Somali pirates capture oil tanker.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

From a costs standpoint, do you really want to shoot a million dollar torpedo at a fishing boat. It would be overkill. Hellfires cost about 70k each, much better kill to dollar ratio.

I want to see this happen...



to a fishing boat.

Or this...



leading to this...

[badnarik]

Pirate insurance must be cheaper than ship security. Anyway I'm sure lobbyists for the shipping industry are busy writing anti-piracy legislation as the taxpayers will gladly pay to blow up pirates.

[Devils'Advocate]

Shooting down the smaller ships is one thing, but the pirates are "smart" enough to keep some of their hostages on the mother boats. So if you sink them, you kill the hostages too. There's over 200 foreign hostages being held by the pirates... the news seems to only report when there is an American taken captive.

[Bigtime]

I was under the impression that most of these hostages are on the mainland.

Probably no easy way to identify if they do have hostages on these motherships either, short of a SEAL team taking it down.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Shooting down the smaller ships is one thing, but the pirates are "smart" enough to keep some of their hostages on the mother boats. So if you sink them, you kill the hostages too. There's over 200 foreign hostages being held by the pirates... the news seems to only report when there is an American taken captive.

Exactly. The point is that the countermeasures involve committing huge amounts of resources to a fight against an enemy that is more or less getting their resources for free. If they have to steal a trawler to get further out to sea, they will. If they need to put hostages on the ships they are using, they will. If they start getting sniped during negotiatios and need to use deadman's switches and explosives to ensure the hostages always die, they will.

It is very similar to how the US fought in Vietnam - they didn't understand that no matter whether the casualties were 10-1 or 20-1 or 40-1 in their favour, and whether or not they completely controlled the airspace and the cities and most of the countryside, the enemy wasn't willing to fight according to the traditional rules of warfare and wasn't going to give up when they were "beaten" as long as they still had men to fight with and bases to fight from.

With the Somalis, how can you ratchet up the punishment you are willing to deal out high enough to discourage men who are likely to die anyway? I don't think it's possible. Yes, the threat can be mitigated somewhat by attacking their bases and vessels, but in the end the only real way to end the piracy is to end the anarchy that induces men to think that even a remote chance of success is better than a certain death of starvation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

Exactly. The point is that the countermeasures involve committing huge amounts of resources to a fight against an enemy that is more or less getting their resources for free. If they have to steal a trawler to get further out to sea, they will. If they need to put hostages on the ships they are using, they will. If they start getting sniped during negotiatios and need to use deadman's switches and explosives to ensure the hostages always die, they will.

It is very similar to how the US fought in Vietnam - they didn't understand that no matter whether the casualties were 10-1 or 20-1 or 40-1 in their favour, and whether or not they completely controlled the airspace and the cities and most of the countryside, the enemy wasn't willing to fight according to the traditional rules of warfare and wasn't going to give up when they were "beaten" as long as they still had men to fight with and bases to fight from.

The problem with being a superpower or a 1st world military is that your expected to fight by the rules of war while your enemy isn't. America lost Vietnam because the civilian government wanted to set the objectives of the war, something that they weren't suited to do, and they weren't willing to fight the war it needed to fight. A Special Forces vet once stated that they should have gone out of their way to be inhuman and to scare the hell out of the enemy. To engage in their type of warfare and make the NVA and the Viet cong hear footsteps.

Its the same in this situation. instead of going after the pirates in the boats, they should go after the people that pay them. They should knock down the mansions that these leaders live in. Sneak special forces units in to snatch their families and ransom them off. Plant limpit mines on the bottom of the mother ships and time them for when they return to their ports. You can't fight a conventional war because its the poor dumb son of a bitch of a bitch in a speedboat with an ak-47 that gets cranked and they're easy to replace. But you make it hard to function as a leader or positively detrimental to a leaders existence and you have a chance to break the back of the movement.

Originally Posted by jammies

With the Somalis, how can you ratchet up the punishment you are willing to deal out high enough to discourage men who are likely to die anyway? I don't think it's possible. Yes, the threat can be mitigated somewhat by attacking their bases and vessels, but in the end the only real way to end the piracy is to end the anarchy that induces men to think that even a remote chance of success is better than a certain death of starvation.

So how do you do that? You can't throw money at the problem because the money ends up in the hands of the most corrupt? Do you invade and replace the government as it were? These pirate kings or war lords are quite content with their people starving and the lawless country so your going to end up with another insurgency that your not willing to fight on their level.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So how do you do that? You can't throw money at the problem because the money ends up in the hands of the most corrupt? Do you invade and replace the government as it were? These pirate kings or war lords are quite content with their people starving and the lawless country so your going to end up with another insurgency that your not willing to fight on their level.

So you actually DO want the world to throw up their hands and say "Oops... nothing we can do here".

There was chaos and the world said "nothing we can do about it".
Then, in 2006, out of nowhere there was a government.
Because it was an Islamic government that wanted to rule by Sharia law like Saudi Arabia, the United States backed Ethiopia in destroying that government.
Now there is chaos and the world says "nothing we can do about it".

That is not right. What is right is exactly what Senator Feingold is proposing.

http://passport.foreignpolicy.com/po...rom_the_inside

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its the same in this situation. instead of going after the pirates in the boats, they should go after the people that pay them. They should knock down the mansions that these leaders live in. Sneak special forces units in to snatch their families and ransom them off. Plant limpit mines on the bottom of the mother ships and time them for when they return to their ports. You can't fight a conventional war because its the poor dumb son of a bitch of a bitch in a speedboat with an ak-47 that gets cranked and they're easy to replace. But you make it hard to function as a leader or positively detrimental to a leaders existence and you have a chance to break the back of the movement.

What will that achieve?

Once you start blowing boats up, you draw the line in the field. Agreed? What then when the pirates hijack a token ship for the sake of sinking it and killing citizens as a means of retaliation? Or start attacking private yachts? Propoganda war and the problem escalates. You also make it sound as if it will be easy to function in their back yard with limited resources.

My suggestion: Fund, Eritrea, Ethiopia and the Kenyans, and even the Tanzanians. Let them handle it.

[VladtheImpaler]

I think you have to look back to British methods in the colonial era:

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So you actually DO want the world to throw up their hands and say "Oops... nothing we can do here".

There was chaos and the world said "nothing we can do about it".
Then, in 2006, out of nowhere there was a government.
Because it was an Islamic government that wanted to rule by Sharia law like Saudi Arabia, the United States backed Ethiopia in destroying that government.
Now there is chaos and the world says "nothing we can do about it".

That is not right. What is right is exactly what Senator Feingold is proposing.

http://passport.foreignpolicy.com/po...rom_the_inside

if "we" get invovled, we are criticized for "sticking our western noses in other people's business". If we don't, we get the "where are you when we are truly in need?" bullcrap. Screw 'em, we have our own problems.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by habernac

if "we" get invovled, we are criticized for "sticking our western noses in other people's business". If we don't, we get the "where are you when we are truly in need?" bullcrap. Screw 'em, we have our own problems.

*IF* these problems were completely of their own making, I *MIGHT* agree with you. Probably not since I believe their problems are far, far bigger than our problems, but I MIGHT agree with you.

But since they did solve their own problems in 2006, brought peace and stability to the land, stopped the piracy, were rebuilding their economy only to have that progress blown to smithereens by a U.S.-funded/trained/supplied Ethiopian army, I think Senator Feingold is correct in saying that the U.S. owes them support in rebuilding their country. But just like when the Islamic Courts brought the pirates under control, it is only when there is a strong central government enforcing the rule of law that this problem will be solved. All the military force in the world is only going to treating the symptoms of the disease.

[Cowperson]

The piracy issue isn't a societal problem. It's a crime problem.

We're talking about a few thousand guys - at the most - operating hundreds of miles offshore, on open water. They're not under a jungle canopy nor are they hiding within an indiginous population.

Two days ago, the French captured a "mother ship," two speedboats and 11 pirates. That's an example of what's to come.

If we want to say they're hiding among innocents, it would be that they are capturing larger fishing vessels and using those to bring fast speedboats within range of commerical traffic which has wisely moved hundreds of miles off the Somali coast.

We saw a few months ago the Indian Navy blowing the crap out of one such vessel, then finding out that it was actually a legitimate fishing ship hijacked by pirates.

In any event, one probably doesn't have to go anywhere near Somalia since the action is nowhere near that place. The issue is allocating sufficient - and relatively cheap - surveillance resources to cover a specific area, then employing the means to respond quickly to deny that area to pirates.

As a sidenote, I'm sure Al Queda has noted the media furor coming out of the recent incident with the Americans and might be looking for a situation that has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with media exposure, hostages, executions and martyrs.

Enforcement wise, I can see the logic of NOT arming these merchant vessels, which seems a logical response. In this day an age, no port is going to want an armed vessel entering it's confines.

While it is tempting to go blow up Somali warlords who might be profiting from this, they're probably the only guys holding off Islamists from running what is essentially a land of primitive savages. Somalia, like Afghanistan, is a generational problem, anchored by the time warp culture imprisoning it.

Cowperson

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

While it is tempting to go blow up Somali warlords who might be profiting from this, they're probably the only guys holding off Islamists from running what is essentially a land of primitive savages.

Wow, welcome to the Berlin Conference of 1885, check your coat at the door. That's pretty offensive there Cow.

Somalia is a failed state, I wouldn't call them savages though.

Socio-economic issues are pretty important in this as well. In a country with little economic opportunity, piracy is a pretty good job. Many of these pirates are about as criminal as drug dealers in the projects, guys just trying to get by. Now, there's no easy solution, but there is a more complex depth to this problem counter to what you imply.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Wow, welcome to the Berlin Conference of 1885, check your coat at the door. That's pretty offensive there Cow.

Somalia is a failed state, I wouldn't call them savages though.

Socio-economic issues are pretty important in this as well. In a country with little economic opportunity, piracy is a pretty good job. Many of these pirates are about as criminal as drug dealers in the projects, guys just trying to get by. Now, there's no easy solution, but there is a more complex depth to this problem counter to what you imply.

I think a country like Somalia could be called primitive and the warlords that run it, savage.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think a country like Somalia could be called primitive and the warlords that run it, savage.

I agree, its an anarchy run by the guys with the most money raised through criminal enterprises and intimidation.

Until they're removed from the equation, your never going to fix the situation there no matter how much money you put into it. The Pirate kings and warlords will fight any intervention, all that you'll do by sticking your nose in is unite them.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Wow, welcome to the Berlin Conference of 1885, check your coat at the door. That's pretty offensive there Cow.

Somalia is a failed state, I wouldn't call them savages though.

Socio-economic issues are pretty important in this as well. In a country with little economic opportunity, piracy is a pretty good job. Many of these pirates are about as criminal as drug dealers in the projects, guys just trying to get by. Now, there's no easy solution, but there is a more complex depth to this problem counter to what you imply.

In my own experiences with people from desperately poor and failed countries, I feel comfortable saying that these people are primitive or savage from a modern perspective. I also feel comfortable saying that I emphasize with their plight and that we share a common humanity.

[Ronald Pagan]

Calling people savages is offensive based on the historical connotations of the term and the attrocities carried out against people because it was justified under the idea that they were savages. Sorry, this is 2009, you don't call people savages anymore.

And I've travelled and worked extensively in developing countries, most recently one of the poorest countries in the world, Bangladesh. I wouldn't call anyone that I met there a 'savage.' Even the poorest rural people that I worked in the field with had similar aspirations and worldviews as you or I. They were all fully functioning human beings operating within the bounds that they are subject to.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Calling people savages is offensive based on the historical connotations of the term and the attrocities carried out against people because it was justified under the idea that they were savages. Sorry, this is 2009, you don't call people savages anymore.

And I've travelled and worked extensively in developing countries, most recently one of the poorest countries in the world, Bangladesh. I wouldn't call anyone that I met there a 'savage.' Even the poorest rural people that I worked in the field with had similar aspirations and worldviews as you or I. They were all fully functioning human beings operating within the bounds that they are subject to.

This kind of relative political correctness is ridiculous. When I say savage, I would mean primitive. Primitive in the sense that these people have very little understanding of modern structures, such as bio-medicine, financial structures, and representative democracy.

As for your second comment, I agree entirely. In my view, the modern use of the word "savage" has nothing to do with the humanity or worth of an individual.

But to say that Somalia is not savage is ridiculous.

[Ronald Pagan]

This kind of relative political correctness is ridiculous. When I say savage, I would mean primitive. Primitive in the sense that these people have very little understanding of modern structures, such as bio-medicine, financial structures, and representative democracy.

Ok, so we've moved from a very offensive term (savage) to a slightly less offensive term (primitive). I guess it's progress.

Seriously, you think it's okay to call people primitive?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Ok, so we've moved from a very offensive term (savage) to a slightly less offensive term (primitive). I guess it's progress.

Seriously, you think it's okay to call people primitive?

In certain aspects, yes.