More Piracy Near Somalia

[Ken White]

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?

It is not a US problem -- other than continuing our generic worldwide anti Piracy patrols.

The primary law enforcement problem is to eliminate (or reduce to an 'acceptable' level) the piracy. That has to be the responsibility of the local -- to include neighboring -- governments. We can provide funding and training but it is their responsibility. * Any attempts to impose a western solution will almost certainly fail -- expensively...

The secondary problem is the elimination of illegal fishing and dumping. That is essentially a European problem and thus is their and not our responsibility.

So the Squids and Leatherheads can remain afloat and we do not need to land the landing force.

* Note that solution will work, making people responsible for their own fate and neighborhood always does. However, it has two flaws in the eyes of some. It is not quick; It does not allow 'us' to "get involved." Note also that quick fixes rarely work and that "getting involved" where you aren't wanted builds up more hostility to your interference than any transient good you might obtain...

[carl]

I was talking about our strategy with regards to Somalia as a whole.

I was talking about our strategy, strategems, policy, bag of tricks or whatever concerning the immediate problem, pirates. The longer our strategy concerning pirates is mostly hand-wringing (or maybe was) the bigger this problem gets. The bigger it gets the harder it is to deal with; note al-Shabaab and the pirates recently agreeing to split some ransoms.

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.

The construction of your first sentence in the above quote is interesting. It can be turned 180 degrees to the effect that Motorfirebox hasn't given the nature of piracy in the area that used to be Somalia enough study.

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.

No, I view you as a well intentioned guy who sees the good in people and just hasn't come around the realization, a realization that actually kills a very small piece of a good man's heart, that there are people who are black soul destroying vortexes of evil who can't be saved or reasoned with. When you said something along the lines of "nice going Somalia" it was almost like the disappointment of a defence lawyer learning that his client just killed another one.

I am puzzled by your equating the term "mass slaughter" to the breaking of Somali pirates at sea by force. There just aren't that many pirates at sea at any one time and their pattern of behavior is when they are actually shot at or threatened with boarding most all of them give up right away, just like criminals normally do. I just don't see any mass slaughter there.

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.

I take it that you mean we recognize Somaliland and should leave it as it is.

Please address the point also I raised when I contrasted the two statements you made. In one you say the pirates are motivated mostly by something other than greed, and allude to something along the lines of subsistence level plundering to avoid starving. In the other one you say that Puntland is "swank" by Somali standards with a gov and schools and such. The piracy started big in Puntland. But if Puntland is better off than other parts of the area that used to be Somalia, why did it get big in Puntland rather than the other areas. This does not compute for me.

Could you provide a reference concerning widespread starvation in Puntland? You keep mentioning it. It is might be just as you say but I would like to read it.

You are very energetic. I admire that, taking on Ken, Stan, JMA and Slap all at once. But if you have to take on guys like that all at once about the nature of Africa or genuine bad men, you might want to consider why you are having to take on all those guys at once.

[carl]

[QUOTE=Ken White;116297]The primary law enforcement problem is to eliminate (or reduce to an 'acceptable' level) the piracy. That has to be the responsibility of the local -- to include neighboring -- governments. We can provide funding and training but it is their responsibility. * Any attempts to impose a western solution will almost certainly fail -- expensively...:wry[QUOTE]

Which are the neighboring governments?

[Entropy]

I agree with Bob's World and Ken. Not much more I can add.

[Ken White]

Which are the neighboring governments?

That would be Egypt who have their own problems but will likely sort them reasonably soon. Egypt's interest stems from the Canal, Then there are Eritrea and Yemen. the latters interest from transit trade and BTW smuggling betwixt they and the African coast, another factor in the creation of piracy. Eritrea partakes of that smuggling and probably provides support for some groups of pirates. There is a problematic relationship between Eitrea and Ethiopia, another neighbor, land locked, that would benefit from less criminal activity affecting its trade.

However, the closest and most directly affected are Kenya and Djibouti.

Djibouti cannot do much without assistance from France -- who, apparently aren't too interested in doing much about the issue or their own illegal fishing or dumping.

Kenya has a host of problems and is too concerned internally to do much about the Somalis.

Illegal trade and smuggling in and among all those is rampant and a contributor to local income in all the nations. It will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate that but the Piracy is not helpful to any of them and they know it.

As you're well aware, the attitude of "Why should I bust my hump or even do anything when the big guys are willing to do the work..." come into play.

It's their neighborhood and if they have to do so, they'll clean it up. They aren't going to do anything as long as someone else will contain the problem at a level they (not the rest of the world...) can live with...

P.S.

Just ran across this link. Surely the FBI did not err...

LINK (Registration required).

[motorfirebox]

Why did it become undone so easily?

Apparently judges, schools, and doctors aren't much of a match for invading armies sent specifically to destroy them. Who knew.

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...

The US has a habit of making problems out of things which are not its problem. That habit, in fact, is a large part of the reason the IUC no longer exists.

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.

Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.

Not really any debate. Getting up one's hopes to see 'em dashed is a proven depression bringer.

Yes. I think it will be fairly depressing--to those who are still paying attention by that point--when piracy off the Puntland coast rebounds and continues after we've ventilated a bunch of pirates and then left.

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.

I wouldn't claim they do. But the opinions I've presented are possessed of actual content. They opine in detail, and give reasons and evidence for their opinons. They present their side of a debate. The opposing argument has, thus far, contained little to no content. It is merely opinion, and while I am more than willing to take into account the opinion of someone who's been there and done that, I'm not going to accept an argument that consists entirely of "I've been there".

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...).

Using our various adventures in those regions as a template for westernity, I don't see that my proposition meets the criteria to be considered western thought. I'm largely advocating the opposite of what we've tried in those regions.

Yet again I notice a 'we,' undefined to the point I can ask -- what is your contribution to this plan going to be?

I'd say "about the same that others are going to contribute to the shoot-em-all plan", but around here, I might actually come up short.

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...

I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.

I was talking about our strategy, strategems, policy, bag of tricks or whatever concerning the immediate problem, pirates.

You were responding to my summary of all our past strategies in Somalia.

The construction of your first sentence in the above quote is interesting. It can be turned 180 degrees to the effect that Motorfirebox hasn't given the nature of piracy in the area that used to be Somalia enough study.

I don't recall drawing any comparisons to solar habits with regard to the horizon.

No, I view you as a well intentioned guy who sees the good in people and just hasn't come around the realization, a realization that actually kills a very small piece of a good man's heart, that there are people who are black soul destroying vortexes of evil who can't be saved or reasoned with.

That's a bit melodramatic.

When you said something along the lines of "nice going Somalia" it was almost like the disappointment of a defence lawyer learning that his client just killed another one.

Gleeful at the prospect of further fees? I mean, come on--berating other countries for taking advantage of Somalia and Africa in general does not equal a belief in the inherent goodness of mankind, much less the inherent goodness of a bunch of guys who can't stop shooting each other long enough to form a government.

I am puzzled by your equating the term "mass slaughter" to the breaking of Somali pirates at sea by force. There just aren't that many pirates at sea at any one time and their pattern of behavior is when they are actually shot at or threatened with boarding most all of them give up right away, just like criminals normally do. I just don't see any mass slaughter there.

There is a real dichotomy between what you want to accomplish, what it would take to accomplish it, and what you're proposing. How do you plan on finding all those pirates out at sea?

Please address the point also I raised when I contrasted the two statements you made. In one you say the pirates are motivated mostly by something other than greed, and allude to something along the lines of subsistence level plundering to avoid starving. In the other one you say that Puntland is "swank" by Somali standards with a gov and schools and such. The piracy started big in Puntland. But if Puntland is better off than other parts of the area that used to be Somalia, why did it get big in Puntland rather than the other areas. This does not compute for me.

I... did address it. Puntland is pretty swank by Somali standards. That means that some people are slightly less poor than the average. If the rest of Somalia is Ciudad Juarez, Puntland and Somaliland are Mexico City. If you're living in Mexico City, you wouldn't say you were outside the range of cartel violence--but you do see less of it than you would if you lived in Juarez.

So, yes, people can still starve to death in swank, sunny Puntland.

Could you provide a reference concerning widespread starvation in Puntland? You keep mentioning it. It is might be just as you say but I would like to read it.

It's easier to find news on Somalia in general, but there's some to be found on Puntland specifically.

But if you have to take on guys like that all at once about the nature of Africa or genuine bad men, you might want to consider why you are having to take on all those guys at once.

There frankly hasn't been much to engage--most of the actual engagement has been from Ken. I'm not trying to insult anyone, here; I respect the opinions of people on these boards more than most of the people I know. I don't post often because, for the most part, I come here to learn.

In this case, though, people here have simply said "X is bad", whereas Ken has said "X is bad because of A, B, and C." I'm not convinced by many of Ken's arguments in this thread, and I wish he'd go on to D, E, and F, but he's made arguments that can be argued. Most of the other posts have offered statements that can be given either a go or a no-go. While I respect the accumulated experience behind those statements, I'm not willing to accept them at face value on a discussion board.

[carl]

Atta boy Motorfirebox, stay in there and keep punching.

You were responding to my summary of all our past strategies in Somalia.

Well, actually I wasn't, or at least I thought I wasn't. This back and forth is getting pretty complicated so I might have gotten confused. I am not interested, have never been interested, in going over the past mistakes made or not made in the area that used to be Somalia. I am only interested in the present problem of pirates stealing things and killing people.

Holding out for whole cloth solutions makes it less likely immediate decisive action will be taken against piracy and the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more the potential for big big problems, remember the pirates new connection with al-Shabaab. Hey...you haven't commented on their new agreement. What do you think of it?

I don't recall drawing any comparisons to solar habits with regard to the horizon.

Nice evasion. I'll just say it plain then instead of trying to be fancy. Your appreciation of the situation in Somalia indicates to me you have not given the matter enough study. And your appreciation of the behavior of criminals indicates, to me anyway, you haven't dealt with many. I might be wrong about that though.

That's a bit melodramatic.

I tend to that. Is it true though?

Gleeful at the prospect of further fees? I mean, come on--berating other countries for taking advantage of Somalia and Africa in general does not equal a belief in the inherent goodness of mankind, much less the inherent goodness of a bunch of guys who can't stop shooting each other long enough to form a government.

No, disappointed that somebody you put stock into let you down. Now you know that is what I meant. Play fair.

There is a real dichotomy between what you want to accomplish, what it would take to accomplish it, and what you're proposing. How do you plan on finding all those pirates out at sea?

I am glad you asked that question. I wouldn't try so hard to find them when they are out at sea. I would concentrate on somewhat on picking them up as they left the coast but mostly I would concentrate on taking back the ships as they came back to the coast. There is a big ocean out there but only a few places to come back to. Concentrate the forces off the coast and intercept every vessel taken as it returns to the pirate port. That way they come to you. Announce before hand what you are going to do, re-take every pirated vessel, and if any crew members are killed all of the pirate crew will be subject to the death penalty. Then actually do it a few times. I think it would work and the resources needed would not be so great as are being expended now doing essentially nothing.

I would also encourage merchantmen to carry security like the Russians do and it would be useful to set up a checkpoint for boats outbound from the coast. They would have to undergo inspection and anything carrying say more than 1 or 2 rifles and especially an RPG would be sunk on the spot. The fundamental thing though would be to concentrate resources on the place you know the pirates have to go, back to their home base.

I... did address it. Puntland is pretty swank by Somali standards. That means that some people are slightly less poor than the average. If the rest of Somalia is Ciudad Juarez, Puntland and Somaliland are Mexico City. If you're living in Mexico City, you wouldn't say you were outside the range of cartel violence--but you do see less of it than you would if you lived in Juarez.

No, you didn't. You contend the pirates steal and kill mostly because poverty forces them too. But there are other areas in the area that used to be Somalia that are poorer than Puntland that don't do pirating. That calls into question your basic premise that poverty causes this type of criminal behavior.

So, yes, people can still starve to death in swank, sunny Puntland.

It's easier to find news on Somalia in general, but there's some to be found on Puntland specifically.

I read those stories you linked. Thank you for providing them. I would note though they are about problems caused by an ongoing drought and concern that those problems would get worse. There was no mention of mass starvation but 18 deaths were attributed to the drought. There was no mention of starving fisherman, not unusual in that droughts don't generally affect ocean fisherman. There was also no mention any of that pirate money being used to help the farmers and stockmen distressed by the drought.

There frankly hasn't been much to engage--most of the actual engagement has been from Ken.

Ken is a remarkable fellow.

[Stan]

Ken is a remarkable fellow.

He could probably even tell us about the time he took on the first pirates off the coast of Florida while crab fishing

[Ken White]

Apparently judges, schools, and doctors aren't much of a match for invading armies sent specifically to destroy them. Who knew.

I suspect the people that helped pay for that and the forces that went in knew precisely what would occur. My question wasn't aimed at that, I thought it obvious. The question was aimed at the fact that warfare in that area is virtually incessant and does not take any malevolent US influence to get going.

Way before my time but Ethiopians and Somalis have been fighting since the 16th Century. That by western record; local knowledge or oral history probably take it back even further. Probably before your time are some recent activities there I can recall right off the top of my head -- the Border War in the early 60s; Ogaden in '77, Border fights in the early 80s and desultorily continuing all through the 80s and early 90s with an eruption around 1999 IIRC. So, yeah, the Ethiopian invasion did that destroy thing but it was merely a continuation of an ancient pattern which is not going to be changed by well intentioned interference.

You elide the fact that the 'judges' were a part of the problem. The intent was to disrupt the Islamic Courts. You may not agree that was a worthwhile operation but the Ethiopians with far more knowledge of the area and experience there than anyone commenting here happens to possess did think it a good enough idea to get some of their people killed to implement it. You may second guess that, you obviously do -- but you might ask yourself if you really have the knowledge to ask ALL the right questions instead of just some in which you're interested.

The US has a habit of making problems out of things which are not its problem. That habit, in fact, is a large part of the reason the IUC no longer exists.

I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...

Let me suggest that you consider the fact that the 'habit' you cite shows a record of interference here and there -- outside the western hemisphere, mostly only Post WW II for what should be obvious reasons -- and ponder whether those who directed or employed such interference thought, based on their knowledge at the time, that it was in US interest to do so and that regardless of effect, the intentions were primarily every bit as 'honorable' as are your intentions in interfering.

Great. Let's go after the biggest criminals in the region, then.

That is whom?

Yes. I think it will be fairly depressing--to those who are still paying attention by that point--when piracy off the Puntland coast rebounds and continues after we've ventilated a bunch of pirates and then left.

Uh, actually, I've been paying attention for quite some time and plan on doing so for some years. So IF (big if...) that occurs, I will not be surprised or depressed. I'll just be able to say to you "I told you so..." Sad things is that even were your ideas -- or\, actually, those of various organizations which you espouse -- implemented, I'm quite confident I'd be able to do the same thing...[quote]I wouldn't claim they do... I'm not going to accept an argument that consists entirely of "I've been there".[/quote[Nor should you. Neither should you accept the opinions of others blindly.

Using our various adventures in those regions as a template for westernity, I don't see that my proposition meets the criteria to be considered western thought. I'm largely advocating the opposite of what we've tried in those regions.

I disagree, you're after the rule of law -- a distinctly western concept (as are judges...) -- and again I suggest that rather than ascribing malignant intent to all others who've interfered, you consider that their intentions may have been as good as are yours.

Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west.

I'd say "about the same that others are going to contribute to the shoot-em-all plan", but around here, I might actually come up short.

Astute observation. not least because some here have actually been on the ground there and whether you accept it or not, may have knowledge or insights tha cannot be obtained by erudition.

I'll agree that doing nothing would, in sum, have as much net positive effect as going pirate hunting.

That comment seems to indicate that you totally missed my point -- I am emphatically not recommending pirate hunting, rather the opposite

As I wrote above, give some thought to the fact that previous interference in that area (or elsewhere) should not automatically be assigned evil intent. Most such interference actually has good intentions -- you may not agree with a particular set but that does not mean they were wrong and you are correct, merely that opinions differ. Consider also that this thread is indicative of the fact that your presumed good intention meets with other persons who disagree that your brand of interference is one bit better than the earlier models...

Ken has said "X is bad because of A, B, and C." I'm not convinced by many of Ken's arguments in this thread, and I wish he'd go on to D, E, and F, but he's made arguments that can be argued.

That sounds like arguing for arguing's sake. I try not to do that. I do try to give people things that it appears to me they might not have considered or that they are treating as superficial impediment when my observation and experience has been those factors may not be superficial and could lead to getting people killed unnecessarily. That I'll generally try to preclude by commenting. If anything I write here keeps one more kid from an unnecessary death, I will have done good...

Let me suggest that you use words stemming from 'argue' quite often. Argument as you appear to use it is actually an academic effort. What's going on in Somalia and Puntland is not academic. Sticking one's nose in that is likely to dispel all notions of 'argument.' It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality.

Basically, you ask for western intervention, I don't know if I can provide the 'F' but the 'D' is that you should consider that other interventions were no more evil or disruptive than your proposed model is likely to be.

The "E" I posted to Carl above:

""Illegal trade and smuggling in and among all those is rampant and a contributor to local income in all the nations. It will be difficult if not impossible to eliminate that but the Piracy is not helpful to any of them and they know it.

As you're well aware, the attitude of "Why should I bust my hump or even do anything when the big guys are willing to do the work..." come into play.

It's their neighborhood and if they have to do so, they'll clean it up. They aren't going to do anything as long as someone else will contain the problem at a level they (not the rest of the world...) can live with...""

The last sentence and its parenthetical comment are important. The point, of course, is that any band-aid solution not designed and implemented there by locals is not going to work. Period.

[Ken White]

He could probably even tell us about the time he took on the first pirates off the coast of Florida while crab fishing

Better eatin' than Crabs...

I remember when Ol' Commodore Porter came down, '23, I think it was, to chase pirates outa the Keys -- and this is no stuff, we ...

[slapout9]

Heres Ken fighting Pirates!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGK6a...001612D1934B25

[Stan]

Thanks Slap ! That's exactly how I pictured Ken years ago with a blonde

Just ran across this article from the LA Times...

U.S. officials defend strategy in talks with pirates

Not sure how LEOs deal with situations like this, but suffices to say Africans don't do "No" without something for them on the table first. Not much to argue with when you have an armed and uneducated African at the helm

[slapout9]

Not sure how LEOs deal with situations like this, but suffices to say Africans don't do "No" without something for them on the table first. Not much to argue with when you have an armed and uneducated African at the helm

I thought the last line in the article was interesting, which basically said they may have been killed because the Pirates had a disagreement over what to do. Stranger things have happened.

[Ken White]

Waiting to see what boils out over the next week or so over the Hostage Negotiator bit...

[carl]

I have a question for Slap and Stan. How much of hostage negotiation is dependent upon culture? How much of what the FBI knows would be of use with Somalis?

[JMA]

Thanks Slap ! That's exactly how I pictured Ken years ago with a blonde

Just ran across this article from the LA Times...

U.S. officials defend strategy in talks with pirates

Not sure how LEOs deal with situations like this, but suffices to say Africans don't do "No" without something for them on the table first. Not much to argue with when you have an armed and uneducated African at the helm

These negotiators were probably trained in the US so probably subscribe to the "softly, softly" approach.

Somalis and others getting into negotiations with US look in the main in what incentive (how much in the briefcase) the US are prepared to offer.

This is viewed as weak... and it is.

One can see the mental weakness in the approach to that situation in the following extract from the article:

"The thought was, if these guys succeed in getting the hostages to shore, we have almost no leverage anymore," a U.S. Defense official said.

Now one may ask how a yacht could possibly outrun a Navy destroyer?

In an African view the US Navy were in the strongest position and and had the boot been on the other foot there the pirates would have realised that they stood little or no chance of personal survival... plus there would be a possibility that further retribution would be visited upon their family and clan back home.

Instead they realise that the US will do just about anything to save the hostages. So when their two negotiators sent to the destroyer to negotiate are detained they said OK if that's the way you want to play it we will take away what you really want... then we will put our hands in the air and the idiot yanks won't even shoot us for killing their people.

Even if they get twenty years in some US jail they will see it that they survived after punching the US on the nose (killing their people) as a victory no matter how small. When they finally get back to their village they will be remembered as the ones who kicked the Americans ass. and yes, they would be likely to survive 20 years in a US jail which is not the case in 90% of African jail systems.

I suggest that until they get Africa savvy negotiators on those ships they should just accept that the hostages will be lucky to survive and US style negotiations are likely to confuse and alarm the pirates than reassure them.

[slapout9]

I have a question for Slap and Stan. How much of hostage negotiation is dependent upon culture? How much of what the FBI knows would be of use with Somalis?

carl, I don't know how the FBI would/does train hostage negotiators to operate outside the US. I would assume that the culture is factored in somehow but to what extent I don't know. I went through a 1st responder type class for street officers and the instructor taught to identify what type of motivation the hostage taker most likely had as soon as possible (if it was possible) the 3 main ones were Political-Criminal-Domestic. That information would be passed to the negotiator.

[JMA]

I went through a 1st responder type class for street officers and the instructor taught to identify what type of motivation the hostage taker most likely had as soon as possible (if it was possible) the 3 main ones were Political-Criminal-Domestic.

And in the case of the Somali pirates the motivation would be?

[motorfirebox]

Nice evasion. I'll just say it plain then instead of trying to be fancy. Your appreciation of the situation in Somalia indicates to me you have not given the matter enough study. And your appreciation of the behavior of criminals indicates, to me anyway, you haven't dealt with many. I might be wrong about that though.

No offense, but I don't see indications that you're qualified to make that judgment. A large part of your arguments rest on your idea on human nature and criminality rather than on information on Somalia. There's nothing wrong with that approach, but it doesn't engender confidence that you know enough about Somalia to tell me I don't know much about Somalia.

No, disappointed that somebody you put stock into let you down. Now you know that is what I meant. Play fair.

I am being fair. I don't put any more stock on Somalis than I put in anyone else--which is to say very little. The fact that I'm calling other nations wrong doesn't mean I'm calling Somalia right, and the fact that I'm calling other nations bad especially doesn't mean that I'm calling Somalia good. And maybe I've just been associating with the wrong sorts of people, but most of the defense lawyers I've met would react the way I described rather than the way you described.

I am glad you asked that question. I wouldn't try so hard to find them when they are out at sea. I would concentrate on somewhat on picking them up as they left the coast but mostly I would concentrate on taking back the ships as they came back to the coast. There is a big ocean out there but only a few places to come back to. Concentrate the forces off the coast and intercept every vessel taken as it returns to the pirate port. That way they come to you. Announce before hand what you are going to do, re-take every pirated vessel, and if any crew members are killed all of the pirate crew will be subject to the death penalty. Then actually do it a few times. I think it would work and the resources needed would not be so great as are being expended now doing essentially nothing.

My understanding is that the vast majority of pirate attacks in the region go unreported. I think I talked earlier about why that is--shipping companies don't want to admit when their ships get pirated, because their insurance premiums will go up. Part of the reason piracy in the region is so successful is that it's cheaper for companies to treat privately with hostage takers than to call for help. Now, cases like this recent one, where the pirates were dumb enough to take a private yacht? Sure, track them down. But... they're likely to surrender rather than fight back, or at least fight back long enough for us to kill them all. I'm going to say that shooting them after they surrender (arresting them wouldn't, as I understand your argument, do much towards promoting the ends you're trying to accomplish) would be pretty illegal and leave it at that.

I would also encourage merchantmen to carry security like the Russians do and it would be useful to set up a checkpoint for boats outbound from the coast. They would have to undergo inspection and anything carrying say more than 1 or 2 rifles and especially an RPG would be sunk on the spot.

Sure.

The fundamental thing though would be to concentrate resources on the place you know the pirates have to go, back to their home base.

Which is on shore, which gets back to the whole thing where you have to kill lots of people. Now, going after the 'motherships' would be workable and have an effect, though since piracy got pretty big before the whole mothership idea was hit on, it wouldn't stop it or have enough effect for us to say we beat piracy.

No, you didn't. You contend the pirates steal and kill mostly because poverty forces them too. But there are other areas in the area that used to be Somalia that are poorer than Puntland that don't do pirating. That calls into question your basic premise that poverty causes this type of criminal behavior.

Well, two things. One, Puntland had a pretty solid fishing industry until the fish started running out (they still do, to some extent). That gives that region ready access to a necessary tool of piracy: boats. Two, it seems to be moving away from Puntland (pdf link).

There was also no mention any of that pirate money being used to help the farmers and stockmen distressed by the drought.

They're not making donations. They're pursuing capitalism.

[motorfirebox]

The question was aimed at the fact that warfare in that area is virtually incessant and does not take any malevolent US influence to get going.

Way before my time but Ethiopians and Somalis have been fighting since the 16th Century. ...So, yeah, the Ethiopian invasion did that destroy thing but it was merely a continuation of an ancient pattern which is not going to be changed by well intentioned interference.

You elide the fact that the 'judges' were a part of the problem. The intent was to disrupt the Islamic Courts. You may not agree that was a worthwhile operation but the Ethiopians with far more knowledge of the area and experience there than anyone commenting here happens to possess did think it a good enough idea to get some of their people killed to implement it. You may second guess that, you obviously do -- but you might ask yourself if you really have the knowledge to ask ALL the right questions instead of just some in which you're interested.I totally agree and thus my questioning why you wish to do what you say...

Well, regarding the Ethiopians, they certainly have better knowledge of the region but they also have a dog in that fight (to put it mildly). I'm from Pittsburgh. Ask anybody in this town who the best football team in the AFC is, and they'll probably have the information necessary to give you an accurate response--but they're more likely to say "Steelers". And then punch you for having to ask.

No, warfare in the region doesn't take any US involvement to get going. But that war at that time? That was US involvement. I mean, heck, by that logic, it oughtta be okay for you and me to invest in some Somali pirates. After all, piracy doesn't take any US involvement to get going.

That is whom?

In terms of lives and money? The fishers and, especially, the dumpers. (Even before you add, as I do, the lives and money lost to piracy.)

Uh, actually, I've been paying attention for quite some time and plan on doing so for some years. So IF (big if...) that occurs, I will not be surprised or depressed. I'll just be able to say to you "I told you so..."

That was a dig at the attention span of the public at large. Regardless, failure to have an effect is failure to have an effect, whether you started with a plan that was unworkable or intentions that are impossible to implement.

Nor should you. Neither should you accept the opinions of others blindly.

I'm not. I'm accepting them because they make sense. I see that fishing is a large part of the region's income. I see activities that depress fishing in the region. I see piracy increase, and I see pirates talking about retribution for the activities which depressed fishing in the first place.

I disagree, you're after the rule of law -- a distinctly western concept (as are judges...) -- and again I suggest that rather than ascribing malignant intent to all others who've interfered, you consider that their intentions may have been as good as are yours.

How in the world is rule of law--a concept which has been espoused by everyone from Confucius to Buddha to the Koran to the Bible to, well, any number of western luminaries--a western concept? Or judges, for that matter--again, you can find examples in China and sharia law, to name two that come to mind.

Regardless, yours are still interference -- and from the west.

That's too broad a definition to be useful.

As I wrote above, give some thought to the fact that previous interference in that area (or elsewhere) should not automatically be assigned evil intent.

Eh? I'm not assigning evil intent. Selfish intent, in some cases--but not in the case of anyone posting here.

That sounds like arguing for arguing's sake.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that "I think X" and "I think X because Y" are both opinions, but that the first can't really be discussed (only agreed with or disagreed with) and the second can. This is a discussion board; when I post, I post to discuss. Otherwise I'd just say "I don't think we should limit our response to simply shooting pirates" and be done.

Let me suggest that you use words stemming from 'argue' quite often. Argument as you appear to use it is actually an academic effort. What's going on in Somalia and Puntland is not academic. Sticking one's nose in that is likely to dispel all notions of 'argument.' It's reality and those who endeavor to implement any interference, no matter how benign are not going to be popular or insulated from reality.

The reality of the situation in Somalia has no bearing on making an argument on a discussion board--even a discussion board with members who are, were, or will be directly involved in that reality. Given the caliber of some of the members of this discussion board, it could be... argued... that an argument here could have an effect on the reality in Somalia.

The last sentence and its parenthetical comment are important. The point, of course, is that any band-aid solution not designed and implemented there by locals is not going to work. Period.

I agree to a large extent--ie, no "period". You can't come in and impose a solution and expect it to work. But you can assist with solutions. Ethiopia is actually a good example, here.