More Piracy Near Somalia

[Ken White]

The pirates prey...the navies would protect them, something that has been a primary responsibility of navies...

They do and it has not been -- it is an assumed role dictated by Politicians to protect their business interests and friends. It was common usage of Navies in past centuries; nowadays not so much. They're out of practice which is why most aren't doing it well. Add the fact that fewer Politicians today have any interest in matime commerce and there's no iincentive for Navies to do the anti-piracy thing.Try to find it in the mission statement of any navy. It compares to Armies and COIN -- unpleasant ask, expensive and tedious, best avoided...

...that is also a difference between fighting pirates and going into the other places you mentioned. Fighting pirates is continuing a social contract that has been in effect for thousands of years. It is also a lot easier to do since it is on the sea.

We used to ride to work on Elephants, too. Had to quit because the Parking Lot Attendants got upset...

It is a western social contract if it is one at all, which I doubt. It's about money as are most things. It is also expensive and waste of effort but that's another Thread. For this one, it's a new duty for most alive today and serving in anyone's Navy and it is unlikely to be successful. Motorfirebox is correct in that you're attacking the symptom, not the problem.

What does "easier" have to do with moral rectitude? Why is it easier because it is on the sea? For that matter, what is easier, killing Pirates? Easier than trying to stop a civil war fomented by a 'do-good' mentality with air power alone? Sorry, I cannot see the logic in that statement.

Practicability has a lot to do with doing good.

Interesting statement. Suffice to say I suspect not everyone agrees and that smacks of moral equivalence -- which is okay but which is considered by most who espouse doing good as evil or nearly so...

Evil is being done in places, many places.

As it was in the beginning, is now and forever shall be...

True dat -- and it absolutely, positively is not going to be stopped by the application of force, particularly if that force is applied in support of one set of persons against another. You may suppress it temporarily but it won't stop.

But we have a prior contract to stop the evil on the high seas. This contract has helped to ensure human prosperity over thousands of years. We, hard fact that it is, don't have prior contract in the other places.

We? Who is this 'we?' Not to be snarky but isn't that assuming a lot of personal responsibility for decisions that are not one person's to make? Forming a collective that may or may not exist?

We may have a moral obligation depending on the circumstances, and we have discussed that at length before

As an example, we did discuss -- and disagreed. Still do.

I do not agree that anyone has a prior contract to "stop evil on the high seas," Nor do I believe anyone has a current contract to impose their view of morality on anyone else by force.

I thus am confused by any one who wishes to to apply force to punish one set of criminals while applying other force to save another set of them...

Moral obligations are a little harder to act upon because we didn't tell the people, yes we will defend you, as we have with the merchant sailors over the ages.

Nations do not, cannot, have morals. Morality is an individual construct. Again, no one told Merchant Seamen that, it just happened through a series of events.

Let me make one thing clear. I have no problem with blowing Pirates out of the water. Nor do I have a problem with wreaking death and destruction on Daffy and Co. However, I do not see either activity as a moral imperative. The first is an ineffective partial solution to a minor problem; the second an ineffective partial solution likely to create a bigger problem. Where I see your positions disconnect is in the bloodthirsty unequivocal desire to clobber Pirates bouncing off the strongly stated desire to 'protect' a set of almost equally criminal persons from another set of same. i.e. You want to kill off one set of Pirate and encourage the probable foundation of another set...

I don't see any dichotomy, just very different problems, places and people.

The people do differ. The places are irrelevant, practically speaking, the problems are different but the people are doing things that are wrong in all cases, yet you propose that one batch of wrongdoing (the least harmful to others) is far, far worse than the other two which are arguably more detrimental to more people -- and see no dichotomy? Okay. We can disagree on that as well.

[JMA]

Yours was the name I noticed.

OK now we have that cleared up.

I don't like calling out specific posters, generally, because it often leads to interpersonal headbutting that gets in the way of clearer exchanges.

Yea, I understand that tends to upset the moderators but it is better to look someone in the eye when discussing such issues with them than just firing rounds into the stop-butt , yes?

The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya.

Typo I think. You want to try again?

[carl]

Ken:

One of the fundamental, vital, basic purposes of navies is to suppress pirates. It has been since the beginning of navies. We haven't had to do it much in the last several decades because it was done so effectively in the past, but that doesn't mean it ain't still one of the main reasons there are navies. The reason that it is so important of course is that it is vital in maintaining free trade. Free trade means the difference between being poor and being not poor. Important that.

For you to say that anti-piracy work is in effect beneath the swabbies strikes a very discordant note. If the navies were to come out and say something like that it would strike this forever a civilian as a supercilious evasion of duty. Speaking as a civilian, I wouldn't much care that it is work for little ships, low tech ships, that there wasn't much glory in it, less publicity, no fame for admirals and no opportunity develop multi-billion tech programs to get that star; get out there and take care of the pirates.

I don't think that is the actual case. I think the navies, at least the guys on the ships who haven't been contaminated by national capital politics, are itching to take care of the pirates and could do so quick. It is the politicians who are restraining them, for politically correct reasons.

If the nations won't let the navies take care of the pirates, it would only be fair if they let the merchant mariners arm and defend themselves. Nothing worse than authorities who won't defend you and won't let you defend yourself.

Most police work is attacking a symptom, criminal behavior. You deal with the other stuff after you disarm and incarcerate the robber. Dealing with pirates is police work.

You should probably look up the definition of moral equivalence again. Easier has a lot to do with moral rectitude, or maybe more accurately, moral action, since most people aren't heroes and it is too much to expect to be. You are grateful for what they do, you don't castigate them in the same breath for what they didn't do. That would tend to discourage them.

Commission of evil acts absolutely can be stopped by force. It happens every day. Said application of force won't stop evil itself because that is part of human nature; but when you stop a rape in progress by using force, as a guy I knew did, that rape victim is pretty grateful that an evil act was stopped.

As far as my being bloodthirsty regarding pirates, I don't know if it is being bloodthirsty as much as being realistic about the place and the people. WAWA, TIA.

So that is my position on piracy. Why are you speaking about what I didn't say in regards to the other countries? In this thread I have limited my comments to piracy, or at least I think I did. I made limited comments with regard to Libya and even more limited comments with regard to Ivory Coast. I don't quite understand what you are targeting.

[Stan]

I just knew you were at the bottom of all this confusion JMA

OK now we have that cleared up.

Yours was the name I noticed. I don't like calling out specific posters, generally, because it often leads to interpersonal headbutting that gets in the way of clearer exchanges. The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya.

[Entropy]

As a Navy guy who went over to the dark side, I just can't get too excited about these pirates. The Somalia pirates are certainly dramatic and make a great story, but they are really minor in the grand scheme of things - at least minor enough that most of the proposed "cures" are probably worse than the "disease."

Approximately 20,000 ships transit just the Gulf of Aden each year. In 2010, 53 ships were captured by Somalia pirates and a couple hundred others were "attacked." Piracy insurance is more expensive due to Somali piracy, but isn't usually even required for ships plying these waters. The reason is that piracy isn't as big a threat as it's made out to be and therefore our we shouldn't overreact in response.

[carl]

Entropy:

This is a smart ass comment so feel free to disregard or reply in kind. But at what point should the Navy deign to bother about this? I know it is a distraction from the truly important things like revising the berthing aboard subs to make way for females but 53 ships are 53 ships, some of them quite large and there is also the matter of hundreds of innocent mariners who while proceeding peacefully about their business were threatened with death, kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned in who knows what kind of circumstances.

The preceeding (sic) was mostly a rant.

[M-A Lagrange]

Not being a navy guy, I will not comment on the greater mission.
But just, the 53 ships attacked in 2010 have to be compared with the number of attacks in 2007 for example, or 2008.
Basically before any fleet was assign to protect the ships.
Also, remember the ukrenian cargo of tanks for South Sudan government taken by pirates?

I think it not the number that count here but rather a "tranquility quality" that's at stake.

[JMA]

I just knew you were at the bottom of all this confusion JMA

At the top of the confusion Stan, at the top.

[Entropy]

Carl,

Piracy is a problem the Navy can only mitigate, not solve. The ocean is a big place, there are lots of targets for the pirates, naval vessels are few and expensive, and the pirate ports are currently sanctuaries. Patrolling and attempting to catch pirates at sea will hinder pirate activity, but it's ultimately a chronic treatment for a what is a chronic condition. Unless you're willing to change the conditions on the ground that lead to piracy, you're left with treating the disease.

A permanent solution is neither easy nor cheap given Somalia's realities. The question then becomes, what additional measures are you willing to take in order to prevent the pirates from taking ships? I'm simply suggesting that convoys, exclusion zones or more radical measures (ie. attacking pirate bases) are either not worth the cost or are unlikely to succeed. We can probably add more ships to patrol and perhaps prevent a few more incidents per year, but is that really worth what is, in reality, a small problem?

[JMA]

... the pirate ports are currently sanctuaries.

I suggest you need to revisit this assumption.

[motorfirebox]

Yea, I understand that tends to upset the moderators but it is better to look someone in the eye when discussing such issues with them than just firing rounds into the stop-butt , yes?

That might be relevant if I thought you were the only person to hold these two opinions.

Typo I think. You want to try again?

No, no typo that I can see.

[JMA]

No, no typo that I can see.

Then humour me please. What does your following statement mean?

"The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya."

[carl]

...and the pirate ports are currently sanctuaries.

To echo JMA, why?

[Ken White]

One of the fundamental, vital, basic purposes of navies is to suppress pirates.

We can disagree on that.

I suppose It has been since the beginning of navies. We haven't had to do it much in the last several decades because it was done so effectively in the past, but that doesn't mean it ain't still one of the main reasons there are navies.

I do not so suppose. Your second supposition is also questionable and the reason for less high seas Piracy is a wealthier World. Piracy flourishes where coastal people are poor. Surprise, surprise...

For you to say that anti-piracy work is in effect beneath the swabbies strikes a very discordant note.

That's not what I said. This is:

"Add the fact that fewer Politicians today have any interest in matime (sic)commerce and there's no iincentive (sic) for Navies to do the anti-piracy thing.Try to find it in the mission statement of any navy. It compares to Armies and COIN -- unpleasant ask, expensive and tedious, best avoided..."

Not having experience, being equipped or trained to do a certain mission does not mean it's beneath anyone. Likewise, the fact that a mission is tedious, expensive and unpleasant does not mean it's beneath one. Please read what I write, not what you want to think I wrote.

It's not beneath the Sailors, it is something removed from their normal missions, it is tedious (like boring holes in the sky with no activity...) and it is COIN like in many respects; Armies do COIN, Navies do anti-piracy. These things are not "beneath" either but that doesn't make them desirable -- or efficient mission assignments. Both missions are, in fact, quite inefficient and generally only a marginally effective uses of the forces.

If the navies were to come out and say something like that it would strike this forever a civilian as a supercilious evasion of duty. Speaking as a civilian, I wouldn't much care that it is work for little ships, low tech ships, that there wasn't much glory in it, less publicity, no fame for admirals and no opportunity develop multi-billion tech programs to get that star; get out there and take care of the pirates.

The Navies didn't say that, nor did I. You're entitled to your opinion and to be brave, forthright, even dictatorial on an internet board. What you'd do if you had the responsibility for the Navy, procurement and such like or even if you were in the Navy is an entirely different matter and neither of us knows what your actions and / or thoughts would be.

You correctly note that "speaking as a civilian.." you wouldn't much care about several factors which the Navy and those Admirals, regrettably have to care about. That particular civilian attitude bred of ignorance is responsible for a lot of wasted effort and foolish mission assignments to forces all over the World. It's okay to be ignorant, that's simply a lack of knowledge and can be rectified -- but it possibly is not a good idea to decide mission parameters from a position lacking in knowledge of all the ramifications of what one is asking those forces to do. IOW, it's okay to have an idea of what possibly should be done, it is less okay to start castigating people who aren't acting as you believe they should when you have no idea of the problems and situations they are or may be confronted with. I'd also suggest that forthrightly stating what one sees as required is certainly alright but if one does so from a position of less than adequate knowledge, one is likely to be perennially disappointed things are not being done their way.

The problem is that you're only doing it on a discussion board, so no harm done, while other civilians with even less knowledge occasionally rise to the helm of power and do the same sort of thing and impose damage.

I don't think that is the actual case. I think the navies, at least the guys on the ships who haven't been contaminated by national capital politics, are itching to take care of the pirates and could do so quick. It is the politicians who are restraining them, for politically correct reasons.

That also is an opinion to which you are entitled -- just realize it's an opinion and just yours at that. It's not fact. I don't think what you believe should be done is nearly as easy as you seem to imply that it is.

Also see my next comment.

If the nations won't let the navies take care of the pirates, it would only be fair if they let the merchant mariners arm and defend themselves. Nothing worse than authorities who won't defend you and won't let you defend yourself.

While I agree with the merchant ships caring for them selves, I think you significantly underestimate the difficulties and problems -- political, geographic, spatial and practical -- in having blue water oriented Navies trying to counter Pirates in small craft. The "authorities" are doing their best, it simply is not and never will be enough. It's a Band Aid. My perception is that you approve of Band Aids and Humanitarian Aid. That's fine, your prerogative and there are many who agree with you but do recall they are only temporary fixes and in most cases merely result in greater damage and postponing the inevitable. 'Fix it now' is easy to say but rarley results in a true fix, it just puts a nice, 'we did something...' glosscoat over the corrosion. Never enough time to fix it right but always enough to do it two or three times...

In this case, those Navies are not refusing to protect -- they are doing the best they can within the rules and constraints imposed by their various governments and the operational impediments posed by their primary mission. They are not going to go full bore into anti-piracy operations because, contrary to what you seem to think, that is not their job and it is way down the list supplemental mission to be performed if they aren't doing much else. For the US Navy, for example, anti piracy activity will never supercede support to OEF -- nor should it.

All Navies will do what they're told by their civilian masters and they'll enjoy the extra funding the added and secondary mission of deterring piracy brings but they will not adopt it as a reason for existence. Nor should they IMO. Note I said deterring piracy. That's all they're doing as best they can and that is IMO not terribly wise; better to eliminate it but that is a long term costly endeavor and no non-Somali government is inclined to court the expense or bother. Eventually, the neighboring Nations may get interested but it'll be a while -- they all have problems of their own.

Most police work is attacking a symptom, criminal behavior. You deal with the other stuff after you disarm and incarcerate the robber. Dealing with pirates is police work.

Make up your mind. Is it Police work or a Naval task? Can't have it both ways. If it is Police work (and I agree that it is...) then the Navies are the wrong aggregations for the job and thus are only a temporary stopgap. Those never work as well as a focused, job oriented element will. Having been a Cop briefly and a Soldier for a far longer period, I discovered that two very different mindsets and action patterns are required. Based on some familiarity with both, I'm pretty sure the same is true of Coast Guards and Navies...

You should probably look up the definition of moral equivalence again.

I did that last time you suggested it. We disagreed then. Still do.

Why are you speaking about what I didn't say in regards to the other countries? In this thread I have limited my comments to piracy, or at least I think I did. I made limited comments with regard to Libya and even more limited comments with regard to Ivory Coast. I don't quite understand what you are targeting.

I'm not targeting anything. I am referring to your statements in the other thread on humanitarian response in Libya (and to generic comments from others on the Cote d'Ivoire). I am doing that because this sub-thread started with my agreeing with motorfirebox that your comments on the two threads were somewhat of a dichotomy; Kill the Pirates, save the Libyans. You disagree that is in fact a dichotomy. Not a prob, we can disagree on that as well.

[motorfirebox]

Then humour me please. What does your following statement mean?

"The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya."

Why is there a moral imperative to help the Libyan rebels and Ouattara's forces, but no moral imperative to help Somalia?

[carl]

Ken:

Sure are a lot of words there. I'll try and keep them straight in my head as I reply.

I disagree with the contention that reduced piracy is because of a wealthier world. There are lots and lots of places that are poor that don't have pirates. The area that was Somalia has been poor for decades and decades but piracy has only become a big problem in the last few years. I suppose that's because maybe somebody had the bright idea of trying it once and it worked good and nobody did much about it so they kept doing what worked. I read that the Malacca straits piracy went way down in the last few years, mostly because the tsunami killed most of the guys who were the pirates. Dead pirates, poof, no piracy. My contention is sea policing is what keeps piracy at bay.

Navies are the ones who do sea policing. You can call them coast guards or maritime constabularies or whatever you want but they are an organized military force and they chase down pirates. Far out at sea especially it is a navy of some kind that will do it. It doesn't really matter if anti-piracy work is an inefficient use of naval resources, it must be done. The Japanese Imperial Navy isn't always available to make for cost effective targets. If the navies aren't trained and equipped for little work like chasing pirates they probably should get trained and equipped. Though I think they are equipped and trained just fine if only the politicians would let them get at it.

I think I will have it both ways as to chasing pirates being police work and navy work. Cops chase robbers and navies chase sea robbers. Seems the same to me.

Stop the pirates because they are harming innocent people. Make some effort to stop the dictator from harming innocent people. I still see no dichotomy.

[M-A Lagrange]

While I agree with the merchant ships caring for them selves, I think you significantly underestimate the difficulties and problems -- political, geographic, spatial and practical -- in having blue water oriented Navies trying to counter Pirates in small craft.

Well, earlier in this threat, it was pointed that actual pirates on the Somali coast were previously employed by security companies to "secure" boats.

Being a civilian and even not a US citizen, my point would simply be to support the idea that delegating policing functions to private companies have sometimes unexpected effects.
Yes pirates do exist in poor coastal areas but they also exist in Somalia because they did receive training and then have been able to develop skills.

[Ken White]

Dead pirates, poof, no piracy. My contention is sea policing is what keeps piracy at bay.

The IMO disagrees but what do they know...

The Navies you malign also disagree. They're stupid, too, I suppose.

Navies are the ones who do sea policing. You can call them coast guards or maritime constabularies or whatever you want but they are an organized military force and they chase down pirates.

You can call them what you wish but the fact is that Navies and Coast Guard like organizations have quite different organizations, training, roles and missions. They are not interchangeable anymore than are police and soldiers.

If the navies aren't trained and equipped for little work like chasing pirates they probably should get trained and equipped. Though I think they are equipped and trained just fine if only the politicians would let them get at it.

I believe that suggests a bit more research on your part might be helpful for you.

I think I will have it both ways as to chasing pirates being police work and navy work. Cops chase robbers and navies chase sea robbers. Seems the same to me.

Well, it's certainly a simple solution...

What one does if the citizens for various reasons do not themselves obey the law or exercise common sense in where they go and how they do it and there are not enough Cops while the size of the area makes Cochise County look like one small urban block is another issue, I suppose...

Stop the pirates because they are harming innocent people. Make some effort to stop the dictator from harming innocent people. I still see no dichotomy.

Obviously.

No matter, no sense boring others as this has become futile. G'day...

[carl]

Ken:

What is the IMO?

Maligning navies? I didn't mean to, especially the sailors on the ships. Timid admirals and equally timid politicians, I did mean to malign them.

I don't know much about how navies and coast guards are trained and organized in other countries, but I do know a tiny bit about how they work in the US. They seem to do a lot of the same things. Coasties go after drug runners as does the Navy. The Navy goes after subs and in WWII at least, I know, a long time ago, the Coasties went after subs too. And did a damn good job of it. The Coast Guard is subordinated into the Navy in times of war and I believe when the Coast Guard is buying their biggest cutters one of the considerations is how they will be able to handle navy type fighting.

More research into anything is always helpful but it seems to me that all of the navies that have actually chosen to do so, have been able to handle the pirates quite easily, the Indians, British, Danes, UAEs, South Koreans, Dutch and even us. That suggests that the training and equipment is adequate, only the will is lacking. That has to come from on high.

I don't understand the paragraph about Cochise County.

Hopefully others aren't bored. I'm not at all. This is fun.

[Ken White]

What is the IMO?

LINK.

Maligning navies? I didn't mean to, especially the sailors on the ships. Timid admirals and equally timid politicians, I did mean to malign them.

Slap paint around with careless abandon and an over sized brush and it'll splatter on everything, wrong color or not...

I don't know much about how navies and coast guards are trained and organized in other countries, but I do know a tiny bit about how they work in the US. They seem to do a lot of the same things. Coasties go after drug runners as does the Navy.

Apparently you don't know nearly as much as you presume. The CG goes after the druggies, the Navy assists and carries these (LINK) when it does so. By law...

The Navy goes after subs and in WWII at least...when the Coast Guard is buying their biggest cutters one of the considerations is how they will be able to handle navy type fighting.

Again basically true but awfully simplistic. What I've been trying to point out as nicely as I can -- in all those long posts which are not fun -- you don't understand all you know about what you're saying. You're well read but you're missing a bunch of detail and nuance that no fiction and few histories can impart...

More research into anything is always...only the will is lacking. That has to come from on high.

Yet again too simplistic. There are political constraints, no question. That's reality. The fact that you and JMA asked why Entropy called the Pirate ports sanctuaries when that is a political constraint -- whether you two like it or agree with it is totally immaterial -- if you do not know why those restraints exist, then you're arguing from a position of ignorance. That can be corrected, thus my suggestion that you might wish to do some more research into things before you start laying out policies that no one will be able to follow and slamming people with the weight of flawed perception and the inaccuracy of limited understanding.

OTOH, if you do know why they are sanctuaries and just do not agree they should be, that's fine but I'm sure you know that your disagreement with that policy of many governments around the world is unlikely to change a thing simply because you don't think it is a good policy.

I don't understand the paragraph about Cochise County.

Compared to a one block urban area, Cochise County AZ is massive. Compared to the Gulf of Mexico, the Indian Ocean is far more massive. The Gulf is covered by counter drug hunting vessels and the Druggies still get through. The allegory is that you want 'one urban block and a big squad of ten NYC Cops success' in a 'vast Cochise county sized desert area with the same ten urban trained Cops.' Not an ideal scenario, wrong Cops in an unfamiliar environment with the wrong equipment (a Crown Vic works in NYC -- not so much in the Arizona desert).

The Indian Ocean is huge, the number of naval ships from all nations is relatively small, they are doing their best but it is not, to them an overwhelmingly important mission and the fact that you believe it should be has little effect. That belief certainly does not increase the number of Naval ships, decrease the number of Pirates or make the Indian Ocean one bit smaller...

The best they can do -- and this would be true with double the number of ships and far looser ROE and policies -- is deter some piracy. They cannot stop it and wishing they could or thinking they should be able to do so will not change the reality. Or the political impingements.

Hopefully others aren't bored. I'm not at all. This is fun.

I'm glad you think so. It might be more fun if you had some grounding in the reality of what Navies do, how and why they do it and had a less cavalier and doctrinaire attitude toward things you do not seem to fully understand. Also be helpful if you didn't discount the political problems -- they're easy for you to dismiss, not at all easy for elected politicians to do so.

OTOH, I'm not sure that anything to do with discussing the rather serious business of people living or dying is all that much fun -- as opposed to participating ion the activity, that can be fun. I am sure that trying to broaden your understanding at possibly excessive length and having you ignore most of the important items to concentrate on the quick and to you significant theoretical and belief oriented items to the exclusion of the practical constraints and realities is not fun...