Printable View
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Isn't that a hint that maybe they're not that scared of us?Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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?
Could be, but simple stupid is more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I mean, he apparently didn't learn anything from the death of his buddies on the Maersk Alabama.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfireboxQuote:
Originally Posted by Stan
I claim no experience. I present evidence which you are free to discuss, disregard, or accept.
Case in point:
Thanks for the links !Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
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 !Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I don't understand this. I'm not sure we have heard the full story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I agree: it's a numbers game. The numbers required to have an effect are frankly too high to contemplate.
I wouldn't have much argument with you on matters related to being on the ground. These considerations are high-level strategy, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
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.)Quote:
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.
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
Sorry, but what evidence? Those two links you sent me ?Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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:
Yes. The question is how many people we'll need to kill to achieve that deterrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
You're still stuck on internal Somali politics, which are only peripheral to what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
I'm sure there are a few, but most of the financiers are Somali expats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfireboxYes. The question is how many people we'll need to kill to achieve that deterrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfireboxYou're still stuck on internal Somali politics, which are only peripheral to what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Sorry, Dude... I ain't biting :mad:
Concur 110% !Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
I've heard some that some Somali women are quite comely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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 wouldn't have much argument with you on matters related to being on the ground. These considerations are high-level strategy, though.
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: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.
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?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.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 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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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 record. These activities cut into the Somali economy. 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.
Here is a link to an Information Dissemination post about this very subject:
http://www.informationdissemination....-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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
I really don't understand how I can be accused of not understanding Africa when statements like this are allowed to slip by.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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?
Hmm. I have a question then. How does this statement of yours
square with the following statement of yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
I am confused. (my normal condition)Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
I suspect all three will appear at the same time...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
You can indeed hope. I suspect you'll be disappointed for several reasons.Quote:
The best I can reasonably hope for is a strategy that places at least some importance on the region's best interests.
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?Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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 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...:(Again we can disagree but I acknowledge that revolves around the definition of 'significantly.'Quote:
...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.
Oh, I suspect we could find them quite easily. The hard part is what do we do about them when we catch them?Quote:
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.)
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: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.Quote:
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.
"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.Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
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.
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 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 provides details on West African poaching -- Somalia is on the East coast of Africea...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
I wish you luck on the fish thing though... You will definitely need it :D
The usual diplomatic hijinks. How did we get so much of Europe to invade Iraq with us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
The same could be said about us vs the pirates, for the most part. American citizens are involved in very few of the attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Have you visited the US recently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
The same way we got others to Korea and to Viet Nam -- by buying and dispnsing goodies...Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.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.Quote:
The same could be said about us vs the pirates, for the most part. American citizens are involved in very few of the attacks.
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...:DQuote:
Have you visited the US recently?
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?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.Quote:
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.
That does not mean nothing should be done, simply that good intentions and lofty goals are not enough to make a difference.More dynamite? :wry:Quote:
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.
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?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:Quote:
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.
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:Did not find that quote but a Google of the site turns up their concern with Somalia. No matter.Quote:
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."
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.Quote:
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.
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...
Nor should we? Why in the world not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Illegal fishing and dumping don't impede our commerce, that's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Well, that's a philosophical debate that could go one forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
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.
Some additional info on the killings of the four Americans:
Quote:
... “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 ...
As I said, I don't have any argument with you on what one should and should not do when one is in Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
I was talking about our strategy with regards to Somalia as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Here we go again.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
What dare I ask would constitute mass slaughter in your eyes?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Then if our commerce is not disrupted, we have no interest involved ergo, we should butt out -- other than mouthing platitudes...Quote:
Illegal fishing and dumping don't impede our commerce, that's true.
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.Quote:
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.
Why did it become undone so easily?Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
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.
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.Not really any debate. Getting up one's hopes to see 'em dashed is a proven depression bringer. :wry:Quote:
Well, that's a philosophical debate that could go one forever.
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.Quote:
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.
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?IOW you're providing documented opinions to counter their stated opinions? Okay...:DQuote:
...But the sources I've provided, despite their admittedly questionable provenance and veracity, are certainly more than anyone else has provided in opposition.
Well stated. Quite ingenuous but well stated. As they say in the vernacular, 'Good luck with that...'Quote:
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.
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White;116288As [B
It is not a US problem -- other than continuing our generic worldwide anti Piracy patrols. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
I take it that you mean we recognize Somaliland and should leave it as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
[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?
I agree with Bob's World and Ken. Not much more I can add.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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 (Registration required).
Apparently judges, schools, and doctors aren't much of a match for invading armies sent specifically to destroy them. Who knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
You were responding to my summary of all our past strategies in Somalia.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
I don't recall drawing any comparisons to solar habits with regard to the horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
That's a bit melodramatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
So, yes, people can still starve to death in swank, sunny Puntland.
It's easier to find news on Somalia in general, but there's some to be found on Puntland specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.
Atta boy Motorfirebox, stay in there and keep punching.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
I tend to that. Is it true though?Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
No, disappointed that somebody you put stock into let you down. Now you know that is what I meant. Play fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Ken is a remarkable fellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
He could probably even tell us about the time he took on the first pirates off the coast of Florida while crab fishing :DQuote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...Quote:
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.
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.That is whom?Quote:
Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.
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...[quote]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:
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.
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.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.
Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west. :DAstute 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.Quote:
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.
That comment seems to indicate that you totally missed my point -- I am emphatically not recommending pirate hunting, rather the oppositeQuote:
I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.
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...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...Quote:
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.
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.
Better eatin' than Crabs... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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