I have a few questions of Motorfirebox.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?