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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.Originally Posted by motorfirebox
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
'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.
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.
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.
I really don't understand how I can be accused of not understanding Africa when statements like this are allowed to slip by.
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?
I am confused. (my normal condition)
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
East side, west side...
I suspect all three will appear at the same time...You can indeed hope. I suspect you'll be disappointed for several reasons.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?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.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.'...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?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...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.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.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...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.
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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
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.
I wish you luck on the fish thing though... You will definitely need it
If you want to blend in, take the bus
The usual diplomatic hijinks. How did we get so much of Europe to invade Iraq with us?
The same could be said about us vs the pirates, for the most part. American citizens are involved in very few of the attacks.Oh, I suspect we could find them quite easily. The hard part is what do we do about them when we catch them?
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...
Have you visited the US recently?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
I wish you luck on the fish thing though... You will definitely need it
He who hesitates fertilizes...
The same way we got others to Korea and to Viet Nam -- by buying and dispnsing goodies...
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.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...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.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?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.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.Did not find that quote but a Google of the site turns up their concern with Somalia. No matter.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.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?
Illegal fishing and dumping don't impede our commerce, that's true.
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, yes. Just last month I reluctantly left Florida for points north -- I try to do that as seldom as possible. Yankees are strange folks...
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.
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.
Well, that's a philosophical debate that could go one forever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
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.
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
Last edited by Bob's World; 02-24-2011 at 12:32 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Some additional info on the killings of the four Americans:
... “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.
I was talking about our strategy with regards to Somalia as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
Here we go again.
What dare I ask would constitute mass slaughter in your eyes?
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it...
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.Then if our commerce is not disrupted, we have no interest involved ergo, we should butt out -- other than mouthing platitudes...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.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?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...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.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.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......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...'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...
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?
Bookmarks