Heres Ken fighting Pirates!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGK6a...001612D1934B25
Printable View
Heres Ken fighting Pirates!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGK6a...001612D1934B25
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
Waiting to see what boils out over the next week or so over the Hostage Negotiator bit...
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?
These negotiators were probably trained in the US so probably subscribe to the "softly, softly" approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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:
Now one may ask how a yacht could possibly outrun a Navy destroyer?Quote:
"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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
And in the case of the Somali pirates the motivation would be?Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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 from Puntland (pdf link).Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
They're not making donations. They're pursuing capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
That's too broad a definition to be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Eh? I'm not assigning evil intent. Selfish intent, in some cases--but not in the case of anyone posting here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.
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).
JMA,Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Couldn't have said it better :cool:
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Regards, Stan
Criminal, but I would respond like a gang would.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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've cleverly tricked you into trailing me into a verbal thicket and now both of us are lost. At least I am anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
Are you being sarcastic or agreeing, I can't tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
You don't address my observation that there doesn't seem to be many starving people who turn to piracy or die.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
There, I've eaten my breakfast, read the paper and had my morning punch up with Motorfirebox. Now off to the gym.
Hey Slap,
Yep, 100% !Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
I have to quote the current school system approach and guidance following a hostage situation (due mostly to my pesky nature :eek: )
And, my favorite...Quote:
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.
EDIT: Er, PS. We're off to a pirate-theme restaurant tonite as all this talk has me hungry for fried king shrimps :pQuote:
If gunfire erupts, get down. Lie flat on the floor.
Those interested in joining us, let's meet at the Corsair :)
Well, that's circular... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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:Quote:
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.)
How do you propose to do that and who should do it?They do? Make sense? Not totally, I think. Do you have a large consensus on that?Quote:
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.
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.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 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...Quote:
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.
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....Oh. It is, huh. Unlike these from an earlier post of yours:Quote:
That's too broad a definition to be useful.
Eye of the beholder, I guess? Your broad definitions have value, others do not? Heh. :DQuote:
""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.""
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:Quote:
Eh? I'm not assigning evil intent. Selfish intent, in some cases--but not in the case of anyone posting here.
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:Quote:
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.
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."Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
It behooves one to be very knowledgable of the environment as well as rather careful what one does and how one goes about it...
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
This should be the SWJ quote of the week,month or whatever:)Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
Regarding piratical practices, though:
I'd like to point out that, the recent episode aside, the hostages survive the vast majority of the time. That could change--it might be fair to say that is changing--but it remains true currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
I have no links to provide you.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
True dat.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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/f...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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by jmm99
Don't hold your breath...
The Suez Canal Authority 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:Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
There is indication 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
US deaths show growing pirate violence in hijackings
U.S. officials defend strategy in talks with piratesQuote:
Pirate sources have told the media that the Americans shot two pirates dead and the hostages were then killed in retaliation.
Somali pirates fight over huge tanker ransomQuote:
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.
This is what Carl meant by TIA, and WAWA works too !
Quote:
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.
Well "the recent episode aside" has changed all that, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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/...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.
Great link and sad story by Information Dissemination on Somalia
I think it's fairly clear we are in Africa !Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.
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.Quote:
There is indication 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.
...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.
To be fair Stan it could be Mexico or ... LA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
Maybe here lies the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
Also:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
He said after Tuesday's incident, captains of hijacked ships have been ordered to tell navies not to approach or hostages would be killed.
Then:
Soldiers? Thugs or gangsters more likely. Unless...Quote:
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.
JMA,Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Well... Hmmm, I reckon :D The point about providing the link was to reinforce posts by Carl and Slap such as:
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 :) )Quote:
"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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Nope, perhaps more likely here:
Quote:
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.
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 !Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Depends on how much khat you've had today :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
The Colonel and I called them "our thugs" but we kept them fed. That, and the nearest ocean was 350 clicks away :D
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
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 :) )
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.
Stan you do realise with your history you will have a problem making it through them Pearly Gates? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
BTW this is an interesting article. SA to join counter-piracy fight
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.Quote:
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
Then:
I would agree with him but I would be more comfortable if his motivation was more crime prevention than profit protection.Quote:
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.”
As your current and sole business partner I must dissuade you from this line of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
Once the State Dept recognizes Somalia as a functioning state, we will be slapped with overflight and landing fees and go bancrupt :eek:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
If we went in with the will to actually kill a lot of Somalis, it'd probably work. We don't have that will.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
IMO it is just plain old kidnapping for ransom and that can be deterred...probably down to nothing.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Well, yeah.Quote:
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.
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...Quote:
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.
Reality thucks... :(
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this time :wry:Quote:
"The cure for piracy 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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
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 (2008),
1811 (2008),
1814 (2008),
1816 (2008),
1831 (2008),
1838 (2008),
1844 (2008),
1846 (2008),
1851 (2008),
1853 (2008),
1863 (2009),
1872 (2009),
1897 (2009),
1910 (2010),
1916 (2010)
1918 (2010),
1950 (2010) and
1964 (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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Don't know much about your military career nor your knowledge of current technology, but then there's this minor issue with your background:Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox
Your turn :D
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by motorfirebox