How do we stop piracy?
posted at 8:49 am on April 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Now that the crisis has passed with the Maersk Alabama and Captain Richard Phillips, along with three of the four pirates holding him, we need to determine how to avoid this in the future. Fred Iklé has a couple of common-sense suggestions in the Washington Post today, mostly by returning to traditional methods of exterminating piracy:
So why do we keep rewarding Somali pirates? How is this march of folly possible?
Start by blaming the timorous lawyers who advise the governments attempting to cope with the pirates such as those who had been engaged in a standoff with U.S. hostage negotiators in recent days. These lawyers misinterpret the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and fail to apply the powerful international laws that exist against piracy. The right of self-defense — a principle of international law — justifies killing pirates as they try to board a ship.
Nonetheless, entire crews are unarmed on the ships that sail through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Shipowners pretend that they cannot trust their crews with weapons, but the facts don’t add up.
We’ve heard a number of excuses over the past couple of weeks for why crews have no access to weapons when traveling through the Gulf of Aden and other dangerous waters. Some ships have access to non-lethal weapons, such as sonic guns, designed to create tremendous pain so that pirates can’t get aboard the ship in the first place. Once boarded, however, crews are unarmed and at the mercy of the pirates, a completely unacceptable choice given the wide knowledge of the existence of piracy. If the crew members themselves aren’t qualified to carry weapons — and there’s no reason they can’t be qualified — the shipping companies should hire security forces for ships passing by the Horn of Africa.
Iklé has another good suggestion:
The international right of self-defense would also justify an inspection and quarantine regime off the coast of Somalia to seize and destroy all vessels that are found to be engaged in piracy.
This should actually be the next mission for the US Navy after freeing Phillips. We don’t need a quarantine and inspection to identify some of the boats and ports in question; I’d bet dollars to donuts we’ve already identified most of them. Our next step after killing the pirates on the lifeboat is torpedoing their ships in their home ports without inspections or even warnings. Somalia’s failed state can’t impose order on these areas, but if the pirates become a liability rather than an asset to these facilities, they’ll get the heave-ho soon enough.
In the future, we don’t need the lawyers and the FBI negotiators, and we especially don’t need to legitimize Somali “elders”, either. Iklé has that right; piracy is not a bank robbery. The entire point of piracy is to capture ships in territory where no nation can claim sovereignty and therefore work outside the civil law. The proper response to that is military, not some notion of cops and robbers. When pirates find out we’re serious, and when enough of them wind up at the bottom of the ocean, they’ll think twice about seizing American or Western shipping.
Update: JD Johannes had been gaming out this confrontation, and came remarkably close to the eventual conclusion days ago. Be sure to read his post.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Treat them how they really are… TERRORISTS!
Think about it…
dominigan on April 13, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Here’s an idea that might help. One of the problems with transporting arms is the hassle of clearing the port regulations at each stop. They could probably come up with a system where the arms are stored in a locked area, with seals. Then when they come into port, the harbor authorities do a quick check of the seals.
You might also want to limit access to the weapons; maybe only 1 or 2 people on the ship would have access to the weapons locker.
hawksruleva on April 13, 2009 at 10:05 AM
You act as if the warlords would be doing anything else if it just werent so lucrative. they live in no mans land, its mad max over there. theres no rational incentive to do anything but survive…and they’ve found their means. so of course, increase the naval presence…take no prisoners. but that wont end piracy in the gulf of aden. not while theres a failed state overlooking it.
ernesto on April 13, 2009 at 10:06 AM
“Somalia’s failed state can’t impose order on these areas”
While I understand your point, Ed, this is rather misleading. These pirate enclaves are condoned by the al Shabaab (the outfit which governs those areas and is vying to govern all of the country) because they pay tributes to them to be left alone.
And what good are Somali elders if the only thing they “elder” is the Somali version of Springfield Retirement Castle.
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 10:07 AM
They should also stop Insurance companies and corporations from paying out ransoms. If it was not profitable, the Pirates would find some other way to make a quick buck.
SGinNC on April 13, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Oh yeah. Strategically, the best way to stop piracy is by killing the pirates. It has historically proven much more effective than giving the pirates vast sums of money.
Help Somali pirates assume room temperature, and soon there will be no more Somali pirates.
Speaking of Somali, did they decide to call themselves “Somalia pirates” instead of Somali? I’ve seen that usage several places in the media lately.
hawksruleva on April 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM
The same way we stopped it for like 200 years. It’s not hard. It just takes political courage in the country America has become.
TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM
[SGinNC on April 13, 2009 at 10:07 AM]
The heck with that. The insurance companies and corporations should stop paying their taxes until the governments which collect them render the services they pay them for, which is to eliminate the pirates.
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Violently.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 10:11 AM
are i repeating another poster by pointing out that Kos is calling capt. phillips a “grandstander”.
kelley in virginia on April 13, 2009 at 10:12 AM
We give in to all pirates’ demands and let the UN handle all sanctions. Oops I was reading from the Obama playbook….
Pirates must have a base out of which they operate. Turn that base into the surface of the moon. Other potential bases will think twice before giving pirates a safe harbor.
MaiDee on April 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM
dusty, you have the right idea. no govt wants to do anything except wring its hands. but when the boats & their corp. owners stop paying taxes until their tax dollars are used to kill pirates, then that will get the attn. of the various wimpy govts.
kelley in virginia on April 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Sooo, then, whats the US Navy doing there…
Only ONE US Flag’d ship has been taken in those waters… ie… only ONE ship who is paying our taxes and following our rules…
IMO? If you want to dodge our taxes and rules by being flag’d by say… Liberia… then you better call on the Liberians to fix this.
Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM
And they claim to love this country….
TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2009 at 10:14 AM
We heard about all those other pirate ships loading and locking and on their way to confront the Bainbridge. I’m wondering what happened to them? Did we let them go?
unclesmrgol on April 13, 2009 at 10:17 AM
The ship owners are nuts.
You can’t trust crews to be armed is the logic. But you can trust them to be in control of a multimillion dollar vessel itself. That is totally illogical.
Install an arms locker. Captain has the keys. Train the crews in their use. Have 1 or 2 crew per watch armed. When not in hostile waters the arms are placed back in the locker.
Dr. Dog on April 13, 2009 at 10:17 AM
But the free market in shipping insurance has dictated that arming crewmen is too high a risk. you wouldnt argue with the invisible hand now would you…
ernesto on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 AM
The answer, in a nutshell, is that any ship bearing any flag which is carrying lawful commerce to or from the United States is entitled to our protection.
To act otherwise would be to allow pirates to blockade us.
That’s the original “law of the sea”, not to be confused with the UN “Law of the Sea”.
unclesmrgol on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM
We may see a lot of new registrations now…At least ships sailing those waters…
TheBigOldDog on April 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Sell American flags to other shipping lines.
profitsbeard on April 13, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Is there a link for this? I immediately tripped over to dailykos.com and couldn’t find one. The only thing on the front page a “kudos” to the Captain and the Seals.
unclesmrgol on April 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Any way we can close the ports they keep taking these ships to? The problem is there’s not much of a government in Somalia and they don’t have a military to work along with us. I don’t think they even have a police force, so you’re not going to get any help there.
scalleywag on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM
SEALs, unclesmrgol.
Seals are small aquatic mammals.
pseudonominus on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM
[Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM]
The issue is not about you and it is not about the military and my point did not specifically imply not paying US taxes. I’m looking at the big picture and not pettily sniping at minor players, especially the ones who can only do what their governments authorize them to do and who always have the Sword of Prosecution, held by those same governments, dangling over their heads for actions that might go awry.
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM
What about mercenaries or private contractors? Send Captain Barbossa!
scalleywag on April 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Geez Ed,
If elite New Yorker’s/DC’er’s could think like you…
“How about arming the
crewscitizen’s as a start”The crime rate would be nil.
Jed1899 on April 13, 2009 at 10:33 AM
We’re not dealing with SOmalia, as a nation, no matter what. These are tribes and gangs that are carrying this out, and that is how it’s going to be even if Somalia built a state like they have in other areas where the tribes and groups take over and run their operations.
Stop thinking about the nation of Somalia and think about the tribes and society that produces these pirates (and the other terrorists around the world, just to tie it all together). Either we go after the tribes and groups, in a fashion that they will understand, or we just throw our hands up and forget the whole thing – letting this world get swallowed up by the primitives. It’s our choice. It’s a simple choice.
All of the arguments that include the condition of the nation of Somalia are totally off the point. What do we do with the nation of Syria? Or Iran? Or Lebanon? … Nothing. Why? Because they are nations (or so we say). We are wrong on both sides of the argument on this (which shows the real leftist streak in American foreign policy and how we use our military).
Either we go after them where they live and target what they value and do it ruthlessly, or we are consigned to a very ugly future that will not end in our favor.
progressoverpeace on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM
A merchant ship with a few guns aboard isn’t a battleship. If a Chinese ship pulled into an American port and started shooting people, the Chinese would be quickly outnumbered by American port security, and the American military would have every justification to blow the ship out of the water (crew, cargo, and all), and a big merchant ship in port would be a sitting duck for an air attack, if necessary. The Chinese would lose a valuable ship, hundreds of millions of dollars of cargo, billions more in future trade, and it would cause a huge international incident, for the actions of a few lunatics.
Armed guards on merchant ships are not stupid. They know that trying a military invasion of a host country from a merchant ship would be certain suicide, and the loss in trade would be devastating to their own country. If merchant ships need a few guys with guns to protect their ship, crew, and cargo from pirates in small boats, so be it.
Steve Z on April 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM
I’m guessing from that that the insurance companies are not currently paying out for acts of piracy.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM
One reason for that distinction is that a foreign pirate could be operating out of a port in Somalia and therefore not be “Somali”. The “Somalia pirates” construction does not speculate as to the nationality of the pirates, only their theater of operations.
The Monster on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM
You can also require ships to turn over their arms to the coast guard for safe keeping before docking. Heck, we could have ships at station to put an armed team on any ship going through a danger zone, if we wanted to pay for it.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Captain Phillips sacrificed himself for his crew and ship, knowing he could have been killed by the pirates–he would have been a hero, but too dead to “grandstand”.
Unbelievable. Let’s put the Kos Kids in Captain Phillips’ situation, and see what they do. Beg for a ransom, maybe?
Steve Z on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Depends.
(By which I mean that they would need to change theirs. Depends, that is.)
The Monster on April 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM
[Dr. Dog on April 13, 2009 at 10:17 AM]
While I agree with you, Dr. Dog, you haven’t completely shaken the PC indoctrination of the leftist cant.
If you can trust crews to be in control of multimillion dollar vessels and carry arms to in hostile areas, I think you can trust them to not need arms lockers where only the captain has the keys. They should be able to have them at all times but when in non-hostile areas kept in footlocker lock boxes or keyed rifle racks at their bunks and doubly secured with trigger locks.
:)
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Apparently not. you wouldnt recommend burdensome regulation that would require such policies…would you?
ernesto on April 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I imagine that a crew could do a lot more damage to a harbor with the ship itself than with the smattering of small arms they would need to protect it from pirates.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Calm down folks. Don’t you see that this piracy thing is just a distraction? I mean it’s not like the reason we have a navy in the first place is to protect sea trade or anything. We have to get back to stimulating Dem constituencies with more hundreds of billions of dollars.
edshepp on April 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM
But the free market in shipping insurance has dictated that arming crewmen is too high a risk. you wouldnt argue with the invisible hand now would you…
[ernesto on April 13, 2009 at 10:20 AM]
It’s not a free market. It’s a highly regulated market. The risks are deemed high by insurance companies because of that and I’d suggest the cause is the high tributes paid by pirates to politicians to ply their litigious trade in the Sea of Courts.
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Actually, I was wondering if there was some regulation preventing it. Insuring against piracy seems like kind of an obvious thing if piracy is happening. Maybe its just inertia, though.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM
[Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM]
Touche. I was joking with my own half-hearted effort to break free of indoctrination.
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Fine, to and from the US, no problem… but we are going into debt protecting Ships that are not going to or from the US.
And apparently doing it INSTEAD of protecting an actual US Flag’d vessel in the area, who has already reported having problems with potential Pirates…
IMO the world of Merchant shipping has had it very easy, as they were able to be protected by the US, without being Flag’d by the US… on the backs of the US taxpayers…
We have a very small merchant marine… and the largest navy in the world… somthing is wrong with that equation given that historicly the main reason to have a Navy, was to protect commerce.
Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Pirates can only be stopped by one of three ways:
—Stop sending ships near ‘infested’ areas, depriving them of profit potential.
—Buying them off.
—Killing them off.
I’ll take “lethal justice” for $5000, Alex.
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Didn’t we deal with pirates in this area before? The Barbary pirates. Didn’t we demonstrate how you solve the problem? That’s what happens when you don’t read and then rewrite history!
flytier on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Well that may be the case…though i cant see how it could have ever been justified.
anyone have more than a surface understanding of shipping insurance?
ernesto on April 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM
This phenomena is not restricted to naval shipping.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM
That was before war became illegal.
(And on the other side of the Siani)
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Consur… problem is that when we were a rich expanding nation, we could afford our Largesse…
Now? We need to be careful because anything we do adds to the debt my kids will inherit.
Rest of the world needs to start pulling its own weight.
Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM
NO!
We must keep International waters a “Gun Free Zone”. After all, it works so well here in the States.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! (Sarcastic hysterical laughter off)
GunRunner on April 13, 2009 at 11:12 AM
We’re more in agreement than not. Nothing will “end piracy”, obviously. But kill all the known pirates and we’ll be off to a very good start. Get the idiot lawyers out of the process, and deal with the terrorists ruthlessly.
No, it’s not perfect. Nothing is. But it beats the hell out of going into Somalia. Somalia is what the left claimed Iraq was – not worth any effort, money or lives. Let it rot.
But if they leave that shore in a boat – sink it.
As for your sniping at the free market, I’ll bet good money that the free market for marine insurance on freighters in the Gulf of Aden has changed dramatically in the past few months, armed boat or otherwise.
Jaibones on April 13, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Has the EPA got anything against feeding sharks? If not that is the solution to the pirate thing.
MikeA on April 13, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Agreed. I say we arm the crews of American Vessels and if the other nations don’t like it, we hide the weapons, or simply don’t come.
It’s that simple.
Chaz706 on April 13, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The simplest option is for the US government agency that has the authority, to REQUIRE all US flagged vessels at sea to have security plans in place, including either armed crews or armed security guards. By making this a federal mandate it trumps the BS insurnace company mandates against agianst arms on board ships.
Follow it up with an short document/pamplet outlining the crews right of self-defense including the uses of lethal force, and a requirement for a training class for the ships crew or security.
Forget high pressure water hoses, high pressure bullet hoses should be the standing order for dealing with pirates.
The above should not limit the US military from taking aggressive action against pirates, anywhere they are found.
thmsmgnm on April 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I still haven’t read anything specific as to why these ships and crews can’t be armed? It is embarrassing that these Smelly Pirates are taking these ships.
Blake on April 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
How to stop piracy?
An incredibly tough question for pussies.
If you are not a pussy the answer is simple. You kill them when you find them, you sink every boat they have, you destroy every port facility they have. Nothing mystical there.
BL@KBIRD on April 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM
True/ And why not REQUIRE insurance companies to be held responsible for any harm that comes from people following the rules of the insurance companies. i.e. if an insurance company tells me I must be disarmed, then any harm that befals me while I’m disarmed at their behest, and which might have been avoided if I had been armed, is their direct fault. and besides, we now OWN the insurance companies don’t we, at least to some degree?
MikeA on April 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
How to stop it? The same damned way we did in the 1800′s. But that’s before the lawyers got involved. Here’s a novel thought. Drop lawyers on the pirates! A win-win all around.
GarandFan on April 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
How can you fight against a terrorist regime, when our national paper of record, (NYT’s) calls them “a small band of brigands”, and the “EDITORS CHOICE” in comments is something like this idiot’s post? :
“I am saddened by the reaction about this. No matter what one thinks of the Pirates they have not been particular brutal. They have kept their hostages safe, fed, and returned when ransoms were given. One can certainly rage at their lawlessness and see America as righteous for not giving in. But we have simply murdered three people who had not done the same to the Captain.
Now we enter a much darker period in Piracy – until now it has been about capital, and capital alone. No ideology, no extreme violence. It seems likely that will change now. I can never applaud killings.” — daisy, brooklyn
Yo, Daisy, you forgot to scorn Obama for giving the “green light”—silly two-faced liberal.
Rovin on April 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM
As for the pirates statement they will start killing
Americans from now on, Obama says “carry forth if you must”, new terminology for the old administration’s “BRING IT ON!”
scalleywag on April 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM
The main problem is the amount of foreign ports who do not allow weapons either in Port, or in their territorial waters.
The UN got involved awhile back and basicly told all Merchant ships to disarm, so they would not have to deal with the varying Arms laws… went with the most restrictive in other words. Thus, merchant ships do not have to ask permission to enter port… like a Warship does.
Technicly, its up to the country which Flag’s the vessel as to what arms it can carry in International Waters… but up to other countrys once you enter their territorial waters…
So, say you were gong to from San Diego to Mexico with a cargo… Mexico has very strict gun laws… even carrying ammunition is considered smuggling… thus, when transiting to and from Mexico… even though American gun laws would say you could be armed… de facto you couldnt…
Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 12:23 PM
From my reading, arming the ships would violate Maritime laws along several shoreline routes.
AnninCA on April 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM
The Somalia “government” most likely gets a kickback from whatever the pirate’s take is. I wonder if that failed state has any maritime laws at all and even if they did, who’s going to enforce them? The pirates consider themselves the country’s “Navy” and they say their whole point is they’re protecting their coastline.
scalleywag on April 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM
As to other nations not wanting to allow armed ships into their ports, I’d just point out that when the Alabama docked it was carrying a contingent of SEALS. Seems to me that it would be easy enough for American ships to employ a contingent of Black Water guards.
But as to this, Ed:
It seems to me that the situation had morphed into a hostage situation with a US citizen who was employed by a private US company on a private US ship. Seems to me that the FBI probably has the best resources in this situation. From what I’ve heard, there doesn’t appear to have been any inclination to trade the hostage for ransom and it seems by looking at the time line, the purpose of the FBI was to 1) stall of time so the military could get the SEALS in place, 2) lull the pirates into some level of trust, for example, the tow line, 3) probably needed someone who could speak what ever common language, I doubt the pirates spoke very good English.
That’s just my 2 cents. I think it’s a mistake to jump to the conclusion that the FBI was not only necessary but crucial to the positive outcome of this criminal action. (And that’s what they are criminals.) I’m betting the negotiator isn’t an Obama appointee and I’m pretty sure he/she is a outstanding public servant and I believe they did an excellent job in helping to bring the Captain home safely.
Texas Gal on April 13, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The only reference I saw specifically was to a female Navy negotiator.
AnninCA on April 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM
{Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 12:23 PM}
Interesting, so basically, the UN addressed the issue of individual countries having to pay the additional costs applied to their trade as a consequence of barring merchant ships from being armed in self defense, by disarming all ships and making everyone pay for it.
To top it off, these same countries then rely, in a freeloading on international society sort of way, for someone else to patrol the seas and keep them safe so that they don’t have to pay more than anyone else for their produce and electronics.
That sounds familiar.
Dusty on April 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Thanks saint,
Anti-piracy 101. Both Stephens and McCarthy pieces are well written. From about 2/3 down on McC’s:
…What makes possible global trade, which turns into American wealth, which turns into unparalleled American largesse, is American might — American might and an American commitment to use that might as necessary to ensure a civilized global order.
“Civilized” is a much-misunderstood word, thanks to the “rule of law” crowd that is making our planet an increasingly dangerous place. Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.
There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem.
How we’ve dealt with this area is not just an policy issue. Crap, run a timeline and see that this whole thing was more or less going on for 350 years before Jefferson sent the Marines and made the point, “…to the shores of Tripoli”.
Me thinks it’s largely a reflection and extension of the (dare we say evil?) lefty pantywaist domestic approaches to subverting American life as we have known it.
And again, I say:
SINK THE PIRATES OF THE POTOMAC!
OkieDoc on April 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM
And let’s stop sending food aid to nations whose citizens will attack the ships that carry such aid to their people. Maybe when the populace is hungry enough, they will take care of their own problem.
If the pirates have already collected many millions of dollars in ransom, their system should redistribute that wealth to the poor and needy. Oh I forgot, they are not in the USA.
miron on April 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Oh yes! Big time incentive there!
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Ernesto, you’re living in a dream word, take off those rose colored glasses of yours. Somalia, Mogadishu, et al have been floundering in tribalism and tribalistic wars (genocide, etc.) ever since their mean old white oppressors left. Since then all their supposed “governments” have only been interested in increasing their tribal power, influence, and riches and have done nothing to build a self sufficient and prosperous nation for its people. The tribes and their warlords have done nothing but bring death, starvation, war, and desperation to its people so what on earth do you think we’re going to do to change it?
Should we bring aid to them so the tribal “elders” can steal it and sell it on the black market to line their pockets and buy more arms? Worse yet should we allow them to start killing our soldiers and aid personnel when we bring them aid? Also, in case you have already forgotten the Alabama was bringing aid to these azz-wipes when they hijacked the ship and held the captain hostage…not exactly appreciative of them now is it!
Ernesto, does Blackhawk Down ring any bells for you, that’s a perfect example of the “thanks” the US got for trying to bring aid and protect these ingrates from their own murdering warlords, yet you think the best route would be for the US to start nation building in these areas?
Based on the facts I outlined above I find it very difficult to justify your suggestion. The only response to these ingrates (many aren’t just pirates either but are also connect to AQ and jihad) is to sink everyone of their damn ships, destroy their ports and infrastructure, arm and/or have armed escorts for all merchant vessels passing through the area and kill/destroy any pirate attempt to hijack a ship.
Doing so will send a very strong and determined message to these scum, that we mean business and there will be a heavy price to pay for their piracy/terrorism and they will eventually get the picture. Once they change their ways then and only then should the US consider any sort of nation building effort as a reward, we do not reward them for these acts up front especially considering their past track record on how thy “thank” us!
Liberty or Death on April 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Since it was the on scene commander and not the Obamessiah that gave the orders for killing the pirates, I don’t think that the Obamessiah will do anything about the pirate problem. In the end, he did not give an order for a rescue and was quite happy about the hostage taking.
federale86 on April 13, 2009 at 12:56 PM
That might be the case and the news reports of FBI were wrong.
But two more points I forgot, 1) this negotiator sure was put in place quickly so it seems they didn’t travel from the continental US to the Bainbridge, were they based in an allied country near by? Could be it was a Navy negotiator. 2) negotiations is what the pirates are all about and that is what they would have expected to be the normal response, so we gave them what they expected until we could get our assets in place. That to me is a smart strategy. Saving the Captain’s life was the primary goal. Blasting 4 pirates in a lifeboat our of the water doesn’t solve the big picture problem and unnecessarily sacrifices the life of an American citizen.
Texas Gal on April 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
The same as our ancestors did:
1. Civilian ships need to defend themselves.
2. Each nation’s navy defends its own shipping lanes.
3. Destroy the pirate ships and the ports that harbor them.
Why this is even an issue amazes me. The places in the Constitution where Congress and the President have authority and responsibility to act, they do not. Yet in places where they explicitly have no authority, they act. It’s of no wonder that our country is so dorked up.
Send_Me on April 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
So what is your problem?
miron on April 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
With all the money these ships cost, it seems a simple few “safe rooms” is all you would need. A place to fully retreat that is “safe”.
The pilot house could be one…just lock it down and no one can get in or out, bullet proof.
All they need is about 6 hours of safety and the pirates would have to abandon for fear of being trapped.
Along with that would be some remote controlled water canons, effective without involving “loss of life” the shipping lines are so afraid of.
It seems that most all the incidents, the boat knew they were being boarded by pirates, so they have time to “retreat” and send out a distress signal.
Just one option.
right2bright on April 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Really? Is that what Obama ordered the Navy SEALS to do? I think I read that it turned out differently.
Of course, then all the legitimate fisherman who were working out of the same ports are out of jobs. So they’ll need another source of income. And that’s when Al-Qaeda recruiters come around.
I love how the keyboard warriors around here think that violent force is the solution to all problems, as if there were never any negative consequences.
orange on April 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Personnaly, I do not want to see the US being the one to take the initiative to stop these pirates. Again it will be the US doing the heavy lifting while our “allies” sit on the sideline and enjoying the benefits. Plus how long will it take before some Spanish court presses human rights violations agains the US navy for killing 3 pirates without due process?
I say keep all US flagged ships at least 200 miles from the Somali coast. If other nation’s ships stray too close, that’s their problem. Let them spend their captial and risk their sailors lives.
Child In Time on April 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Let it rot… and become the new haven for Al Qaeda? Doesnt seem like a good solution to me.
orange on April 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Stupid non-use of the “Preview” button
JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
If they are terrorists so are drug dealers and anyone else who commits grand larceny. They are in business to make money, not for some political gain. We must once again prop up a foreign government to be able to police their own country.
Monkei on April 13, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Now that’s an idea I like!
JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Kill the pirates.
Harsh but effective.
Worked well the last time it was in vogue.
Anything less will grant the pirates and those who support them legitimacy. Negotiating with them also lends more legitimacy. Soon, piracy will become accepted as just another venue for the frustrated masses to vent their rage. Which is a lie, really, since becoming a pirate has nothing to do with venting rage, or frustration…it has everything to do with taking what is not theirs from others and forcing others to bend to their own greedy wishes.
If these pirates spent one-tenth of the time, money and energy actually building their own nation-states, contributing positively to the advancement of their own people, as they do stealing, terrorizing, killing innocents, they and their peoples would be one hell of a lot better off in the long run. But, they are lazy, and greedy, and could care not a twit less for their people…not one tiny bit. Don’t fall for the liberal screeds that they only have piracy to fall back on since they are so poor and underprivileged. That is a lie.
Piracy under Admiralty Law and a host of other international treaties and agreements is the one thing that most of the world has already come to agreement on. It is an evil infestation. It has to be eradicated. Used to be one of those things most nations, any nation, never gave a second thought about. Pirates were killed. No trials, per se, no lengthy discussions as to their motivations, or their needs…captured and killed, or sunk at sea and killed, or killed as their safe harbors became naval gunenry targets.
Harsh? Sure.
But, while we dither, more and more of those “frustrated masses” find the business model wonderfully appealing. So, it grows.
We are not talking about a few ragtag bands of merry men set sail on a brig with sails in full bosom under clear skies on the salty frothy waves…we are talking about organized gangs and armies of thugs, well armed, with everything from small Zodiac boats to expensive high-end cigarette boats and coastal military patrol craft, and a lot in between. Heaven help us when one or two of these pirate outfits find a small destroyers or corvette laying around for the asking…money talks…pirates have a pretty good income stream if they are doing it right.
Kill them. Blockade their harbors. Sink them as they attempt to come out to sea.
The present “rules” pretty much state that we have to wait until a merchant ship is attacked until we can respond. Respond. Response. A retrograde way of thinking. Wait until attacked, never a good tactic, let alone a strategy.
We need more than a show of force in the region off Somalia. When need a demonstrated full will of the over 20 nations already involved in the region…a lot of deck gunnery practice for the naval crews can go a long way to de-incentivize the pirates’ business model, and rapidly.
They’ve already made threats, these Somali Jack Sparrow wannabe’s. Let’s take these threats at face value…and nail them before they get underway.
Then we can turn our attention to the Malacca Straits, the Eastern approaches to Singapore, the Adaman Islands, the Nicobar Islands, the coastal regions of Burma, anywhere we know there are pirates ready to kill others, or confound the right of free trade and sailing on the high seas.
Nation building? That comes later, by those affected nations themselves. If they are with the rest of the world in eradicating piracy within their waters, on their shores, then they can make a case for aid and trade and support from the rest of the world. If they permit piracy to go unchecked…they get zip.
Yes, a lot of poor lowly fishermen and their families may face starvation, and yes there are innocents involved. But at what point do we throw up our hands and allow piracy to dictate how we are to conduct our lives, exercise our freedoms, engage in necessary and vital ocean-borne trade across the world?
Find them. Fix them. Kill them.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM
It’s not that they can’t be armed, it’s that the owners and insurers have determined that the general risk of guns onboard AND of someone getting hurt or killed during a gun battle with pirates (which the owners and insurers would have to pay for) outweigh the risk that the pirates would be able to seize the vessel.
Infidoll on April 13, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Actually, the more I hear it, the more I like it.
One of the biggest problems I had with the invasion Iraq was that we were invading a sovereign state with what were at best questionable cassum belli (my apologies for incorrect Latin grammar). It is one thing to set up a killing field for al Qaeda; it is entirely different when you are overthrowing recognized states to do so.
But with Somalia, there is no such concern. They are by all definitions and understandings, a failed state. We do not recognize any central government there, and I doubt if any other nations do either. Killing al Qaeda there would not raise legitimate concerns with other nations; all we would be doing is… is what? Trying to restore order? helping a nascent state? I’m not sure what it would qualify as, but it would avoid international disagreements the like of which we faced in Iraq.
JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Orange, I think you’ll find that I am one of the bigger opponents of using US military force around here.
That said, piracy is a phenomenon that we, as a nation going back to the time of our Founding, have recognized as a problem requiring the use of deadly force.
Pirates, by definition, respect no law but their own. As such, there is no reason to afford them the protection of any law, save that of the jungle. Which states, as the stronger party, get in our way, and we’ll kill you.
Well, around the Horn of Africa, pirates have begun to get in the way of ships bearing our flag. Can you give me a reason why we, as a nation, should not use violence against them?
JohnGalt23 on April 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I don’t like the idea of pirates being a menace to world shipping, but they’re hardly our biggest problem right now and, let’s face it, we can’t afford to do the kind of nation building that BO would require as a condition to any aggressive action.
Infidoll on April 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Enough said. We’re already well past broke financially speaking, and our last attempt at nation-building didn’t exactly go so hot.
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Sweet_Thang on April 13, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Three guys working 8-hour shifts with a Mk 19 should cover it…
Roc on April 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
We are already spending several million dollars a day monitoring piracy in the western Indian Ocean…most of it “wasted” with routine patrols, little contact with pirates, and a lot of days at sea.
Is piracy our biggest problem right now? No, not the biggest.
But, maybe we can all stop whatever we are doing worldwide, for a few weeks or more, and prioritize the most important from the less important and on down the list…and then allocate funding along the same priorities. How would that shake out?
Global Warming gets all the money because that is the most pressing need to address? Or stem cell research…that is vital to a lot of folks. Or building more nuke power plants? Or increasing the size of our armed forces? Or cutting backon the size of our armed forces? Or build new houses for every family on Earth?
Our interactions with the world, within our own nation, are in a spherical realm, not linear. But, it seems solutions are most often based on lineral logic…and we lose before even getting out of the gate.
How about going after problems as a point of simplicity…the most simple problems solved first…then we can tend to the larger issues?
Piracy is actually a very simple problem. It is easily identifiable. It can easily be eradicated. Compared to global warming, of course…which is not a simple problem because it is all based on faulty assumptions, poorly researched science and a narrow focus of its advocacy….yet, there are many in our government, in our White House, who believe that we will all die within a decade or two, maybe a few generations, unless we stop all CO2 outputs, and carbon emissions, and all other such stuff.
The point I am trying to make is that why are we so reluctant to address a finite problem with a finite solution, one that has proven in the past to work, and work well?
Nation building is at the far end of the piracy eradication effort…as it should be. Not our job to build nations…it is the job of those nations themselves…and if they can convince other nations to contribute to their efforts, good for them. But, if they allow piracy from their shores…why give them a penny for anything?
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
F’n sicko!!!
Sweet_Thang on April 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM
You mean, kind of like what we did in Iraq? Yeah, that’ll sell!
Sweet_Thang on April 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Kill the pirates that you can. Capture what you can and Keel Haul them. On a 3 football fields long ship, the outcome would be certain.
Note: make sure the ship is “under way” during the keel hauling for double surety.
44Magnum on April 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Uh…Sybill? Decide which devil you’re playing advocate for and stick to that position for a few minutes so I can pin you down.
Or is your position that you do want to send Americans to Somalia, but you want to send them without guns?
That would be a fascination position to take.
Jaibones on April 13, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I didnt say violence shouldnt ever be used. It was used effectively in this case. But some folks are talking about laying waste to vast swaths of area just because one American ship got attacked by pirates. We have to look at the big picture.
I suspect you may agree that overuse of force can be as dangerous as underuse.
orange on April 13, 2009 at 3:28 PM
This type of piracy is not new. Think back to the Barbary pirates during the early 1800′s. While Europe was working to appease the pirates by buying them off, the U.S. sent Navy Frigates and Marines (..to the shores of Tripoli) to fight them off. Problem solved. Now it looks like the same solution will work again, this time off the coast of Somalia.
The question of ARMING civilian ship’s crews is interesting. On one had, defensive tactics only work so long against a ruthless and determined opponent and guns work every time (at least when they are pointed at the right people). However, the BIG question is who takes responsibility and how responsibility is dealt with when we have an armed tanker? What happens if they shoot the wrong people? What happens when they dispense vigilante justice? Those are some pretty big questions for people much smarter than myself, but the best solution seems to be keeping a strong naval presence there to prevent pirate attacks and to stamp them out when they turn up.
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM
So you think the only alternative to letting Somalia rot is to go in with guns a’blazin?
My “keyboard warrior” comment was directed at those who seem to be saying “It’s so simple! Just commit genocide! Problem solved.”
orange on April 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I dunno that seems the best bet to this swabby……
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »