More Piracy Near Somalia

[Dayuhan]

ah... that selective historical memory again.

Obama called it "Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Further from the White House: "In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources..."

So what I'm saying his decision to stay on and expand operations in Afghanistan had nothing to do with what you allege being: "We had to stay around and try to bring truth, justice, and the American way."

You were wrong.

My comment was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to our prolonged and futile effort to install and sustain an Afghan government that suits American criteria for "good governance", an integral part of whatever the hell we're trying to do in Afghanistan. The point was simply that the US has a hard time with undertaking military action simply to stop somebody from doing something. We have to turn it into an noble effort to install democracy and western style governance, and that gets us into trouble, since we generally can't do it. Since we've already got more of that trouble than we can manage, there's little to no inclination to bite off more of it in Somalia, or anywhere else.

Whoever called it what, I don't see how anything was "cover" for anything else, and I'm not sure what you think I'm "wrong" about. Certainly I don't see how the quotes you cite contradict what I said.

[carl]

That's really stretching the point. I doubt that we need to worry about undercommitting the forces of law and order, these days.

So unbridled piracy isn't contrary to the interests of civilizations. Ok. I'll concede that point, free ocean commerce is just one of those things that...no, on second thought I won't concede the point.; which was unchecked criminality is a threat to civilized values, civilization. You tell me how it isn't. Don't just sniff and say "really."

Under committing the forces of the law. Ok. I would remind you that we are talking about Africa and the oceans a long way off the west coast of Africa, not your local jurisdiction. The patrol areas of those multiple agencies probably don't extend much beyond Greenland.

Fair enough. I was considering the ransoms, which even in 2010 totaled less than the cost of one Tomahawk annually. Including everything, though? It seems to tally up to around a touch over 13 billion. Still less than any reasonable estimate of the cost of stopping it, considering that at one point the US was spending as much as 12 billion a month in Iraq.

Check your figures on Tomahawks again. You still got it wrong. Besides, cruise missiles should be saved for a more difficult target. B-52s dropping guided bombs would be more cost effective.

We were spending 12 billion a month in Iraq to support the activities of around 150,000 American troops, maybe another 100,000 contractors, x thousand other people, hundreds of aircraft and thousands of vehicles. My little old Marine Expeditionary Unit is going to be out to sea anyway so they may as well be doing something useful and diverting, as would that naval force that is mostly sailing around burning fuel.

That's one estimate of the situation. Another is that they're being held onshore. Whichever it is, you're not addressing the difficulty of freeing the hostages who have already been taken, nor those who would be taken immediately following any action.

No kidding most are being held on shore. That is a given and has been for a long time. Please pay attention. As I said, the first step with the crews is making sure no more crews go into the bag. What on earth do you mean by "those who would be taken immediately following any action"?

I imagine they'll react about the same way the pirates on the Quest did--pop the hostages and then surrender. Which adds up to far more deaths per year than piracy alone.

Your right. Murder the hostages, then surrender so they can be hanged of go to Leavenworth for the next 30 years. Much easier than going to that close shore and watching the show.

Since you don't like any of my ideas so far, how about this one? We could pay tribute to the pirates. That would spread the cost over a lot of ships instead of the ones unlucky enough to get caught. The pirates would be much safer because they would only have to check the receipts of a few ships instead of chasing all over the sea after all of them. They wouldn't even have to board. Bar codes could be placed on the hulls of the merchantmen and they could be scanned from afar. In order for the merchantmen to know which pirates are genuine pirates due their tribute, one of those naval vessels could escort each of the genuine pirate ships. Or better yet, instead of the pirates being forced to sail on those OSHAA non-compliant dhows, you could just put one pirate with a scanner one a naval vessel and they could sail him out there. Much safer.

What do you think?

[Stan]

I have never figured this one out. How does one manage to surrender in the middle of a fire fight?

Must be modern warfare as I would have had trigger problems with all those arms waving around and would have down-loaded the mag

[motorfirebox]

So unbridled piracy isn't contrary to the interests of civilizations. Ok. I'll concede that point, free ocean commerce is just one of those things that...no, on second thought I won't concede the point.; which was unchecked criminality is a threat to civilized values, civilization. You tell me how it isn't. Don't just sniff and say "really."

I didn't say it doesn't contribute. But in this case, it's hardly a deciding factor and even the claim that it contributes significantly is hard to swallow.

Check your figures on Tomahawks again. You still got it wrong.

Oops, you're right. 14-hr days make no good math doing.

No kidding most are being held on shore. That is a given and has been for a long time. Please pay attention. As I said, the first step with the crews is making sure no more crews go into the bag. What on earth do you mean by "those who would be taken immediately following any action"?

It would be easier to 'pay attention' if you, yourself, were more careful in keeping track of the subject at hand. You responded to my statement about the difficulty of rescuing hostages by saying we should stay out at sea; it's hardly an unwarranted leap to conclude that you were also talking about rescuing hostages.

Given the rate of piracy, it's likely that further hostages will be taken during or immediately after whatever action we take.

Your right. Murder the hostages, then surrender so they can be hanged of go to Leavenworth for the next 30 years. Much easier than going to that close shore and watching the show.

*shrug* Whichever. Point is, you're consigning tens or hundreds of hostages to death. If you view that as acceptable losses, well, okay, but I haven't seen that point acknowledged by many.

[JMA]

Armed guards save Dutch couple from Somali pirates

Look forward to hearing the full story on this...

The Naval Guards website here

[JMA]

Must be modern warfare as I would have had trigger problems with all those arms waving around and would have down-loaded the mag

I used to work on the basis that if they survived the contact they would be smarter the next time. In these cases (lets see what happens to those who shot the Americans) they seem to get disarmed and released to be older, wiser and more experienced the next time around. Don't make a lot of sense to me.

[carl]

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

Pizarro was mostly after easy money too. A civilization fell. It's a big broad cultural/action point anyway.

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

Probably nothing much. That is mostly JMA's idea, a punitive strike. B-52s would be better. I appreciate the sentiment behind that idea but I don't advocate that. My concern was that people knew the actual cost of the weapon.

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

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

None of us know exactly what they would do, most of all me. We do know what they have done, which is surrender quickly when confronted with actual force (see JMA's Naval Guards story above). Sometimes some of the crew are killed during the rescues. That is what we know.

We also know that dead hostages have no value. If the pirates know they are going to lose that ship anchored off shore, they may choose to put the crews not already ashore, ashore so as to have ransom value. Maybe not. One other thing we know is that some of these crewmen are dying in pirate custody. The Indians found two crewmen dead of neglect when they took some ships back. One other thing we don't know is the status of those 700 or so crewmen being held, but we do know that people held in African prisons don't do well in the long term.

It is my judgment from far away that when you put all these things together the benefits of decisive action outweigh the risks. Additionally, this is going to have to be done at some time or another. It is better for all concerned if the western type navies do it, rather than some others. Some of the others would be might be rather more ruthless.

As you said, there is nothing easy about any of this, establishing a blockade, taking back 30 ships and trying to save as many of the captive crewmen as possible. That is the worst thing. Not all of those guys are getting out alive. We have let it go on too long for that. To give a wildly exaggerated analogy, in the ETO the solution to the problem was for us and the British to invade Europe and defeat the German army in the west. The solution was simple to state, harder to do. In this case, the solution is simple to state also, harder to do; but not so hard as to paralyze us, as it is now.

[Stan]

I used to work on the basis that if they survived the contact they would be smarter the next time. In these cases (lets see what happens to those who shot the Americans) they seem to get disarmed and released to be older, wiser and more experienced the next time around. Don't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm of the opinion that I obtained when Mobutu was the Prez... No survivors means they can never get smarter nor come back. I think the DSP even dumped the opposition's family dog in the Congo river

While I'm with Carl on this one and don't want my taxes spent feeding these fine folks at Leavenworth for the next 30 years, I don't see the US Navy cutting these pirates free. What we need now is a professional Army interrogator and get some intel for ground ops instead of shipping these folks to Kansas for a life sentence !

[Stan]

We also know that dead hostages have no value. If the pirates know they are going to lose that ship anchored off shore, they may choose to put the crews not already ashore, ashore so as to have ransom value. Maybe not. One other thing we know is that some of these crewmen are dying in pirate custody. The Indians found two crewmen dead of neglect when they took some ships back. One other thing we don't know is the status of those 700 or so crewmen being held, but we do know that people held in African prisons don't do well in the long term.

It is my judgment from far away that when you put all these things together the benefits of decisive action outweigh the risks. Additionally, this is going to have to be done at some time or another.

I'll echo Carl's comments and add that taking them on the ships is not a reasonable solution that will last much longer than the hostages dying. We don't even know how many are actually alive or even on the ships. A ground campaign however turns off logistics without even hunting them down. All those vessels will also eventually run out of khat and food. All the money in the world will not replenish supplies that are unobtainable.

It is better for all concerned if the western type navies do it, rather than some others. Some of the others would be might be rather more ruthless.

Sadly, Carl, under the current restraints we have to work with, I disagree. We don't have the balls to do it right the first time and we are not instilling fear nor authority with our pansy actions.

EDIT: Looking at JMA's link it seems the Naval Guards have an ideal situation. Former Ukrainian Naval personnel, firearms and a fleet base in Djibouti. Who gets blamed for turning a sail boat into Swiss cheese ?

[JMA]

That is mostly JMA's idea, a punitive strike. B-52s would be better. I appreciate the sentiment behind that idea but I don't advocate that.

May I just clarify what I said please.

The cruise missile option I recommended was for the Ivory Coast situation as it was at the beginning of the post election stand-off.

What I recommended for Somalia was the use of armed UAVs for land targets and the possibility of cruise missiles to target pirate mother ships (depending on who the owners of those ships are).

In the early stages of the Libyan stand-off I advocated the use of a cruise missile against the Gaddafi family compound (whether they would be there or not it would send the right message).

Now I would suggest that cruise missiles be used to put the airfields being used by the Gaddafi supporters fast air for bombing sorties against the opposition forces beyond use. Makes more sense that a no fly zone.

And what I would have done already would have been to insert teams with manpack anti-helicopter missiles to take care of that threat (isn't this what special forces are really supposed to be all about?) if it turned out that a one time missile blitz could not take out the vast majority of the armed helicopter effort available to Gaddafi.

Hope this clarifies my position.

[carl]

JMA:

I apologize for being lazy and misstating your position. The phrase "cruise missiles" turned into a generic and took on a meaning other than what you said. I didn't think before tapping.

I like the idea of using cruise missiles to attack the Gaddaffi's fixed wing jets.

[slapout9]

Choosing the right targets is far more important than choosing B-52's or Cruise Missiles. I don't remember the post but JMA recommended the "Family relations" and I agree. Tell the hostage takers that we can't do anything about them taking our hostages but if they kill them or want release them we will start terminating their family bloodline.....down to the last person and then we will kill them (the Kidnappers) after we show them pictures of all their families grave sites. In other words the targeting should be very personal and very painfull.....destroy the moral and physical bonds that holds the Family system together and those folks will knock this crap off in short order. And if some JAG officer says we can't do that he should be arrested and placed on trial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy

[carl]

The only politically acceptable offensive role for PMCs is anti-piracy operations. Pirates are themselves mercenaries operating outside international law. They are universally seen as dangerous criminals who represent a clear and present danger to a law-abiding merchant fleet on which a large part of the world's economy is dependent. Compared to the manpower and materiel requirements for effective ground operations, the necessary assets to counter pirates are minimal and not financially burdensome: a few fastboats with radar, secure communications, automatic weapons no heavier than 20mm, a few relatively inexpensive UAVs data-linked to the boats and central command post, and a long-range helicopter capability for medical evacuation. And there are ample historical precedents for issuing letters of marque giving maritime PMCs a legal basis for their actions.

The above was posted on the SWC at South Africa's COIN War but I thought it would be of interest here since the Naval Guards came up for discussion.

Motorfirebox: I bet you thought I forgot about you.

The hard inescapable fact of the thing is some, perhaps many, of the kidnapped crewman aren't getting out alive, no matter what happens. That was established years ago when the various countries with navies decided they couldn't be bothered with piracy. So the important thing now is to make sure no more go into the bag.

[Stan]

The hard inescapable fact of the thing is some, perhaps many, of the kidnapped crewman aren't getting out alive, no matter what happens.

According to this article, some are already at that stage without a shot being fired.

Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said deadline for the execution of eight of the 79 Indian sailors was to expire on Wednesday.

... “Egypt is doing all it can. I am on the phone every day, talking to Cairo. But please understand, it is prohibited under international law to negotiate with pirates.”

[carl]

This item is about pirates attempting to take the Maersk Alabama, again. They left quickly after an embarked security team fired some warning shots.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/af...irates.maersk/

[motorfirebox]

Choosing the right targets is far more important than choosing B-52's or Cruise Missiles. I don't remember the post but JMA recommended the "Family relations" and I agree. Tell the hostage takers that we can't do anything about them taking our hostages but if they kill them or want release them we will start terminating their family bloodline.....down to the last person and then we will kill them (the Kidnappers) after we show them pictures of all their families grave sites. In other words the targeting should be very personal and very painfull.....destroy the moral and physical bonds that holds the Family system together and those folks will knock this crap off in short order. And if some JAG officer says we can't do that he should be arrested and placed on trial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy

You can put that on my list if you want, right after the flying car.

The hard inescapable fact of the thing is some, perhaps many, of the kidnapped crewman aren't getting out alive, no matter what happens. That was established years ago when the various countries with navies decided they couldn't be bothered with piracy. So the important thing now is to make sure no more go into the bag.

We've been successfully escaping that 'fact' for several years, now.

[carl]

We've been successfully escaping that 'fact' for several years, now.

Ah, Inspector. I think you might more accurately say we have been avoiding facing unpleasantness.

[motorfirebox]

Ah, Inspector. I think you might more accurately say we have been avoiding facing unpleasantness.

Avoiding it through general nonoccurence, yes. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those held hostage are released. That is true now, and it's been true for several years. It's very likely to stop being true if we start hunting pirates.

[carl]

Avoiding it through general nonoccurence, yes. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of those held hostage are released. That is true now, and it's been true for several years. It's very likely to stop being true if we start hunting pirates.

Some of what you say is true Inspector, except for the crew of the Quest, some Thai fisherman and a few others. But Sir, what you say also means the criminals have won and we must pay and pay, and more and more crewman must endure unjust imprisonment-forever. Also sir, the Red Cross has not inspected those prisons, we know not the actual conditions they are held under.

I have thought of something else Sir. The foul pirates are asking for more and more money each time they steal a ship and abduct crewmen. I fear they may grow frustrated when there is a reluctance to pay. That may be very bad for the kidnapped crewman. Africa is a most dangerous place.

[JMA]

Some of what you say is true Inspector, except for the crew of the Quest, some Thai fisherman and a few others. But Sir, what you say also means the criminals have won and we must pay and pay, and more and more crewman must endure unjust imprisonment-forever. Also sir, the Red Cross has not inspected those prisons, we know not the actual conditions they are held under.

I have thought of something else Sir. The foul pirates are asking for more and more money each time they steal a ship and abduct crewmen. I fear they may grow frustrated when there is a reluctance to pay. That may be very bad for the kidnapped crewman. Africa is a most dangerous place.

Yes I'm afraid the argument for total capitulation to the pirates is plain ridiculous. Perhaps that extreme position should now be ignored in this debate?

It appears that a handful of trained personnel are quite able to repel attempts by pirates to board most ships. So this should free up the navies in the area to patrol the coastline rather than patrol the sea lanes?

But do the navies deployed to the area have the authority, the means and the competence to take the action to the pirates home bases?