[JALU3]

You know funny thing there. It's lose/lose, always. When the US is not involved you hear foreign individuals say, why isn't the US doing something with its massive wealth and resources. When the US is involved, you'll here complaints about the US wanting to take the lead, or forcing our way upon others. I think in the end there is no way the US wont get blamed for something or receive negative image results regardless of how it responds/acts regarding something. There'll always be someone with access to a camera or a microphone to paint the US as doing something they don't like, even if that something is not doing something.

Somalia's problems are internal, but as we have seen, they have been unable to fix it themselves, and it effects our interest due to our shipping through the area. Sure, it would be best if the private companies would take care of themselves by hiring private security and what not, but as we have seen they have been unable or unwilling to. Therefore, it falls back upon the navies of the vessels that ply those waters to conduct some of their most basic duties, that is to protect its nation's merchant vessels. With that being said, the problem originates in Somalia, and will not be solved until order is restored to that region. In absence of order, there can be no recovery, which would lead to solving the problems which lead to the piracy.

Thus stopping piracy at sea is only treating the symptoms, and not actually curing the disease. In this case the disease are the lawless conditions in Somalia.

As I had said, US Intervention as far as ashore matters, should be minimal. I would support supporting another nation taking lead, and assisting that nation when it needs it, and providing expert support in areas that it lacks the ability in. But the question is, would enough nations be willing to put in the effort and resources it takes to come to a "win condition". Otherwise, the piracy will be a continuing problem.