To be fair Stan it could be Mexico or ... LA.Originally Posted by Stan
Do you really think the owners of say a full oil supertanker give a rats ass about the crew? The ransom is paid to get the ship and its cargo back. The crew are an inconvenience. I mean they may want compensation etc etc.
I would agree that pleasure boats and yachts are taken because they believe such people have money and their lives are the key to getting the ransom.
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.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.
Maybe here lies the problem?
Also: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.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...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,
Well... Hmmm, I reckonThe 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"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.")
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Nope, perhaps more likely here:
The only objective a civilian leader will ever discuss for Afghanistan is a withdraw date, and there has never been an objective discussed by political leaders in regards to Somali piracy.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 !
Depends on how much khat you've had today
The Colonel and I called them "our thugs" but we kept them fed. That, and the nearest ocean was 350 clicks away
If you want to blend in, take the bus
OK, I'm with you... but I thought it was necessary to spread the net of criticism before some smart guy played the race cardJMA,
Well... Hmmm, I reckon
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.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?Depends on how much khat you've had today
The Colonel and I called them "our thugs" but we kept them fed. That, and the nearest ocean was 350 clicks away
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.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.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.
Once the State Dept recognizes Somalia as a functioning state, we will be slapped with overflight and landing fees and go bancrupt
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Yeah... cargo's harder to move and easier to track, though. If they start doing that, it really would be pretty easy to send in some shooters and roll up enough pirates to have an overall effect.
I'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.
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.
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.
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).
I just don't think that's realistic. We could do it, sure. But we won't. If we send in ground forces, there will be cameras everywhere and we're going to spend most of our time responding to ambushes and talking to Anderson Cooper about how terrible it all is. And we'll leave a year or two later, and piracy will spring right back up.
If we went in with the will to actually kill a lot of Somalis, it'd probably work. We don't have that will.
Last edited by motorfirebox; 02-27-2011 at 07:20 PM.
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
Not that hiring a proxy force would be easy, but it would allow the West to save face when things went south - which probably would occur. Sort of like an African version of PMCs with no rules of engagement and unlimited ammunition. I can think of a few off the top of my head already (before the acronym PMC was even invented).
In the end it would have little to do with how many pirates were killed, rather, how swift and brutal a blow was dealt. Whatever was left behind would be scarfed up by the locals. Sounds terrible, I know, but that's how things are typically done and for some strange reason with no immediate remorse or threats of payback.
The press wouldn't be invited nor would most of them contemplate even going. Watched that too with them hiding behind US and French troops taking the same boring pictures every day rather than going outside the wire on their own (because they always came back robbed blind back then).
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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.Not that hiring a proxy force would be easy, but it would allow the West to save face when things went south - which probably would occur. Sort of like an African version of PMCs with no rules of engagement and unlimited ammunition. I can think of a few off the top of my head already (before the acronym PMC was even invented).
In the end it would have little to do with how many pirates were killed, rather, how swift and brutal a blow was dealt. Whatever was left behind would be scarfed up by the locals. Sounds terrible, I know, but that's how things are typically done and for some strange reason with no immediate remorse or threats of payback.
The press wouldn't be invited nor would most of them contemplate even going. Watched that too with them hiding behind US and French troops taking the same boring pictures every day rather than going outside the wire on their own (because they always came back robbed blind back then
Last edited by motorfirebox; 02-27-2011 at 09:40 PM.
I'd say 1965 thru 1991 all over again, but it works out the very same for most in Sub-Sahara. Piracy seems to make the news, but yet, hostages are present everywhere.
Stopping the current threat is little more than a band aid til the next administration comes in and creates a new policy for dealing with GWOT or whatever we think up next. So, we're left with concentrating on what makes the news and popular polls.
Seems the proxy war only masks our distaste for doing business once diplomacy no longer works with clean results.
I can only imagine what would have happened if some First Lady years ago decided she didn't care for pirates instead of telling us she no longer liked land mines
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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.
'Surprisingly, he discovered the world was not a nice place...'
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.Well, yeah.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...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
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.
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).
We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this time
"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.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.
I don't have a lot of experience on the ground, but I do have quite a bit of experience watching CNN. I can't see the US military willingly taking that kind of PR hit, regardless of how the action against the Somalis themselves is viewed.Yes -- and all that is why there has been no western military action (directed at the Piracy...) on land thus far. Nor is there likely to be unless the pirate crews continue to get greedy -- then the west will react and it will not be pretty. While every effort would be made by most forces to insure hostage survival, the overall fate of the hostages will not determine what is done if military action were to be ordered. In that unlikely event, the hostages will be part of that collateral damage you mentioned...
Reality thucks...
To say nothing of the folks at the UN, and ....
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.
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.
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.We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this time
Yeah, but there's a difference between quietly looking the other way while Somalis kill hostages (it's not like anybody got too excited when they killed those Thai fishermen, after all) and having it happen in full color while the world is actually paying attention.
I 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!
Don't know much about your military career nor your knowledge of current technology, but then there's this minor issue with your background:
Not sure where you're going now. What do you mean by "the military is actually doing what it's supposed to do" ? Assuming you're "Joe Public" what then is your perception ? We break things and kill people at the behest of those that can't and won't all the while maintain their public perception. I have no desire in squandering my pathetic retirement to change or promote the public's view on my life as a soldier.
Your turn
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
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Bookmarks