More Piracy Near Somalia

[Stan]

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 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

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.

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 ).

[motorfirebox]

Not that hiring a proxy force would be easy, but it would allow the West to save face when things went south - which probably would occur. Sort of like an African version of PMCs with no rules of engagement and unlimited ammunition. I can think of a few off the top of my head already (before the acronym PMC was even invented).

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 ).

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.

[Stan]

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.

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

[motorfirebox]

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.

[slapout9]

IMO it is just plain old kidnapping for ransom and that can be deterred...probably down to nothing.

[Ken White]

Just woke up with this full-blown realization regarding the difficulty of taking on pirates by force: the hostages.

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.

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.

Well, yeah.

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.

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...

[motorfirebox]

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.

Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.

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...

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.

[jmm99]

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

[Ken White]

I don't have a lot of experience on the ground, but I do have quite a bit of experience watching CNN.

Well, okay but TV 'news' served up by the Entertainment industry and fllavored strongly by US domestic politics and ideologies is probably a poor source for decision making information...

Better to skim the Internet for multiple news reports, preferably competing or conflicting and from several nations -- and give the 'news' time to be corroborated and to gel (first reports are invariably incorrect, some dangerously so) -- then judge veracity, filter for bias and make your own decision.

Later realize you did the best you could with the information you had at the time but the unknown unknowns gotcha.

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.

Willingly is not an option...

Speak to the politicians. Your Elected leaders and their appointed minions make those types of decisions. Whether the military wants to do it, is properly trained or equipped to do it is absolutely immaterial to them. Virtually no one in the US Army wanted to go to Iraq...

[JMA]

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.

Now based on that you jump boots and all into this discussion?????

[Stan]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

"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."

We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this 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.

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.

[motorfirebox]

I recall years ago being told not to get snatched because I would be automatically considered dead. Nobody is coming and the food in Africa is, well, sucks. Best to consider the reality that some are not making it out (especially if they are being tortured in freezers as reports indicate). We must be cruising with our rose-colored sunglasses if we think they are having steak dinners with ice-cold beers in the friggin desert. I imagine a few that have a good year in captivity would consider a cruise missile strike a gift from heaven.

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.

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).

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.

We have a new administration and just maybe they will let us go in armed this time

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.

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.

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.

[Stan]

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 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!

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.

Don't know much about your military career nor your knowledge of current technology, but then there's this minor issue with your background:

Heh, well, it has been noted that I lack boots-on-the-ground experience.

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.

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

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 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

[carl]

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.

I've been thinking about your last sentence above and I wonder if it has to do with kicking the fruit tree. A cop or official would push for a shakedown as hard as he could but if he didn't get anything he mostly wouldn't hold it against you and would probably wave at you the next time he saw you. That always puzzled me until they told me the story of the fruit tree. When you go by a fruit tree, you kick it just to see if some fruit would fall. If it didn't you went on your way. You didn't hold it against the tree. Us mundeles were the tree.

Maybe a part of the story they didn't tell was if your buddy kicks the tree and a coconut falls on his head and kills him, you don't hold it against the tree, you just take his stuff and go your way.

Stan I know you know the story but maybe some others don't and I like to tell it because it is a great story.

[Stan]

Stan I know you know the story but maybe some others don't and I like to tell it because it is a great story.

Hey Carl,
Yep, it is a good story !

I used to enjoy the Zairois version better... Sit under the fruit tree and wait for the fruit to drop on your head. No reason to work at it