grabbed some pirate kings because they weren't happy with their cut of the ransoms.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE71G6KN20110217

Now as for piracy being just retribution for spoiled fishing grounds being exacted by wronged fisherman, they seem to go pretty far out to sea for that. I am not sure the coastal waters of India were their traditional fishing grounds, maybe though.

Ultimately, none of this makes any difference. Their won't be any functional law abiding government there for years to come if ever. Somalia is a smoking crater mostly because Somalis are violent. That isn't going to change either. So we can weep for the Somalis and put up with innocent men who had nothing to do with the thing being kidnapped and killed, and we can pay more and more money to thugs who will continue to kidnap and kill more seamen who are just trying to make a living; or we can take care of the pirates the way pirates have been taken care of throughout history. It is going to come to that anyway. It will be cheaper to just get it over with even if Oprah chides the Navies for not being enlightened.

An addendum: Somaliland seems to run well. We should recognize the place. So not all Somalis are hopeless, just most that don't live in Somaliland.

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 05:11 AM

I was referring to the ICU, not al Shabaab. al Shabaab is a pack of violent terrorists--all that remains after Ethiopia smashed the law and order the ICU was building.

It is ridiculous to hold Somali pirates accountable for straying outside their national waters if the same accountability is not demanded of the fishers and dumpers from other nations.

As for your ideas about the violence inherent in Somalis--unless you're a proponent of the worst sort of eugenics, you have to accept that there are causes for Somali violence that extend beyond Somalis simply being a violent people. I have shown evidence of what that cause is; reject it if you like, but you haven't provided an alternative explanation.

And again, simply killing or arresting them isn't going to work. It didn't work at any other point in history, either--the golden age of western piracy didn't end because all the pirates got blowed up, it ended because conditions changed and improved to make that sort of criminal activity impractical. So in that sense, I completely agree with you: we should take care of Somali pirates the way pirates have been taken care of throughout history.

carl

02-20-2011, 05:44 AM

It is ridiculous to hold Somali pirates accountable for straying outside their national waters if the same accountability is not demanded of the fishers and dumpers from other nations.

Actually it isn't so ridiculous. If you physically hold a gun to a man's head and say do this or I will kill you, and on occasion do so just to show that you are serious, that is rather a different matter than poaching. It won't be much consolation to the families of dead and missing seaman to tell them "your loved one doesn't matter, we can't protect him because it wouldn't be fair." Those loved ones probably won't buy that. They probably won't buy the "Those poor fellows don't have any other way to make a living" argument either.

As for your ideas about the violence inherent in Somalis--unless you're a proponent of the worst sort of eugenics, you have to accept that there are causes for Somali violence that extend beyond Somalis simply being a violent people. I have shown evidence of what that cause is; reject it if you like, but you haven't provided an alternative explanation.

I just know what I read and I try to read people who seem to know what they are about. One of those guys is Tom Odom. He wrote about Somalia. He said they don't like anybody else in that region and nobody likes them. There was a reason no roads led in or out of the place. He also advised that the ROE that should have been adopted when we went into that place years ago was this. If somebody is seen with a gun, he is shot. If anybody picks up the gun, he is shot. He said given the character of the place, that is the only thing that would work.

And again, simply killing or arresting them isn't going to work. It didn't work at any other point in history, either--the golden age of western piracy didn't end because all the pirates got blowed up, it ended because conditions changed and improved to make that sort of criminal activity impractical. So in that sense, I completely agree with you: we should take care of Somali pirates the way pirates have been taken care of throughout history.

One of the reasons piracy became impractical was because the Royal Navy or American Navy or somebody's navy came after them and killed them. One of the other reasons was because people in the area knew that if they went pirating a navy of some sort would kill them. That was one of the reasons things were sort of peaceful in the Med when the Romans were around. Their navy hunted pirates down and killed them. The Romans probably weren't inclined to be gentle with pirates. Worked for them.

This is what will be done eventually.

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 06:17 AM

Actually it isn't so ridiculous. If you physically hold a gun to a man's head and say do this or I will kill you, and on occasion do so just to show that you are serious, that is rather a different matter than poaching. It won't be much consolation to the families of dead and missing seaman to tell them "your loved one doesn't matter, we can't protect him because it wouldn't be fair." Those loved ones probably won't buy that. They probably won't buy the "Those poor fellows don't have any other way to make a living" argument either.
You are shifting your goalposts. Your initial comment was about territory--that Somali piracy could not be a response to fishing incursions because Somali pirates operate as far away as the coast of India. As I said, holding that sort of double standard is ridiculous. As for the actual act of piracy, I'm inclined to believe that starving Somali families are similarly disinterested in how the families of their hostages feel. Stealing your food and leaving you to starve to death is only different from shooting you in terms of how long it takes you to die.

I just know what I read and I try to read people who seem to know what they are about. One of those guys is Tom Odom. He wrote about Somalia. He said they don't like anybody else in that region and nobody likes them. There was a reason no roads led in or out of the place. He also advised that the ROE that should have been adopted when we went into that place years ago was this. If somebody is seen with a gun, he is shot. If anybody picks up the gun, he is shot. He said given the character of the place, that is the only thing that would work.
That doesn't at all address why such a state of affairs exists. If you want to believe it exists because Somalis are genetically predisposed to violence, or whatever, well, feel free.

One of the reasons piracy became impractical was because the Royal Navy or American Navy or somebody's navy came after them and killed them. One of the other reasons was because people in the area knew that if they went pirating a navy of some sort would kill them. That was one of the reasons things were sort of peaceful in the Med when the Romans were around. Their navy hunted pirates down and killed them. The Romans probably weren't inclined to be gentle with pirates. Worked for them.
Yes, the presence of law and order does stymie piracy. I don't recall saying otherwise. Of course, you're ignoring or forgetting that those same nations frequently commissioned pirates to strike at their enemies' shipping lanes.

This is what will be done eventually.
I honestly doubt it. I don't think anyone cares enough to make that sort of expenditure.

JMA

02-20-2011, 06:31 AM

It is ridiculous to hold Somali pirates accountable for straying outside their national waters if the same accountability is not demanded of the fishers and dumpers from other nations.

But the Somalis are not straying outside their territorial waters to catch fish they are doing so as the foot soldiers of an internationally organised crime syndicate specializing in piracy.

JMA

02-20-2011, 06:58 AM

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 11:52 AM

But the Somalis are not straying outside their territorial waters to catch fish they are doing so as the foot soldiers of an internationally organised crime syndicate specializing in piracy.
In this case, it's the same thing through more direct means. The only practical difference is that the illegal fishing trawlers aren't waiting until Somali fishermen have hauled up a netfull of fish to steal them. And then, of course, there's the illegal dumping of waste (http://www.somalitalk.com/sun/26.html), which is far crueler, far more callous, and far more deleterious to the health of far more people than high seas hostage-taking ever will be.

Carl, as long as the school of thought, that criminals are excused their actions by their poverty or some claim that their poverty can be blamed on others, has influence then quite frankly you have a snow-balls chance in hell of sorting the problems out.
It's not about excusing actions. It's about recognizing why those actions are taken and addressing the causes.

JMA

02-20-2011, 12:10 PM

In this case, it's the same thing through more direct means. The only practical difference is that the illegal fishing trawlers aren't waiting until Somali fishermen have hauled up a netfull of fish to steal them. And then, of course, there's the illegal dumping of waste (http://www.somalitalk.com/sun/26.html), which is far crueler, far more callous, and far more deleterious to the health of far more people than high seas hostage-taking ever will be.

And this is unique to Somalia? ... and this justifies the acts of piracy which bring in incomes beyond their wildest dreams as subsistence fishermen?

It's not about excusing actions. It's about recognizing why those actions are taken and addressing the causes.

Well yes... but at the same time dealing with the piracy in the most effective manner... which is not happening.

PS: It would help your argument if these Somali fishermen were targeting the boats that illegally fish in the Somali territorial waters or those that dump their garbage in passing... but they are not.

Fuchs

02-20-2011, 12:37 PM

And then, of course, there's the illegal dumping of waste (http://www.somalitalk.com/sun/26.html), which is far crueler, far more callous, and far more deleterious to the health of far more people than high seas hostage-taking ever will be.

I'm quite sure that this illegal waste dumping story (I've seen it before) is a hoax.

It sounds a lot like a Rube Goldberg machine solution to a problem.

European are supposedly sending ships through the Suez Canal (fee!), through the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean to dump waste? I'm supposed to believe that?

Hello, we've got an Atlantic Ocean and a pretty large Mediterranean Sea right in front of our harbours!

Moreover, it requires special equipment on aircraft to suppress illegal oil dumping close to our shores (and few European nations afford this equipment). It ought to be much easier (and leave almost no traces) to dump some illegal waste on the high seas at night (dumping oil illegally leaves a trace that identifies the miscreant ship for hours - simple waste dumping does not).

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 12:40 PM

And this is unique to Somalia? ... and this justifies the acts of piracy which bring in incomes beyond their wildest dreams as subsistence fishermen?
Unique? No. Fairly select, though. And certainly the worst example of a trend.

Again, though, I'm not talking about justification. It's not a choice between being okay with piracy or okay with illegal fishing and dumping. I condemn both. I condemn the fishing and dumping more because a) it hurts more people, and b) without it, piracy would go down.

Well yes... but at the same time dealing with the piracy in the most effective manner... which is not happening.

PS: It would help your argument if these Somali fishermen were targeting the boats that illegally fish in the Somali territorial waters or those that dump their garbage in passing... but they are not.
Of course they're not, any more than ye olde tyme privateers hunted the warships of enemy states. Again, it's not nationalism or profit motive.

Bill Moore

02-20-2011, 05:13 PM

Posted by JMA,

All that said and as far as the threat of Somali piracy is concerned is it not sickeningly predictable that the ship owners and shipping companies rather than spend to protect their crews they call on their nations and even the (useless) UN to protect their ships.

I have no knowledge in this field, but I recall when I was looking at security jobs in the early 90s, private Maritime Security was a supposedly a rapidly growing school. There were a few private schools training and credentialing private armed security personnel to protect ships from pirates (as you all have noted it is an old problem).

The shipping companies were apparently paying the security personnel back then. What I don't see (doesn't mean it isn't happening) now are these armed private maritime security companies on board ships. What happened? Were they shut down by the UN? Did the liberals take legal action against them? Is this still a legal option?

JMA,

Carl, as long as the school of thought, that criminals are excused their actions by their poverty or some claim that their poverty can be blamed on others, has influence then quite frankly you have a snow-balls chance in hell of sorting the problems out.

Well said, and it goes back to identifying underlyng issues in any conflict. They tend to distract or worse prohibit us from winning the immediate fight. Most underlying issues (assuming they're correct identified in the first place) take years to solve, and once the armed conflict starts governments would probably be better off focusing on attacking the threat directly (in most cases) and then focusing on longer term solutions. Right now we're paralyzing ourselves by feeling sorry for our enemies. That may give some the impression that we have the moral high ground, but not the families that are burying their fallen warriors, not the families who are worried about the status of their family members being held hostage, and not the folks who are beginning to feel the economic impact (on top of everything) of this paralysis that prevents action. Moral high ground needs to be looked at in another light IMO.

Fuchs

02-20-2011, 05:26 PM

The UN has no such authority and I don't recall an international shipping treaty of relevance from the last decades.

The corporations which operate these ships have hired cheap Filipino labour in the meantime, and are not intent on paying security professionals if they can have a free ride on ridiculously inefficient naval security efforts.

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 05:55 PM

There actually are PMCs protecting some ships (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018202019).

Bill Moore

02-20-2011, 06:01 PM

motorfirebox, thanks for the link to the article, but what isn't clear to me yet is that it? Case opened and closed, or will there be a painful and expensive investigation that follows? If the companies only had to pay for armed security that wouldn't cost too much even if the security personnel earned a handsome income, but legal fees on the other hand could get out of control.

motorfirebox

02-20-2011, 06:44 PM

There's no legal fees if there's no investigation. If a PMC shoots up a bunch of pirates, who's going to report it? The shipping company doesn't want it reported because they don't want their insurance premiums to go up. The PMC more than likely has an agreement in place to not report any incidents for the same reason. And the pirates themselves probably wouldn't report it even if they had anyone to report it to--they're the pirates, after all.

carl

02-20-2011, 07:22 PM

In one of the articles David linked to, it is mentioned that Russian flagged ships have security (I don't know what kind) on board. If they are attacked by pirates they shoot up and sink the pirate vessel and leave the pirates in the water. No investigation ensues. The article also states that Russian flagged ships are not attacked attacked anymore.

Stan

02-21-2011, 04:15 AM

From my post a while back.

The Germans are the first clients and the Estonian Navy confirmed their personnel are already being deployed. These are sort of SEAL teams, not some private company though.

Estonian special forces recently completed training in Germany and will be joining ships crews off Somalia by November, Estonian TV reports (http://uudised.err.ee/index.php?0534940) :)

Not too sure who will take the armed crew members aboard, but looks like a step in the right direction.

Estonian Public Broadcasting in English
(http://news.err.ee/politics/b4117b50-ff5c-4e58-bd63-19431d92cd4e)

motorfirebox

02-21-2011, 04:31 AM

Someone earlier asked about solutions, and I didn't remember to reply until now. The solution I would propose would be to pump more money and training into the burgeoning Somali navy, building it from a small force of marines into an actual navy--or, rather, a coast guard--with some level of blue water capability. Help them fight piracy, but also help them fight the illegal fishing and dumping operations which are a major driver behind the piracy. Simultaneously, start cracking down on illegal fishing and especially illegal dumping ourselves. People eat this stuff, for chrissake, we shouldn't be okay with nuclear fish.

Not a perfect solution, not a total solution, but a start and something that has a much better chance of working than simply shooting pirates.

jmm99

02-21-2011, 05:20 AM

Somali Navy Admiral Optimistic about Pirate Fight (http://www.warisboring.com/2010/03/01/somali-navy-admiral-optimistic-about-pirate-fight/); but that was in Jan 2010.

On the other hand, from Dec 2010, another voice - of pessimism, Does Somalia’s New Pirate-Fighting Militia Stand a Chance? (http://somaliswiss.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/does-somalia%e2%80%99s-new-pirate-fighting-militia-stand-a-chance/) (original source "Wired"):

Multi-billion-dollar warships, Navy SEAL snipers, Marine assault teams, mercenaries, Reaper drones, sonic beam guns and even improvised firebombs hurled by desperate fishermen: the world has tried everything short of a full-scale invasion to beat Somali pirates. The newest idea is a local pirate-fighting militia. But it’s doubtful that this tactic will be much more successful than the last half-dozen. ... (more in article).

Regards

Mike

JMA

02-21-2011, 05:49 PM

Somali Navy Admiral Optimistic about Pirate Fight (http://www.warisboring.com/2010/03/01/somali-navy-admiral-optimistic-about-pirate-fight/); but that was in Jan 2010.

On the other hand, from Dec 2010, another voice - of pessimism, Does Somalia’s New Pirate-Fighting Militia Stand a Chance? (http://somaliswiss.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/does-somalia%e2%80%99s-new-pirate-fighting-militia-stand-a-chance/) (original source "Wired"):

Regards

Mike

The obvious solution stares one in the face.

Again I suggest that this be recorded as the best solution but due to diplomatic sensitivities and gutless political weakness is not on the table.

motorfirebox

02-22-2011, 01:48 AM

carl

02-22-2011, 03:39 AM

I'm not yet willing to equate an aversion to mass slaughter with gutless political weakness. The gutless political weakness was most flagrantly displayed back in 2006, when we sent in Ethiopia to break the back of the IUC.

What we are talking about here isn't mass slaughter, it is selective slaughter, confined to some rapacious Somali teenagers on little boats out at sea. The advantage of that is it avoids going onto the shore where there are more innocent people around to get caught in a cross fire. The other advantage is the rapacious Somali teenagers are concentrated in small area, the boat, so you don't have to chase them hither and thither.

Unwillingness to do that is simple fecklessness. I think shooting bunches of pirates at sea would do wonders to reduce and maybe almost eliminate piracy in the area. You do not. We disagree.

I still think it interesting that non-western countries seem to be the ones that are beginning to take the hard actions needed. The western countries mostly fret.

motorfirebox

02-22-2011, 04:43 AM

Er, no. I'm not opposed to engaging pirates who are engaged in piracy. I'm not even opposed to engaging pirates on shore. I'm opposed to viewing the engagement of pirates as a whole solution. And thus far, we haven't been all that reticent about engaging pirates, at least at sea.

I find it fairly uninformed to talk about "rapacious Somali teenagers". Not that they don't exist, and in great numbers, but we ourselves--the western countries, specifically the US--bear a large part of the blame for their proliferation. I hate to keep harping on it (lies, it's one of my favorite things to bitch about), but the last time Somalia had any success in forming a civilized society, we smashed it. It's lunacy to expect Somalia as a whole to take any steps to restrain the worst impulses of its citizens, considering the war we foisted on them as a direct result of their most recent attempt to do so. If you spank your kid when he's good, and you spank your kid when he's bad, he's not going to bother trying to be good for long.

JMA

02-22-2011, 02:53 PM

carl

02-22-2011, 03:01 PM

Motorfirebox:

First off, how did you come up with that name? It is kind of interesting as I imagine is the story behind it.

I am interested in the immediate problem at hand, murderous Somali teenagers shooting people, kidnapping them and stealing their things. The immediate solution to that immediate problem is shooting said teenagers, sinking their boats and continuing to do so until they figure pirating isn't really so much fun. That puts an end to the violence (no more pirates, no more shooting pirates) and the whole cloth solutions can be started. As mentioned by Bill Moore, I think, you have to stop the shooting first before you can start effective development.

We haven't been doing that much, hardly at all. It is still big news when one or two pirates dies by the sword at sea. When it doesn't make the news at all because it has become routine, then the thing will stop; and then it won't make the news because it has stopped. If there is a pack of coyotes beleaguering your sheep, you don't just drop one, almost hit one then throw up your hands and wail that there is nothing you can do; you keep dropping them till they are all gone. (please don't come back with the coyotes from the next county will come over, these analogies can only take so much strain)

You mentioned starving fishermen. I don't know that much about the area in the area that used to be Somalia where all this started, but most of the starvation I've read about in the area that used to be Somalia was caused by armed groups of murderous Somali teenagers (they make another appearance) stealing food from other Somalis. My information is probably dated though. I would note that most of the pirates identified, to my knowledge, have been teens or men in their early 20s, about what you would expect in brigands. There don't seem to be many mature men who are heads of families righting the wrong by stealing the M.V. Itinerant and crew and ransoming it for $50 million.

There are lots of organizations who would be willing to go to the area that used to be Somalia to provide whatever help you care to name. I read they don't because it is too blinking dangerous. They operate in other completely confused areas of Africa, but not in the area that used to be Somalia. That may have something to do with the nature of the people who live in that area.

You mention building up the Somali naval forces. That is a grand idea. I think the first order of business would be to make a Somalia out of the area that used to be Somalia. That is a hard thing that nobody seems to have the stomach for, except the Ugandans. They are trying at least, and maybe the Burundians too, I think they are up there with the Ugandans. But in lieu of that, we should build up the Somaliland naval forces. There might be a chance there. Puntland, not so much.

I really don't care about what grave policy errors we made in the past concerning the area that used to be Somalia. As I said above, I am concerned about here and now. Therefore, I symbolically scourge the west, and the US most of all (naturally), for our past sins in the area that used to be Somalia. Now can we get to shooting some pirates and making the lives of innocent mariners a little easier?

Regarding this statement-"If you spank your kid when he's good, and you spank your kid when he's bad, he's not going to bother trying to be good for long. " You do what you want with your kid. But when you are driving down the distant interstate and some kid who lives next to it tries to carjack you, I concede your right to smite him a mighty blow regardless of what he says his circumstances are. (I hope I didn't strain that analogy beyond the breaking point.)

carl

02-22-2011, 03:42 PM

Here is a link to the story reporting the 4 Americans on board the pirated boat Quest were killed.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/22/four-american-hostages-killed-by-somali-pirates/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|45602

Bob's World

02-22-2011, 03:54 PM

This may well be a tactical error that will bring strategic consequences. Americans are funny like that.

motorfirebox

02-22-2011, 03:58 PM

Mass slaughter? Define mass in this context please.
Killing enough Somalis to dissuade piracy.

Motorfirebox:
First off, how did you come up with that name? It is kind of interesting as I imagine is the story behind it.
I came up with it around the time Hackers came out. That movie impressed on me the need to have a cool handle on the Internet, or else nobody would take me seriously. It's all in the name!

I am interested in the immediate problem at hand, murderous Somali teenagers shooting people, kidnapping them and stealing their things. The immediate solution to that immediate problem is shooting said teenagers, sinking their boats and continuing to do so until they figure pirating isn't really so much fun. That puts an end to the violence (no more pirates, no more shooting pirates) and the whole cloth solutions can be started. As mentioned by Bill Moore, I think, you have to stop the shooting first before you can start effective development.

We haven't been doing that much, hardly at all. It is still big news when one or two pirates dies by the sword at sea. When it doesn't make the news at all because it has become routine, then the thing will stop; and then it won't make the news because it has stopped. If there is a pack of coyotes beleaguering your sheep, you don't just drop one, almost hit one then throw up your hands and wail that there is nothing you can do; you keep dropping them till they are all gone. (please don't come back with the coyotes from the next county will come over, these analogies can only take so much strain)

You mentioned starving fishermen. I don't know that much about the area in the area that used to be Somalia where all this started, but most of the starvation I've read about in the area that used to be Somalia was caused by armed groups of murderous Somali teenagers (they make another appearance) stealing food from other Somalis. My information is probably dated though. I would note that most of the pirates identified, to my knowledge, have been teens or men in their early 20s, about what you would expect in brigands. There don't seem to be many mature men who are heads of families righting the wrong by stealing the M.V. Itinerant and crew and ransoming it for $50 million.
A few things. Most of the reports I've read have indicated that shooting people is generally a last resort. For the number of pirate attacks over the past few years, there have been a very low number of casualties. So I'm not sure it's all that fair to call these guys "murderous", as if they're just running around looking for people to kill. With the amount of money involved in these operations, I doubt the actually murderous teenagers are ever allowed to be pirates by their fellow ex-fishermen.

I don't view piracy as the immediate problem. The piracy has been going on for something approaching three decades, now. The illegal fishing and dumping seems to be younger by ten to twenty years, and as I've said many times (and it's not just me--almost any serious examination of the issue you care to study says the same thing), seems to be responsible for the recent increase in incidents. The only thing that's been shown to effectively decrease incidents of piracy is the increase of law and order.

Killing pirates to reduce piracy is flat out a non-starter. This is Somalia. I don't think you're taking into account the amount of violence we would have to bring to the area to even get noticed, much less actually have an effect on the behavior of the population at large. I mean, read about what's going on there (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/12/a_pirate_stock_exchange.html)--this is a serious moneymaker for these people, and while a lot of the financing goes to international financiers, another large portion goes directly to the villages from which the pirates stage their operations. They're not going to stop because we kill a few of their shooters. They're not even going to stop because we kill a lot of their shooters--again, this is Somalia. It's not like they're going to run out.

Piracy in Somalia is a political issue. It's a social issue. Aside from the issue of who is to blame for the rise in piracy, any study of the area that consists of more than a quick glance at the actual incidents of piracy will reveal that there's more to the problem than dudes in need of being shot.

There are lots of organizations who would be willing to go to the area that used to be Somalia to provide whatever help you care to name. I read they don't because it is too blinking dangerous. They operate in other completely confused areas of Africa, but not in the area that used to be Somalia. That may have something to do with the nature of the people who live in that area.
Which, as I said, makes shooting people the least likely course of action to effect change. In a room full of shouting people, you're not likely to make yourself heard by trying to outshout them. If we were to try to outshout (outshoot) Somalia, we would have to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Like, high hundreds. Anything less would just spawn more al Shabaabs. I won't even get into the effects that would have on our international relations--I'm just going to leave it there: killing hundreds of thousands of people to save a few million bucks.

You mention building up the Somali naval forces. That is a grand idea. I think the first order of business would be to make a Somalia out of the area that used to be Somalia. That is a hard thing that nobody seems to have the stomach for, except the Ugandans. They are trying at least, and maybe the Burundians too, I think they are up there with the Ugandans. But in lieu of that, we should build up the Somaliland naval forces. There might be a chance there. Puntland, not so much.
I have a minor quibble with that. Puntland is actually pretty swank by Somali standards. They have a functioning government, including an education system. And since it's where the majority of the pirate attacks come from anyway, that's where I'd start. Give the pirates something to do besides pirate and the attacks will drop.

I really don't care about what grave policy errors we made in the past concerning the area that used to be Somalia. As I said above, I am concerned about here and now. Therefore, I symbolically scourge the west, and the US most of all (naturally), for our past sins in the area that used to be Somalia. Now can we get to shooting some pirates and making the lives of innocent mariners a little easier?

Regarding this statement-"If you spank your kid when he's good, and you spank your kid when he's bad, he's not going to bother trying to be good for long. " You do what you want with your kid. But when you are driving down the distant interstate and some kid who lives next to it tries to carjack you, I concede your right to smite him a mighty blow regardless of what he says his circumstances are. (I hope I didn't strain that analogy beyond the breaking point.)
Our past sins are relevant because they affect our expectations for the region. A lot of the thinking about Somalia tends to run along the lines of "Somalia would be better off is Somalis stopped being so violent." That is demonstrably untrue--Somalis tried not being so violent, and they got invaded by Ethiopia for their troubles. This basically means that Somalis are never going to stop being so violent on their own in the forseeable future. Since we're the ones that dissuaded them from not being violent, it seems reasonable that the responsibility for giving Somalis reasons to stop being violent falls on us.

Again, I'm not against taking action against pirates who are presently engaged in piracy. But we simply can't shoot enough pirates to stop the epidemic without a) spending more than the pirates take in ransom in the first place, and b) doing some truly horrific things.

Here is a link to the story reporting the 4 Americans on board the pirated boat Quest were killed.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/22/four-american-hostages-killed-by-somali-pirates/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|45602
Annnnnd there goes any possibility of us doing something besides shooting pirates. Nice one, Somalia.

JMA

02-22-2011, 05:33 PM

Killing enough Somalis to dissuade piracy

Well I guess you just threw mass in for effect.

I am a great believer in the persuasive power of one well targeted cruise missile. The brute force and ignorance approach may work but tends to leave a nasty taste in ones mouth... and some people have long memories.

First I would go after the money men in Europe (London and Holland I believe) then the ones in Kenya and Somalia itself. Then I would roll up the trigger men along the coast and/or out to sea.

I would suggest you give the CIA 6 months to wrap it all up otherwise you fire the director and ten of his top goons and hand the job over to the Marines.

Stan

02-22-2011, 05:37 PM

Killing enough Somalis to dissuade piracy.

I don't view piracy as the immediate problem. The piracy has been going on for something approaching three decades, now. The illegal fishing and dumping seems to be younger by ten to twenty years, and as I've said many times (and it's not just me--almost any serious examination of the issue you care to study says the same thing), seems to be responsible for the recent increase in incidents. The only thing that's been shown to effectively decrease incidents of piracy is the increase of law and order.

Forgive my cutting in this late in the game, but I have to wonder just what your background and experience with Sub-Sahara is.

Exactly how is this aging problem driven by politics in a country with literally no literacy rate (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/somalia_statistics.html#67) and something like one percent of the population capable of using the internet (yet alone feed their families)?

I´ve also tried to find some credible source that clearly links illegal fishing and chemical dumping with our current piracy problems. There are certainly millions of bloggers with opinions, but some UN, USG or European think tank that concluded we are at the root of piracy for not restoring order to the Somali coast?

During the decade I served in 11 different countries I noticed one common denominator that fits herein: Piracy – whether at sea or on the freeway – is a means to an end and the easy way out. They have only just begun to kill and will certainly learn to perform far worse.

The Africans I know and taught know no boundaries. Killing and raping—beginning at home -- is inherent to the region. If we refuse to play by the rules in their sandbox, then we would be better off not spouting our Bravo Sierra, and staying out of the region.

tequila

02-22-2011, 06:02 PM

First I would go after the money men in Europe (London and Holland I believe) then the ones in Kenya and Somalia itself. Then I would roll up the trigger men along the coast and/or out to sea.

I agree with this approach. Piracy has to be approached as what it is - an international criminal enterprise, not entirely dissimilar to drug cartels. The shooters are not in control on the high seas any more than the cartel gunmen in Juarez or gang members in Brooklyn - they are minimum-wage employees. Multimillion dollar ransoms are not being dropped off in some blasted-out house in Mogadishu - they are being transferred to Swiss accounts.

jmm99

02-22-2011, 06:49 PM

from JMA
I would suggest you give the CIA 6 months to wrap it all up otherwise you fire the director and ten of his top goons and hand the job over to the Marines.

I didn't realize that South Africa had a currently functioning Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_Marine_Corps).

;):)

Mike

motorfirebox

02-22-2011, 09:11 PM

Well I guess you just threw mass in for effect.

I am a great believer in the persuasive power of one well targeted cruise missile. The brute force and ignorance approach may work but tends to leave a nasty taste in ones mouth... and some people have long memories.

First I would go after the money men in Europe (London and Holland I believe) then the ones in Kenya and Somalia itself. Then I would roll up the trigger men along the coast and/or out to sea.

I would suggest you give the CIA 6 months to wrap it all up otherwise you fire the director and ten of his top goons and hand the job over to the Marines.
If it were that easy it would be done by now. The idea we don't have the political will to unleash the CIA, in an era where Gitmo is still in full operation, is not one that passes the smell test. As for cruise missiles, these guys operate out of local villages. There's going to be significant collateral damage no matter how well-targeted the missile is. I don't think blowing up one of the more prosperous regions in Somalia is the key to reducing piracy.

Forgive my cutting in this late in the game, but I have to wonder just what your background and experience with Sub-Sahara is.
I claim no experience. I present evidence which you are free to discuss, disregard, or accept.

Exactly how is this aging problem driven by politics in a country with literally no literacy rate (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/somalia_statistics.html#67) and something like one percent of the population capable of using the internet (yet alone feed their families)?
I said that it's a political problem, not that it's a problem of internal Somali politics. It's a problem of international politics as they related to Somalia.

I´ve also tried to find some credible source that clearly links illegal fishing and chemical dumping with our current piracy problems. There are certainly millions of bloggers with opinions, but some UN, USG or European think tank that concluded we are at the root of piracy for not restoring order to the Somali coast?
You mean aside from the Deputy Prime Minister of Somalia (http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/thematic/piracy/abdurahman.pdf), speaking at a UN conference on Somali piracy? How about a statement from UN General Assembly President Ali Abdussalam Treki (http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/statements/piracy140510.shtml)?

During the decade I served in 11 different countries I noticed one common denominator that fits herein: Piracy – whether at sea or on the freeway – is a means to an end and the easy way out. They have only just begun to kill and will certainly learn to perform far worse.

The Africans I know and taught know no boundaries. Killing and raping—beginning at home -- is inherent to the region. If we refuse to play by the rules in their sandbox, then we would be better off not spouting our Bravo Sierra, and staying out of the region.
Then perhaps we should help and encourage them to build a government which will dissuade and prevent such activity.

carl

02-23-2011, 04:13 AM

Then perhaps we should help and encourage them to build a government which will dissuade and prevent such activity.

I appreciate your good will in approaching this problem, but when you respond like this to a genuine Africa hand like Stan explaining the way things are over there, you can't be judged as anything but Manhattan cocktail party naive.

TIA. This is Africa. It isn't just a line in a movie, it really means something. Stan explained it. It really is.

All is moot now though. As Mr. Jones said, Americans will not like this.

One thing I am thoroughly puzzled by, apparently the pirates took a shot at an American destroyer with an RPG. Those guys are not only evil but terminally stupid.

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 05:38 AM

I appreciate your good will in approaching this problem, but when you respond like this to a genuine Africa hand like Stan explaining the way things are over there, you can't be judged as anything but Manhattan cocktail party naive.

TIA. This is Africa. It isn't just a line in a movie, it really means something. Stan explained it. It really is.
I don't see how it's possibly more naive than expecting to be able to kill enough people in Somalia for the natives to even notice. I mean, really:

One thing I am thoroughly puzzled by, apparently the pirates took a shot at an American destroyer with an RPG. Those guys are not only evil but terminally stupid.
Isn't that a hint that maybe they're not that scared of us?

And frankly, the Somalis managed to build a government by themselves, on their own, which reduced piracy to the lowest levels in years. The desire is there. What's so scary about providing the means?

carl

02-23-2011, 05:49 AM

Isn't that a hint that maybe they're not that scared of us?

Could be, but simple stupid is more likely.

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 06:36 AM

Could be, but simple stupid is more likely.
Ascribe his action to whatever quality seems most likely to you. Point is, back on shore, there are a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand more guys cut from the same cloth as him. If he's <stupid | desperate | methed out | whatever> enough to fire an RPG at the US Navy, do you think his buddies are likely to take his death to heart and stop being pirates?

I mean, he apparently didn't learn anything from the death of his buddies on the Maersk Alabama.

carl

02-23-2011, 07:11 AM

Stan

02-23-2011, 07:31 AM

Forgive my cutting in this late in the game, but I have to wonder just what your background and experience with Sub-Sahara is.

I claim no experience. I present evidence which you are free to discuss, disregard, or accept.

Fair enough. I would argue a smiggin that your evidence is more your opinion, but then, I have my opinions too and the only real difference being mine are formed based on years on the ground during both peace time and civil war.

Case in point:

You mean aside from the Deputy Prime Minister of Somalia (http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/thematic/piracy/abdurahman.pdf), speaking at a UN conference on Somali piracy? How about a statement from UN General Assembly President Ali Abdussalam Treki (http://www.un.org/ga/president/64/statements/piracy140510.shtml)?

Thanks for the links !
Always amused me on how creative African governments can get with literally hundreds of Ministers, Deputies and Second Secretaries. Be it "Head of Fishing" or whatever, their primary goal is to keep their relatively lucrative jobs and assign blame. I didn't get much more than that out of the Deputy's address at the UN, and the statement from the General Assembly barely cites illegal fishing and dumping as a root cause. I can't recall just how many of these speeches and addresses I've read over the years and wondered what they ever produced, besides serving as a means of soliciting external funding.

Stan

02-23-2011, 07:38 AM

I think you ascribe greater than human traits to these guys and less than human traits to these guys; at the same time. They fear death as much as anybody.

These guys act exactly, exactly as hoods here in the States act. And they will react to cops pointing guns at them just like hoods here do.

I'll echo Carl's views and especially the "stupid" act with an RPG. What they've now done is opened Pandora's box by immediately killing their hostages and changed the rules of engagement for the US Navy. Like Colonel Jones said, we're funny that way !

JMA

02-23-2011, 09:35 AM

I'll echo Carl's views and especially the "stupid" act with an RPG. What they've now done is opened Pandora's box by immediately killing their hostages and changed the rules of engagement for the US Navy. Like Colonel Jones said, we're funny that way !

I don't understand this. I'm not sure we have heard the full story.

Their 2 negotiators are on the US destroyer and they still open fire on the destroyer????? High on Kat? Accidental discharge of weapon? Suicide by marines? Hostages try to make a break for it?

JMA

02-23-2011, 09:40 AM

Always amused me on how creative African governments can get with literally hundreds of Ministers, Deputies and Second Secretaries. Be it "Head of Fishing" or whatever, their primary goal is to keep their relatively lucrative jobs and assign blame. I didn't get much more than that out of the Deputy's address at the UN, and the statement from the General Assembly barely cites illegal fishing and dumping as a root cause. I can't recall just how many of these speeches and addresses I've read over the years and wondered what they ever produced, besides serving as a means of soliciting external funding.

Their creativity is directly proportional to the potential amount of US$ some idiot government is likely to hand over to them to solve the problem on their own. When you hear the phrase "an African solution to an African problem" the alarm bells should start ringing.

Dayuhan

02-23-2011, 11:18 AM

Their creativity is directly proportional to the potential amount of US$ some idiot government is likely to hand over to them to solve the problem on their own. When you hear the phrase "an African solution to an African problem" the alarm bells should start ringing.

When you start hearing about an American, European, or Chinese solution to an American problem the alarm bells should turn into shrieking sirens. Our "solutions" are no more effective and way more expensive.

I've no special problem with killing pirates, but I suspect that there will never be a shortage of new recruits. Seems that with that much money moving there has to be people handling it, making ransom contacts, collecting ransoms, laundering money, paying out the salaries of the guys in the boats. There will be a few people living in mansions and choosing their SUV of the day in that picture, and those guys will never be going out in boats. I'd guess that those are the ones who need to face some consequences.

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 03:04 PM

I think you ascribe greater than human traits to these guys and less than human traits to these guys; at the same time. They fear death as much as anybody. That is why 13 of them gave up without a fight on board the Quest. Some are as impulsive as any bloody minded teenager. That is why two were killed after the other 13 surrendered. One was killed with a knife. Those multitudes on shore look in the mirror and see only one person, and they want to continue to see that face morning after morning. They don't see the first in the line of fearless hordes ready to die. They see themselves and they don't want to get killed.

So far these guys are acting just like hoods act. Typical. They strut and bluster when they are not opposed. When they are seriously opposed, after the first couple are killed, the rest of them surrender lickety split. And, again like criminals here in the US or anywhere, you have your one or two who want to go down in a blaze of glory. Those guys on shore heard about the Mearsk. They also can figure the numbers. They know that for every one of them killed, two hundred or more make a killing Until they figure the numbers are against them they will continue to play the game.

These guys act exactly, exactly as hoods here in the States act. And they will react to cops pointing guns at them just like hoods here do.
I'm not saying they're superhuman suicide hostage takers. I'm saying they're used to violence and used to death on a level that, frankly, even most US combat troops are not. Nor are the worst of the worst of our hoods here in the States. To get Americans upset, you have to kill, like, one American soldier. A handful of really noticeable American deaths can change the of US foreign policy and, to an extent, the policies of much of the western world. In Somalia? Not so much.

I agree: it's a numbers game. The numbers required to have an effect are frankly too high to contemplate.

Fair enough. I would argue a smiggin that your evidence is more your opinion, but then, I have my opinions too and the only real difference being mine are formed based on years on the ground during both peace time and civil war.
I wouldn't have much argument with you on matters related to being on the ground. These considerations are high-level strategy, though.

Thanks for the links !
Always amused me on how creative African governments can get with literally hundreds of Ministers, Deputies and Second Secretaries. Be it "Head of Fishing" or whatever, their primary goal is to keep their relatively lucrative jobs and assign blame. I didn't get much more than that out of the Deputy's address at the UN, and the statement from the General Assembly barely cites illegal fishing and dumping as a root cause. I can't recall just how many of these speeches and addresses I've read over the years and wondered what they ever produced, besides serving as a means of soliciting external funding.
Well, like I said, you're free to regard the evidence however you like. Given the number and position of people talking about it, though--from the UN to the pirates themselves--I find it hard to disregard.

I think everyone agrees that if we kill enough pirates, piracy will stop. What we disagree on is how many dead pirates and collateral deaths it will take. I think it's a lot; others believe that we can fire off a few cruise missiles and cause everyone in Somalia to hide under their beds. What I will say is that in terms of actually reducing piracy, the only thing proven to work is something approaching a functioning government.

JMA

02-23-2011, 03:36 PM

When you start hearing about an American, European, or Chinese solution to an American problem the alarm bells should turn into shrieking sirens. Our "solutions" are no more effective and way more expensive.

Well I tend to agree with you that the US State Department and the CIA are in competition as to which is the greater collection of stumble bums... but that said have you considered that in their ignorance they actually think they are doing good? Idiots yes, inept yes, incompetent yes, but 100% dishonest... NO. There is your difference.

I've no special problem with killing pirates, but I suspect that there will never be a shortage of new recruits. Seems that with that much money moving there has to be people handling it, making ransom contacts, collecting ransoms, laundering money, paying out the salaries of the guys in the boats. There will be a few people living in mansions and choosing their SUV of the day in that picture, and those guys will never be going out in boats. I'd guess that those are the ones who need to face some consequences.

I covered that base. You send the CIA after Mister Big and to let the marines loose on the trigger men in the boats. (The CIA will fail but the Marines will accomplish the mission.)

Now you want the message to get out that if you actually hi-jack a ship the chances are good you will be killed and if not then very good you will spend 20 odd years in a foreign jail then even the money promised begins not to look so good.

First order of business will be to free existing hostages and ships. Once done they can take it from there...

Stan

02-23-2011, 05:02 PM

I'm not saying they're superhuman suicide hostage takers. I'm saying they're used to violence and used to death on a level that, frankly, even most US combat troops are not. Nor are the worst of the worst of our hoods here in the States. To get Americans upset, you have to kill, like, one American soldier. A handful of really noticeable American deaths can change the of US foreign policy and, to an extent, the policies of much of the western world. In Somalia? Not so much.

I think we've drifted slightly. It's not just fear of death; it's an African's life-long approach to everything including fear and death. We're not dealing with the Somalis on their level, but killing them will indeed get their attention.
Eventually the situation will be such a pain in the Alpha that we will make a difference (deterrence).

I agree most US military are not accustomed to life on the Dark Continent. We won’t take long however to train up so long as the current administration dismisses PC as a means to an end. This is one of the reasons I inquired as to your background in Sub-Sahara. Politics will not fix the current situation and all the money you wish to dump in the Somalia “hole” will not feed anyone, nor discourage piracy. What it will do is fill the pockets of the hundreds of Ministers, Deputies and, if you will, the Head of Fishing.

Well, like I said, you're free to regard the evidence however you like. Given the number and position of people talking about it, though--from the UN to the pirates themselves--I find it hard to disregard.

Sorry, but what evidence? Those two links you sent me ?

I think everyone agrees that if we kill enough pirates, piracy will stop. What we disagree on is how many dead pirates and collateral deaths it will take. I think it's a lot; others believe that we can fire off a few cruise missiles and cause everyone in Somalia to hide under their beds. What I will say is that in terms of actually reducing piracy, the only thing proven to work is something approaching a functioning government.

If you mean collateral deaths being those that the pirates executed after hijacking their ships, then there's very little we can do other than bomb the beaches before the pirates set sail.

JMA's scenario is expensive :D but not too far-fetched. Do we really believe that a country with only 1.2 percent attending grade school don't have an administrative base with slightly more intelligent life forms backing them?

I'll bet my US Military retirement (No JMA, only this month's) that there's a crusty old educated white boy hangin' in Switzerland backing the whole enchilada and not some greedy African leader. You heard it here first :cool:

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 06:33 PM

I think we've drifted slightly. It's not just fear of death; it's an African's life-long approach to everything including fear and death. We're not dealing with the Somalis on their level, but killing them will indeed get their attention.
Eventually the situation will be such a pain in the Alpha that we will make a difference (deterrence).
Yes. The question is how many people we'll need to kill to achieve that deterrence.

I agree most US military are not accustomed to life on the Dark Continent. We won’t take long however to train up so long as the current administration dismisses PC as a means to an end. This is one of the reasons I inquired as to your background in Sub-Sahara. Politics will not fix the current situation and all the money you wish to dump in the Somalia “hole” will not feed anyone, nor discourage piracy. What it will do is fill the pockets of the hundreds of Ministers, Deputies and, if you will, the Head of Fishing.
You're still stuck on internal Somali politics, which are only peripheral to what I'm talking about.

If you mean collateral deaths being those that the pirates executed after hijacking their ships, then there's very little we can do other than bomb the beaches before the pirates set sail.
Er, no. We can also seek out the pirates bases on land. If we're going to run around killing pirates, in fact, taking them out on land is the only possible way to kill enough of them to make a difference. And if we do that, a) we're going to have to kill a whole lot of them, and b) there's going to be a whole lot of collateral deaths and damage.

JMA's scenario is expensive :D but not too far-fetched. Do we really believe that a country with only 1.2 percent attending grade school don't have an administrative base with slightly more intelligent life forms backing them?

I'll bet my US Military retirement (No JMA, only this month's) that there's a crusty old educated white boy hangin' in Switzerland backing the whole enchilada and not some greedy African leader. You heard it here first :cool:
I'm sure there are a few, but most of the financiers are Somali expats. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28158455/ns/world_news-africa/)

You're free to question the links I provide, but I don't see any sourced alternative explanations being presented. The opposing argument seems to be the opinion, undiluted by documented fact, that Somalis are violent and that no further consideration on the subject will produce anything of use.

carl

02-23-2011, 07:22 PM

Yes. The question is how many people we'll need to kill to achieve that deterrence.

Er, no. We can also seek out the pirates bases on land. If we're going to run around killing pirates, in fact, taking them out on land is the only possible way to kill enough of them to make a difference. And if we do that, a) we're going to have to kill a whole lot of them, and b) there's going to be a whole lot of collateral deaths and damage.

We are at an impasse in this discussion. I and some others think the pirates are criminals and will act as criminals act when confronted with resolute and persistent application of physical force. They will fold because they don't want to get killed, they just want the easy money.

You think the pirates have the cohesion and determination more characteristic of a military force, irregular or regular. Therefore they will continue to pirate or resist in the face of heavy casualties because they are after something other than easy money.

There is no way to really prove or disprove either side short of an empirical test. That may be coming up, given the murder of the Americans on the Quest and since there is a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) on the way to that part of the world. No word on what its' exact mission is.

I suspect that if the MEU showed up off the coast of Puntland, took back one or two ships and announced its' intention to continue to do so, those murderous Somali teenagers would suddenly be all smiles and best friends of the Marines.

Stan

02-23-2011, 07:48 PM

Yes. The question is how many people we'll need to kill to achieve that deterrence.

I think we've drifted slightly. It's not just fear of death; it's an African's life-long approach to everything including fear and death. We're not dealing with the Somalis on their level, but killing them will indeed get their attention.
Eventually the situation will be such a pain in the Alpha that we will make a difference (deterrence).
That could be several thousands but it's not my intent to just outright kill. In the DRC (then Zaire) it still has not fixed much and, we are still pumping in millions in cash and political will. In fact my point; no more cash, no more political crap, just a firm deterrence since some of us have determined we're to blame. No more carrots and back to the Belgian colony days or just flat out leave it to them.

You're still stuck on internal Somali politics, which are only peripheral to what I'm talking about.
I agree most US military are not accustomed to life on the Dark Continent. We won’t take long however to train up so long as the current administration dismisses PC as a means to an end. This is one of the reasons I inquired as to your background in Sub-Sahara. Politics will not fix the current situation and all the money you wish to dump in the Somalia “hole” will not feed anyone, nor discourage piracy. What it will do is fill the pockets of the hundreds of Ministers, Deputies and, if you will, the Head of Fishing.

What exactly are you talking about ? Western politics ? You claim they had a political system and no piracy, but yet, you claim the solution lies in political semantrics vs deterrence and death. YET, you have never stepped foot on the continent. Sorry if I don't get you lately :rolleyes:

Er, no. We can also seek out the pirates bases on land. If we're going to run around killing pirates, in fact, taking them out on land is the only possible way to kill enough of them to make a difference. And if we do that, a) we're going to have to kill a whole lot of them, and b) there's going to be a whole lot of collateral deaths and damage..

You've got me mistaken with JMA Cruise Missile Guy from SA. I wouldn't waste a second or single rocket on the bunch. IMHO we should save our cash and divert all floating assets around South Africa, offer exotic beach tours with sharks, and make a killing selling diesel fuel. The Somali pirates will go away without your political might and my tax dollars, and start fishing again (I hope).

You're free to question the links I provide, but I don't see any sourced alternative explanations being presented. The opposing argument seems to be the opinion, undiluted by documented fact, that Somalis are violent and that no further consideration on the subject will produce anything of use.

The two links provided barely link piracy with fishing and chemical dumping and that was your point for the last 10 posts. I back my sad theory with only my experience watching money pour out of the US and Europe with no reasonable end in sight and political Bravo Sierra for 24 years. Since experience has shown me both are not working I take issue with your proposal to spend more on training and political contributions.

Sorry, Dude... I ain't biting :mad:

Stan

02-23-2011, 07:51 PM

I suspect that if the MEU showed up off the coast of Puntland, took back one or two ships and announced its' intention to continue to do so, those murderous Somali teenagers would suddenly be all smiles and best friends of the Marines.

Concur 110% !

In fact, the hotel and prostitution business would boom and the Fish Director would start selling diesel to passing naval ships :D

slapout9

02-23-2011, 07:55 PM

Concur 110% !

In fact, the hotel and prostitution business would boom and the Fish Director would start selling diesel to passing naval ships :D

What about Keelhauling and Walking the Plank;) used to keep folks in line pretty good from what I have read. Marines would like that!

carl

02-23-2011, 08:21 PM

In fact, the hotel and prostitution business would boom and the Fish Director would start selling diesel to passing naval ships :D

I've heard some that some Somali women are quite comely.

Ken White

02-23-2011, 08:50 PM

I wouldn't have much argument with you on matters related to being on the ground. These considerations are high-level strategy, though.Strategy or policy? That's not a semantic quibble, it's an effort to understand the intent of your line of reasoning. I sense it as being rooted in a policy of proper governance curing a specific evil or effort as opposed to being a strategy to actually eliminate (unlikely IMO) or at least reduce (possible also IMO) the problem.
I think everyone agrees that if we kill enough pirates, piracy will stop. What we disagree on is how many dead pirates and collateral deaths it will take. I think it's a lot; others believe that we can fire off a few cruise missiles and cause everyone in Somalia to hide under their beds. What I will say is that in terms of actually reducing piracy, the only thing proven to work is something approaching a functioning government.In order; I sort of agree in that many but not everyone thinks that. For example, I do not think that. Regardless, I agree with you that it would be "a lot" and there would be significant numbers or relatively 'innocent' civilians killed. I do not think anyone, certainly no on with any experience in Africa, thinks that launching cruise missiles will do much more than antagonize the survivors. Thus my questions are:

Admitting many US (and other nations) policy errors in the Region -- which I certainly do -- history cannot be undone. What chance do you suppose a US backed solution would have of being accepted?

Do you believe that the reticence to do a clearance on the ground is reflective of a reluctance to cause that large number of casualties?

If the Piracy is not significantly curtailed, do you believe that such reluctance, if it exists, is likely to be overcome with even more devastating results as each week passes and the Piracy 'problem' is seen as escalating?

You propose a cessation of illegal fishing and illegal dumping by others. How would you propose to curtail actions that are already illegal?

If that entails a functional government in Somalia, given the history of the nation, the area and the current state of governance on the continent, how would you propose to establish and / or support a functional government there?
You're free to question the links I provide, but I don't see any sourced alternative explanations being presented. The opposing argument seems to be the opinion, undiluted by documented fact, that Somalis are violent and that no further consideration on the subject will produce anything of use.I suggest that the links you provided are examples of Politicians providing, respectively, self and government protective commentary and job security oriented duck and cover. IOW, neither really substantiates anything and neither provides "documented fact" but rather opinion and little more. In an argument of conflicting opinions, there is normally no real 'right' or 'wrong' but a preponderance of evidence issue.

I will admit that my quite limited experience in Africa leads me to believe that many in the West do not understand the continent and makes me possibly unduly cynical about the prognosis for the continent or areas in it but I do believe the historical record, such as it is, is not supportive of your position.

What is fact -- documented -- is that the area and its people have always been politically and physically volatile and somewhat xenophobic. While I can agree with you that Europe and others being more in compliance with their own laws, not unnecessarily killing large numbers of people, a functional government and less greed would be beneficial and likely reduce the Piracy problem, thus my final question:

How do you propose 'we' should achieve all those goals and who will pay for it?

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 09:27 PM

You think the pirates have the cohesion and determination more characteristic of a military force, irregular or regular. Therefore they will continue to pirate or resist in the face of heavy casualties because they are after something other than easy money.
When did I ever say anything about cohesion and determination? I'm saying it's like trying to hold back the tide by punching it.

What exactly are you talking about ? Western politics ? You claim they had a political system and no piracy, but yet, you claim the solution lies in political semantrics vs deterrence and death. YET, you have never stepped foot on the continent. Sorry if I don't get you lately :rolleyes:
Yes, Western politics, along with regional international politics. Sending Ethiopia in to crush the IUC in the mid-2000s was a political decision. Allowing toxic waste to be dumped off the Somali coast, allowing illegal fishing trawlers to scoop up so much of the sea life that Somali fishermen can't find anything to catch, those are both political decisions or at least decisions with political ramifications and connections.

You've got me mistaken with JMA Cruise Missile Guy from SA. I wouldn't waste a second or single rocket on the bunch. IMHO we should save our cash and divert all floating assets around South Africa, offer exotic beach tours with sharks, and make a killing selling diesel fuel. The Somali pirates will go away without your political might and my tax dollars, and start fishing again (I hope).
This idea I like, so long as we direct our assets against illegal fishers and dumpers to at least a tenth of the degree we direct them against pirates. Otherwise, there won't be anything to fish. Which, as I keep saying, is a big part of the problem.

The two links provided barely link piracy with fishing and chemical dumping and that was your point for the last 10 posts. I back my sad theory with only my experience watching money pour out of the US and Europe with no reasonable end in sight and political Bravo Sierra for 24 years. Since experience has shown me both are not working I take issue with your proposal to spend more on training and political contributions.
Except that your boots-on-the-ground experience apparently doesn't include remembering what action resulted in the lowest levels of piracy in years. I will happily listen to what information you're able to provide on the subject, but you haven't actually provided any. All you've said is "I've been there, so we should do X."

The logic behind my claim is pretty simple. Illegal fishing and dumping occur frequently off the coast of Somalia--this is a matter of public (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVV_gQDsp1m8v7nPcumVc5McYV-Q) record (http://www.tsunamis.com/tsunami-hazardous-waste-somalia.html). These activities cut into the Somali economy (http://www.ejfoundation.org/page163.html). The economy of Somalia isn't exactly a powerhouse in the best of times; by degrading it further, more Somalis are left with no livelihood. People who lose their livelihood don't just throw up their hands and die, they try to survive however they can manage to. As it happens, there's a way for these disenfranchised Somalis to survive: piracy. Can you show me where I'm wrong? Does illegal fishing and dumping not occur? Do these activities not degrade Somalia's fishing industry? Is Somalia so wealthy that it can afford to lose money and not see more of its citizens turn to banditry to survive and thrive?

I am well aware that money poured into places like Somalia generally just disappears--into the pockets of 'government', into the pockets of local warlords, etcetera. I'm not talking about direct nation building. I'm talking about clearing out as much external predation as possible. Somaliland and Puntland have managed to build themselves into something resembling stable states. The stability of Puntland, at least, is threatened by a drastically lowered ability to derive profit from one of their major industries--fishing. Currently, that's being made up for, to some degree, through piracy. If you take away the piracy but don't restore their ability to catch fish, all you're going to do is collapse Puntland into the same sort of shambles that most of the rest of the country enjoys. How you expect that result to reduce the incidence of violence, I really can't imagine.

carl

02-23-2011, 09:31 PM

Here is a link to an Information Dissemination post about this very subject:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/02/somali-pirates-evolve-tactics-after-us.html

It contains the following quote about the makeup of the pirates:

"Pirates once were believed to be disgruntled and financially motivated Somali fishermen angry that international trawlers were illegally fishing Somalia's waters. Now criminal gangs dominate the piracy trade, and have begun systematically torturing hostages, including locking them in freezers."

It also states that the pirates are reinforcing the gangs holding the pirated ships.

carl

02-23-2011, 09:37 PM

When did I ever say anything about cohesion and determination? I'm saying it's like trying to hold back the tide by punching it.

Sorry about that. You didn't say anything about cohesion and determination. I inferred it from your apparent belief that the pirates will continue their criminal course in the face of significant casualties inflicted by strong military action. Normally cohesion and determination are needed to stay the course in that case. I just figured you forgot to mention it.

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 10:18 PM

Strategy or policy? That's not a semantic quibble, it's an effort to understand the intent of your line of reasoning. I sense it as being rooted in a policy of proper governance curing a specific evil or effort as opposed to being a strategy to actually eliminate (unlikely IMO) or at least reduce (possible also IMO) the problem.In order; I sort of agree in that many but not everyone thinks that. For example, I do not think that. Regardless, I agree with you that it would be "a lot" and there would be significant numbers or relatively 'innocent' civilians killed. I do not think anyone, certainly no on with any experience in Africa, thinks that launching cruise missiles will do much more than antagonize the survivors.
I would prefer a policy. I would also like a million dollars in my bank account, and a flying car. The best I can reasonably hope for is a strategy that places at least some importance on the region's best interests.

Admitting many US (and other nations) policy errors in the Region -- which I certainly do -- history cannot be undone. What chance do you suppose a US backed solution would have of being accepted?
Directly trying to build something in Somalia? Little to none, unless we pour a really unreasonable amount of effort into it. Clearing away external predations, though? Much more doable.

Do you believe that the reticence to do a clearance on the ground is reflective of a reluctance to cause that large number of casualties?
That's my reticence. I think it's probably also the reticence of any administration that wishes to be an administration for longer than the next election cycle (if that).

If the Piracy is not significantly curtailed, do you believe that such reluctance, if it exists, is likely to be overcome with even more devastating results as each week passes and the Piracy 'problem' is seen as escalating?
Pff, who knows. That's up to the vagaries of the news cycle. Generally, though, I don't think any likely level of outrage is going to last long if we start doing enough damage to Somalia to significantly reduce piracy.

You propose a cessation of illegal fishing and illegal dumping by others. How would you propose to curtail actions that are already illegal?
I don't imagine it will be a snap, but we do already have naval assets in the area. I can't imagine finding illegal fishers and dumpers can possibly be more difficult than differentiating between Somali fishermen and Somali pirates. (Pirates are, of course, easy to identify once they engage in piracy--but by then, you've got hostages to worry about, which makes simply killing the pirates a bit more difficult.)

If that entails a functional government in Somalia, given the history of the nation, the area and the current state of governance on the continent, how would you propose to establish and / or support a functional government there?I suggest that the links you provided are examples of Politicians providing, respectively, self and government protective commentary and job security oriented duck and cover. IOW, neither really substantiates anything and neither provides "documented fact" but rather opinion and little more. In an argument of conflicting opinions, there is normally no real 'right' or 'wrong' but a preponderance of evidence issue.
'Functional' is arguable. The IUC didn't do much in the way of governance aside from creating a justice system--though one could reasonably argue that justice is the primary function of government. It wasn't about taxes, it wasn't about having the right guy for the Minister of Fishing, it was about having some guys who knew the law and were willing and able to punish those who broke it. It expanded from there into education, health care, and crime fighting.

Looking at the IUC (or the ICU or the UIC, pick your favorite), at least one thing stands out to me. This is going to be hard for some to swallow, but any workable governance in Somalia is going to have to be Islamic. Sharia will be the basis (and probably the whole, at first) of the justice system. Somalia is a Muslim country, and any real attempt to govern has to recognize that.

I will admit that my quite limited experience in Africa leads me to believe that many in the West do not understand the continent and makes me possibly unduly cynical about the prognosis for the continent or areas in it but I do believe the historical record, such as it is, is not supportive of your position.

What is fact -- documented -- is that the area and its people have always been politically and physically volatile and somewhat xenophobic. While I can agree with you that Europe and others being more in compliance with their own laws, not unnecessarily killing large numbers of people, a functional government and less greed would be beneficial and likely reduce the Piracy problem, thus my final question:
To call the region volatile is... one way of putting it, I guess. My view of it is that we keep throwing in dynamite and then wonder where all the explosions are coming from.

How do you propose 'we' should achieve all those goals and who will pay for it?
I think real change begins with what we stop, rather than what we start. For instance, I would propose we stop stealing a billion dollars' worth of fish per year from African waters.

motorfirebox

02-23-2011, 10:29 PM

Sorry about that. You didn't say anything about cohesion and determination. I inferred it from your apparent belief that the pirates will continue their criminal course in the face of significant casualties inflicted by strong military action. Normally cohesion and determination are needed to stay the course in that case. I just figured you forgot to mention it.
I really don't understand how I can be accused of not understanding Africa when statements like this are allowed to slip by.

If you're fantastically wealthy--say, just below the poverty line in the US--then if your friends get shot for stealing, you're probably going to not steal anything anymore. You've got food, you've got shelter, you probably even have Internet access; if you're stealing, it's for things you want, not things you need.

If you're actually poor, then if your friends get shot for stealing, you have a choice: do you starve to death, or do you risk getting shot too? In that case, some people might choose to starve to death but a lot are going to take the risk. And even if they do choose to starve to death, they're going to start back up again as soon as you vacate the area. Unless you're considering a permanent military outpost in Puntland?

carl

02-23-2011, 11:10 PM

Hmm. I have a question then. How does this statement of yours

If you're actually poor, then if your friends get shot for stealing, you have a choice: do you starve to death, or do you risk getting shot too? In that case, some people might choose to starve to death but a lot are going to take the risk. And even if they do choose to starve to death, they're going to start back up again as soon as you vacate the area. Unless you're considering a permanent military outpost in Puntland?

square with the following statement of yours?

I have a minor quibble with that. Puntland is actually pretty swank by Somali standards. They have a functioning government, including an education system. And since it's where the majority of the pirate attacks come from anyway, that's where I'd start. Give the pirates something to do besides pirate and the attacks will drop.

I am confused. (my normal condition)

Ken White

02-23-2011, 11:31 PM

I would prefer a policy. I would also like a million dollars in my bank account, and a flying car.I suspect all three will appear at the same time...:D
The best I can reasonably hope for is a strategy that places at least some importance on the region's best interests.You can indeed hope. I suspect you'll be disappointed for several reasons.
Directly trying to build something in Somalia? Little to none, unless we pour a really unreasonable amount of effort into it. Clearing away external predations, though? Much more doable.We agree that there's virtually no chance of 'our' (the West) doing much there. We may disagree on the halting of predation. As I'm sure you realize, the majority of the predation emanates from Europe and the governments that could do something about illegal acts by their nationals do nothing. I doubt the US can affect that at all. How would you suggest they do so?
I think it's probably also the reticence of any administration that wishes to be an administration for longer than the next election cycle (if that).We can disagree on that. It is far more complex than votes and the American people aren't nearly as idealistic as many seem to wish.

If one were to propose tha the USN shadow foreign fishers and dumpers to expose them with streaming video, I suspect that would arouse the ire of far more Americans than would a horrendous Somali casualty count. We aren't really all that nice...:(
...I don't think any likely level of outrage is going to last long if we start doing enough damage to Somalia to significantly reduce piracy.Again we can disagree but I acknowledge that revolves around the definition of 'significantly.'

I don't imagine it will be a snap, but we do already have naval assets in the area. I can't imagine finding illegal fishers and dumpers can possibly be more difficult than differentiating between Somali fishermen and Somali pirates. (Pirates are, of course, easy to identify once they engage in piracy--but by then, you've got hostages to worry about, which makes simply killing the pirates a bit more difficult.)Oh, I suspect we could find them quite easily. The hard part is what do we do about them when we catch them?

Much as many would like it to be so, we are not the High Sheriff. Just as well, there are many more that do not want us to be...:rolleyes:
Looking at the IUC (or the ICU or the UIC, pick your favorite), at least one thing stands out to me. This is going to be hard for some to swallow, but any workable governance in Somalia is going to have to be Islamic. Sharia will be the basis (and probably the whole, at first) of the justice system. Somalia is a Muslim country, and any real attempt to govern has to recognize that.I agree but do not see that it will "be hard for some to swallow" as applying to very many people, an even smaller percentage in policy positions or a problem of any magnitude.
To call the region volatile is... one way of putting it, I guess. My view of it is that we keep throwing in dynamite and then wonder where all the explosions are coming from."We" (if you mean the US) have only been around for 200 plus years and our first real interface there was with the establishment of the ASA's Kagnew Station in 1943. If you meant western, generally, that dates peripherally only from the mid-18th Century and directly from only the late 19th -- not counting the Romans who gave up trying to colonize and just traded. That region has been politically volatile for -- violent, really -- for 5,000 years since they domesticated the Camel. Somalis, Tigres and Ethiopians have been fighting each other while the Afars diligently fight all of them. The "dynamite" you cite is but a very small part of the problem -- a problem that is older than all of the European hearth.
I think real change begins with what we stop, rather than what we start. For instance, I would propose we stop stealing a billion dollars' worth of fish per year from African waters.A Billion or 15 Billion -- guesses range below and above those two most often quoted. The Environmental movement likes the larger numbers, Economists the smaller ones but no one really knows. That it occurs is fact, the dollar value is a guess due to the very illegality so often cited -- and never stopped by the Nations involved in doing said illegal things. Thus, I'm unsure of your "we" -- who is this we? Not you, not I -- not even the US as an entity...

If you mean 'we' the west, allow me to point out that's an extremely large and quite diverse 'we' and the likelihood of getting much agreement is slim to non-existent.

In any event, while I philosophically agree with that cessation, I have no clue how to make it happen. Do you have any idea?

So, in effect, you seem to have hopes but no plan. Understandable, it's a knotty problem with no easy remedies. I sincerely hope your hopes are met.

BTW, You provide links and suggest that others counter your 'evidence.' Unfortunately, your first two were as I noted above really opinions and regrettably, the last two fare little better. The first LINK (http://www.tsunamis.com/tsunami-hazardous-waste-somalia.html) according to you cites public records. It does not, it's an opinion piece from a web site with an agenda and no linkage to any records. This second LINK (http://www.ejfoundation.org/page163.html) provides details on West African poaching -- Somalia is on the East coast of Africea...

JMA

02-23-2011, 11:43 PM

carl

02-24-2011, 12:03 AM

This is going to be hard for some to swallow, but any workable governance in Somalia is going to have to be Islamic. Sharia will be the basis (and probably the whole, at first) of the justice system. Somalia is a Muslim country, and any real attempt to govern has to recognize that.

Are we talking about the whole of the area that used to be Somalia or just part of it? The people of Somaliland may not go for being any part of anything but Somaliland and living under their own laws, which I understand are a bit of a mix.

Stan

02-24-2011, 12:27 AM

But Stan you have served in Africa. Now I wonder why they don't ask guys like you with the experience to help with the solution? Maybe they can't chance getting a non-PC answer? When in doubt use proxies.

Actually the non-PC job was never offered while cleaning up still is being for a relatively low salary. I've now concluded that being a fisherman promises better pay, similar danger and risk of life :D

Except that your boots-on-the-ground experience apparently doesn't include remembering what action resulted in the lowest levels of piracy in years. I will happily listen to what information you're able to provide on the subject, but you haven't actually provided any. All you've said is "I've been there, so we should do X."

Much like my comments above and other than you, I have not been considered nor offered the job of getting people back on track. I assure you though we certainly could fix things and with that fix, you still would not be happy with the amount of fish coming in, and, we would still have pirates.

I wish you luck on the fish thing though... You will definitely need it :D

motorfirebox

02-24-2011, 02:06 AM

As I'm sure you realize, the majority of the predation emanates from Europe and the governments that could do something about illegal acts by their nationals do nothing. I doubt the US can affect that at all. How would you suggest they do so?
The usual diplomatic hijinks. How did we get so much of Europe to invade Iraq with us?

Oh, I suspect we could find them quite easily. The hard part is what do we do about them when we catch them?

Much as many would like it to be so, we are not the High Sheriff. Just as well, there are many more that do not want us to be...:rolleyes:
The same could be said about us vs the pirates, for the most part. American citizens are involved in very few of the attacks.

I agree but do not see that it will "be hard for some to swallow" as applying to very many people, an even smaller percentage in policy positions or a problem of any magnitude.
Have you visited the US recently?

That region has been politically volatile for -- violent, really -- for 5,000 years since they domesticated the Camel. Somalis, Tigres and Ethiopians have been fighting each other while the Afars diligently fight all of them. The "dynamite" you cite is but a very small part of the problem -- a problem that is older than all of the European hearth.
I don't know of many regions in the world that aren't plagued by the continuation of ancient wars; and those regions which are free tend to be free because, at some point, one side didn't leave enough of the other alive to continue the feud.

Thus, I'm unsure of your "we" -- who is this we? Not you, not I -- not even the US as an entity...

If you mean 'we' the west, allow me to point out that's an extremely large and quite diverse 'we' and the likelihood of getting much agreement is slim to non-existent.
I mean the west in general, though the practice extends to Russia and southeast Asia as well. As for agreement--it seems to me we've crammed larger items down the rest of the world's throat.

In any event, while I philosophically agree with that cessation, I have no clue how to make it happen. Do you have any idea?

So, in effect, you seem to have hopes but no plan. Understandable, it's a knotty problem with no easy remedies. I sincerely hope your hopes are met.
Hopes with no plan doesn't strike me as a significantly worse proposition than a plan with no hope. I'll certainly agree that attempting to restore something like order to the area is a much more difficult strategy than just shooting people.

BTW, You provide links and suggest that others counter your 'evidence.' Unfortunately, your first two were as I noted above really opinions and regrettably, the last two fare little better. The first LINK (http://www.tsunamis.com/tsunami-hazardous-waste-somalia.html) according to you cites public records. It does not, it's an opinion piece from a web site with an agenda and no linkage to any records. This second LINK (http://www.ejfoundation.org/page163.html) provides details on West African poaching -- Somalia is on the East coast of Africea...
The ejfoundation.org link provides details on sub-Saharan African poaching. Specifically (emphasis mine): "Vulnerable war-torn or post-conflict nations such as Sierra Leone, Angola, Liberia and Somalia are specifically targeted by IUU operations." The information in the other link does not differ significantly from that provided by more accredited sources (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece). I'm fairly familiar with the material, at this point; when someone asks for a source, I tend to pick the first one I find that isn't glaringly wrong, mainly because the information is not very difficult to verify. It's also somewhat difficult to find articles that talk about just the fishing and/or dumping, rather than in conjunction with the stories about piracy--I'm trying to provide the fishing/dumping information in isolation, since there seems to be so much doubt about its relation to piracy.

Much like my comments above and other than you, I have not been considered nor offered the job of getting people back on track. I assure you though we certainly could fix things and with that fix, you still would not be happy with the amount of fish coming in, and, we would still have pirates.

I wish you luck on the fish thing though... You will definitely need it :D
No doubt I wouldn't be happy with the amount of fish coming in, as dead men don't tend to catch many. Which is the problem with the whole strategem, as I see it.

Ken White

02-24-2011, 04:23 AM

The usual diplomatic hijinks. How did we get so much of Europe to invade Iraq with us?The same way we got others to Korea and to Viet Nam -- by buying and dispnsing goodies...

Unfortunately the issue is not getting support for a military operation -- were we to do that, I have no doubt a few would go along. However, the issue as you have couched it is to get them to have their Companies and Fishermen stop doing something they've known of and condoned for years, a totally different kettle of fish -- bad pun intended.

Funny you mention Iraq. One of the initiating factors -- oil and WMD had virtually nothing to do with it -- was the sale of embargoed goods by the French, Germans, Russians and several others to Iraq. Illegal stuff and we chided them about that for some time to no avail. So we invaded, found evidence of that trade -- and suggested all those nations drop their claims of Iraqi indebtedness. They all indignantly refused. Then James Baker took an attache case to Europe, showed them things we'd found in Iraq and asked that they reconsider restructuring Iraqi debt -- they rapidly agreed to do so. There are two points to that. Things are not always what they seem and second, the chimera of international cooperation and friendship is just that -- a chimera. We will not pressure the Europeans because 'it's the right thing to do...' We will not apply pressure on Europe until we see it as in our interest to do so. Nor should we.
The same could be said about us vs the pirates, for the most part. American citizens are involved in very few of the attacks.Apples and Passion Fruit. Pirates are one thing and impede commerce on the seas, a US no-no for 209 years (see Jefferson T., Eaton W. and O'Bannon, P.). Illegal fishing and dumping by others does not impede commerce, thus again a different kettle of Langustas.
Have you visited the US recently?Why, yes. Just last month I reluctantly left Florida for points north -- I try to do that as seldom as possible. Yankees are strange folks...:D

Born and lived in the US for over 60 of my almost 80 years. Lived in twelve States, one territory and the District of Columbia, all four corners included. Have relatives in every region of the country -- just got an e-mail from an ex-Daughter in Law in the midwest. She say's its quite cold. I also talk to a lot of people from all over the country and I do not restrict myself to a circle of those who thinking mirrors mine. Nor do I pay much attention to the idiots and ignoramuses (ignoramii???) in our news media or waste much time with TV -- good way to get a really skewed and misinformed view of what's going on...

What's your point?
I don't know of many regions in the world that aren't plagued by the continuation of ancient wars; and those regions which are free tend to be free because, at some point, one side didn't leave enough of the other alive to continue the feud.True. I don't know what your point is, mine may not have been clearly stated. It was that all the niceness and good intentions in the world aren't going to change the horn of Africa much ergo it would behoove those who would 'assist' to give how and what they will do considerable thought.

That does not mean nothing should be done, simply that good intentions and lofty goals are not enough to make a difference.
I mean the west in general, though the practice extends to Russia and southeast Asia as well. As for agreement--it seems to me we've crammed larger items down the rest of the world's throat.More dynamite? :wry:

We have crammed things down many throats but that was then and this is now. The things this nation did when I was a kid -- when you were a kid -- it can no longer do. Nor can other nations. Thus I still ask, how do you propose 'we' stop the stealing of fish from African waters?
Hopes with no plan doesn't strike me as a significantly worse proposition than a plan with no hope. I'll certainly agree that attempting to restore something like order to the area is a much more difficult strategy than just shooting people.It is worse -- because one then expects to receive something or achieve a goal and that hope will be unfulfilled creating great ennui and general mopiness. I believe no one has thus far proposed a plan with no hope so that category doesn't seem to apply. :wry:

Better to develop a plan that will attract support. It must address all the causative factors and not just those readily apparent or of special interest and thus minimize the chance for too many unintended consequences (there will always be some) and resultant blowback. Otherwise, it is possible to do more harm than good.

It should also be noted that sometimes there's little option to just shooting people -- though it helps immensely if the right folks get shot -- an area of effort where the US occasionally excels, ocasionally fails. :rolleyes:
The ejfoundation.org link provides details on sub-Saharan African poaching. Specifically (emphasis mine): "Vulnerable war-torn or post-conflict nations such as Sierra Leone, Angola, Liberia and Somalia are specifically targeted by IUU operations."Did not find that quote but a Google of the site turns up their concern with Somalia. No matter.
The information in the other link does not differ significantly from that provided by more accredited sources...I'm trying to provide the fishing/dumping information in isolation, since there seems to be so much doubt about its relation to piracy.Accredited is in the eye of the beholder, that article is from a more or less reputable newspaper but is not straight news with sources and again provides the same UN guy's comments.

I do not -- and do not think many -- doubt a contribution of illegal fishing to the Piracy off Somalia issue. I and I suspect others would also give some credence to the dumping as a contributing factor. My guess is that those are just two of many factors that are involved. However I strongly doubt that remediation of those factors would would lead to a significant decline in the Piracy. Other, more murky things are also issues in the activity and they are more difficult to address and curtail. A part of the overall issue is that it was seen developing and neither a coherent policy or effective strategy to nip it in the development phase could be hashed out among all the competing players. Thus it continued to develop and the west's lackadaisical response merely encourages growth. We do that a lot. Being nice is not always its own reward...

Pity the World isn't more straightforward...

motorfirebox

02-24-2011, 06:03 AM

We will not pressure the Europeans because 'it's the right thing to do...' We will not apply pressure on Europe until we see it as in our interest to do so. Nor should we.
Nor should we? Why in the world not?

Apples and Passion Fruit. Pirates are one thing and impede commerce on the seas, a US no-no for 209 years (see Jefferson T., Eaton W. and O'Bannon, P.). Illegal fishing and dumping by others does not impede commerce, thus again a different kettle of Langustas.
Illegal fishing and dumping don't impede our commerce, that's true.

Why, yes. Just last month I reluctantly left Florida for points north -- I try to do that as seldom as possible. Yankees are strange folks...:D
My point was that there's a large portion of the US which sees Islam as the enemy, which would make helping or installing a Muslim-based government/governance politically unwise.

True. I don't know what your point is, mine may not have been clearly stated. It was that all the niceness and good intentions in the world aren't going to change the horn of Africa much ergo it would behoove those who would 'assist' to give how and what they will do considerable thought.
It is the contention of several in this thread that Somalia (and Africa) is the way it is and nothing has changed or will ever change that. To maintain this contention, of course, they have to ignore the very rapid change which overcame Somalia earlier in the decade... which was undone and then some directly after it occurred.

We have crammed things down many throats but that was then and this is now. The things this nation did when I was a kid -- when you were a kid -- it can no longer do. Nor can other nations. Thus I still ask, how do you propose 'we' stop the stealing of fish from African waters?
Like I said, the usual. Apply some political pressure. If it's okay to sic the CIA on piracy financiers, there's no impediment to siccing them on illegal fishers and dumpers.

It is worse -- because one then expects to receive something or achieve a goal and that hope will be unfulfilled creating great ennui and general mopiness.
Well, that's a philosophical debate that could go one forever.

Accredited is in the eye of the beholder, that article is from a more or less reputable newspaper but is not straight news with sources and again provides the same UN guy's comments.
At this point, I'm not going to bother defending my sources. The sources who are providing information that favors simply shooting pirates until they stop pirating have, in fact, provided no actual information--only platitudes about how pirates are really like hoods. Platitudes which are largely belied by the fact that going in and shooting people is basically the only strategy we've put any effort into. And, hey, even after all that shooting, Somalia is still a violent hellhole that spills over into neighboring states. It passes understanding why someone would firmly believe that the answer--the whole answer--is even more shooting.

I was asked for UN sources, I provided the same. I was asked for non-blog sources, I provided the same. I was asked for sources that were not watchdog groups, I provided the same. Are these sources ironclad and irrefutable? Not in the least. The majority opinion among western governments seems to be that the whole thing should be ignored unless it's absolutely unavoidable to do otherwise; of course there's very little in the way of high-level talk about actual causes and solutions. But the sources I've provided, despite their admittedly questionable provenance and veracity, are certainly more than anyone else has provided in opposition.

I do not -- and do not think many -- doubt a contribution of illegal fishing to the Piracy off Somalia issue. I and I suspect others would also give some credence to the dumping as a contributing factor. My guess is that those are just two of many factors that are involved. However I strongly doubt that remediation of those factors would would lead to a significant decline in the Piracy. Other, more murky things are also issues in the activity and they are more difficult to address and curtail. A part of the overall issue is that it was seen developing and neither a coherent policy or effective strategy to nip it in the development phase could be hashed out among all the competing players. Thus it continued to develop and the west's lackadaisical response merely encourages growth. We do that a lot. Being nice is not always its own reward...
No, there wouldn't be a direct decline in piracy as a result of cracking down on illegal fishing and dumping. The reward for being nice, in this case, is being seen being nice. Piracy will absolutely continue if all we do is stop illegal fishing and dumping--even if we're 100% successful. But halting or slowing those activities provides, on top of credit for us with Somalis, increased ability for Somalis to pursue non-pirate lines of work. It's the start of a way forward. From there, we and they can work towards actual stability and actual law and order.

Stan

02-24-2011, 08:49 AM

At this point, I'm not going to bother defending my sources. The sources who are providing information that favors simply shooting pirates until they stop pirating have, in fact, provided no actual information--only platitudes about how pirates are really like hoods. Platitudes which are largely belied by the fact that going in and shooting people is basically the only strategy we've put any effort into. And, hey, even after all that shooting, Somalia is still a violent hellhole that spills over into neighboring states. It passes understanding why someone would firmly believe that the answer--the whole answer--is even more shooting.

I was asked for UN sources, I provided the same. I was asked for non-blog sources, I provided the same. I was asked for sources that were not watchdog groups, I provided the same. Are these sources ironclad and irrefutable? Not in the least. The majority opinion among western governments seems to be that the whole thing should be ignored unless it's absolutely unavoidable to do otherwise; of course there's very little in the way of high-level talk about actual causes and solutions. But the sources I've provided, despite their admittedly questionable provenance and veracity, are certainly more than anyone else has provided in opposition.

No, there wouldn't be a direct decline in piracy as a result of cracking down on illegal fishing and dumping. The reward for being nice, in this case, is being seen being nice. Piracy will absolutely continue if all we do is stop illegal fishing and dumping--even if we're 100% successful. But halting or slowing those activities provides, on top of credit for us with Somalis, increased ability for Somalis to pursue non-pirate lines of work. It's the start of a way forward. From there, we and they can work towards actual stability and actual law and order.

Let’s be fair to those in this thread who share their years of experience and have not said they provide evidence herein to back their statements. You may not know that most of us have multiple tours in Africa, and, there are several that are still there. Not all of us are military and our individual roles would surprise you. The people that I continue to prepare and teach for missions in Africa have all come back thankful. I take that to say what was provided is in fact proof I do know what I’m talking about – as they have returned alive.

Reading diplomatic notes and regurgitated UN documents is fairly boring and the results are equally ineffective. I personally don’t take stock in dip notes and innuendo and that is why I asked you to support your evidence theory. What you linked may be sufficient for some, but not for me.

Simply shooting pirates is not the cure-all but there are few alternatives. You yourself admitted that returning fishing rights and clearing toxic dumping will not fix the piracy problems. Now that the pirates have upped the ante by shooting their victims, blowing them out of the water will be something the western public can swallow and will also be considered PC and fair game.

If you think a good deed will make us look good in the eyes of the Somalis or any other African, then I submit you have no clue what you’re talking about.

carl

02-24-2011, 12:05 PM

Platitudes which are largely belied by the fact that going in and shooting people is basically the only strategy we've put any effort into.

This is a judgment call but I don't think we've put much effort into that at all. Oh occasionally we get one if there is absolutely no other option but seeing as the pirates control over 30 ships and there are at least 8 pirate mother ships out (last time I checked) and they keep taking ships on a regular basis farther and farther out to sea, I'd say we have not been very energetic. Our strategy has actually been doing nothing much at all besides wringing our hands and hoping it will stop.

I liked my observations about hoods. I was hoping you would too. Granted, they are only based upon my life's experience, the historical record of mankind and the unchanging nature of man. I find that when dealing with the obvious facets of human nature, academic citations are superfluous, sorting of like citing a NASA study when you say the sun comes up in the east.

Ken White said this "It should also be noted that sometimes there's little option to just shooting people..." If you have some time, I suggest you hang out in Goma, Bukavu or Bunia for a while. There are probably some NGOs over there that could use you. After you've been there for a few months and heard some things and talked to some people, I suspect you will see why Ken said that. Stan might agree.

If you care too, I would be interested in the answers to the questions I posed to you.

Bob's World

02-24-2011, 12:23 PM

This is a law enforcement matter.

Laws broken on the high seas fall under that jurisdiction. Problem is that these pirates, much like those who worked the Caribbean years ago, hail from ports where there is no rule of law, and it is far easier, I suspect, to find and deal with pirates on the ground than at sea.

This is further complicated by a range of cost/benefit equations. Do we kill pirate and up the odds they will kill those they kidnap? Do we spend billions on enforcement to save millions in ransom? Do other indirect costs balance this out? Who's costs are those and who should pay costs of enforcement? If raids are made onto shore, is the value from such raids higher than the costs in terms of relations with those who control this region, relations with the populaces of this region, etc?

Perhaps we just put a bounty on Pirates and grant licenses to collect those bounties to rival tribal factions? Right now being a pirate is a great low risk way to get rich. Why shouldn't others have a chance to make a buck as well? Better to have Somali's killing each other than to inject some big foreign military presence into the middle of this mess. It takes some of the fun out of being a rockstar when some other hungry group can make their own fortune by taking me out.

If only the pirates are making money, then soon only the pirates will have power, and shortly after that they will be the government. Then we will be dealing with pirates in even more complicated ways, with enhanced sanctuary, etc. Or, perhaps enabling them to take control of the state robs them of their current sanctuary and brings them within the rule of law more effectively than any direct actions against them could.

Right now though it seems the approach is to simply ignore it. Must mean that the costs have not yet exceeded the benefits of the current system to those being targeted.

tequila

02-24-2011, 01:22 PM

Some additional info (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/africa/24pirates.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)on the killings of the four Americans:

... “The pirates on the Quest seemed relieved and were exceptionally calm in discussions with the negotiator,” said the military official. He said the Americans placed an offer on the table. The pirates could take the Quest, or another small Navy boat. But they had to release the hostages and could not take them to join the hundreds of travelers who are believed being held for ransom in pirate strongholds.

The pirates communicated back that they wanted to sleep on the offer, the military official said. The Americans agreed, giving them eight hours.

Whatever calm the pirates displayed on the surface masked a roiling split, according to one person who has been in contact with Somali pirate cells, including people who were in communication with others who know those aboard the Quest.

...

The person in contact with pirate cells said a gun fight had broken out below deck on the Quest, likely over money or the hostages’ fate.

American officials theorize this may have been the case. Five minutes after the pirates fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the Sterett, and small arms fire erupted, 15 Navy SEAL commandos stormed the yacht. The hostages were dead or dying. American officials said it was unclear whether they had been executed or killed in the pirates’ cross-fire.

Other pirate hostages have died in captivity or during rescue attempts, but there are few, if any, cases of pirates intentionally killing hostages.

The commandos shot and killed one pirate and stabbed another. Two other pirates were found dead, apparently killed by their comrades, and 13 surrendered to the Americans ...

motorfirebox

02-24-2011, 01:49 PM

Let’s be fair to those in this thread who share their years of experience and have not said they provide evidence herein to back their statements. You may not know that most of us have multiple tours in Africa, and, there are several that are still there. Not all of us are military and our individual roles would surprise you. The people that I continue to prepare and teach for missions in Africa have all come back thankful. I take that to say what was provided is in fact proof I do know what I’m talking about – as they have returned alive.
As I said, I don't have any argument with you on what one should and should not do when one is in Africa.

This is a judgment call but I don't think we've put much effort into that at all. Oh occasionally we get one if there is absolutely no other option but seeing as the pirates control over 30 ships and there are at least 8 pirate mother ships out (last time I checked) and they keep taking ships on a regular basis farther and farther out to sea, I'd say we have not been very energetic. Our strategy has actually been doing nothing much at all besides wringing our hands and hoping it will stop.
I was talking about our strategy with regards to Somalia as a whole.

I liked my observations about hoods. I was hoping you would too. Granted, they are only based upon my life's experience, the historical record of mankind and the unchanging nature of man. I find that when dealing with the obvious facets of human nature, academic citations are superfluous, sorting of like citing a NASA study when you say the sun comes up in the east.
If the nature of things in Somalia seems obvious to you, it's because you haven't given the matter enough study. There are similarities between the average Somali teenager and the average street gang member, but there are also striking differences.

Ken White said this "It should also be noted that sometimes there's little option to just shooting people..." If you have some time, I suggest you hang out in Goma, Bukavu or Bunia for a while. There are probably some NGOs over there that could use you. After you've been there for a few months and heard some things and talked to some people, I suspect you will see why Ken said that. Stan might agree.
I am well aware that there are situations--many situations--where shooting people is the only good option. I'm also aware I'm viewed in this thread as some softie liberal who sheds a tear every time a sparrow falls, but that isn't actually the case. If I thought simply shooting pirates on a scale that couldn't reasonably be called mass slaughter would actually reduce piracy, I'd be in favor of it. If I though the mass slaughter of Somalis would have a net positive effect on the region, I'd be in favor of it. I'm not in favor of just shooting Somalis when I don't think it will have a net positive effect for them or for us.

If you care too, I would be interested in the answers to the questions I posed to you.
Regarding Somaliland, I'd leave it alone for now. Regarding poverty, you can be richer than someone else and still be dirt poor. That was sort of my point when I mentioned the poverty line in the US representing fantastic wealth.

JMA

02-24-2011, 02:01 PM

If I thought simply shooting pirates on a scale that couldn't reasonably be called mass slaughter would actually reduce piracy, I'd be in favor of it. If I though the mass slaughter of Somalis would have a net positive effect on the region, I'd be in favor of it. I'm not in favor of just shooting Somalis when I don't think it will have a net positive effect for them or for us.

Here we go again.

What dare I ask would constitute mass slaughter in your eyes?

Ken White

02-24-2011, 03:45 PM

Nor should we? Why in the world not?Because applying diplomatic pressure on items simply to make some feel warm and fuzzy never works. If there is no pressing interest, the tendency is to suffer from the interference. There are plenty of examples but our very misguided and further misapplied last effort effort re: Somalia is but one example.
Illegal fishing and dumping don't impede our commerce, that's true.Then if our commerce is not disrupted, we have no interest involved ergo, we should butt out -- other than mouthing platitudes...
My point was that there's a large portion of the US which sees Islam as the enemy, which would make helping or installing a Muslim-based government/governance politically unwise.I disagree that portion is large -- it is vocal -- and the political palatability problems would be minimal. Distrust -- or even dislike -- is not the same as a desire to harm or otherwise impede, particualrly if the target is 8,000 miles away.
It is the contention of several in this thread that Somalia (and Africa) is the way it is and nothing has changed or will ever change that. To maintain this contention, of course, they have to ignore the very rapid change which overcame Somalia earlier in the decade... which was undone and then some directly after it occurred.Why did it become undone so easily?
Like I said, the usual. Apply some political pressure. If it's okay to sic the CIA on piracy financiers, there's no impediment to siccing them on illegal fishers and dumpers.I do not advocate siccing the CIA on either. The entire is issue is an African and to a lesser but contributing extent, Europe's, problem. It is not a US problem other than to provide generic anti-piracy patrols which we do and have done worldwide for over 200 years. That commerce thing...

As Bob's World noted it is also a law enforcement problem and attempting to make it a 'humanitarian' (or an Intelligence / military / political) problem will only create bigger problems.
Well, that's a philosophical debate that could go one forever.Not really any debate. Getting up one's hopes to see 'em dashed is a proven depression bringer. :wry:
At this point, I'm not going to bother defending my sources...It passes understanding why someone would firmly believe that the answer--the whole answer--is even more shooting.Your sources and accuracy of information are enough to make your point. However, they're still opinions and count no more than do the opinions of people who have some experience in the area. It is not the random opinion that counts, it is the consensus of a majority of opinions and the tack they take. My sensing is that most here and I suspect in the broader world can and will applaud your idealism but suspect your determination of the cause is partial and your proposals will not effect the solution you desire.

Note also that I am not advocating more shooting -- though I am pretty sure that any 'solution' to removing or lessening the piracy by Somalis will entail that to some extent -- and I believe who shoots what will be of significance.

What I am suggesting is that the problem is complex and that just fixing Somali governance and eliminating illegal fishing and dumping will not reduce or eliminate it. Nor will going in and shooting up the place. One of the US' worst failures is the constant application of western thought and mores to problems not of the west. That does not work, it gets us into trouble constantly (see Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq...).

It's really nice to be an altruistic person who acts morally and helps others in need. The problem is that Nations are not persons, they have no morals and they are not altruistic. Persons in Nations can try to form, nudge or force the Nation to act morally and even altruistically but they will inevitably create as many problems as they solve in so doing. That does not mean Nations should not act within moral bounds and even pursue altruistic motives, however, it must borne in mind that they CANNOT be forced or seen to act as persons would simply because they aren't persons. Nations have an obligation to their citizens to act in the best interests of all those citizens. Most try to do that and the US in particular generally does it well. That means, however, that the goals and desires of some portion of the citizenry is generally going to be disappointed in the way their Nation acts (or does not) on particular issues.

Note the seven nations to which I referred earlier. In each case, the motive for involvement was altruistic to at least an extent; was planned to be the minimum effort required to succeed in the endeavor; was mostly morally okay -- and was not really in or necessary to our interests. Note where each got us. Those were all cases where the US did not necessarily consider the best interest of all citizens but instead responded to media and interest group pressure to do things not in its interest. Never a good idea...

Is the World really a better place for any of those interferences in the affairs of others?
...But the sources I've provided, despite their admittedly questionable provenance and veracity, are certainly more than anyone else has provided in opposition.IOW you're providing documented opinions to counter their stated opinions? Okay...:D
No, there wouldn't be a direct decline in piracy as a result of cracking down on illegal fishing and dumping. The reward for being nice, in this case, is being seen being nice. Piracy will absolutely continue if all we do is stop illegal fishing and dumping--even if we're 100% successful. But halting or slowing those activities provides, on top of credit for us with Somalis, increased ability for Somalis to pursue non-pirate lines of work. It's the start of a way forward. From there, we and they can work towards actual stability and actual law and order.Well stated. Quite ingenuous but well stated. As they say in the vernacular, 'Good luck with that...'

Yet again I notice a 'we,' undefined to the point I can ask -- what is your contribution to this plan going to be?

Let me repeat something Stan wrote:""If you think a good deed will make us look good in the eyes of the Somalis or any other African, then I submit you have no clue what you’re talking about."" I have to agree and will further expand that to say it applies to at least 80% of the world including other nations and their people. There would be some who'd applaud the effort, even if it failed -- but the vast majority of Nations would (rightly) question "Why are the Americans getting involved in this?" and think, yet again and with some justification, that we're nuts... :wry:

slapout9

02-24-2011, 03:54 PM

Bob's World[/B] noted it is also a law enforcement problem and attempting to make it a 'humanitarian' (or an Intelligence / military / political) problem will only create bigger problems.

Ken, I agree it is a Law Enforcement problem but who would you send? Who has jurisdiction? On the high Seas (International Waters) doesn't that responsibility fall to the US Navy and Marines?

Ken White

02-24-2011, 04:52 PM

Ken, I agree it is a Law Enforcement problem but who would you send? Who has jurisdiction? On the high Seas (International Waters) doesn't that responsibility fall to the US Navy and Marines?It is not a US problem -- other than continuing our generic worldwide anti Piracy patrols. :cool:

The primary law enforcement problem is to eliminate (or reduce to an 'acceptable' level) the piracy. That has to be the responsibility of the local -- to include neighboring -- governments. We can provide funding and training but it is their responsibility. * Any attempts to impose a western solution will almost certainly fail -- expensively...:wry:

The secondary problem is the elimination of illegal fishing and dumping. That is essentially a European problem and thus is their and not our responsibility. :rolleyes:

So the Squids and Leatherheads can remain afloat and we do not need to land the landing force. :cool:

* Note that solution will work, making people responsible for their own fate and neighborhood always does. However, it has two flaws in the eyes of some. It is not quick; It does not allow 'us' to "get involved." Note also that quick fixes rarely work and that "getting involved" where you aren't wanted builds up more hostility to your interference than any transient good you might obtain...

carl

02-24-2011, 04:55 PM

I was talking about our strategy with regards to Somalia as a whole.

I was talking about our strategy, strategems, policy, bag of tricks or whatever concerning the immediate problem, pirates. The longer our strategy concerning pirates is mostly hand-wringing (or maybe was) the bigger this problem gets. The bigger it gets the harder it is to deal with; note al-Shabaab and the pirates recently agreeing to split some ransoms.

If the nature of things in Somalia seems obvious to you, it's because you haven't given the matter enough study. There are similarities between the average Somali teenager and the average street gang member, but there are also striking differences.

The construction of your first sentence in the above quote is interesting. It can be turned 180 degrees to the effect that Motorfirebox hasn't given the nature of piracy in the area that used to be Somalia enough study.

I am well aware that there are situations--many situations--where shooting people is the only good option. I'm also aware I'm viewed in this thread as some softie liberal who sheds a tear every time a sparrow falls, but that isn't actually the case. If I thought simply shooting pirates on a scale that couldn't reasonably be called mass slaughter would actually reduce piracy, I'd be in favor of it. If I though the mass slaughter of Somalis would have a net positive effect on the region, I'd be in favor of it. I'm not in favor of just shooting Somalis when I don't think it will have a net positive effect for them or for us.

No, I view you as a well intentioned guy who sees the good in people and just hasn't come around the realization, a realization that actually kills a very small piece of a good man's heart, that there are people who are black soul destroying vortexes of evil who can't be saved or reasoned with. When you said something along the lines of "nice going Somalia" it was almost like the disappointment of a defence lawyer learning that his client just killed another one.

I am puzzled by your equating the term "mass slaughter" to the breaking of Somali pirates at sea by force. There just aren't that many pirates at sea at any one time and their pattern of behavior is when they are actually shot at or threatened with boarding most all of them give up right away, just like criminals normally do. I just don't see any mass slaughter there.

Regarding Somaliland, I'd leave it alone for now. Regarding poverty, you can be richer than someone else and still be dirt poor. That was sort of my point when I mentioned the poverty line in the US representing fantastic wealth.

I take it that you mean we recognize Somaliland and should leave it as it is.

Please address the point also I raised when I contrasted the two statements you made. In one you say the pirates are motivated mostly by something other than greed, and allude to something along the lines of subsistence level plundering to avoid starving. In the other one you say that Puntland is "swank" by Somali standards with a gov and schools and such. The piracy started big in Puntland. But if Puntland is better off than other parts of the area that used to be Somalia, why did it get big in Puntland rather than the other areas. This does not compute for me.

Could you provide a reference concerning widespread starvation in Puntland? You keep mentioning it. It is might be just as you say but I would like to read it.

You are very energetic. I admire that, taking on Ken, Stan, JMA and Slap all at once. But if you have to take on guys like that all at once about the nature of Africa or genuine bad men, you might want to consider why you are having to take on all those guys at once.

carl

02-24-2011, 04:59 PM

[QUOTE=Ken White;116297]The primary law enforcement problem is to eliminate (or reduce to an 'acceptable' level) the piracy. That has to be the responsibility of the local -- to include neighboring -- governments. We can provide funding and training but it is their responsibility. * Any attempts to impose a western solution will almost certainly fail -- expensively...:wry[QUOTE]

Which are the neighboring governments?

Entropy

02-24-2011, 05:00 PM

I agree with Bob's World and Ken. Not much more I can add.

Ken White

02-24-2011, 07:20 PM

Which are the neighboring governments?That would be Egypt who have their own problems but will likely sort them reasonably soon. Egypt's interest stems from the Canal, Then there are Eritrea and Yemen. the latters interest from transit trade and BTW smuggling betwixt they and the African coast, another factor in the creation of piracy. Eritrea partakes of that smuggling and probably provides support for some groups of pirates. There is a problematic relationship between Eitrea and Ethiopia, another neighbor, land locked, that would benefit from less criminal activity affecting its trade.

However, the closest and most directly affected are Kenya and Djibouti.

Djibouti cannot do much without assistance from France -- who, apparently aren't too interested in doing much about the issue or their own illegal fishing or dumping.

Kenya has a host of problems and is too concerned internally to do much about the Somalis.

Illegal trade and smuggling in and among all those is rampant and a contributor to local income in all the nations. It will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate that but the Piracy is not helpful to any of them and they know it.

As you're well aware, the attitude of "Why should I bust my hump or even do anything when the big guys are willing to do the work..." come into play.

It's their neighborhood and if they have to do so, they'll clean it up. They aren't going to do anything as long as someone else will contain the problem at a level they (not the rest of the world...) can live with...

P.S.

Just ran across this link. Surely the FBI did not err...

LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world/africa/24pirates.html) (Registration required).

motorfirebox

02-25-2011, 04:11 AM

Why did it become undone so easily?
Apparently judges, schools, and doctors aren't much of a match for invading armies sent specifically to destroy them. Who knew.

I do not advocate siccing the CIA on either. The entire is issue is an African and to a lesser but contributing extent, Europe's, problem. It is not a US problem other than to provide generic anti-piracy patrols which we do and have done worldwide for over 200 years. That commerce thing...
The US has a habit of making problems out of things which are not its problem. That habit, in fact, is a large part of the reason the IUC no longer exists.

As Bob's World noted it is also a law enforcement problem and attempting to make it a 'humanitarian' (or an Intelligence / military / political) problem will only create bigger problems.
Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.

Not really any debate. Getting up one's hopes to see 'em dashed is a proven depression bringer.
Yes. I think it will be fairly depressing--to those who are still paying attention by that point--when piracy off the Puntland coast rebounds and continues after we've ventilated a bunch of pirates and then left.

Your sources and accuracy of information are enough to make your point. However, they're still opinions and count no more than do the opinions of people who have some experience in the area.
I wouldn't claim they do. But the opinions I've presented are possessed of actual content. They opine in detail, and give reasons and evidence for their opinons. They present their side of a debate. The opposing argument has, thus far, contained little to no content. It is merely opinion, and while I am more than willing to take into account the opinion of someone who's been there and done that, I'm not going to accept an argument that consists entirely of "I've been there".

What I am suggesting is that the problem is complex and that just fixing Somali governance and eliminating illegal fishing and dumping will not reduce or eliminate it. Nor will going in and shooting up the place. One of the US' worst failures is the constant application of western thought and mores to problems not of the west. That does not work, it gets us into trouble constantly (see Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq...).
Using our various adventures in those regions as a template for westernity, I don't see that my proposition meets the criteria to be considered western thought. I'm largely advocating the opposite of what we've tried in those regions.

Yet again I notice a 'we,' undefined to the point I can ask -- what is your contribution to this plan going to be?
I'd say "about the same that others are going to contribute to the shoot-em-all plan", but around here, I might actually come up short.

Let me repeat something Stan wrote:""If you think a good deed will make us look good in the eyes of the Somalis or any other African, then I submit you have no clue what you’re talking about."" I have to agree and will further expand that to say it applies to at least 80% of the world including other nations and their people. There would be some who'd applaud the effort, even if it failed -- but the vast majority of Nations would (rightly) question "Why are the Americans getting involved in this?" and think, yet again and with some justification, that we're nuts... :wry:
I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.

I was talking about our strategy, strategems, policy, bag of tricks or whatever concerning the immediate problem, pirates.
You were responding to my summary of all our past strategies in Somalia.

The construction of your first sentence in the above quote is interesting. It can be turned 180 degrees to the effect that Motorfirebox hasn't given the nature of piracy in the area that used to be Somalia enough study.
I don't recall drawing any comparisons to solar habits with regard to the horizon.

No, I view you as a well intentioned guy who sees the good in people and just hasn't come around the realization, a realization that actually kills a very small piece of a good man's heart, that there are people who are black soul destroying vortexes of evil who can't be saved or reasoned with.
That's a bit melodramatic.

When you said something along the lines of "nice going Somalia" it was almost like the disappointment of a defence lawyer learning that his client just killed another one.
Gleeful at the prospect of further fees? I mean, come on--berating other countries for taking advantage of Somalia and Africa in general does not equal a belief in the inherent goodness of mankind, much less the inherent goodness of a bunch of guys who can't stop shooting each other long enough to form a government.

I am puzzled by your equating the term "mass slaughter" to the breaking of Somali pirates at sea by force. There just aren't that many pirates at sea at any one time and their pattern of behavior is when they are actually shot at or threatened with boarding most all of them give up right away, just like criminals normally do. I just don't see any mass slaughter there.
There is a real dichotomy between what you want to accomplish, what it would take to accomplish it, and what you're proposing. How do you plan on finding all those pirates out at sea?

Please address the point also I raised when I contrasted the two statements you made. In one you say the pirates are motivated mostly by something other than greed, and allude to something along the lines of subsistence level plundering to avoid starving. In the other one you say that Puntland is "swank" by Somali standards with a gov and schools and such. The piracy started big in Puntland. But if Puntland is better off than other parts of the area that used to be Somalia, why did it get big in Puntland rather than the other areas. This does not compute for me.
I... did address it. Puntland is pretty swank by Somali standards. That means that some people are slightly less poor than the average. If the rest of Somalia is Ciudad Juarez, Puntland and Somaliland are Mexico City. If you're living in Mexico City, you wouldn't say you were outside the range of cartel violence--but you do see less of it than you would if you lived in Juarez.

So, yes, people can still starve to death in swank, sunny Puntland.

Could you provide a reference concerning widespread starvation in Puntland? You keep mentioning it. It is might be just as you say but I would like to read it.
It's easier to find news on Somalia in general (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110203/ap_on_he_me/af_somalia_drought), but there's some to be found (http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Press_Releases_32/Somalia_Puntland_government_issues_emergency_droug ht_appeal.shtml) on Puntland specifically.

But if you have to take on guys like that all at once about the nature of Africa or genuine bad men, you might want to consider why you are having to take on all those guys at once.
There frankly hasn't been much to engage--most of the actual engagement has been from Ken. I'm not trying to insult anyone, here; I respect the opinions of people on these boards more than most of the people I know. I don't post often because, for the most part, I come here to learn.

In this case, though, people here have simply said "X is bad", whereas Ken has said "X is bad because of A, B, and C." I'm not convinced by many of Ken's arguments in this thread, and I wish he'd go on to D, E, and F, but he's made arguments that can be argued. Most of the other posts have offered statements that can be given either a go or a no-go. While I respect the accumulated experience behind those statements, I'm not willing to accept them at face value on a discussion board.

carl

02-25-2011, 06:50 AM

Atta boy Motorfirebox, stay in there and keep punching.

You were responding to my summary of all our past strategies in Somalia.

Well, actually I wasn't, or at least I thought I wasn't. This back and forth is getting pretty complicated so I might have gotten confused. I am not interested, have never been interested, in going over the past mistakes made or not made in the area that used to be Somalia. I am only interested in the present problem of pirates stealing things and killing people.

Holding out for whole cloth solutions makes it less likely immediate decisive action will be taken against piracy and the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more the potential for big big problems, remember the pirates new connection with al-Shabaab. Hey...you haven't commented on their new agreement. What do you think of it?

I don't recall drawing any comparisons to solar habits with regard to the horizon.

Nice evasion. I'll just say it plain then instead of trying to be fancy. Your appreciation of the situation in Somalia indicates to me you have not given the matter enough study. And your appreciation of the behavior of criminals indicates, to me anyway, you haven't dealt with many. I might be wrong about that though.

That's a bit melodramatic.

I tend to that. Is it true though?

Gleeful at the prospect of further fees? I mean, come on--berating other countries for taking advantage of Somalia and Africa in general does not equal a belief in the inherent goodness of mankind, much less the inherent goodness of a bunch of guys who can't stop shooting each other long enough to form a government.

No, disappointed that somebody you put stock into let you down. Now you know that is what I meant. Play fair.

There is a real dichotomy between what you want to accomplish, what it would take to accomplish it, and what you're proposing. How do you plan on finding all those pirates out at sea?

I am glad you asked that question. I wouldn't try so hard to find them when they are out at sea. I would concentrate on somewhat on picking them up as they left the coast but mostly I would concentrate on taking back the ships as they came back to the coast. There is a big ocean out there but only a few places to come back to. Concentrate the forces off the coast and intercept every vessel taken as it returns to the pirate port. That way they come to you. Announce before hand what you are going to do, re-take every pirated vessel, and if any crew members are killed all of the pirate crew will be subject to the death penalty. Then actually do it a few times. I think it would work and the resources needed would not be so great as are being expended now doing essentially nothing.

I would also encourage merchantmen to carry security like the Russians do and it would be useful to set up a checkpoint for boats outbound from the coast. They would have to undergo inspection and anything carrying say more than 1 or 2 rifles and especially an RPG would be sunk on the spot. The fundamental thing though would be to concentrate resources on the place you know the pirates have to go, back to their home base.

I... did address it. Puntland is pretty swank by Somali standards. That means that some people are slightly less poor than the average. If the rest of Somalia is Ciudad Juarez, Puntland and Somaliland are Mexico City. If you're living in Mexico City, you wouldn't say you were outside the range of cartel violence--but you do see less of it than you would if you lived in Juarez.

No, you didn't. You contend the pirates steal and kill mostly because poverty forces them too. But there are other areas in the area that used to be Somalia that are poorer than Puntland that don't do pirating. That calls into question your basic premise that poverty causes this type of criminal behavior.

So, yes, people can still starve to death in swank, sunny Puntland.

It's easier to find news on Somalia in general (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110203/ap_on_he_me/af_somalia_drought), but there's some to be found (http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Press_Releases_32/Somalia_Puntland_government_issues_emergency_droug ht_appeal.shtml) on Puntland specifically.

I read those stories you linked. Thank you for providing them. I would note though they are about problems caused by an ongoing drought and concern that those problems would get worse. There was no mention of mass starvation but 18 deaths were attributed to the drought. There was no mention of starving fisherman, not unusual in that droughts don't generally affect ocean fisherman. There was also no mention any of that pirate money being used to help the farmers and stockmen distressed by the drought.

There frankly hasn't been much to engage--most of the actual engagement has been from Ken.

Ken is a remarkable fellow.

Stan

02-25-2011, 07:35 AM

Ken is a remarkable fellow.

He could probably even tell us about the time he took on the first pirates off the coast of Florida while crab fishing :D

Ken White

02-25-2011, 06:54 PM

Apparently judges, schools, and doctors aren't much of a match for invading armies sent specifically to destroy them. Who knew.I suspect the people that helped pay for that and the forces that went in knew precisely what would occur. My question wasn't aimed at that, I thought it obvious. The question was aimed at the fact that warfare in that area is virtually incessant and does not take any malevolent US influence to get going.

Way before my time but Ethiopians and Somalis have been fighting since the 16th Century. That by western record; local knowledge or oral history probably take it back even further. Probably before your time are some recent activities there I can recall right off the top of my head -- the Border War in the early 60s; Ogaden in '77, Border fights in the early 80s and desultorily continuing all through the 80s and early 90s with an eruption around 1999 IIRC. So, yeah, the Ethiopian invasion did that destroy thing but it was merely a continuation of an ancient pattern which is not going to be changed by well intentioned interference.

You elide the fact that the 'judges' were a part of the problem. The intent was to disrupt the Islamic Courts. You may not agree that was a worthwhile operation but the Ethiopians with far more knowledge of the area and experience there than anyone commenting here happens to possess did think it a good enough idea to get some of their people killed to implement it. You may second guess that, you obviously do -- but you might ask yourself if you really have the knowledge to ask ALL the right questions instead of just some in which you're interested.

The US has a habit of making problems out of things which are not its problem. That habit, in fact, is a large part of the reason the IUC no longer exists.I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...

Let me suggest that you consider the fact that the 'habit' you cite shows a record of interference here and there -- outside the western hemisphere, mostly only Post WW II for what should be obvious reasons -- and ponder whether those who directed or employed such interference thought, based on their knowledge at the time, that it was in US interest to do so and that regardless of effect, the intentions were primarily every bit as 'honorable' as are your intentions in interfering.
Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.That is whom?
Yes. I think it will be fairly depressing--to those who are still paying attention by that point--when piracy off the Puntland coast rebounds and continues after we've ventilated a bunch of pirates and then left.Uh, actually, I've been paying attention for quite some time and plan on doing so for some years. So IF (big if...) that occurs, I will not be surprised or depressed. I'll just be able to say to you "I told you so..." Sad things is that even were your ideas -- or\, actually, those of various organizations which you espouse -- implemented, I'm quite confident I'd be able to do the same thing...
I wouldn't claim they do... I'm not going to accept an argument that consists entirely of "I've been there".[/quote[Nor should you. Neither should you accept the opinions of others blindly.[quote]Using our various adventures in those regions as a template for westernity, I don't see that my proposition meets the criteria to be considered western thought. I'm largely advocating the opposite of what we've tried in those regions.I disagree, you're after the rule of law -- a distinctly western concept (as are judges...) -- and again I suggest that rather than ascribing malignant intent to all others who've interfered, you consider that their intentions may have been as good as are yours.

Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west. :D
I'd say "about the same that others are going to contribute to the shoot-em-all plan", but around here, I might actually come up short.Astute observation. not least because some here have actually been on the ground there and whether you accept it or not, may have knowledge or insights tha cannot be obtained by erudition.
I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.That comment seems to indicate that you totally missed my point -- I am emphatically not recommending pirate hunting, rather the opposite

As I wrote above, give some thought to the fact that previous interference in that area (or elsewhere) should not automatically be assigned evil intent. Most such interference actually has good intentions -- you may not agree with a particular set but that does not mean they were wrong and you are correct, merely that opinions differ. Consider also that this thread is indicative of the fact that your presumed good intention meets with other persons who disagree that your brand of interference is one bit better than the earlier models...
Ken has said "X is bad because of A, B, and C." I'm not convinced by many of Ken's arguments in this thread, and I wish he'd go on to D, E, and F, but he's made arguments that can be argued.That sounds like arguing for arguing's sake. I try not to do that. I do try to give people things that it appears to me they might not have considered or that they are treating as superficial impediment when my observation and experience has been those factors may not be superficial and could lead to getting people killed unnecessarily. That I'll generally try to preclude by commenting. If anything I write here keeps one more kid from an unnecessary death, I will have done good...

Let me suggest that you use words stemming from 'argue' quite often. Argument as you appear to use it is actually an academic effort. What's going on in Somalia and Puntland is not academic. Sticking one's nose in that is likely to dispel all notions of 'argument.' It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality.

Basically, you ask for western intervention, I don't know if I can provide the 'F' but the 'D' is that you should consider that other interventions were no more evil or disruptive than your proposed model is likely to be.

The "E" I posted to Carl above:

""Illegal trade and smuggling in and among all those is rampant and a contributor to local income in all the nations. It will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate that but the Piracy is not helpful to any of them and they know it.

As you're well aware, the attitude of "Why should I bust my hump or even do anything when the big guys are willing to do the work..." come into play.

It's their neighborhood and if they have to do so, they'll clean it up. They aren't going to do anything as long as someone else will contain the problem at a level they (not the rest of the world...) can live with...""

The last sentence and its parenthetical comment are important. The point, of course, is that any band-aid solution not designed and implemented there by locals is not going to work. Period.

Ken White

02-25-2011, 07:01 PM

He could probably even tell us about the time he took on the first pirates off the coast of Florida while crab fishing :DBetter eatin' than Crabs... ;)

I remember when Ol' Commodore Porter came down, '23, I think it was, to chase pirates outa the Keys -- and this is no stuff, we ... :D

slapout9

02-25-2011, 07:07 PM

Heres Ken fighting Pirates!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGK6az5ifZc&playnext=1&list=PL1A001612D1934B25

Stan

02-25-2011, 07:42 PM

slapout9

02-25-2011, 07:49 PM

Not sure how LEOs deal with situations like this, but suffices to say Africans don't do "No" without something for them on the table first. Not much to argue with when you have an armed and uneducated African at the helm :wry:

I thought the last line in the article was interesting, which basically said they may have been killed because the Pirates had a disagreement over what to do. Stranger things have happened.

Ken White

02-25-2011, 08:42 PM

Waiting to see what boils out over the next week or so over the Hostage Negotiator bit...

carl

02-25-2011, 09:37 PM

I have a question for Slap and Stan. How much of hostage negotiation is dependent upon culture? How much of what the FBI knows would be of use with Somalis?

JMA

02-25-2011, 10:37 PM

Thanks Slap ! That's exactly how I pictured Ken years ago with a blonde :D

Just ran across this article from the LA Times...

U.S. officials defend strategy in talks with pirates (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-pirates-20110225,0,2601991.story)

Not sure how LEOs deal with situations like this, but suffices to say Africans don't do "No" without something for them on the table first. Not much to argue with when you have an armed and uneducated African at the helm :wry:

These negotiators were probably trained in the US so probably subscribe to the "softly, softly" approach.

Somalis and others getting into negotiations with US look in the main in what incentive (how much in the briefcase) the US are prepared to offer.

This is viewed as weak... and it is.

One can see the mental weakness in the approach to that situation in the following extract from the article:

"The thought was, if these guys succeed in getting the hostages to shore, we have almost no leverage anymore," a U.S. Defense official said.

Now one may ask how a yacht could possibly outrun a Navy destroyer?

In an African view the US Navy were in the strongest position and and had the boot been on the other foot there the pirates would have realised that they stood little or no chance of personal survival... plus there would be a possibility that further retribution would be visited upon their family and clan back home.

Instead they realise that the US will do just about anything to save the hostages. So when their two negotiators sent to the destroyer to negotiate are detained they said OK if that's the way you want to play it we will take away what you really want... then we will put our hands in the air and the idiot yanks won't even shoot us for killing their people.

Even if they get twenty years in some US jail they will see it that they survived after punching the US on the nose (killing their people) as a victory no matter how small. When they finally get back to their village they will be remembered as the ones who kicked the Americans ass. and yes, they would be likely to survive 20 years in a US jail which is not the case in 90% of African jail systems.

I suggest that until they get Africa savvy negotiators on those ships they should just accept that the hostages will be lucky to survive and US style negotiations are likely to confuse and alarm the pirates than reassure them.

slapout9

02-26-2011, 12:26 AM

I have a question for Slap and Stan. How much of hostage negotiation is dependent upon culture? How much of what the FBI knows would be of use with Somalis?

carl, I don't know how the FBI would/does train hostage negotiators to operate outside the US. I would assume that the culture is factored in somehow but to what extent I don't know. I went through a 1st responder type class for street officers and the instructor taught to identify what type of motivation the hostage taker most likely had as soon as possible (if it was possible) the 3 main ones were Political-Criminal-Domestic. That information would be passed to the negotiator.

JMA

02-26-2011, 01:03 AM

I went through a 1st responder type class for street officers and the instructor taught to identify what type of motivation the hostage taker most likely had as soon as possible (if it was possible) the 3 main ones were Political-Criminal-Domestic.

And in the case of the Somali pirates the motivation would be?

motorfirebox

02-26-2011, 08:00 AM

Nice evasion. I'll just say it plain then instead of trying to be fancy. Your appreciation of the situation in Somalia indicates to me you have not given the matter enough study. And your appreciation of the behavior of criminals indicates, to me anyway, you haven't dealt with many. I might be wrong about that though.
No offense, but I don't see indications that you're qualified to make that judgment. A large part of your arguments rest on your idea on human nature and criminality rather than on information on Somalia. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but it doesn't engender confidence that you know enough about Somalia to tell me I don't know much about Somalia.

No, disappointed that somebody you put stock into let you down. Now you know that is what I meant. Play fair.
I am being fair. I don't put any more stock on Somalis than I put in anyone else--which is to say very little. The fact that I'm calling other nations wrong doesn't mean I'm calling Somalia right, and the fact that I'm calling other nations bad especially doesn't mean that I'm calling Somalia good. And maybe I've just been associating with the wrong sorts of people, but most of the defense lawyers I've met would react the way I described rather than the way you described.

I am glad you asked that question. I wouldn't try so hard to find them when they are out at sea. I would concentrate on somewhat on picking them up as they left the coast but mostly I would concentrate on taking back the ships as they came back to the coast. There is a big ocean out there but only a few places to come back to. Concentrate the forces off the coast and intercept every vessel taken as it returns to the pirate port. That way they come to you. Announce before hand what you are going to do, re-take every pirated vessel, and if any crew members are killed all of the pirate crew will be subject to the death penalty. Then actually do it a few times. I think it would work and the resources needed would not be so great as are being expended now doing essentially nothing.
My understanding is that the vast majority of pirate attacks in the region go unreported. I think I talked earlier about why that is--shipping companies don't want to admit when their ships get pirated, because their insurance premiums will go up. Part of the reason piracy in the region is so successful is that it's cheaper for companies to treat privately with hostage takers than to call for help. Now, cases like this recent one, where the pirates were dumb enough to take a private yacht? Sure, track them down. But... they're likely to surrender rather than fight back, or at least fight back long enough for us to kill them all. I'm going to say that shooting them after they surrender (arresting them wouldn't, as I understand your argument, do much towards promoting the ends you're trying to accomplish) would be pretty illegal and leave it at that.

I would also encourage merchantmen to carry security like the Russians do and it would be useful to set up a checkpoint for boats outbound from the coast. They would have to undergo inspection and anything carrying say more than 1 or 2 rifles and especially an RPG would be sunk on the spot.
Sure.

The fundamental thing though would be to concentrate resources on the place you know the pirates have to go, back to their home base.
Which is on shore, which gets back to the whole thing where you have to kill lots of people. Now, going after the 'motherships' would be workable and have an effect, though since piracy got pretty big before the whole mothership idea was hit on, it wouldn't stop it or have enough effect for us to say we beat piracy.

No, you didn't. You contend the pirates steal and kill mostly because poverty forces them too. But there are other areas in the area that used to be Somalia that are poorer than Puntland that don't do pirating. That calls into question your basic premise that poverty causes this type of criminal behavior.
Well, two things. One, Puntland had a pretty solid fishing industry until the fish started running out (they still do, to some extent). That gives that region ready access to a necessary tool of piracy: boats. Two, it seems to be moving away (http://piracy-studies.org/?tag=puntland) from Puntland (pdf link) (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2010.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/MUMA-83N2WN-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf).

There was also no mention any of that pirate money being used to help the farmers and stockmen distressed by the drought.
They're not making donations. They're pursuing capitalism (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/01/us-somalia-piracy-investors-idUSTRE5B01Z920091201).

motorfirebox

02-26-2011, 08:01 AM

The question was aimed at the fact that warfare in that area is virtually incessant and does not take any malevolent US influence to get going.

Way before my time but Ethiopians and Somalis have been fighting since the 16th Century. ...So, yeah, the Ethiopian invasion did that destroy thing but it was merely a continuation of an ancient pattern which is not going to be changed by well intentioned interference.

You elide the fact that the 'judges' were a part of the problem. The intent was to disrupt the Islamic Courts. You may not agree that was a worthwhile operation but the Ethiopians with far more knowledge of the area and experience there than anyone commenting here happens to possess did think it a good enough idea to get some of their people killed to implement it. You may second guess that, you obviously do -- but you might ask yourself if you really have the knowledge to ask ALL the right questions instead of just some in which you're interested.I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...
Well, regarding the Ethiopians, they certainly have better knowledge of the region but they also have a dog in that fight (to put it mildly). I'm from Pittsburgh. Ask anybody in this town who the best football team in the AFC is, and they'll probably have the information necessary to give you an accurate response--but they're more likely to say "Steelers". And then punch you for having to ask.

No, warfare in the region doesn't take any US involvement to get going. But that war at that time? That was US involvement. I mean, heck, by that logic, it oughtta be okay for you and me to invest in some Somali pirates. After all, piracy doesn't take any US involvement to get going.

That is whom?
In terms of lives and money? The fishers and, especially, the dumpers. (Even before you add, as I do, the lives and money lost to piracy.)

Uh, actually, I've been paying attention for quite some time and plan on doing so for some years. So IF (big if...) that occurs, I will not be surprised or depressed. I'll just be able to say to you "I told you so..."
That was a dig at the attention span of the public at large. Regardless, failure to have an effect is failure to have an effect, whether you started with a plan that was unworkable or intentions that are impossible to implement.

Nor should you. Neither should you accept the opinions of others blindly.
I'm not. I'm accepting them because they make sense. I see that fishing is a large part of the region's income. I see activities that depress fishing in the region. I see piracy increase, and I see pirates talking about retribution for the activities which depressed fishing in the first place.

I disagree, you're after the rule of law -- a distinctly western concept (as are judges...) -- and again I suggest that rather than ascribing malignant intent to all others who've interfered, you consider that their intentions may have been as good as are yours.
How in the world is rule of law--a concept which has been espoused by everyone from Confucius to Buddha to the Koran to the Bible to, well, any number of western luminaries--a western concept? Or judges, for that matter--again, you can find examples in China and sharia law, to name two that come to mind.

Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west.
That's too broad a definition to be useful.

As I wrote above, give some thought to the fact that previous interference in that area (or elsewhere) should not automatically be assigned evil intent.
Eh? I'm not assigning evil intent. Selfish intent, in some cases--but not in the case of anyone posting here.

That sounds like arguing for arguing's sake.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that "I think X" and "I think X because Y" are both opinions, but that the first can't really be discussed (only agreed with or disagreed with) and the second can. This is a discussion board; when I post, I post to discuss. Otherwise I'd just say "I don't think we should limit our response to simply shooting pirates" and be done.

Let me suggest that you use words stemming from 'argue' quite often. Argument as you appear to use it is actually an academic effort. What's going on in Somalia and Puntland is not academic. Sticking one's nose in that is likely to dispel all notions of 'argument.' It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality.
The reality of the situation in Somalia has no bearing on making an argument on a discussion board--even a discussion board with members who are, were, or will be directly involved in that reality. Given the caliber of some of the members of this discussion board, it could be... argued... that an argument here could have an effect on the reality in Somalia.

The last sentence and its parenthetical comment are important. The point, of course, is that any band-aid solution not designed and implemented there by locals is not going to work. Period.
I agree to a large extent--ie, no "period". You can't come in and impose a solution and expect it to work. But you can assist with solutions. Ethiopia is actually a good example, here.

motorfirebox

02-26-2011, 08:14 AM

Regardless, the post/reply chain is getting so long that I'm having to break up my posts in order to fit under the character limit. I don't think, at this point, that there's anything new left to say; all that remains is restating what's already been said and/or expanding the discussion far beyond the original topic--both practices I try to not engage in. Despite appearances, I've learned quite a bit, and I hope others have gained as well. If I've seemed short, well, I only pull my punches for low-value targets. There don't seem to be many of those around here.

Stan

02-26-2011, 09:11 AM

Carl,

Culturally speaking, negotiations should be done with the leader; but that doesn’t mean we’ll be dealing with a Colonel or General. In my case it was the entire opposite with uneducated and often “high as a kite” junior NCOs and enlisted.

We can completely throw out the theory of “personal identity and shame on one’s family”. That the hostage takers will reflect on the potential consequences of their actions is pure Bravo Sierra. That trick doesn’t work well in Sub-Sahara -- An African, must above all save face even if he gains nothing through negotiations.

I won’t completely dismiss Maslow’s hierarchy of needs because I believe Africans are primarily driven by their impoverished life. Ransom sums are more than tempting enough to motivate dirt-poor communities to participate, which means we will have a chance in hell on making some absurd impression on the locals by some minuscule act of a good deed.

We stand fast in our belief that we will not negotiate with terrorist and I’m certain that the pirate leader was well aware of the outcome.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that piracy on land is far older than some dispute over fishing rights and toxic dumping. One only need look at hostage taking in Niger for recent history (the Europeans are most favored as they often pay ransoms and do not publicize their efforts).

These negotiators were probably trained in the US so probably subscribe to the "softly, softly" approach.

I suggest that until they get Africa savvy negotiators on those ships they should just accept that the hostages will be lucky to survive and US style negotiations are likely to confuse and alarm the pirates than reassure them.

JMA,
Couldn't have said it better :cool:

Stan

02-26-2011, 09:19 AM

Morning, Motorfirebox !

Regardless, the post/reply chain is getting so long that I'm having to break up my posts in order to fit under the character limit. I don't think, at this point, that there's anything new left to say; all that remains is restating what's already been said and/or expanding the discussion far beyond the original topic--both practices I try to not engage in. Despite appearances, I've learned quite a bit, and I hope others have gained as well. If I've seemed short, well, I only pull my punches for low-value targets. There don't seem to be many of those around here.

I certainly hope you don't go and disappear on us -- it's be a real engagement and there's certainly more to come ;)

Regards, Stan

slapout9

02-26-2011, 03:29 PM

And in the case of the Somali pirates the motivation would be?

Criminal, but I would respond like a gang would.

carl

02-26-2011, 03:59 PM

No offense, but I don't see indications that you're qualified to make that judgment. A large part of your arguments rest on your idea on human nature and criminality rather than on information on Somalia. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but it doesn't engender confidence that you know enough about Somalia to tell me I don't know much about Somalia.

Fair enough. Three things though, first, piracy is not unique to the area the used to be Somalia. It has been around throughout human history in all parts of the world. That suggests it is a normal part of human behavior, like robbing and killing. Therefore a detailed knowledge of the area that used to be Somalia probably isn't needed to have a fair appreciation of the ins and outs of piracy.

Second, I take it that I don't know enough about the area that used to be Somalia to tell you about the area that used to be Somalia and you don't know enough about the area that used to be Somalia to tell me about the area that used to be Somalia. (Diagram that sentence!) Which is fine because we are talking mainly about piracy.

Third, I still get the sense that you haven't dealt much with criminals.

I am being fair. I don't put any more stock on Somalis than I put in anyone else--which is to say very little. The fact that I'm calling other nations wrong doesn't mean I'm calling Somalia right, and the fact that I'm calling other nations bad especially doesn't mean that I'm calling Somalia good. And maybe I've just been associating with the wrong sorts of people, but most of the defense lawyers I've met would react the way I described rather than the way you described.

I've cleverly tricked you into trailing me into a verbal thicket and now both of us are lost. At least I am anyway.

My understanding is that the vast majority of pirate attacks in the region go unreported. I think I talked earlier about why that is--shipping companies don't want to admit when their ships get pirated, because their insurance premiums will go up. Part of the reason piracy in the region is so successful is that it's cheaper for companies to treat privately with hostage takers than to call for help. Now, cases like this recent one, where the pirates were dumb enough to take a private yacht? Sure, track them down. But... they're likely to surrender rather than fight back, or at least fight back long enough for us to kill them all. I'm going to say that shooting them after they surrender (arresting them wouldn't, as I understand your argument, do much towards promoting the ends you're trying to accomplish) would be pretty illegal and leave it at that.

Most of the attacks may be unreported but I rather doubt that most of the ships seized are unreported. I doesn't matter anyway, if a Greek supertanker or a Thai fishing boat approaches close to the shore near..say, Hardaheere, it's likely its' been hijacked. So you hail it and take it back.

Glad to see you're coming around on the point that these guys are more likely to surrender than fight if they are actually confronted, thereby avoiding the dreaded mass slaughter of pirates.

I don't want shoot them after they surrender, not without a fair trail first; and then only if any of merchant crewman are killed when the ship is re-taken. I will say that one of the advantages of Ken's favored course of letting local navies take care of the problem is they are not finicky about how they dispose of pirates. The Kenyans have a no quarter policy I've read.

Arresting them would be fine, especially if they get 33 years sentences at Leavenworth. They seemed upset at that outcome. If they don't get back home with the money, then piracy doesn't pay.

Sure.

Are you being sarcastic or agreeing, I can't tell.

Which is on shore, which gets back to the whole thing where you have to kill lots of people. Now, going after the 'motherships' would be workable and have an effect, though since piracy got pretty big before the whole mothership idea was hit on, it wouldn't stop it or have enough effect for us to say we beat piracy.

You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear. You concentrate your forces offshore OF the pirate bases or just offshore, and retake the ships as they approach. The whole idea of doing that is NOT to go onshore. Offshore, things are localized in one little boat or big ship. And you concentrate near the bases to intercept mother ships on the way out.

Well, two things. One, Puntland had a pretty solid fishing industry until the fish started running out (they still do, to some extent). That gives that region ready access to a necessary tool of piracy: boats. Two, it seems to be moving away (http://piracy-studies.org/?tag=puntland) from Puntland (pdf link) (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2010.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/MUMA-83N2WN-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf).

You don't address my observation that there doesn't seem to be many starving people who turn to piracy or die.

They're not making donations. They're pursuing capitalism (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/01/us-somalia-piracy-investors-idUSTRE5B01Z920091201).

This is a great story and a fine argument for JMA's multiple cruise missile approach. Only in the area that used to be Somalia would an RPG be part of the alimony.

There, I've eaten my breakfast, read the paper and had my morning punch up with Motorfirebox. Now off to the gym.

Stan

02-26-2011, 04:10 PM

Hey Slap,

Criminal, but I would respond like a gang would.

Yep, 100% !

I have to quote the current school system approach and guidance following a hostage situation (due mostly to my pesky nature :eek: )

Be patient. Time is on your side.

The hostage-taker may be emotionally/ psychologically impaired.

Treat the hostage-taker like royalty.

Avoid speculating about danger, the hostage-taker, or rescue.

Be observant. You may be released or find an opportunity to escape. The personal safety of others may depend on your memory.

And, my favorite...

If gunfire erupts, get down. Lie flat on the floor.

EDIT: Er, PS. We're off to a pirate-theme restaurant tonite as all this talk has me hungry for fried king shrimps :p

Those interested in joining us, let's meet at the Corsair (http://www.korsaar.ee/) :)

Ken White

02-26-2011, 05:20 PM

...I mean, heck, by that logic, it oughtta be okay for you and me to invest in some Somali pirates. After all, piracy doesn't take any US involvement to get going.Well, that's circular... :D
In terms of lives and money? The fishers and, especially, the dumpers. (Even before you add, as I do, the lives and money lost to piracy.)I can buy that / them. Who can argue with rectitude. It's a good state. Getting there however requires more than desire and good intentions, it becomes not an academic exercise but an effort in a tough and real world. Thus I have to ask:

How do you propose to do that and who should do it?
I'm not. I'm accepting them because they make sense. I see that fishing is a large part of the region's income. I see activities that depress fishing in the region. I see piracy increase, and I see pirates talking about retribution for the activities which depressed fishing in the first place.They do? Make sense? Not totally, I think. Do you have a large consensus on that?

Fishing is a part, large is highly debatable. Given the relative impacts of pelagic fishing as opposed to subsistence and minor market fishing from small craft, there is depression -- but the amount is slight. Of course you see Piracy increase as any activity that is relatively lucrative, provides 'adventure' and a sense of illegality to young, unemployed males and requires little training or investment is going to increase unless curbs are introduced -- lack of a functional society or governance means there are no curbs. You see them talking retribution, I laugh and see them talking trash -- and seeking a somewhat specious justification they know will resonate with some who will rally to their defense.

So who's correct -- thee or me? Probably the answer is somewhere in between. However and regardless, I strongly suggest you consider the fact that things outside the west (or even inside it for that matter...) are rarely as they seem. It is all too easy to presume that other societies and people think and want as do we -- one learns over time that is rarely the case.
How in the world is rule of law--a concept which has been espoused by everyone from Confucius to Buddha to the Koran to the Bible to, well, any number of western luminaries--a western concept? Or judges, for that matter--again, you can find examples in China and sharia law, to name two that come to mind.All societies have laws, all have judges in some form. Only the west uses the phrase and attitude of the 'rule of law.' Go most anywhere in the world and use the phrase and do not be offended at the laughter it draws. See also this LINK (http://www.google.com/search?q=rule+of+law&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) and pick almost any of them. Western usage is basically that said 'rule' protects citizens from their governments -- that just absolutely will not fly on most of the rest of the globe. You try it on most places and they will eat your lunch and your shorts...

Westerners make money so they can influence power through the rule of law; non-westerners grab power so they can make money and rule the law. If you heed nothing else in this discussion, remember that....
That's too broad a definition to be useful.Oh. It is, huh. Unlike these from an earlier post of yours:
""The US has a habit of making problems out of things which are not its problem.

Using our various adventures in those regions as a template for westernity.""Eye of the beholder, I guess? Your broad definitions have value, others do not? Heh. :D
Eh? I'm not assigning evil intent. Selfish intent, in some cases--but not in the case of anyone posting here.Not to anyone posting here; to the above mentioned US and "westernity" elements and all those earlier interventions of which you apparently disapprove. They were 'wrong' but your proposals are 'right'...:rolleyes:
I'm not sure what you mean...when I post, I post to discuss. Otherwise I'd just say "I don't think we should limit our response to simply shooting pirates" and be done.I see. It appears to me that your discussing tends to adhere to the 'my way or the highway' school of thought. To wit, your 'arguments' are all sound and thoughts in opposition do not pass your test of acceptability. That may not be true but that's the appearance. You seem to reject any suggestion or thought that does not fit you preconceived assessment or received wisdom regarding the piracy. Dismissiveness is not always its own reward... :wry:
The reality of the situation in Somalia has no bearing on making an argument on a discussion board--even a discussion board with members who are, were, or will be directly involved in that reality. Given the caliber of some of the members of this discussion board, it could be... argued... that an argument here could have an effect on the reality in Somalia.Possibly correct, however, my comment was directed toward the academic aspects of nice theory crashing into the harsh reality of Somalia, a place where a number of other theories are dead and buried. I said at the end of that paragraph: "It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality."
I agree to a large extent--ie, no "period". You can't come in and impose a solution and expect it to work. But you can assist with solutions. Ethiopia is actually a good example, here.Assisting is good and I'm all for it -- however, excessive assistance breeds both dependency and resentment and thus can be counterproductive -- even dangerous. Good intentions abound but their list of failures is mind boggling. The fact is also that assisting is not solving, thus my period - it's pretty well valid.

It behooves one to be very knowledgable of the environment as well as rather careful what one does and how one goes about it...

carl

02-26-2011, 05:47 PM

Westerners make money so they can influence power through the rule of law; non-westerners grab power so they can make money and rule the law.

Now that is a sentence. SWJ qoute of the month, if they have that anymore. Why do you write things I wish I thought of?

slapout9

02-26-2011, 06:48 PM

I've cleverly tricked you into trailing me into a verbal thicket and now both of us are lost. At least I am anyway.

This should be the SWJ quote of the week,month or whatever:)

motorfirebox

02-26-2011, 07:42 PM

Morning, Motorfirebox !
I certainly hope you don't go and disappear on us -- it's be a real engagement and there's certainly more to come ;)

Regards, Stan
I'm not disappearing; this is a wide-ranging subject with a lot of neat facets. But with regards to causes and solutions, the prosecution rests.

Regarding piratical practices, though:

I suggest that until they get Africa savvy negotiators on those ships they should just accept that the hostages will be lucky to survive and US style negotiations are likely to confuse and alarm the pirates than reassure them.
I'd like to point out that, the recent episode aside, the hostages survive the vast majority of the time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11470238). That could change--it might be fair to say that is changing--but it remains true currently.

Stan

02-26-2011, 08:47 PM

I'd like to point out that, the recent episode aside, the hostages survive the vast majority of the time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11470238). That could change--it might be fair to say that is changing--but it remains true currently.

I have no links to provide you.

You're not going to like this coming from a "boots-on-the-ground" perspective, but the recent episode brings back nightmares of the late 80s and early 90s in several countries where every African fired defiantly and aimlessly into the air instilling fear in the locals and foreigners… at least until the day came where nobody paid attention any longer.

Like Carl recommended, if you spent some time on the ground you would recognize what is really about to come... and you're not going to like it.

Ken White

02-26-2011, 08:53 PM

...if you spent some time on the ground you would recognize what is really about to come... and you're not going to like it.True dat.:(

carl

02-27-2011, 04:39 AM

JMA

02-27-2011, 09:59 AM

I didn't realize that South Africa had a currently functioning Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_Marine_Corps).

;):)

Mike

Except... "However, it should be noted that this squadron has never had the same level of training and for a long time have been substandard when compared to basic infantry."

Don't hold your breath...

Stan

02-27-2011, 10:00 AM

Here is a link to a story about the International Transport Federation Workers (ITW) thinking about advising mariners to refuse to sail in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden and other pirate infested waters.

http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=1436779405

I don't know what the chances of that happening are but if it did, it would affect the number of ships transiting the Suez Canal. If that happened the Egyptians would be out a lot of money and that might p--- off the Egyptian Navy enough to take action. If that happened, I would not want to be a pirate.

The Suez Canal Authority (http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=2) certainly boasts much more than transit including 50% discounts for vessels calling on Egyptian ports at the Red Sea or Med. Their calculations for saving in distance traveled via the Canal vs the Cape of Good Hope didn't however take into account the January 2011 Greek oil tanker paying 5.5 million bucks in ransom. When that crude hits its destination the price per liter in Europe will be painful :eek:

Egypt has 93 navy ships and their Civil Guard a notorious reputation for swift punishment. Sounds like JMA's proxy plans are in motion with the closing of the Canal :D

motorfirebox

02-27-2011, 10:06 AM

I have no links to provide you.

You're not going to like this coming from a "boots-on-the-ground" perspective, but the recent episode brings back nightmares of the late 80s and early 90s in several countries where every African fired defiantly and aimlessly into the air instilling fear in the locals and foreigners… at least until the day came where nobody paid attention any longer.

Like Carl recommended, if you spent some time on the ground you would recognize what is really about to come... and you're not going to like it.
That's one possible outcome. The money involved is a significant factor, though. Dead hostages net no ransoms. If killing hostages becomes significantly more commonplace, I think the main driver for that change will be the influence of al Shabaab--they'll be looking for more than just a money drop.

There is indication (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/27/somalia.us.yacht/) that the hostages on board the Quest may not have been killed as a result of simple bloodlust, but rather due to the US negotiators making what is--if the allegation is true--an incredibly bad decision.

Stan

02-27-2011, 10:47 AM

That's one possible outcome. The money involved is a significant factor, though. Dead hostages net no ransoms. If killing hostages becomes significantly more commonplace, I think the main driver for that change will be the influence of al Shabaab--they'll be looking for more than just a money drop.

I'm beginning to wonder when this tide turns and the pirates realize that the cargo on the ship is far more valuable than the foreign crew. I saw it in the DRC (then Zaire) following 3 civil wars and by accounts, the NGOs in eastern DRC see it even now.

There is indication (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/27/somalia.us.yacht/) that the hostages on board the Quest may not have been killed as a result of simple bloodlust, but rather due to the US negotiators making what is--if the allegation is true--an incredibly bad decision.

Gotta agree with you there. There's sufficient BBC and LAT posts that turn things in every direction from pirates being upset with their take, retaliation for lost brothers, to DOD saying "he said she said".

US deaths show growing pirate violence in hijackings (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12548045)

Pirate sources have told the media that the Americans shot two pirates dead and the hostages were then killed in retaliation.

U.S. officials defend strategy in talks with pirates (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-pirates-20110225,0,2601991.story)

But several experts wondered whether the U.S. negotiators went too far in pressuring the pirates, which raised tension in an already-fraught situation. An alternative might have been for the Navy to have not told the pirates that it intended to prevent the hostages from being moved.

Somali pirates fight over huge tanker ransom (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8464737.stm)

This is what Carl meant by TIA, and WAWA works too !

As the ransom was due to be delivered on Sunday, pirates on board the tanker and others in speedboats were reportedly already firing weapons at each other.

JMA

02-27-2011, 10:55 AM

I'd like to point out that, the recent episode aside, the hostages survive the vast majority of the time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11470238). That could change--it might be fair to say that is changing--but it remains true currently.

Well "the recent episode aside" has changed all that, yes?

...but it is accepted that the circumstances were somewhat different from the norm in that there was a confrontation with a navy ship with negotiations (I think that's what they called it) taking place.

There will be lessons to be learned from this and I would like to see just how much "advice" was flowing in from all the "smart guys" back at State and wherever which would be guaranteed to complicate matters an impossible level.

JMA

02-27-2011, 11:38 AM

If it were that easy it would be done by now. The idea we don't have the political will to unleash the CIA, in an era where Gitmo is still in full operation, is not one that passes the smell test. As for cruise missiles, these guys operate out of local villages. There's going to be significant collateral damage no matter how well-targeted the missile is. I don't think blowing up one of the more prosperous regions in Somalia is the key to reducing piracy.

What you don't seem to have learned is that the easy things are seldom done. There is a habit of selecting the most complicated of plans of action.

You need to understand that I joke and mock the CIA (as I believe it to be second only to the State Department in rank incompetence). There is a snowballs chance in hell of the CIA finding and shutting down the European connection of the pirates.

I spoke of the cruise missile in the context of the Ivory Coast. That was to eliminate the person most likely to restart the civil war. As that tragic outcome moves closer to a reality the lost opportunity of the cheap and effective option with increasingly be lamented. (Not that the smart guys at State would ever admit that).

You have had it explained to you by a few of the folks around here that whole communities support the piracy operations as it has lifted them out of the subsistence existence they had before. Nobody is neutral. Nobody in these villages wants the money piracy brings to go away. The current prosperity is the result of the proceeds of crime.

There never was a luxury 4x4 vehicle in the area, there never was any dwelling better than they had before:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/2930600641_0ee15d1a85.jpg

So simply put they must return to where they came from... and in addition there should be a payment of compensation to those who they committed these acts against which should keep them that way for the next century or so.

Stan

02-27-2011, 11:41 AM

Great link and sad story by Information Dissemination on Somalia (http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/Somalia)

Somali Pirates Evolve Tactics After US Navy Incident

The tactical agility of pirates has long been something worth observing. It seems this took about a day. (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/02/23/1881751/pirates-add-ammo-men-to-ships.html)

Pirates in Somalia said Wednesday they are ferrying ammunition and men to the 30 hijacked vessels still under their control, and they threatened to kill more captives following the violent end to a hostage standoff that left four Americans dead.

Pirates once were believed to be disgruntled and financially motivated Somali fishermen angry that international trawlers were illegally fishing Somalia's waters. Now criminal gangs dominate the piracy trade, and have begun systematically torturing hostages, including locking them in freezers.

"What we're seeing is that because of the business model the pirates have adopted is so lucrative that you're now getting organized criminal gangs involved as opposed to fishermen who just decided to have a go at piracy," said Wing Commander Paddy O'Kennedy, spokesman for the European Union's anti-piracy force.

"Criminal gangs are more violent than your average fisherman who's turned to piracy," O'Kennedy said.

I think it's fairly clear we are in Africa !

JMA

02-27-2011, 12:14 PM

That's one possible outcome. The money involved is a significant factor, though. Dead hostages net no ransoms. If killing hostages becomes significantly more commonplace, I think the main driver for that change will be the influence of al Shabaab--they'll be looking for more than just a money drop.

Do you really think the owners of say a full oil supertanker give a rats ass about the crew? The ransom is paid to get the ship and its cargo back. The crew are an inconvenience. I mean they may want compensation etc etc.

I would agree that pleasure boats and yachts are taken because they believe such people have money and their lives are the key to getting the ransom.

There is indication (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/27/somalia.us.yacht/) that the hostages on board the Quest may not have been killed as a result of simple bloodlust, but rather due to the US negotiators making what is--if the allegation is true--an incredibly bad decision.

Yes that was my reading (which I commented on in an earlier post). It all comes down once again to who is doing the negotiations.

...but I must comment again on your rush to excuse the Somali's of any blame. First we had your explanation that these poor victims were only resorting to piracy because others were illegally fishing in the Somali territorial waters and worse still others dumping toxic waste. Now that they are not drug (khat) crazed gangsters but only poor people trying to make a living.

What the worlsd needs to show these guys is that theirs was an incredibly bad decision to engage in piracy. I just don't understand the marines apparent need to take prisoners. You place your own men at unneccesary risk by so doing.

JMA

02-27-2011, 12:18 PM

Great link and sad story by Information Dissemination on Somalia (http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/Somalia)

I think it's fairly clear we are in Africa !

To be fair Stan it could be Mexico or ... LA.

JMA

02-27-2011, 12:34 PM

Great link and sad story by Information Dissemination on Somalia (http://www.informationdissemination.net/search/label/Somalia)

Maybe here lies the problem?

In testimony last week, Secretary Gates mentioned during one of the hearings he has over 10,000 lawyers in the DoD, describing it as excessive.

Also:

He said after Tuesday's incident, captains of hijacked ships have been ordered to tell navies not to approach or hostages would be killed.

Well I am not sure there was ever any real danger that it would happen. To get the ships and hostages freed a combined land/sea operation will be required. As hostages of different nationalities will be killed in the process it will never happen.

Then:

In the past, 20 or so soldiers used to guard every ship but now the numbers are ranging between 60 and 70 soldiers," said Ali, a pirate in the coastal village of Gara'ad.

Soldiers? Thugs or gangsters more likely. Unless...

Stan

02-27-2011, 01:05 PM

To be fair Stan it could be Mexico or ... LA.

JMA,
Well... Hmmm, I reckon :D The point about providing the link was to reinforce posts by Carl and Slap such as:

"Criminal gangs are more violent than your average fisherman who's turned to piracy," O'Kennedy said.

A pirate in Somalia who gave his name as Adowe Osman Ali said fellow "soldiers" had ferried the reinforcements to hijacked ships in their hands on Wednesday in a bid to deter more hostage rescue attempts. He said after Tuesday's incident, captains of hijacked ships have been ordered to tell navies not to approach or hostages would be killed.

"In the past, 20 or so soldiers used to guard every ship but now the numbers are ranging between 60 and 70 soldiers," said Ali, a pirate in the coastal village of Gara'ad.

"We are more alert than anytime before," he said. "In the past, we allowed the foreign navies to approach us but now we have warned them to not get nearer to us."

It used to take months for them to get their acts together, now just days. Time for another strategy. I think if you worded it sort of diplomatically, State would go for say several million in missiles and under a beltway bandit contract, you would have your proxy war and end up owning a share in the Suez Canal (along with me having thought up the idea :) )

Stan

02-27-2011, 01:15 PM

Maybe here lies the problem?

Nope, perhaps more likely here:

The only objective a civilian leader will ever discuss for Afghanistan is a withdraw date, and there has never been an objective discussed by political leaders in regards to Somali piracy.

Well I am not sure there was ever any real danger that it would happen. To get the ships and hostages freed a combined land/sea operation will be required. As hostages of different nationalities will be killed in the process it will never happen.

Why waste all that fuel cruising the Somali coast ? History is clear that the navies are hamstrung by government. Time for an African land battle and cut all the hostages free from those new Somali diners croping up in the desert !

Soldiers? Thugs or gangsters more likely. Unless...

Depends on how much khat you've had today :rolleyes:
The Colonel and I called them "our thugs" but we kept them fed. That, and the nearest ocean was 350 clicks away :D

JMA

02-27-2011, 01:24 PM

JMA,
Well... Hmmm, I reckon :D The point about providing the link was to reinforce posts by Carl and Slap such as:

OK, I'm with you... but I thought it was necessary to spread the net of criticism before some smart guy played the race card ;)

It used to take months for them to get their acts together, now just days. Time for another strategy. I think if you worded it sort of diplomatically, State would go for say several million in missiles and under a beltway bandit contract, you would have your proxy war and end up owning a share in the Suez Canal (along with me having thought up the idea :) )

Actually I'll leave that to you (the diplomatic angle that is) and hope that someone (even Iran) will take the bull by the horns and blockade the Somali coast where they anchor the hijacked ships.

As opposed to a cruise missile (other than for taking out the pirate mother ships) I would go for armed UAVs (not B52s) to patrol the Somali coastline. Only when you take the war to them will the tide begin to turn.

JMA

02-27-2011, 01:37 PM

Depends on how much khat you've had today :rolleyes:
The Colonel and I called them "our thugs" but we kept them fed. That, and the nearest ocean was 350 clicks away :D

Stan you do realise with your history you will have a problem making it through them Pearly Gates? ;)

BTW this is an interesting article. SA to join counter-piracy fight (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13734:sa-to-join-counter-piracy-fight&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106)

The decision comes as Reuters reports that pirate gang leaders have agreed to pay al-Shabaab insurgents, who profess loyalty to al-Qaeda 20% of all future ransoms. They also agreed to have hijacked ships anchor at the port town of Haradhere, pirates sources old the news service

OK so there is the al-Qaeda connection. Now that should allow the weak kneed administration to authorise an amphibious assault by the Marines on that little Sodom and Gomorrah pirate town of Haradhere.

Then:

Norwegian shipping magnate Jacob Stolt-Nielsen last week added stronger measures were needed to deal with pirates, saying “The only way to put this business in decline is to hang them.”

“The only language these pirates understand is force,” Stolt-Nielsen told the Norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv (DN). “Sinking their ship will all hands aboard is the way to solve the problem.”

I would agree with him but I would be more comfortable if his motivation was more crime prevention than profit protection.

Stan

02-27-2011, 01:52 PM

As opposed to a cruise missile (other than for taking out the pirate mother ships) I would go for armed UAVs (not B52s) to patrol the Somali coastline. Only when you take the war to them will the tide begin to turn.

As your current and sole business partner I must dissuade you from this line of thinking.

Once the State Dept recognizes Somalia as a functioning state, we will be slapped with overflight and landing fees and go bancrupt :eek:

motorfirebox

02-27-2011, 06:45 PM

I'm beginning to wonder when this tide turns and the pirates realize that the cargo on the ship is far more valuable than the foreign crew. I saw it in the DRC (then Zaire) following 3 civil wars and by accounts, the NGOs in eastern DRC see it even now.
Yeah... cargo's harder to move and easier to track, though. If they start doing that, it really would be pretty easy to send in some shooters and roll up enough pirates to have an overall effect.

...but I must comment again on your rush to excuse the Somali's of any blame. First we had your explanation that these poor victims were only resorting to piracy because others were illegally fishing in the Somali territorial waters and worse still others dumping toxic waste. Now that they are not drug (khat) crazed gangsters but only poor people trying to make a living.
I'm not excusing the pirates. I'm pointing out that in terms of lives lost and even money, the piracy is one of the least harmful illegal activities going on in the area. The way I see it, you're excusing everyone else in the area because the pirates are the only one who kill people with guns.

Well "the recent episode aside" has changed all that, yes?
I wouldn't say it's changed 'all that'. It's not like Somali pirates have never killed hostages before. What's going to change immediately, if anything, is our response.

You have had it explained to you by a few of the folks around here that whole communities support the piracy operations as it has lifted them out of the subsistence existence they had before. Nobody is neutral. Nobody in these villages wants the money piracy brings to go away. The current prosperity is the result of the proceeds of crime.
Er, actually, I'm the one that explained that to some of the posters here. I just don't agree that killing those who make a secondary profit from piracy doesn't count as collateral damage.

Do you really think the owners of say a full oil supertanker give a rats ass about the crew? The ransom is paid to get the ship and its cargo back. The crew are an inconvenience. I mean they may want compensation etc etc.
Sure, probably. But those owners also have to pay insurance on their shipments. I can't imagine that losing your whole crew doesn't bump your premiums a bit more than getting them back safely. And if the entire crew dies, it's going to give the rest of the employees leverage to demand increased wages (in the form of hazard pay, if nothing else).

Why waste all that fuel cruising the Somali coast ? History is clear that the navies are hamstrung by government. Time for an African land battle and cut all the hostages free from those new Somali diners croping up in the desert !
I just don't think that's realistic. We could do it, sure. But we won't. If we send in ground forces, there will be cameras everywhere and we're going to spend most of our time responding to ambushes and talking to Anderson Cooper about how terrible it all is. And we'll leave a year or two later, and piracy will spring right back up.

If we went in with the will to actually kill a lot of Somalis, it'd probably work. We don't have that will.

Stan

02-27-2011, 09:11 PM

Yeah... cargo's harder to move and easier to track, though. If they start doing that, it really would be pretty easy to send in some shooters and roll up enough pirates to have an overall effect.

I used to think that too until Sabena's 747 landed and the 90 odd tons of cargo was absconded with in under an hour. They didn't appear overly concerned with who was watching and even offered me Becks lager at less than half the price. I bought three cases that day :cool:

I just don't think that's realistic. We could do it, sure. But we won't. If we send in ground forces, there will be cameras everywhere and we're going to spend most of our time responding to ambushes and talking to Anderson Cooper about how terrible it all is. And we'll leave a year or two later, and piracy will spring right back up.

If we went in with the will to actually kill a lot of Somalis, it'd probably work. We don't have that will.

Not that hiring a proxy force would be easy, but it would allow the West to save face when things went south - which probably would occur. Sort of like an African version of PMCs with no rules of engagement and unlimited ammunition. I can think of a few off the top of my head already (before the acronym PMC was even invented).

In the end it would have little to do with how many pirates were killed, rather, how swift and brutal a blow was dealt. Whatever was left behind would be scarfed up by the locals. Sounds terrible, I know, but that's how things are typically done and for some strange reason with no immediate remorse or threats of payback.

The press wouldn't be invited nor would most of them contemplate even going. Watched that too with them hiding behind US and French troops taking the same boring pictures every day rather than going outside the wire on their own (because they always came back robbed blind back then :rolleyes:).

motorfirebox

02-27-2011, 09:35 PM

Not that hiring a proxy force would be easy, but it would allow the West to save face when things went south - which probably would occur. Sort of like an African version of PMCs with no rules of engagement and unlimited ammunition. I can think of a few off the top of my head already (before the acronym PMC was even invented).

In the end it would have little to do with how many pirates were killed, rather, how swift and brutal a blow was dealt. Whatever was left behind would be scarfed up by the locals. Sounds terrible, I know, but that's how things are typically done and for some strange reason with no immediate remorse or threats of payback.

The press wouldn't be invited nor would most of them contemplate even going. Watched that too with them hiding behind US and French troops taking the same boring pictures every day rather than going outside the wire on their own (because they always came back robbed blind back then :rolleyes:).
So, 2006 all over again? What would be different this time? Don't get me wrong, it'd work for a while, just like breaking the IUC with Ethiopia worked (for certain values of "work") for a while. The IUC was deposed... leaving a rabid terrorist organization in its place, and also pirates. There's a need to be careful with how you define your win conditions.

Stan

02-27-2011, 10:17 PM

So, 2006 all over again? What would be different this time? Don't get me wrong, it'd work for a while, just like breaking the IUC with Ethiopia worked (for certain values of "work") for a while. The IUC was deposed... leaving a rabid terrorist organization in its place, and also pirates. There's a need to be careful with how you define your win conditions.

I'd say 1965 thru 1991 all over again, but it works out the very same for most in Sub-Sahara. Piracy seems to make the news, but yet, hostages are present everywhere.

Stopping the current threat is little more than a band aid til the next administration comes in and creates a new policy for dealing with GWOT or whatever we think up next. So, we're left with concentrating on what makes the news and popular polls.

Seems the proxy war only masks our distaste for doing business once diplomacy no longer works with clean results.

I can only imagine what would have happened if some First Lady years ago decided she didn't care for pirates instead of telling us she no longer liked land mines :wry:

motorfirebox

02-28-2011, 11:46 AM

slapout9

02-28-2011, 02:38 PM

IMO it is just plain old kidnapping for ransom and that can be deterred...probably down to nothing.

Ken White

02-28-2011, 04:43 PM

Just woke up with this full-blown realization regarding the difficulty of taking on pirates by force: the hostages.Not to be picky or snarky, but how could you overlook that? I'm pretty sure Stan and Carl did not and I know I didn't.
The Quest incident (among others) shows that if the pirates feel too threatened, they'll kill hostages. And we know that the various pirate crews are...in frequent communication with each other.Well, yeah.
All of which boils down to this: we can't just roll up a boat at a time for the sake of deterrence. We would have to conduct something like 10-20 hostage rescue operations ... We would have to take out every pirate who is currently pirating, pretty much at the same time. ... I bet we'd still lose more hostages in a day than we normally lose in a year. Or three.Yes -- and all that is why there has been no western military action (directed at the Piracy...) on land thus far. Nor is there likely to be unless the pirate crews continue to get greedy -- then the west will react and it will not be pretty. While every effort would be made by most forces to insure hostage survival, the overall fate of the hostages will not determine what is done if military action were to be ordered. In that unlikely event, the hostages will be part of that collateral damage you mentioned...

Reality thucks... :(

Stan

02-28-2011, 06:16 PM

Just woke up with this full-blown realization regarding the difficulty of taking on pirates by force: the hostages. At any given time there are something like 200+ hostages being held at 10+ different locations. Even before the Quest incident, there were ~20 hostiles per location; now there are more like 70+ per (at least, according to the pirates' claims). And those are only the ones we know about; most estimates of piracy include ~200 unreported incidents per year.
Actually I believe somewhere in 2008 the estimates of pirate numbers (in the water so to speak) was nearing 12,000. Seems we’re in a communications game where the opponent is playing the PSYOPS wild card. I assure you the US Navy knows what they are up against, but you and I will never get a peek unless we get more Wikileaks soon :cool:

The Quest incident (among others) shows that if the pirates feel too threatened, they'll kill hostages. And we know that the various pirate crews are, if not organized (and they're at least organized by mothership, with the possibility that multiple motherships may also be organized together), then in frequent communication with each other.
I recall years ago being told not to get snatched because I would be automatically considered dead. Nobody is coming and the food in Africa is, well, sucks. Best to consider the reality that some are not making it out (especially if they are being tortured in freezers as reports indicate). We must be cruising with our rose-colored sunglasses if we think they are having steak dinners with ice-cold beers in the friggin desert. I imagine a few that have a good year in captivity would consider a cruise missile strike a gift from heaven.

All of which boils down to this: we can't just roll up a boat at a time for the sake of deterrence. We would have to conduct something like 10-20 hostage rescue operations plus any number of assaults (eg motherships) plus we'd have to have some sort of fast reaction teams on hand to deal with further hostage situations that appear (unreported incidents of piracy in progress, which we find out about when they call us and threaten their hostages). We would have to take out every pirate who is currently pirating, pretty much at the same time.
It’s not like the ransom drops have been a bowl of cherries either. A Kenyan tugboat driver even gets a kick back because the pirates can’t be trusted to bring the booty home once dropped. I ‘m trying to say the situation is not as impossible as it seems and the numbers are skeptical at best. Even if they have 70 dudes on each vessel, the hostages are primarily on land. We’ve yet to express interest in the ships (but we’ll soon learn to and preclude them from being used as a platforms).

"The cure for piracy (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/April/FBI-Negotiating-with-Pirates-Over-Captain-/) doesn't exist on the ocean. The cure for piracy exists on the beach," he said. "We know where the pirates are concentrated, but the last time we put people in Somalia it was not good."

We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this time :wry:

With all of those moving parts, and even as good as our guys are and as crappy as the pirates are, I bet we'd still lose more hostages in a day than we normally lose in a year. Or three.

There are a whole lot more hostages taken on land in Africa than you think and they died well before Somalia learned piracy as a tradecraft.

motorfirebox

02-28-2011, 06:27 PM

Not to be picky or snarky, but how could you overlook that? I'm pretty sure Stan and Carl did not and I know I didn't.
Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.

Yes -- and all that is why there has been no western military action (directed at the Piracy...) on land thus far. Nor is there likely to be unless the pirate crews continue to get greedy -- then the west will react and it will not be pretty. While every effort would be made by most forces to insure hostage survival, the overall fate of the hostages will not determine what is done if military action were to be ordered. In that unlikely event, the hostages will be part of that collateral damage you mentioned...

Reality thucks... :(
I don't have a lot of experience on the ground, but I do have quite a bit of experience watching CNN. I can't see the US military willingly taking that kind of PR hit, regardless of how the action against the Somalis themselves is viewed.

jmm99

02-28-2011, 07:34 PM

their Security Council Resolutions (just since 1 Jan 2008) that are material to the Somali pirates and the remedies that may be employed against them:

1801 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/246/98/PDF/N0824698.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1811 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/322/41/PDF/N0832241.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1814 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/343/79/PDF/N0834379.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1816 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/361/77/PDF/N0836177.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1831 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/465/82/PDF/N0846582.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1838 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/538/84/PDF/N0853884.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1844 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/611/31/PDF/N0861131.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1846 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/630/29/PDF/N0863029.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1851 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/655/01/PDF/N0865501.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1853 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/663/27/PDF/N0866327.pdf?OpenElement) (2008),
1863 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/211/65/PDF/N0921165.pdf?OpenElement) (2009),
1872 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/349/46/PDF/N0934946.pdf?OpenElement) (2009),
1897 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/624/65/PDF/N0962465.pdf?OpenElement) (2009),
1910 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/222/59/PDF/N1022259.pdf?OpenElement) (2010),
1916 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/281/93/PDF/N1028193.pdf?OpenElement) (2010)
1918 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/331/39/PDF/N1033139.pdf?OpenElement) (2010),
1950 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/649/02/PDF/N1064902.pdf?OpenElement) (2010) and
1964 (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/706/02/PDF/N1070602.pdf?OpenElement) (2010).

All of the above add up to a Rule of Law situation (international law enforcement as to piracy), where the Laws of War (sometimes applicable to a Chapter VII peace enforcement situation) generally do not apply.

To change the constraints in any substantial manner would require a change in policy. The problem (as in many situations) is not founded in military strategy and tactics, but in governmental policy (here, international governmental policy).

Regards

Mike

motorfirebox

02-28-2011, 07:49 PM

I recall years ago being told not to get snatched because I would be automatically considered dead. Nobody is coming and the food in Africa is, well, sucks. Best to consider the reality that some are not making it out (especially if they are being tortured in freezers as reports indicate). We must be cruising with our rose-colored sunglasses if we think they are having steak dinners with ice-cold beers in the friggin desert. I imagine a few that have a good year in captivity would consider a cruise missile strike a gift from heaven.
Sure, some aren't making it out--but a lot are, currently. Again, I acknowledge that this may change in the future, but I'm looking at the current situation.

It’s not like the ransom drops have been a bowl of cherries either. A Kenyan tugboat driver even gets a kick back because the pirates can’t be trusted to bring the booty home once dropped. I ‘m trying to say the situation is not as impossible as it seems and the numbers are skeptical at best. Even if they have 70 dudes on each vessel, the hostages are primarily on land. We’ve yet to express interest in the ships (but we’ll soon learn to and preclude them from being used as a platforms).
I don't know enough about such operations to confidently comment on the difference between an assault on a boat and an assault on land, but I'd guess that the land assault is easier. I'd also guess, though, that we probably have less idea where the hostages on land are than the ones on boats.

We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this time :wry:
Heh, good luck--Gates doesn't seem keen on putting more people on the ground. As an aside, I have to wonder how much of that is an estimate of our military strength and how much is just recognizing how hard it is to maintain public perception of the military when the military is actually doing what it's supposed to do.

There are a whole lot more hostages taken on land in Africa than you think and they died well before Somalia learned piracy as a tradecraft.
Yeah, but there's a difference between quietly looking the other way while Somalis kill hostages (it's not like anybody got too excited when they killed those Thai fishermen, after all) and having it happen in full color while the world is actually paying attention.

Stan

02-28-2011, 09:52 PM

Sure, some aren't making it out--but a lot are, currently. Again, I acknowledge that this may change in the future, but I'm looking at the current situation.

I think the current situation is going to hell in a hand basket already and if even just one more country accepts the ban on ransoms, we'll be seeing a lot more shark food and a bumper banana crop where the mass grave goes!

I don't know enough about such operations to confidently comment on the difference between an assault on a boat and an assault on land, but I'd guess that the land assault is easier. I'd also guess, though, that we probably have less idea where the hostages on land are than the ones on boats.

Don't know much about your military career nor your knowledge of current technology, but then there's this minor issue with your background:

Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.

As an aside, I have to wonder how much of that is an estimate of our military strength and how much is just recognizing how hard it is to maintain public perception of the military when the military is actually doing what it's supposed to do.

Not sure where you're going now. What do you mean by "the military is actually doing what it's supposed to do" ? Assuming you're "Joe Public" what then is your perception ? We break things and kill people at the behest of those that can't and won't all the while maintain their public perception. I have no desire in squandering my pathetic retirement to change or promote the public's view on my life as a soldier.

Your turn :D

Yeah, but there's a difference between quietly looking the other way while Somalis kill hostages (it's not like anybody got too excited when they killed those Thai fishermen, after all) and having it happen in full color while the world is actually paying attention.

I can't make the distinction simply because the public is now paying more attention than before. We knew it was happening in the 80s & 90s, we reported our findings in the 80s & 90s, and we got to answer "congressional letters" in the 80s & 90s. Not sure who exactly was looking the other way then and/or now :confused:

Ken White

02-28-2011, 10:53 PM

I don't have a lot of experience on the ground, but I do have quite a bit of experience watching CNN.Well, okay but TV 'news' served up by the Entertainment industry and fllavored strongly by US domestic politics and ideologies is probably a poor source for decision making information... ;)

Better to skim the Internet for multiple news reports, preferably competing or conflicting and from several nations -- and give the 'news' time to be corroborated and to gel (first reports are invariably incorrect, some dangerously so) -- then judge veracity, filter for bias and make your own decision. :cool:

Later realize you did the best you could with the information you had at the time but the unknown unknowns gotcha. :o
I can't see the US military willingly taking that kind of PR hit, regardless of how the action against the Somalis themselves is viewed.Willingly is not an option...

Speak to the politicians. Your Elected leaders and their appointed minions make those types of decisions. Whether the military wants to do it, is properly trained or equipped to do it is absolutely immaterial to them. Virtually no one in the US Army wanted to go to Iraq...

Surferbeetle

02-28-2011, 11:14 PM

Well, okay but TV 'news' served up by the Entertainment industry and fllavored strongly by US domestic politics and ideologies is probably a poor source for decision making information... ;)

Fox=MSNBC=CNN=Propaganda mill. If you must use TV try some of the business news services and check them against WSJ, Bloomberg, FT, The Economist, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 10 K statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_10-K), annual reports etc.

Better to skim the Internet for multiple news reports, preferably competing or conflicting and from several nations -- and give the 'news' time to be corroborated and to gel (first reports are invariably incorrect, some dangerously so) -- then judge veracity, filter for bias and make your own decision. :cool:

Learned that one here Sensei...;)

Virtually no one in the US Army wanted to go to Iraq...

First time out I certainly did, second time not so much :wry:

Both experiences were very, very, educational however...priceless actually...not something that can be learned from a TV, a periodical, or a book.

Hey Motorfirebox, get up off the couch/seat and enter the arena....USMC, US Army, DoS, USAID, IC, NGO, or Corporate...there are a bunch of choices....

motorfirebox

03-01-2011, 04:12 AM

Not sure where you're going now. What do you mean by "the military is actually doing what it's supposed to do" ?
Pretty much this:

We break things and kill people at the behest of those that can't and won't
Whatever I think of the situation in Somalia, it is--I agree--the military's role to break things and kill people when instructed. As incidents like that ridiculous "Collateral Murder" video show, it's becoming difficult to do that.

I can't make the distinction simply because the public is now paying more attention than before. We knew it was happening in the 80s & 90s, we reported our findings in the 80s & 90s, and we got to answer "congressional letters" in the 80s & 90s. Not sure who exactly was looking the other way then and/or now :confused:
The public's attention is an important distinction. It's important because we're a voting public, and unpopular military action subtracts votes from the guys who ordered it. If a tree falls on a hostage in Somalia and Anderson Cooper isn't around to furrow his brow, does anybody lose an election?

Well, okay but TV 'news' served up by the Entertainment industry and fllavored strongly by US domestic politics and ideologies is probably a poor source for decision making information... ;)

Better to skim the Internet for multiple news reports, preferably competing or conflicting and from several nations -- and give the 'news' time to be corroborated and to gel (first reports are invariably incorrect, some dangerously so) -- then judge veracity, filter for bias and make your own decision. :cool:
CNN is useful to me as an indicator of what the public at large is interested in. For actual news, I get my hands dirty digging.

Speak to the politicians. Your Elected leaders and their appointed minions make those types of decisions. Whether the military wants to do it, is properly trained or equipped to do it is absolutely immaterial to them. Virtually no one in the US Army wanted to go to Iraq...
Er, yeah, I said "military" when I meant those who make the decisions on where to send it.

Ron Humphrey

03-01-2011, 04:30 AM

Ken White

03-01-2011, 04:35 AM

in strange and wobdrous ways...
The public's attention is an important distinction. It's important because we're a voting public, and unpopular military action subtracts votes from the guys who ordered it.Really? Roosevelt tricking us into WW II, Nixon in Viet Nam, Clinton in Somalia and Bush in Iraq and the reelections of all to a subsequent second (or third) term during unpopular wars (yes even the great crusade of WW II was questioned by many...) would seem to make that a statement that is at best questionable... :wry:
CNN is useful to me as an indicator of what the public at large is interested in. For actual news, I get my hands dirty digging.In reverse order, good. My experience and observation has been that most of the TV news is seen as flaky at best. I'm old and I'm sure many say things to me differently that they would talking to a younger person but I sure don't see much stock put in any of the TV news by most Americans...
Er, yeah, I said "military" when I meant those who make the decisions on where to send it.That's a rather important distinction. Many do not make it. Which leads to confusion in some, particularly the aforesaid politicians...:rolleyes:

Ken White

03-01-2011, 04:43 AM

First time out I certainly did, second time not so much :wry:

Both experiences were very, very, educational however...priceless actually...not something that can be learned from a TV, a periodical, or a book.My written short cuts as opposed to shorthand strike again. :(

Ya got me. Many in the Army were more than willing to go, eager to do what they got paid for. However, the institutional Army, the upper heirarchy, tried to stall, obfuscate and screw with Rumsfeld and Bush 43 and not go much as they had screwed with Cohen and Clinton over tanks and
Apaches into Bosnia early on. The Army was successful at bumfoozling and stalling the latter two folks; not so with the Bush 43 admin. :D

carl

03-01-2011, 05:27 AM

In the end it would have little to do with how many pirates were killed, rather, how swift and brutal a blow was dealt. Whatever was left behind would be scarfed up by the locals. Sounds terrible, I know, but that's how things are typically done and for some strange reason with no immediate remorse or threats of payback.

I've been thinking about your last sentence above and I wonder if it has to do with kicking the fruit tree. A cop or official would push for a shakedown as hard as he could but if he didn't get anything he mostly wouldn't hold it against you and would probably wave at you the next time he saw you. That always puzzled me until they told me the story of the fruit tree. When you go by a fruit tree, you kick it just to see if some fruit would fall. If it didn't you went on your way. You didn't hold it against the tree. Us mundeles were the tree.

Maybe a part of the story they didn't tell was if your buddy kicks the tree and a coconut falls on his head and kills him, you don't hold it against the tree, you just take his stuff and go your way.

Stan I know you know the story but maybe some others don't and I like to tell it because it is a great story.

Stan

03-01-2011, 05:33 AM

Stan I know you know the story but maybe some others don't and I like to tell it because it is a great story.

Hey Carl,
Yep, it is a good story !

I used to enjoy the Zairois version better... Sit under the fruit tree and wait for the fruit to drop on your head. No reason to work at it :D

Stan

03-01-2011, 05:41 AM

But do have one question for the gallery. Would it be illogical to presume that if the Supply of new Hostages were to be "discontinued" through efforts focused on the supply chain (Boats/M-Ships/Docks) it doesn't necessarily mean greater danger to those already in custody.

May just be me but wouldn't that make the limited supply of money-makers they already have more valuable to keep around in order to get the ransoms?

(back to the cheap seats)

Hey Ron,
Was just listening to the morning news about a Danish vessel being taken on the 24th with two teenage kids on board and said the same thing to myself (yet again). Turn off the pipeline or begin escort duties while what they do have (some 700 hostages) dwindles down. In the meantime, no ransom payments either.

Then, while they're in a total state of frustration we sweep in turning off the flow of weapons and ammo, food and supplies. As JMA pointed out, it shouldn't be too hard to identify all the luxury SUVs among all the other Somali SUVs out there :D Then there's always the tell tale hints -- air conditioned sea containers :rolleyes:

EDIT: Link to Danish Sailboat (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy) and this intelligent quote

Most hostages captured in the pirate-infested waters off East Africa are professional sailors, not families. Pirates are not known to have captured children before.

So much for that being a safe bet !

Stan

03-01-2011, 05:43 AM

... get up off the couch/seat and enter the arena....USMC, US Army, DoS, USAID, IC, NGO, or Corporate...there are a bunch of choices....

Hey Steve,
You went and forgot the Air Force :D

And replaced it with DoS :eek:

JMA

03-01-2011, 06:23 AM

Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.

I don't have a lot of experience on the ground, but I do have quite a bit of experience watching CNN. I can't see the US military willingly taking that kind of PR hit, regardless of how the action against the Somalis themselves is viewed.

Now based on that you jump boots and all into this discussion?????

motorfirebox

03-01-2011, 06:28 AM

Roosevelt tricking us into WW II, Nixon in Viet Nam, Clinton in Somalia and Bush in Iraq and the reelections of all to a subsequent second (or third) term during unpopular wars (yes even the great crusade of WW II was questioned by many...) would seem to make that a statement that is at best questionable...
Well, I did say subtract votes--not automatically lose elections.

In terms of elections, Bush won his second term before public opinion had fully tipped against the action in Iraq (2005 was the earliest a poll showed a majority--56% of Americans--thought that invading Iraq was a mistake). The Republican Congress in 2006 and McCain in 2008 bore the brunt of that dip in the polls. Operations in Somalia were initiated under Bush I, and when they really went south, Clinton pulled out. Vietnam was far more unpopular in the history books than it was at the time (http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Mistakes/Vietnam_support.html). As for WWII, Roosevelt won his third term more than a year before the US was drawn into the conflict (and spent time on the campaign trail issuing reassurances that the US wouldn't be drawn in); by the time of his fourth term, the Allies were clearly winning.

Now based on that you jump boots and all into this discussion?????
I've answered this question previously.

JMA

03-01-2011, 06:35 AM

As JMA pointed out, it shouldn't be too hard to identify all the luxury SUVs among all the other Somali SUVs out there :D Then there's always the tell tale hints -- air conditioned sea containers :rolleyes:

Thats where the armed UAVs come in handy ;)

Whether in Africa or anywhere (note the behaviour of the majority of Lottery winners) poor people who come into lots of money can't resist anything but a vulgar display of conspicuous consumption. Having the money and not being able to flaunt it will simply drive them crazy.

JMA

03-01-2011, 06:43 AM

JMA

03-01-2011, 08:26 AM

Bob's World

03-01-2011, 08:44 AM

IMHO opinion the great WW II crusade was questionable only in so far as the alacrity with which Roosevelt gave half of Europe to the Soviets. Has any historian joined those dots yet?

Roosevelt was dead-set against the league of nations and envisioned what he termed "the four policemen" as the basis of post-war global security and stability. He saw the US working with the UK, Russia and Nationalist China in that regard. Needless to say he mis-read Stalin, and the US also put far too much faith in both the stability of the Nationalist Chinese government and the perceptions of the US in that nation as well.

Even then the US tended to see ourselves as "the other white meat" (to steal a slogan from the pork people). That sure, the Europeans were a bad lot with all of their colonialism, but that we were the good guys. American leadership was shocked in 1949 with Mao prevailed and quickly let us know that he saw us as just one more illegitimate colonial presence/influence to be rid of. (A situation that threw a major monkey wrench into the gears of our fledgling strategy to contain Soviet expansion; leading to an evolution to a much more ideological containment of "communism" as a whole).

But as influential and bigger than life that FDR was, he did happen to die about a month prior to VE day, so it is probably less than fair to saddle him with full credit for how Europe was divvied up and sorted out over the next year or so. I am sure that Truman at the end of his tenure in office would have gone back and changed some of his early decisions given the chance.

Dayuhan

03-01-2011, 09:08 AM

IMHO opinion the great WW II crusade was questionable only in so far as the alacrity with which Roosevelt gave half of Europe to the Soviets. Has any historian joined those dots yet?

Would that be the half that they were already sitting on at the time? Posession being 9/10 of the law, it hardly seems like it would be necessary to give them what they already had. it's not like the US was going to try to take it away from them.

And PS:

Do you think any of the "smart" guys at State or the CIA have figured out that one carefully targeted cruise missile on the Gaddafi family compound could bring about a quick resolution to the Libyan problem?

We tried that once before, though not with cruise missiles. Didn't get him. Do you really think his location is that clear? That he wouldn't have a few different places to go, and wouldn't be taking some steps to keep his actual location at any given time quiet? He's crazy, yes, but not completely stupid.

JMA

03-01-2011, 11:36 AM

Would that be the half that they were already sitting on at the time? Posession being 9/10 of the law, it hardly seems like it would be necessary to give them what they already had. it's not like the US was going to try to take it away from them.

...and why were they sitting that half of Europe at the end?

We tried that once before, though not with cruise missiles. Didn't get him. Do you really think his location is that clear? That he wouldn't have a few different places to go, and wouldn't be taking some steps to keep his actual location at any given time quiet? He's crazy, yes, but not completely stupid.

You are not military trained are you? All that is needed to reach tipping point to make the regime's current secure areas no longer secure... especially for Gaddafi and his family. Put a few million $ on their heads and ask the people to phone/text/SMS in their whereabouts. How long do you think people who have lived most of their lives in absolute luxury will last being constantly on the move and vulnerable to prowling UAVs and available cruise missiles?

On yes and who will pay? The Libyans themselves and they will think it cheap at the price.

JMA

03-01-2011, 11:50 AM

Roosevelt was dead-set against the league of nations and envisioned what he termed "the four policemen" as the basis of post-war global security and stability. He saw the US working with the UK, Russia and Nationalist China in that regard. Needless to say he mis-read Stalin, and the US also put far too much faith in both the stability of the Nationalist Chinese government and the perceptions of the US in that nation as well.

Even then the US tended to see ourselves as "the other white meat" (to steal a slogan from the pork people). That sure, the Europeans were a bad lot with all of their colonialism, but that we were the good guys. American leadership was shocked in 1949 with Mao prevailed and quickly let us know that he saw us as just one more illegitimate colonial presence/influence to be rid of. (A situation that threw a major monkey wrench into the gears of our fledgling strategy to contain Soviet expansion; leading to an evolution to a much more ideological containment of "communism" as a whole).

But as influential and bigger than life that FDR was, he did happen to die about a month prior to VE day, so it is probably less than fair to saddle him with full credit for how Europe was divvied up and sorted out over the next year or so. I am sure that Truman at the end of his tenure in office would have gone back and changed some of his early decisions given the chance.

The bottom line is that FDR got it wrong, badly wrong. His illness is not an excuse nor is his arrogance in thinking that he had Stalin all sown up.

Truman became President just under a month before VE day. At that late stage what was Truman to do?

No the buck must stop with FDR. He caused more harm and damage to Americans and US interests in the world than 100 Bin Ladens or 1,000 Julian Assanges.

And yes we have discussed this before somewhere here... the Soviets got the best net gain from WW II.

Dayuhan

03-01-2011, 01:06 PM

The bottom line is that FDR got it wrong, badly wrong. His illness is not an excuse nor is his arrogance in thinking that he had Stalin all sown up.

Still can't imagine what you'd have wanted him to do, at least not that he could realistically have done. Easy to judge with hindsight, or as a back seat driver.

JMA

03-01-2011, 01:54 PM

Still can't imagine what you'd have wanted him to do, at least not that he could realistically have done. Easy to judge with hindsight, or as a back seat driver.

For the answer... read history.

Churchill recommended that the push be made up through the Balkans and Italy and not across the channel and through France. But no, FDR was one of those "smart" guys who knew everything.

Stan

03-01-2011, 02:08 PM

Stan,

Do you think any of the "smart" guys at State or the CIA have figured out that one carefully targeted cruise missile on the Gaddafi family compound could bring about a quick resolution to the Libyan problem?

I'm not sure State or the CIA actually have any USA-made missiles and that may be a good thing :p

I won't go agreeing that we actually already tried that routine because Operation El Dorado Canyon's mission specifically targeting barracks, bases and an airfield with (ahem) 60 tons of munitions in 12 minutes. That we missed Gaddafi's tent is mind boggling. But, I do recall the French military attaché in Zaire being a little upset blowing their Embassy in Tripoli :D

At a 100 million for a single Tomahawk (assuming we buy 65 each), estimated production time and lead time to lease a frigate, Gaddafi will have died of old age :cool:

It would be easier to offer 50K to the first person who nabs him, dead or alive.

Ken White

03-01-2011, 04:17 PM

Well, I did say subtract votes--not automatically lose elections.Yes, you did -- but said subtractions should lead to said losses. They did not.
In terms of elections, Bush won his second term before public opinion had fully tipped against the action in Iraq (2005 was the earliest a poll showed a majority--56% of Americans--thought that invading Iraq was a mistake).Fully tipped? Eye of the beholder, I guess. In my recollection it was a mixed bag and Kerry ran essentially on an anti war platform with near total mass media support.
Operations in Somalia were initiated under Bush I, and when they really went south, Clinton pulled out.They really went south because Our Bill escalated the mission from humanitarian aid ala Bush 41 to his very own "Get Aideed" mission via Jonathan Howe. Bill screwed it up and most Americans knew it. That's why I cited Clinton -- who fired his SecDef after the debacle. Said firing was justified because Les was inept -- but trying to pin Mogadishu on him was a bum rap, that was pure Clinton... :rolleyes:
Vietnam was far more unpopular in the history books than it was at the time (http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Mistakes/Vietnam_support.html).Most history of the Viet Nam era is deeply flawed due to ideological bias -- be very careful what you absorb on the topic. The 1972 election was effectively over Viet Nam and how to end it. Nixon was deeply unpopular for several reasons including his conduct of the war. The left was heavily mobilized against him and the rhetoric was vile particularly over the incursions into Laos and Cambodia plus restarting the bombing of the north and Watergate was a known event but he still won with one of the largest landslides in US history.
As for WWII, Roosevelt won his third term more than a year before the US was drawn into the conflict (and spent time on the campaign trail issuing reassurances that the US wouldn't be drawn in); by the time of his fourth term, the Allies were clearly winning.Heh. True, I said third when I should have said fourth. Point was by that 1944 election, the War was rapidly losing popularity, winning or not and people were starting to realize they had been led into a major war on many bogus, FDR directed, pretexts. That was offset by the fact that we were winning -- though in the fall of 1944 with the Bulge yet to come, it was not nearly as obvious as it is in hindsight...

It was also offset by the desire not to change leaders in mid stream effect, an effect which also aided the others. Regardless, history shows that the awarding of votes is not nearly as clear cuts as political and policy wonks would dearly like to believe... :wry:

Surferbeetle

03-01-2011, 05:03 PM

Hey Steve,
You went and forgot the Air Force :D

And replaced it with DoS :eek:

Hey Stan,

...and me an USAF brat and all...:o...ok, in the interest of fairness all of the services to include the PHS (Public Health Service) and NOAA are a great place to serve and give back a small part of the many amazing things we take for granted here ;)

DoS, heh, you know where I stand there...I am a fan...looks like I'll have to step up my DoS stories for you, JMA, and Bill Moore to enjoy. I have in my mind the Young Frankenstein soup scene for some reason when thinking about my lack of ability to properly share...here is a youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw2IIU0a9qw)...Civil Affairs at it's best!

Stan

03-01-2011, 05:12 PM

I have in my mind the Young Frankenstein soup scene for some reason when thinking about my lack of ability to properly share...here is a youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw2IIU0a9qw)...Civil Affairs at it's best! :eek:

Dude,
That was funny ! Sums up my life with State... having hot soup dumped on my nuts :D

JMA

03-01-2011, 06:01 PM

At a 100 million for a single Tomahawk (assuming we buy 65 each), estimated production time and lead time to lease a frigate, Gaddafi will have died of old age :cool:

Are we talking about the same cruise missiles?

Tomahawk (missile) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile))

Manufacturer General Dynamics (initially) Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas
Unit cost $US 569,000[1]
Specifications
Weight 1,440 kilograms (3,200 lb)
Length Without booster: 5.56 m
With booster: 6.25 m
Diameter 0.52 m
Warhead conventional: 1,000 lb (450 kg) Bullpup, or submunitions dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb, or a 200kt (840 Tj) W80 nuclear device (inactivated in accordance with SALT)

For $100m worth of cruise missiles we could have a lot of fun, all I ask for is a paltry three per country (Libya, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Somalia (pirates)).

Stan

03-01-2011, 06:11 PM

Are we talking about the same cruise missiles?

Tomahawk (missile) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile))

For $100m worth of cruise missiles we could have a lot of fun, all I ask for is a paltry three per country (Libya, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Somalia (pirates)).

Sorry, I was looking at some old contract data for the whole package deal :D

I doubt we're going to get these at 569K a pop if you only want four each:rolleyes:

Lastly, no reason to go with a unitary warhead... it's a waste of explosives and you'll miss someone. Best to go with a"Clinton disapproved" D model with conventional submunitions ;)

JMA

03-01-2011, 06:23 PM

Lastly, no reason to go with a unitary warhead... it's a waste of explosives and you'll miss someone. Best to go with a"Clinton disapproved" D model with conventional submunitions ;)

We need precision stuff but if no one is home the message is that "you are safe nowhere so hit the road, Jack". Eventually they will pull him (them) out of a pitiful earth bunker somewhere with no lights, water or crapper.

Dayuhan

03-02-2011, 01:56 AM

For the answer... read history.

I have, and I think you're oversimplifying it, and reorganizing it retrospectively to serve an agenda... but since it's way off the topic there's no real point in pursuing it.

Back on topic...

I'm not sure there are enough discrete targets along the Somali coast to justify the use of cruise missiles, and since they aren't going to be used anyway it's all a bit on the fantasy end.

If there's one lesson to be learned from this, it's that these things need to be stepped on early, before you have 700 hostages spread over 30+ ships up and down the coast. If the first effort had been met with no ransom and an armed rescue, it's not likely that there'd have been a second. Bit late for that now, but something to remember next time around.

Of course these things don't grow because of poverty or resentment at illegal fishing, dumping, etc. Those factors may have something to do with how crime starts, but it grows because the money is really really good and there are no adverse consequences. Unfortunately, by waiting this long to impose adverse consequences we've let the scale get to a point where imposing effective consequences would go beyond what the US and Europe are wiling to do. We are what we are. It is sometimes frustrating that we place so many restrictions on ourselves, but it goes with what we are, and I'm not altogether sure I'd want it otherwise. Unintended consequences, and all that. Sure, the Russians and the Chinese can get away with anything. You want to live in Russia or China?

Maybe the Chinese should have a go. They're well invested in the African trade, and I understand they've some hardware that needs field testing...

JMA

03-02-2011, 03:50 AM

I have, and I think you're oversimplifying it, and reorganizing it retrospectively to serve an agenda... but since it's way off the topic there's no real point in pursuing it.

No agenda here about FDR. In fact history has been very kind to a man who fed half of Europe to the Soviets. Learn to live with it.

Back on topic...

I'm not sure there are enough discrete targets along the Somali coast to justify the use of cruise missiles, and since they aren't going to be used anyway it's all a bit on the fantasy end.

Actually I recommend the use of armed UAVs for purpose. They are not being used either... yet.

If there's one lesson to be learned from this, it's that these things need to be stepped on early, before you have 700 hostages spread over 30+ ships up and down the coast. If the first effort had been met with no ransom and an armed rescue, it's not likely that there'd have been a second. Bit late for that now, but something to remember next time around.

That's obvious. What is equally obvious is that it won't be remembered the next time around as we will have a brand new bunch of smart guys in the decision making positions who are too smart to learn from history.

carl

03-02-2011, 04:03 AM

Dayuhan:

Why does one have to be Russia or China in order to take decisive action against pirates? The ability to use the seas freely was given to us by the same men who built the culture we live in (I don't know the history all that well, but I would be surprised if it wasn't mostly the RN that lawed the sea). They suppressed piracy and built the institutions of the English speaking peoples that we enjoy mostly at the same time. The USN and RN circa 1910 would not have put up with this and the societies that had those navies built the society we live in. I don't think their intention was to leave us a culture that refuses to defend itself against that which would destroy it. And I don't see any reason we can't handle pirates now. We just have to do it.

Now why we aren't doing it, that is another question; one that speaks to things like decadence etc.

Dayuhan

03-02-2011, 04:28 AM

Now why we aren't doing it, that is another question; one that speaks to things like decadence etc.

Maybe for the same reason we couldn't go into Afghanistan, wreak havoc, growl "don't make us come back", and leave. We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way.

Maybe for the same reason we don't approve of spanking our children.

We are very devoted to our self-image, and our self-image does not allow us to simply punish. We have to bring salvation as well, and we've taken on more of that than we can manage already.

No Western leader wants to go into an election burdened with the deaths of a few hundred hostages and a bunch of Somali collateral damage, let alone the possibility of another Mogadishu-type incident. They'd rather just let it go on. The Russians and the Chinese don't give a $#!t.

Are we too nice? Probably. On the other hand, think what we could turn into if we started getting nasty...

carl

03-02-2011, 04:59 AM

There haven't been many nastier forms of warfare than atom bombs and fire raids. We did that. But we didn't do the Holocaust, the Great Hungers in Russia and China any of the other "peacetime" horrors inflicted on people. I don't agree that taking decisive action against pirates would turn us into the monsters that roamed the earth in the 20th century.

We are too diffident. But which "we" are we talking about? The flyover people shake their heads in wonderment at what we won't do. The "we" that has the problem is our elites. The elite decision makers are the one who won't do anything. The standard response to that is they can't because the flyover people are too squishy. I don't buy it. They may not be paying much attention but if a leader would take the time to explain, the Americans would get it and they would go for decisive action. The thing that bugs the flyover people is indecisiveness, not hard action.

(That was clever the way you wrote $#!t; only one letter used but the eye is able to pick it up immediately. Cool.)

motorfirebox

03-02-2011, 05:04 AM

I don't think their intention was to leave us a culture that refuses to defend itself against that which would destroy it.
If the US is to be destroyed, I don't think it will be by Somali pirates. As has been noted, few of the ships and crews being held for ransom are American anyway.

Now why we aren't doing it, that is another question; one that speaks to things like decadence etc.
I think it speaks more to how small the problem actually is, once stripped of its romance. One or two of those cruise missiles being discussed would cost us more than the entire yearly pirate industry, even if the pirates were ransoming US ships and crews exclusively--which, again, they're not; quite the opposite. Two cruise missiles would almost certainly kill more people, by themselves, than the pirate industry does in a year. And that's not even counting the retaliatory executions that would result from such an action. (Same goes for using Predators, obviously.)

Again, that's the thing--it seems like everyone except maybe Stan is imagining that we can just go in and kill pirates piecemeal. We could do that, but it would result in the execution of tens or hundreds of hostages.

Any action we take is going to cost us--just us--more per year than the pirates take from the entire world. And any offensive action is going to cost more hostages their lives than the pirates kill.

carl

03-02-2011, 05:44 AM

If the US is to be destroyed, I don't think it will be by Somali pirates. As has been noted, few of the ships and crews being held for ransom are American anyway.

I figured that would be the response of somebody. Unbridled piracy and uncontrolled criminality does destroy culture and civilizations. That is one of the hallmarks of civilization, it does not allow piracy. We are indeed refusing to fight that which would, seeks to, destroy us.

I think it speaks more to how small the problem actually is, once stripped of its romance. One or two of those cruise missiles being discussed would cost us more than the entire yearly pirate industry, even if the pirates were ransoming US ships and crews exclusively--which, again, they're not; quite the opposite. Two cruise missiles would almost certainly kill more people, by themselves, than the pirate industry does in a year. And that's not even counting the retaliatory executions that would result from such an action. (Same goes for using Predators, obviously.)

Romance? What is romantic about some poor slob Thai fisherman dying of neglect or the people on the Quest being murdered? This ain't romance. TIA. There ain't nothing romantic about TIA. It is death come to get you and it won't be swayed by talk.

You might want to check the total cost of ransoms, ship detours, delayed cargos and naval vessels doing fuax navy things vs. the cost of one or two cruise missiles. The figures might surprise you.

Again, that's the thing--it seems like everyone except maybe Stan is imagining that we can just go in and kill pirates piecemeal. We could do that, but it would result in the execution of tens or hundreds of hostages.

Please keep your players straight. I don't want to go onshore. I want to keep things offshore. Piracy occurs at sea. You can stop it at sea. The ships held are anchored in the ocean, just offshore, not onshore. You want to get those hostages out, the first thing you do is keep more hostages from going in.

Any action we take is going to cost us--just us--more per year than the pirates take from the entire world. And any offensive action is going to cost more hostages their lives than the pirates kill.

Check the figures again. And double check the motivation of the guys guarding the ships anchored offshore. Ask yourself if they really really want to face the Marines after one or two of the ships have been retaken and the MEU is headed their way.

Remember the story of Gen Grant and the Army of the Potomac staff? When he first took over that army they kept telling him about what Lee was going to do. He listened to them for awhile then told them to knock it off. He was tired of hearing Bobby Lee this then Bobby Lee that and how Bobby Lee was going to do a double back flip and end up in their rear. He told them that the only thing he would hear from then on was what they were going to do to Bobby Lee.

We are that staff and Grant ain't showed up yet. I hope he gets here.

JMA

03-02-2011, 06:50 AM

Maybe for the same reason we couldn't go into Afghanistan, wreak havoc, growl "don't make us come back", and leave. We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way.

At last we almost agree on something... but did the US hang around to bring T&J and the American way? Or was it (as it is seen from here) that styaing and escalating in Afghanistan was the cover for Obama to get out of Iraq without being seen to be weak on security and the war on terror?

Dayuhan

03-02-2011, 07:31 AM

At last we almost agree on something... but did the US hang around to bring T&J and the American way? Or was it (as it is seen from here) that styaing and escalating in Afghanistan was the cover for Obama to get out of Iraq without being seen to be weak on security and the war on terror?

Why would Obama need "cover" to get out of Iraq? Why would Obama (or anyone) have wanted the US to stay in Iraq? Not like drawing down in Iraq was a terribly unpopular move, or inconsistent with intentions stated while campaigning.

All sounds a bit conspiracy theory-ish to me.

That's a fair ways from piracy, but I'd repeat that the US and Europe are at this point largely prevented from taking any effective steps against piracy by having allowed the problem to expand to a point where effective steps would require a higher commitment and a higher probability of collateral damage than they find acceptable. Not like that observation helps much, but it remains.

I figured that would be the response of somebody. Unbridled piracy and uncontrolled criminality does destroy culture and civilizations. That is one of the hallmarks of civilization, it does not allow piracy. We are indeed refusing to fight that which would, seeks to, destroy us.

Actually I think they're just seeking to make easy money. "Civilization", through the course of history, has allowed some remarkably nasty stuff, as long as the easy money was being made by somebody civilized.

You might want to check the total cost of ransoms, ship detours, delayed cargos and naval vessels doing fuax navy things vs. the cost of one or two cruise missiles. The figures might surprise you.

I still wonder what on that coast you could find to shoot a cruise missile at.

double check the motivation of the guys guarding the ships anchored offshore. Ask yourself if they really really want to face the Marines after one or two of the ships have been retaken and the MEU is headed their way.

They wouldn't face the Marines. They'd hose the hostages, go ashore, pretend to have been civilians all along, and point the finger at someone else.

It's easy for us to find or propose easy "solutions". Might be less easy if we were the ones who actually had to implement those solutions and manage the consequences. I agree that it's gotten out of hand and that a lot more is needed - mainly because it was allowed to get so far out of hand - but I don't think it's going to be quite so easy or simple as some would like to believe.

motorfirebox

03-02-2011, 11:14 AM

I figured that would be the response of somebody. Unbridled piracy and uncontrolled criminality does destroy culture and civilizations. That is one of the hallmarks of civilization, it does not allow piracy. We are indeed refusing to fight that which would, seeks to, destroy us.
That's really stretching the point. I doubt that we need to worry about undercommitting the forces of law and order, these days.

You might want to check the total cost of ransoms, ship detours, delayed cargos and naval vessels doing fuax navy things vs. the cost of one or two cruise missiles. The figures might surprise you.
Fair enough. I was considering the ransoms, which even in 2010 totaled less than the cost of one Tomahawk annually. Including everything, though? It seems to tally up to around a touch over 13 billion (http://www.eyefortransport.com/content/maritime-piracy-costs-global-community-12-billion-year). Still less than any reasonable estimate of the cost of stopping it, considering that at one point the US was spending as much as 12 billion a month in Iraq.

Please keep your players straight. I don't want to go onshore. I want to keep things offshore. Piracy occurs at sea. You can stop it at sea. The ships held are anchored in the ocean, just offshore, not onshore. You want to get those hostages out, the first thing you do is keep more hostages from going in.
That's one estimate of the situation. Another is that they're being held onshore. Whichever it is, you're not addressing the difficulty of freeing the hostages who have already been taken, nor those who would be taken immediately following any action.

Check the figures again. And double check the motivation of the guys guarding the ships anchored offshore. Ask yourself if they really really want to face the Marines after one or two of the ships have been retaken and the MEU is headed their way.
I imagine they'll react about the same way the pirates on the Quest did--pop the hostages and then surrender. Which adds up to far more deaths per year than piracy alone.

JMA

03-02-2011, 11:48 AM

Why would Obama need "cover" to get out of Iraq? Why would Obama (or anyone) have wanted the US to stay in Iraq? Not like drawing down in Iraq was a terribly unpopular move, or inconsistent with intentions stated while campaigning.

ah... that selective historical memory again.

Obama called it "Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Further from the White House: "In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources..."

So what I'm saying his decision to stay on and expand operations in Afghanistan had nothing to do with what you allege being: "We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way."

You were wrong.

JMA

03-02-2011, 12:04 PM

I imagine they'll react about the same way the pirates on the Quest did--pop the hostages and then surrender. Which adds up to far more deaths per year than piracy alone.

I have never figured this one out. How does one manage to surrender in the middle of a fire fight?

Dayuhan

03-02-2011, 12:28 PM

ah... that selective historical memory again.

Obama called it "Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Further from the White House: "In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources..."

So what I'm saying his decision to stay on and expand operations in Afghanistan had nothing to do with what you allege being: "We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way."

You were wrong.

My comment was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to our prolonged and futile effort to install and sustain an Afghan government that suits American criteria for "good governance", an integral part of whatever the hell we're trying to do in Afghanistan. The point was simply that the US has a hard time with undertaking military action simply to stop somebody from doing something. We have to turn it into an noble effort to install democracy and western style governance, and that gets us into trouble, since we generally can't do it. Since we've already got more of that trouble than we can manage, there's little to no inclination to bite off more of it in Somalia, or anywhere else.

Whoever called it what, I don't see how anything was "cover" for anything else, and I'm not sure what you think I'm "wrong" about. Certainly I don't see how the quotes you cite contradict what I said.

carl

03-02-2011, 03:19 PM

That's really stretching the point. I doubt that we need to worry about undercommitting the forces of law and order, these days.

So unbridled piracy isn't contrary to the interests of civilizations. Ok. I'll concede that point, free ocean commerce is just one of those things that...no, on second thought I won't concede the point.; which was unchecked criminality is a threat to civilized values, civilization. You tell me how it isn't. Don't just sniff and say "really."

Under committing the forces of the law. Ok. I would remind you that we are talking about Africa and the oceans a long way off the west coast of Africa, not your local jurisdiction. The patrol areas of those multiple agencies probably don't extend much beyond Greenland.

Fair enough. I was considering the ransoms, which even in 2010 totaled less than the cost of one Tomahawk annually. Including everything, though? It seems to tally up to around a touch over 13 billion (http://www.eyefortransport.com/content/maritime-piracy-costs-global-community-12-billion-year). Still less than any reasonable estimate of the cost of stopping it, considering that at one point the US was spending as much as 12 billion a month in Iraq.

Check your figures on Tomahawks again. You still got it wrong. Besides, cruise missiles should be saved for a more difficult target. B-52s dropping guided bombs would be more cost effective.

We were spending 12 billion a month in Iraq to support the activities of around 150,000 American troops, maybe another 100,000 contractors, x thousand other people, hundreds of aircraft and thousands of vehicles. My little old Marine Expeditionary Unit is going to be out to sea anyway so they may as well be doing something useful and diverting, as would that naval force that is mostly sailing around burning fuel.

That's one estimate of the situation. Another is that they're being held onshore. Whichever it is, you're not addressing the difficulty of freeing the hostages who have already been taken, nor those who would be taken immediately following any action.

No kidding most are being held on shore. That is a given and has been for a long time. Please pay attention. As I said, the first step with the crews is making sure no more crews go into the bag. What on earth do you mean by "those who would be taken immediately following any action"?

I imagine they'll react about the same way the pirates on the Quest did--pop the hostages and then surrender. Which adds up to far more deaths per year than piracy alone.

Your right. Murder the hostages, then surrender so they can be hanged of go to Leavenworth for the next 30 years. Much easier than going to that close shore and watching the show.

Since you don't like any of my ideas so far, how about this one? We could pay tribute to the pirates. That would spread the cost over a lot of ships instead of the ones unlucky enough to get caught. The pirates would be much safer because they would only have to check the receipts of a few ships instead of chasing all over the sea after all of them. They wouldn't even have to board. Bar codes could be placed on the hulls of the merchantmen and they could be scanned from afar. In order for the merchantmen to know which pirates are genuine pirates due their tribute, one of those naval vessels could escort each of the genuine pirate ships. Or better yet, instead of the pirates being forced to sail on those OSHAA non-compliant dhows, you could just put one pirate with a scanner one a naval vessel and they could sail him out there. Much safer.

What do you think?

Stan

03-02-2011, 04:36 PM

I have never figured this one out. How does one manage to surrender in the middle of a fire fight?

Must be modern warfare as I would have had trigger problems with all those arms waving around and would have down-loaded the mag ;)

motorfirebox

03-03-2011, 03:41 PM

So unbridled piracy isn't contrary to the interests of civilizations. Ok. I'll concede that point, free ocean commerce is just one of those things that...no, on second thought I won't concede the point.; which was unchecked criminality is a threat to civilized values, civilization. You tell me how it isn't. Don't just sniff and say "really."
I didn't say it doesn't contribute. But in this case, it's hardly a deciding factor and even the claim that it contributes significantly is hard to swallow.

Check your figures on Tomahawks again. You still got it wrong.
Oops, you're right. 14-hr days make no good math doing.

No kidding most are being held on shore. That is a given and has been for a long time. Please pay attention. As I said, the first step with the crews is making sure no more crews go into the bag. What on earth do you mean by "those who would be taken immediately following any action"?
It would be easier to 'pay attention' if you, yourself, were more careful in keeping track of the subject at hand. You responded to my statement about the difficulty of rescuing hostages by saying we should stay out at sea; it's hardly an unwarranted leap to conclude that you were also talking about rescuing hostages.

Given the rate of piracy, it's likely that further hostages will be taken during or immediately after whatever action we take.

Your right. Murder the hostages, then surrender so they can be hanged of go to Leavenworth for the next 30 years. Much easier than going to that close shore and watching the show.
*shrug* Whichever. Point is, you're consigning tens or hundreds of hostages to death. If you view that as acceptable losses, well, okay, but I haven't seen that point acknowledged by many.

JMA

03-03-2011, 04:34 PM

Armed guards save Dutch couple from Somali pirates (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/03/armed-guards-retake-dutch-boat-somali-pirates/#ixzz1FYRj5fgc)

Look forward to hearing the full story on this...

The Naval Guards website here (http://www.navalguards.com/)

JMA

03-03-2011, 04:41 PM

Must be modern warfare as I would have had trigger problems with all those arms waving around and would have down-loaded the mag ;)

I used to work on the basis that if they survived the contact they would be smarter the next time. In these cases (lets see what happens to those who shot the Americans) they seem to get disarmed and released to be older, wiser and more experienced the next time around. Don't make a lot of sense to me.

carl

03-03-2011, 05:34 PM

Actually I think they're just seeking to make easy money. "Civilization", through the course of history, has allowed some remarkably nasty stuff, as long as the easy money was being made by somebody civilized.

Pizarro was mostly after easy money too. A civilization fell. It's a big broad cultural/action point anyway.

I still wonder what on that coast you could find to shoot a cruise missile at.

Probably nothing much. That is mostly JMA's idea, a punitive strike. B-52s would be better. I appreciate the sentiment behind that idea but I don't advocate that. My concern was that people knew the actual cost of the weapon.

They wouldn't face the Marines. They'd hose the hostages, go ashore, pretend to have been civilians all along, and point the finger at someone else.

It's easy for us to find or propose easy "solutions". Might be less easy if we were the ones who actually had to implement those solutions and manage the consequences. I agree that it's gotten out of hand and that a lot more is needed - mainly because it was allowed to get so far out of hand - but I don't think it's going to be quite so easy or simple as some would like to believe.

None of us know exactly what they would do, most of all me. We do know what they have done, which is surrender quickly when confronted with actual force (see JMA's Naval Guards story above). Sometimes some of the crew are killed during the rescues. That is what we know.

We also know that dead hostages have no value. If the pirates know they are going to lose that ship anchored off shore, they may choose to put the crews not already ashore, ashore so as to have ransom value. Maybe not. One other thing we know is that some of these crewmen are dying in pirate custody. The Indians found two crewmen dead of neglect when they took some ships back. One other thing we don't know is the status of those 700 or so crewmen being held, but we do know that people held in African prisons don't do well in the long term.

It is my judgment from far away that when you put all these things together the benefits of decisive action outweigh the risks. Additionally, this is going to have to be done at some time or another. It is better for all concerned if the western type navies do it, rather than some others. Some of the others would be might be rather more ruthless.

As you said, there is nothing easy about any of this, establishing a blockade, taking back 30 ships and trying to save as many of the captive crewmen as possible. That is the worst thing. Not all of those guys are getting out alive. We have let it go on too long for that. To give a wildly exaggerated analogy, in the ETO the solution to the problem was for us and the British to invade Europe and defeat the German army in the west. The solution was simple to state, harder to do. In this case, the solution is simple to state also, harder to do; but not so hard as to paralyze us, as it is now.

Stan

03-03-2011, 05:34 PM

I used to work on the basis that if they survived the contact they would be smarter the next time. In these cases (lets see what happens to those who shot the Americans) they seem to get disarmed and released to be older, wiser and more experienced the next time around. Don't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm of the opinion that I obtained when Mobutu was the Prez... No survivors means they can never get smarter nor come back. I think the DSP even dumped the opposition's family dog in the Congo river :D

While I'm with Carl on this one and don't want my taxes spent feeding these fine folks at Leavenworth for the next 30 years, I don't see the US Navy cutting these pirates free. What we need now is a professional Army interrogator and get some intel for ground ops instead of shipping these folks to Kansas for a life sentence !

Stan

03-03-2011, 05:47 PM

We also know that dead hostages have no value. If the pirates know they are going to lose that ship anchored off shore, they may choose to put the crews not already ashore, ashore so as to have ransom value. Maybe not. One other thing we know is that some of these crewmen are dying in pirate custody. The Indians found two crewmen dead of neglect when they took some ships back. One other thing we don't know is the status of those 700 or so crewmen being held, but we do know that people held in African prisons don't do well in the long term.

It is my judgment from far away that when you put all these things together the benefits of decisive action outweigh the risks. Additionally, this is going to have to be done at some time or another.

I'll echo Carl's comments and add that taking them on the ships is not a reasonable solution that will last much longer than the hostages dying. We don't even know how many are actually alive or even on the ships. A ground campaign however turns off logistics without even hunting them down. All those vessels will also eventually run out of khat and food. All the money in the world will not replenish supplies that are unobtainable.

It is better for all concerned if the western type navies do it, rather than some others. Some of the others would be might be rather more ruthless.

Sadly, Carl, under the current restraints we have to work with, I disagree. We don't have the balls to do it right the first time and we are not instilling fear nor authority with our pansy actions.

EDIT: Looking at JMA's link it seems the Naval Guards have an ideal situation. Former Ukrainian Naval personnel, firearms and a fleet base in Djibouti. Who gets blamed for turning a sail boat into Swiss cheese ?

JMA

03-04-2011, 06:14 AM

That is mostly JMA's idea, a punitive strike. B-52s would be better. I appreciate the sentiment behind that idea but I don't advocate that.

May I just clarify what I said please.

The cruise missile option I recommended was for the Ivory Coast situation as it was at the beginning of the post election stand-off.

What I recommended for Somalia was the use of armed UAVs for land targets and the possibility of cruise missiles to target pirate mother ships (depending on who the owners of those ships are).

In the early stages of the Libyan stand-off I advocated the use of a cruise missile against the Gaddafi family compound (whether they would be there or not it would send the right message).

Now I would suggest that cruise missiles be used to put the airfields being used by the Gaddafi supporters fast air for bombing sorties against the opposition forces beyond use. Makes more sense that a no fly zone.

And what I would have done already would have been to insert teams with manpack anti-helicopter missiles to take care of that threat (isn't this what special forces are really supposed to be all about?) if it turned out that a one time missile blitz could not take out the vast majority of the armed helicopter effort available to Gaddafi.

Hope this clarifies my position.

carl

03-04-2011, 06:17 PM

JMA:

I apologize for being lazy and misstating your position. The phrase "cruise missiles" turned into a generic and took on a meaning other than what you said. I didn't think before tapping.

I like the idea of using cruise missiles to attack the Gaddaffi's fixed wing jets.

slapout9

03-04-2011, 07:01 PM

carl

03-09-2011, 04:27 PM

The only politically acceptable offensive role for PMCs is anti-piracy operations. Pirates are themselves mercenaries operating outside international law. They are universally seen as dangerous criminals who represent a clear and present danger to a law-abiding merchant fleet on which a large part of the world's economy is dependent. Compared to the manpower and materiel requirements for effective ground operations, the necessary assets to counter pirates are minimal and not financially burdensome: a few fastboats with radar, secure communications, automatic weapons no heavier than 20mm, a few relatively inexpensive UAVs data-linked to the boats and central command post, and a long-range helicopter capability for medical evacuation. And there are ample historical precedents for issuing letters of marque giving maritime PMCs a legal basis for their actions.

The above was posted on the SWC at South Africa's COIN War but I thought it would be of interest here since the Naval Guards came up for discussion.

Motorfirebox: I bet you thought I forgot about you.:)

The hard inescapable fact of the thing is some, perhaps many, of the kidnapped crewman aren't getting out alive, no matter what happens. That was established years ago when the various countries with navies decided they couldn't be bothered with piracy. So the important thing now is to make sure no more go into the bag.

Stan

03-09-2011, 09:34 PM

The hard inescapable fact of the thing is some, perhaps many, of the kidnapped crewman aren't getting out alive, no matter what happens.

According to this article (http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/10/stories/2011031054270100.htm), some are already at that stage without a shot being fired.

Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said deadline for the execution of eight of the 79 Indian sailors was to expire on Wednesday.

... “Egypt is doing all it can. I am on the phone every day, talking to Cairo. But please understand, it is prohibited under international law to negotiate with pirates.”

carl

03-10-2011, 12:26 AM

This item is about pirates attempting to take the Maersk Alabama, again. They left quickly after an embarked security team fired some warning shots.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/09/somalia.pirates.maersk/

motorfirebox

03-10-2011, 02:44 AM

Choosing the right targets is far more important than choosing B-52's or Cruise Missiles. I don't remember the post but JMA recommended the "Family relations" and I agree. Tell the hostage takers that we can't do anything about them taking our hostages but if they kill them or want release them we will start terminating their family bloodline.....down to the last person and then we will kill them (the Kidnappers) after we show them pictures of all their families grave sites. In other words the targeting should be very personal and very painfull.....destroy the moral and physical bonds that holds the Family system together and those folks will knock this crap off in short order. And if some JAG officer says we can't do that he should be arrested and placed on trial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy:wry:
You can put that on my list (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=116245&postcount=313) if you want, right after the flying car.

The hard inescapable fact of the thing is some, perhaps many, of the kidnapped crewman aren't getting out alive, no matter what happens. That was established years ago when the various countries with navies decided they couldn't be bothered with piracy. So the important thing now is to make sure no more go into the bag.
We've been successfully escaping that 'fact' for several years, now.

carl

03-10-2011, 03:52 AM

We've been successfully escaping that 'fact' for several years, now.

Ah, Inspector. I think you might more accurately say we have been avoiding facing unpleasantness.

motorfirebox

03-10-2011, 08:06 AM

Ah, Inspector. I think you might more accurately say we have been avoiding facing unpleasantness.
Avoiding it through general nonoccurence, yes. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those held hostage are released. That is true now, and it's been true for several years. It's very likely to stop being true if we start hunting pirates.

carl

03-10-2011, 03:05 PM

Avoiding it through general nonoccurence, yes. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those held hostage are released. That is true now, and it's been true for several years. It's very likely to stop being true if we start hunting pirates.

Some of what you say is true Inspector, except for the crew of the Quest, some Thai fisherman and a few others. But Sir, what you say also means the criminals have won and we must pay and pay, and more and more crewman must endure unjust imprisonment-forever. Also sir, the Red Cross has not inspected those prisons, we know not the actual conditions they are held under.

I have thought of something else Sir. The foul pirates are asking for more and more money each time they steal a ship and abduct crewmen. I fear they may grow frustrated when there is a reluctance to pay. That may be very bad for the kidnapped crewman. Africa is a most dangerous place.

JMA

03-10-2011, 03:44 PM

Some of what you say is true Inspector, except for the crew of the Quest, some Thai fisherman and a few others. But Sir, what you say also means the criminals have won and we must pay and pay, and more and more crewman must endure unjust imprisonment-forever. Also sir, the Red Cross has not inspected those prisons, we know not the actual conditions they are held under.

I have thought of something else Sir. The foul pirates are asking for more and more money each time they steal a ship and abduct crewmen. I fear they may grow frustrated when there is a reluctance to pay. That may be very bad for the kidnapped crewman. Africa is a most dangerous place.

Yes I'm afraid the argument for total capitulation to the pirates is plain ridiculous. Perhaps that extreme position should now be ignored in this debate?

It appears that a handful of trained personnel are quite able to repel attempts by pirates to board most ships. So this should free up the navies in the area to patrol the coastline rather than patrol the sea lanes?

But do the navies deployed to the area have the authority, the means and the competence to take the action to the pirates home bases?

motorfirebox

03-10-2011, 04:02 PM

But Sir, what you say also means the criminals have won and we must pay and pay, and more and more crewman must endure unjust imprisonment-forever.
Yes, because there's absolutely no middle ground between a full assault and throwing up our hands.

I have thought of something else Sir. The foul pirates are asking for more and more money each time they steal a ship and abduct crewmen. I fear they may grow frustrated when there is a reluctance to pay. That may be very bad for the kidnapped crewman. Africa is a most dangerous place.
No doubt it will be, and no kidding it is. But we haven't yet reached the point where we'll kill less hostages by actively assaulting the pirates than we will by taking less direct action.

Stan

03-10-2011, 04:14 PM

No doubt it will be, and no kidding it is. But we haven't yet reached the point where we'll kill less hostages by actively assaulting the pirates than we will by taking less direct action.

Does that mean we should just continue to pay criminals because there is no other way ?

Are there (is there evidence of) less hostages being killed? What we do know is their living conditions are bad and some have either died or were killed. At some point they will be usless pawns, and some will successfully escape and others won't.

Seems more realistic to consider that scenario and quell the current state of piracy. There'll will come a point when we pay 5 bucks a gallon and most will be ready to pay for cruise missiles and could care less about journalists reporting dead pirates on the evening news (rest assured, there will be baby pictures too). We are a pathetic and weak super power hamstrung by PC and CNN.

TIA and WAWA :D

carl

03-10-2011, 07:56 PM

Yes, because there's absolutely no middle ground between a full assault and throwing up our hands.

Ah Inspector, you are using what my son the college student calls the fallacy of the false alternative, all or nothing. We have spoken many times in the past about things we can do short of incorporating the land of the pirates into our empire.

But Sir, you are right about there being no middle ground in one respect. When we are dealing with violent bandits and son's of violent bandits, there is no middle ground between killing them or scaring them into quietude, and giving up your soul and your family to them. They are not reasonable men Sir, given to rational discussion.

No doubt it will be, and no kidding it is. But we haven't yet reached the point where we'll kill less hostages by actively assaulting the pirates than we will by taking less direct action.

Again Sir, I point out that we do not seek to occupy the land of the pirates, though there may be good beaches there. I believe it wise Sir to stop things at sea first. As the foul pirates take more honest seaman into captivity, their ability to haggle Sir, though I dislike that word when dealing with the lives of innocent men, increases. If we can stop more men being abducted and ships being stolen, the position of the criminals Sir will grow weaker as each day passes. It is a needed first step on the journey and it will require direct action Sir, if by that somewhat curious phrase you mean pointing weapons at the cowardly skiffmen and putting them in fear for their dishonorable lives.

Motorfirebox, you are a good sport for not taking offense at my attempt to play Charlie Chan. I'll stop that inadequate attempt now.

motorfirebox

03-10-2011, 09:23 PM

Ah Inspector, you are using what my son the college student calls the fallacy of the false alternative, all or nothing. We have spoken many times in the past about things we can do short of incorporating the land of the pirates into our empire.
Yes, because I was clearly not being facetious.

But Sir, you are right about there being no middle ground in one respect. When we are dealing with violent bandits and son's of violent bandits, there is no middle ground between killing them or scaring them into quietude, and giving up your soul and your family to them. They are not reasonable men Sir, given to rational discussion.
Oh, cow chips. There's acres of middle ground. We as a country have been stomping around in that middle ground for more than half a century. The only difference--the only difference at all--is that now it's on the news.

Again Sir, I point out that we do not seek to occupy the land of the pirates, though there may be good beaches there. I believe it wise Sir to stop things at sea first. As the foul pirates take more honest seaman into captivity, their ability to haggle Sir, though I dislike that word when dealing with the lives of innocent men, increases. If we can stop more men being abducted and ships being stolen, the position of the criminals Sir will grow weaker as each day passes. It is a needed first step on the journey and it will require direct action Sir, if by that somewhat curious phrase you mean pointing weapons at the cowardly skiffmen and putting them in fear for their dishonorable lives.
Except, as I grow tired of pointing out, that doing so is likely to result in significantly more hostage casualties than would otherwise occur. I just want to hear somebody say it. I want to hear someone say, "Yes, I am okay with taking action that will result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of hostages who current trends indicate would probably not have otherwise died." At that point, at least we could agree to disagree. As it stands, I feel like I keep pointing that problem out and those in favor of direct action keep dancing away from it.

carl

03-10-2011, 11:06 PM

Here is the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031001992.html?wprss=rss_nation/wires&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=main-twitter

According to the article, being convicted of piracy means life with no possibility of parole.

Ken White

03-10-2011, 11:35 PM

We as a country have been stomping around in that middle ground for more than half a century. The only difference--the only difference at all--is that now it's on the news.Er, that's not new. That it's on the news, I mean. It always has been in the news -- the difference is that today, the news repeats itself over and over and over to fill the 24 hour cycle. Thus, instead of being informed, we are being beaten over the head with factoids. :wry:

A number of which are somewhat specious...:rolleyes:
I want to hear someone say, "Yes, I am okay with taking action that will result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of hostages who current trends indicate would probably not have otherwise died." At that point, at least we could agree to disagree. As it stands, I feel like I keep pointing that problem out and those in favor of direct action keep dancing away from it.Sounds like all or nothing to me... :D

I'm unsure anyone can or will say that without amplification of circumstances, costs, benefits, etc. I'm equally unsure that anyone from A nation can say that with any validity as the hostages come from many nations and an agreement or consensus to make such an attack would likely be required. *

I am sure, however, that lacking such punitive action or another major change in shipping protection (with concomitant costs) the problem will not go away until such time as the other area nations elect to end the piracy for their own economic well being.

* Unless the Chinese, French or Russians get hacked -- or the British or Americans start losing too much money -- then all bets are off. :D

davidbfpo

03-11-2011, 08:10 AM

A curious report that Puntland security forces clashed, two weeks ago, with pirates holding Danish hostages:
Officials said forces from the northern Somali breakaway state where the seven hostages – four adults and three teenage children – are held were approaching the pirates' lair and were intercepted on the way.

Link to short report:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/8375255/Somali-captors-kill-eight-soldiers-in-failed-rescue-bid-for-Danish-family.html

A little more by the BBC:
The BBC's East Africa correspondent Will Ross says it is not clear why the Puntland soldiers chose to intervene, given the risk involved.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12708168

Curious, why so? I cannot recall such a clash before, let alone where soldiers are killed.

120mm

03-14-2011, 04:19 PM

Except, as I grow tired of pointing out, that doing so is likely to result in significantly more hostage casualties than would otherwise occur. I just want to hear somebody say it. I want to hear someone say, "Yes, I am okay with taking action that will result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of hostages who current trends indicate would probably not have otherwise died." At that point, at least we could agree to disagree. As it stands, I feel like I keep pointing that problem out and those in favor of direct action keep dancing away from it.

What offends me most about your argument, is that somehow, in your warped mind, taking lawful action against criminals is what will cause the deaths. What about the criminal, subhuman filth pirates? Are they excused from condemnation?

And I'll say it: I'd rather 10s or hundreds die now, than the thousands that will die over time, as we become more and more neglectful of this problem.

No more captured pirates. Shoot at a ship, and die. Approach a ship armed, and die. Take a ship, and die. Take hostages, and die. Find pirate lairs, and kill every man, woman, child, dog and cat where you find them.

Pirate problems are caused by international inattention and f*cked up "modern" pussified laws governing legal oceanic transport.

10s or 100s? We, the modern world have evidently become so soft and worthless as to deserve whatever happens to us at the hands of savages such as the pirates.

davidbfpo

03-14-2011, 04:37 PM

120mm,

Hopefully this Indian navy action may help:
Dozens of pirates aboard a Mozambican ship have been captured by India's navy after a gun battle in the Arabian Sea. The Indian navy says it seized 61 pirates and rescued 13 crew from the vessel, which had been used as a mother ship from where pirates launched attacks around the Indian Ocean.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12729629

Indian courts move very slowly normally, assuming they reach land and it maybe years before sentencing.

Stan

03-14-2011, 06:07 PM

Day-to-day administration of prisoners rests on principles incorporated in the Prisons Act of 1894 (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6166.html)

This may in fact be worse than living in Somalia :D

The barracks looked unkempt and least maintained. One single cell housed three times the capacity making it too uncomfortable for the inmates to even move about, apart from the fact that they slept in shifts. Those small coops, called cells, contained people from all walks of crime — petty thieves, murderers, bride burners, scamsters, anti-socials and a whole sty of undertrials.

Hey Drew --- You old pirate !

No more captured pirates. Shoot at a ship, and die. Approach a ship armed, and die. Take a ship, and die. Take hostages, and die. Find pirate lairs, and kill every man, woman, child, dog and cat where you find them.

Glad to see your last tour has done nothing for your sense of humor :p

Say, you don't know anyone in South Africa... do you ?

motorfirebox

03-15-2011, 05:32 AM

What offends me most about your argument, is that somehow, in your warped mind, taking lawful action against criminals is what will cause the deaths. What about the criminal, subhuman filth pirates? Are they excused from condemnation?
I'm talking about cause and effect, not who to point fingers at. Action A has effect B. If you don't want effect B, don't take action A. If you fail to check traffic before using a crosswalk, you're likely to get hit by a car. The driver of that car will be criminally liable for hitting you, because as a pedestrian, you have the right of way. That probably won't be of any great comfort while you're lying under the car, so the wiser course is to check for traffic.

If you're totally fine with getting run over so long as some bastard gets taken to court, well, get on out there.

JMA

03-16-2011, 03:36 PM

It has been often said that a lack of understanding of Africa often leads to well intentioned actions lead to unintended consequences (I'm trying to be kind here).

Norway ‘wasting money’ on Somali pirates (http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/norway-wasting-money-on-somali-pirates/)

“It’s ironic, but Norway finances them with its foreign aid. The pirates are now also using fishing vessels donated by Norway and other Nordic countries to carry out their hijackings, I have seen it with my own eyes,” Dagens Næringsliv (DN) reports.

Idiots! (not trying to be kind any more).

carl

03-26-2011, 03:27 PM

If the details reported in this story are true,

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/03/norfolkbased-navy-ships-send-pirates-scampering-0

why didn't the helo crew sink the pirate skiff?

JMA

03-26-2011, 03:58 PM

If the details reported in this story are true,

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/03/norfolkbased-navy-ships-send-pirates-scampering-0

why didn't the helo crew sink the pirate skiff?

I wonder if the pirate fire came from the skiff or the mother ship or both?

carl

04-04-2011, 01:43 AM

The Indians are rolling up a lot of pirates lately (added link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12877557 ) and the Dutch scored yesterday I think (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/04/04/world/europe/AP-Piracy.html?_r=1&ref=world). The pirates don't seem to put up much resistance.

UAE action unclear if Somalis:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12948803

carl

04-12-2011, 10:26 PM

This is a link to an Information Dissemination story about the U.S. Navy providing emergency medical treatment for a pirate ship. I am not making this up (thank you Dave Berry).

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/04/incomplete-details-of-mv-irene-sl.html#disqus_thread

The pirates asked the ship to treat one of their guys. Our ship agreed and and asked the pirates if they would mind giving up some of their mariner prisoners. The pirates said ok and gave up 13 of 25. The sick pirate died before the ship to ship transfer was completed. Our ship took the mariners released and it and the pirate ship went their separate ways, both undoubtedly basking in the warmth of the fellowship of the sea. The mariners who weren't released were freed by somebody else later.

On the Royal Navy front, one of their ships captured a bunch of pirates and then helpfully dropped them on the shore of what used to be Somalia.

This stuff is unbelievable. Monty Python goes on pirate patrol accompanied by a sensitivity counselor.

But at least the Danes seemed to do ok. They took a pirate ship after a brief fight in which 3 pirates were wounded, continuing the pattern of next to no resistance and no effective resistance by the pirates when they are confronted with force.

motorfirebox

04-13-2011, 12:22 AM

Yeah, freeing over half of a group of hostages without a shot fired and only one casualty (who was going to die anyway)--what were they thinking?

carl

04-13-2011, 12:34 AM

Allowing a boatload of pirates to get away with 12 innocent kidnapped mariners, yeah, I agree, what were they thinking?

Care to comment on the action by the Danes?

JMA

04-13-2011, 03:43 AM

Allowing a boatload of pirates to get away with 12 innocent kidnapped mariners, yeah, I agree, what were they thinking?

Care to comment on the action by the Danes?

Is it possible for a US ships captain to be so stupid? Can't see it myself so it must have something to do with the RoE he is being subjected to. The pirates must still be laughing.

jmm99

04-13-2011, 04:20 AM

You tell me exactly what your command decision and orders would have been if you were the captain of the USS Halyburton.

In my hypothetical, you have no ROEs constraining you. You have absolute discretion to decide and order what you believe is right.

The USS Halyburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Halyburton_(FFG-40)) (FFG-40) is an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate).

Here's your chance to be a US Naval officer.

Mike

carl

04-13-2011, 01:24 PM

Given the constraints or lack thereof in your hypothetical, I would have carried out the procedures that have been previously thought up and rehearsed, and taken the pirate ship, captured the pirates and freed the kidnapped mariners, all of the kidnapped mariners. This is what the British, Dutch, Indians and Danes did. However unlike what the poor frustrated Royal Navy men were forced to do, I would not have dropped the pirates off on their home shore but dispatched them to North America so they could forthwith begin their study of colloqueil (sic) and legal English.

motorfirebox

04-13-2011, 06:05 PM

Allowing a boatload of pirates to get away with 12 innocent kidnapped mariners, yeah, I agree, what were they thinking?

Care to comment on the action by the Danes?
What's there to say about it? They did it, it worked, hurray. I will point out that the Danes' action was carried out by guys who do this sort of thing for a living, which--from what I've gathered about this class of frigate--the Halyburton doesn't have a complement of. The Halyburton is, as I understand it, basically there to blow up boats. Blowing up a boat full of hostages would seem to me to be counterproductive to the whole 'maritime defense' thing--that whole 'cure worse than the disease' bit that was discussed earlier.

I find the opinions of some on this topic to be pretty confusing, when taken in comparison to their opinion on Libya and the Ivory Coast. In the latter two (and I recognize that there are many who say we shouldn't be involved in any of the three), there are those who are all for sending in our forces to blow up the bad guys and 'fix what we broke'. When it comes to Somalia, though, many of those same voices say we should just attrit the pirates until they go back to shooting at each other instead of (not, for the most part) shooting at hostages. This, despite that the US has had a far more direct role in Somalia's current condition than Libya's or, for that matter, the Ivory Coast's.

carl

04-13-2011, 06:34 PM

Well Motorfirebox, if the FFG doesn't have people who can board, control and shoot if needed, they should. And if not, why don't they? It seems people like that would be the first thing you would ask for if you are going out on such a mission. Or if they are not available, a number of the crew could be trained to do just that, after all, it is just a matter of practice. If the Danes can do it, we can do it.

The FFG can indeed destroy other vessels. Most Navy ships can. That is why you build them. But because they can, doesn't mean they must. The nice thing about a surface ship is they can do a range of things from hailing other vessels with unaided voice to blowing them to matchsticks.

I wonder if your comment about the FFG's capabilities and blowing up boatloads of kidnapees falls under the rubric of asked and answered-by the same person in the same sentence. Hmm.

Ken White

04-13-2011, 07:03 PM

Carl, I think motorfirebox asked a valid question, one that occurred to me but which I decided not to ask. Since he asked it and you apparently elected not answer, I guess I might as well piggyback on his question and reiterate it...

He said:
I find the opinions of some on this topic to be pretty confusing, when taken in comparison to their opinion on Libya and the Ivory Coast. In the latter two (and I recognize that there are many who say we shouldn't be involved in any of the three), there are those who are all for sending in our forces to blow up the bad guys and 'fix what we broke'. When it comes to Somalia, though, many of those same voices say we should just attrit the pirates until they go back to shooting at each other instead of (not, for the most part) shooting at hostages. This, despite that the US has had a far more direct role in Somalia's current condition than Libya's or, for that matter, the Ivory Coast's.That was a dichotomy I thought I'd noticed -- IMO, the attitudes expressed re:Libya and humanitarian interventions in general versus the attitude toward the Pirates does seem to be a bit discordant. Or is it not?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am one who says we should not be involved in any of the three.

carl

04-13-2011, 07:24 PM

Ken:

I am not so sure MFB asked a question as made an observation. But if a question can be inferred, I would answer it thusly. Ivory Coast isn't Libya which isn't the area that used to be Somalia which isn't Ivory Coast and on...

All are vastly different places which pose different problems which require different responses. In Somalia we have armed teenagers cruising out to sea in little boats and stealing. They are able to do this mainly because of the diffidence of the countries with big navies, or little navies. As soon as that politically correct reluctance to shoot at said yuts goes away, as it seems to be slowly doing, the pirate problem will diminish to mostly not much. That is about it with that.

If you got ambitious and wanted to fix what was broke in Somalia, it would require imposition of Tom Odom's rule of Somali engagement-if you are seen with a weapon, you are shot, if somebody else picks up that weapon, he is shot and so on. We ain't got the stomach for that and it would essentially be re-colonizing the place. All I want to do is stop the piracy.

A small point, Roberto Clemente would be very disappointed that you call those slack jawed skiff riding teens "Pirates". He would prefer I think, that they be called "pirates".

davidbfpo

04-13-2011, 07:52 PM

There are two fundamental issues with Somali piracy IMHO, which poses a threat to international shipping in the nearby ocean spaces.

One, is containment enough? Countering piracy is an international maritime obligation.

Two, if that policy is not enough - which many here argue - should action be taken ashore?

For a host of reasons the international enforcement action taken to date has to put it mildly 'gaps', notably of will and as the latest posts suggest capability. Can all those at risk and those who are involved in enforcement tolerate the risk to shipping?

See this article for some statistics (which advocates action ashore too):http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/praveenswami/100083579/we%E2%80%99re-firing-blanks-in-the-war-against-piracy/

As for action ashore is an option currently no-one seems inclined to follow and I exclude the reports of funding a Somali coastguard. I doubt if there is a real option akin to the Barbary Coast operations: mainly with bombardment and some land raids. Clearly there is no or very little local Somali will and capability to take action against the pirates.

Somali is a country, not a state with any real governance as we know it, that is simply meandering along and I speculate is emptying of its population, well those who can avoid to pay to escape - to the Yemen of all places till recently.

My challenge to SWC is what should we do?

From my faraway, landlocked armchair I would seek:

1) All commercial shipping is convoyed in high risk areas, not in a convoy no insurance!
2) A 'No Shipping Zone' set at 'X' miles offshore and no commercial ships go inside
3) No Somali vessels go beyond 'Y' miles offshore, except in recognised shipping lanes (to Yemen)
4) Any Somali or other vessels beyond 'Y' are liable to be sunk
5) Any captured and convicted pirates are held in say Russian jails - OK, similar places

Now would these points be acceptable? Currently I consider 1 to 3 as sensible.

motorfirebox

04-13-2011, 08:30 PM

Ken:
All are vastly different places which pose different problems which require different responses. In Somalia we have armed teenagers cruising out to sea in little boats and stealing. They are able to do this mainly because of the diffidence of the countries with big navies, or little navies. As soon as that politically correct reluctance to shoot at said yuts goes away, as it seems to be slowly doing, the pirate problem will diminish to mostly not much. That is about it with that.
There are a lot of problems with this. The first, I guess, is the pretty insulting idea that this is all about political correctness, as if it's just frippery that someone might see different sides to the whole equation--as if, as in any equation, understanding both sides is paramount to solving it.

The second major issue is that this isn't about response, this is about underlying motivation. In Libya and the Ivory Coast--speaking of politically correct!--we have this idea that we must help people. That we must fix things, again things which we ourselves broke. And sure, we--whether it's "we" the US or "we" NATO or "we" pretty much any group on the planet that has internet access--did break stuff. But we broke stuff in Somalia, too, and the stuff we broke led directly to our current predicament. But when someone suggests we try to fix that, the response is "screw 'em, they're just pirates." No matter what the ultimate response is, the difference in motivation behind deciding to respond is pretty wide for no apparent reason.

Stan

04-13-2011, 08:42 PM

I find the opinions of some on this topic to be pretty confusing, when taken in comparison to their opinion on Libya and the Ivory Coast. In the latter two (and I recognize that there are many who say we shouldn't be involved in any of the three), there are those who are all for sending in our forces to blow up the bad guys and 'fix what we broke'. When it comes to Somalia, though, many of those same voices say we should just attrit the pirates until they go back to shooting at each other instead of (not, for the most part) shooting at hostages. This, despite that the US has had a far more direct role in Somalia's current condition than Libya's or, for that matter, the Ivory Coast's.

I'll echo Carl's well-put response - piracy is dealt with somewhat differently than civil war and/or a humanitarian crisis regardless of the country of origin.
As far as US involvement in the three countries goes, we have a lot of colorful history in all three and could be easily viewed as culprits.

But we broke stuff in Somalia, too, and the stuff we broke led directly to our current predicament.

I think what we did (or politically hamstrug and failed to do) in Somalia was stay out of yet another internal matter that our administration knew little about and thought we would strong arm for a while and get out. Instead we lost some good people and simply left while the getting was good. That, however, hardly got the pirates started.

Ken White

04-13-2011, 09:30 PM

Carl:

If you say so. Still seems to be awfully inconsistent to me.

My belief is that if you want to 'help' Libya, in the end, the Odom rule will also apply. Are we ready for that? Doubt it. That's why it was a dumb idea that will come to no good end. And, yes, I told you so. Not that so doing make me happy, bad ideas do not happy make and one should derive no satisfaction from a prediction of failure that proves to be accurate. :(

Who or what is Roberto Clemente? Should I be concerned with his opinion on capitalizing nouns? Why?

motorfirebox:

We (the US) did not really break anything in any of those three countries. That's not to say we did everything right in any of them but we didn't really break anything. Still, your point is well taken. People are defending Libyan and Cote d'Ivoire Hoods while castigasting Somali Hoods. 'Tis a bit incongruous... :wry:

Could mass slaughter by the winning side in a civil war be 'better' or less evil than piracy of opportunity with few casualties? Dunno. Kinda doubtful...

Stan

We can be and are viewed, more or less correctly, as culprits almost everywhere. :D

You're right on Somalia. ;)

davidbfpo:

I agree with your points to include implementation of your five acknowledging that number 5 is probably not going to be condoned. Regrettably.

Numbers 1 through 4 would be beneficial and are probably possible. While a punitive expedition and a rebuild would be required for a semi-permanent fix, I doubt that will occur so what you propose make more sense than most IMO...

motorfirebox

04-13-2011, 09:50 PM

Er, a point I could have been clearer on: when I talk about US involvement in Somalia, I'm not talking about 2001; I'm talking about 2006 and Ethiopia.

carl

04-13-2011, 10:05 PM

Motorfirebox:

I couldn't care less if someone is insulted by my belief that the unwillingness to shoot the yuts, or threatening to shoot the yuts, is caused by political correctness.

And I couldn't care less about the underlying motivation. I come at it from a police officer's point of view. You steal something from the that guy and I'll catch you and put you in jail. You resist me and I'll box your ears. You resist me with a weapon and I'll shoot you in the face. The navies are the cops of the sea. I believe things would work better if they behaved that way.

Still speaking from a cop point of view, you come to me and say you have some trouble or are having a hard time, then I will try to help you. If those put upon yuts ask for help, there is plenty available. In the area that used to be Somalia though they tend to abuse the help offered and steal everything, more than in other places.

Ken:

Only inconsistent if all three places are viewed as being more the same than different, which I don't believe they are. Odom's rule as I remember it applied to the area that used to be Somalia. I don't remember reading it applied to other places.

I am shocked, shocked I say that you don't know who Roberto Clemente was. Why only the greatest Pittsburgh Pirate ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Clemente

motorfirebox

04-14-2011, 12:34 AM

Yes, well, cops who start gang wars to get what they want aren't cops, they're criminals with badges. I don't think I'm going to continue this discussion with you, carl; you're too involved with self-justifying logic like that in your most recent post. And I don't like being insulted.

Ken White

04-14-2011, 01:13 AM

Only inconsistent if all three places are viewed as being more the same than different, which I don't believe they are.It's not the places, place is of only minor if any interest. It's the idea that the Somali Pirates are apparently beneath contempt and can -- should -- be virtually shot out of hand for daring to steal with little killing while the Libyan and Ivorian combatants who rape, loot, kill often and rather brutally plus their neighbors and relatives are worth the lives a good many other people to 'protect' at any cost. Its people, not places -- place is immaterial.
Odom's rule as I remember it applied to the area that used to be Somalia. I don't remember reading it applied to other places.He did not apply it elsewhere, I did. I'll take his word for Somalia, haven't been there. Have been to Libya, they are just as brutal, only a tad more sophisticated... :eek:
I am shocked, shocked I say that you don't know who Roberto Clemente was. Why only the greatest Pittsburgh Pirate ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_ClementeThanks for the link. Now I know. Not a sports fan and in Clemente's heyday, I was rather busy doing something I perceived as a bit more important than baseball. A Pirate (AGC or MGQ) is a person thus a noun, pirate is a verb. ;)

carl

04-14-2011, 02:19 AM

Motorfirebox:

I didn't insult you. If you take offense at my belief about the relation between inaction and political correctness, that is your concern.

Your citing cops who start gang wars is an attempt to torture an analogy beyond the bounds of semantic decency. If it isn't against the Roget Convention, it should be.

Ken:

Who is Mrs. Deener?

The pirates from the area that used to be Somalia go outside of their place to do their stealing and they steal from passing strangers. That makes it different from the other places, besides the people in each place being vastly different. They are criminals. You handle them like criminals.

I did like baseball a lot in those bygone days when I could still fool myself into believing I might be able to play well. (insert wistful smiley here)

Ken White

04-14-2011, 04:04 AM

Who is Mrs. Deener?My HS Freshman English Teacher, told me nouns were capitalized -- that's not universally true I now know but habit is turribul thing... :D
The pirates from the area that used to be Somalia go outside of their place to do their stealing and they steal from passing strangers. That makes it different from the other places, besides the people in each place being vastly different. They are criminals. You handle them like criminals.Ah, I see. So rape, looting and promiscuous killing are okay as long as you do it in your own land? Rhetorical question, I doubt you believe that but I do think those things are occurring and that to me puts many Libyans (both sides) and many Ivorians (both sides) in the same category as the Somali Pirates who may be traveling to work but are really doing far less carnal damage. To be totally down on one crowd of miscreants and give the others a pass still seems to be a dichotomy to me. YMMV...
I did like baseball a lot in those bygone days when I could still fool myself into believing I might be able to play well. (insert wistful smiley here)I'm a klutz so sports weren't an option for me. I'm not totally poor but I would never have been very good -- not least because I was and am lazy and totally uninterested.

JMA

04-14-2011, 05:17 AM

carl

04-14-2011, 05:50 AM

Ken:

The pirates prey upon passing strangers, some of those strangers passing by a long long way off, like hundreds of miles off. Those passing strangers, the merchant seaman, have the right to defend themselves, as do all men by virtue of their existence as men. In times past we allowed merchant seaman to exercise that right. In recent times we have deprived them of that right with the understanding that they would not need to exercise it because the navies would protect them, something that has been a primary responsibility of navies since the first group of men decided to use their two coracles in an organized way and one appointed himself admiral. This was also the start of fleet tactics.

So in essence, fighting pirates is sort of merchant seaman immediately defending themselves once removed; except that the navies have failed to keep up their end of the bargain because they fear Oprah will be cross with them. And that is also a difference between fighting pirates and going into the other places you mentioned. Fighting pirates is continuing a social contract that has been in effect for thousands of years. It is also a lot easier to do since it is on the sea. Practicability has a lot to do with doing good.

Evil is being done in places, many places. But we have a prior contract to stop the evil on the high seas. This contract has helped to ensure human prosperity over thousands of years. We, hard fact that it is, don't have prior contract in the other places. We may have a moral obligation depending on the circumstances, and we have discussed that at length before. Moral obligations are a little harder to act upon because we didn't tell the people, yes we will defend you, as we have with the merchant sailors over the ages.

I don't see any dichotomy, just very different problems, places and people.

motorfirebox

04-14-2011, 07:17 AM

Who are you talking about here? There are not many here who post to all three of the mentioned threads. Carl, Stan myself? Be specific, what is the cause of your confusion?
Yours was the name I noticed. I don't like calling out specific posters, generally, because it often leads to interpersonal headbutting that gets in the way of clearer exchanges. The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya.

davidbfpo

04-14-2011, 01:28 PM

Action taken ashore! A joint FBI-Somali police operation too:
US prosecutors say the latest Somali man indicted in a hijacking that left four Americans dead is a high ranking "hostage negotiator".

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13073952

Hat tip to CLS e-briefing, which has links to US media reports:http://centerlineblog.org/2011/04/14/todays-terrorism-news-218/

No response to my earlier post:

My challenge to SWC is what should we do?

From my faraway, landlocked armchair I would seek:

1) All commercial shipping is convoyed in high risk areas, not in a convoy no insurance!
2) A 'No Shipping Zone' set at 'X' miles offshore and no commercial ships go inside
3) No Somali vessels go beyond 'Y' miles offshore, except in recognised shipping lanes (to Yemen)
4) Any Somali or other vessels beyond 'Y' are liable to be sunk
5) Any captured and convicted pirates are held in say Russian jails - OK, similar places

Now would these points be acceptable? Currently I consider 1 to 3 as sensible.

carl

04-14-2011, 02:27 PM

David:

Point number 1 is a wartime measure that poses a lot of difficulties with organization and imposes a lot of costs. Being that is is a wartime measure, it seems logical to do what you do in wartime and eliminate the threat.

Point 2, 3 & 4 are components of a blockade. Seems good to me. A blockade is an act of war I think. It might be good to embargo things like expensive cars too.

Point 5, put them where somebody will take them. Being in 24 hour lock down in a US Federal prison is not pleasant even if there are no bugs and the roof doesn't leak.

Whatever the FBI did lately keep doing.

A blockade is a fence. A fence is meant to keep people from getting out but it also can be used to keep people from getting back in. I think every ship that is taken must be taken back immediately or as it approaches the coast. That eliminates much of the hunting in the empty sea. They always have to notify somebody when the ship has been taken and they always have to go back to the same place, the shore of the area that used to be Somalia.

Publicize to the greatest extent possible the fate of captured pirates. Not the ones who are released of course but the ones who are killed and taking long term but limited travel excursions in other countries.

Go after the money. There is big money in this and it is somewhere. How to do this somebody else will have to figure. I don't have a clue.

That leaves the ships and mariners being held. Taking the ships back by force may not be too difficult. The pirates never fight very hard. But you could also buy them back. Their value may decrease in the face of a blockade. If we started to take ships back by force their value would probably fall very fast, so a combined approach may work.

Which leaves the crewmen. Once all the ships were recovered, they wouldn't be worth much to the pirates and they could be bought back. The danger is once their value fell the pirates would not be inclined to treat them well. So it might be wise pay out fast.

How's that?