US Flagged Vessel Captured! UPDATE: Navy SEALS take out pirates

[JALU3]

Here's an idea, since the Mogadishu UN/AU backed government is not effective in controlling its territory, both land and sea, the state of Somalia should be retrograded to the status of a Trust Territory, as it was post WWII. A lead nation should be designated, and a UN military mission be reestablished to bring law and order to the territory and its territorial waters. Those who do not comply are considered hostile, and appropriate action be taken. Once a safe environment is established, aid agencies can enter to assist in any humanitarian issues, and appropriate groups should be tasked to direct rebuilding efforts regarding critical infrastructure. With that the natural market should create a need which would be fulfilled by internal sources, or create trade via importation.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Here's an idea, since the Mogadishu UN/AU backed government is not effective in controlling its territory, both land and sea, the state of Somalia should be retrograded to the status of a Trust Territory, as it was post WWII. A lead nation should be designated, and a UN military mission be reestablished to bring law and order to the territory and its territorial waters. Those who do not comply are considered hostile, and appropriate action be taken. Once a safe environment is established, aid agencies can enter to assist in any humanitarian issues, and appropriate groups should be tasked to direct rebuilding efforts regarding critical infrastructure. With that the natural market should create a need which would be fulfilled by internal sources, or create trade via importation.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by fatty

Couldn't have said it better myself

Coming from someone who wrote a groundbreaking, IMHO, paper on the subject I am humbled by your statement. Security/Economic need, right. Gotta address both here. Thank you Fatty

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Here's an idea, since the Mogadishu UN/AU backed government is not effective in controlling its territory, both land and sea, the state of Somalia should be retrograded to the status of a Trust Territory, as it was post WWII. A lead nation should be designated, and a UN military mission be reestablished to bring law and order to the territory and its territorial waters. Those who do not comply are considered hostile, and appropriate action be taken. Once a safe environment is established, aid agencies can enter to assist in any humanitarian issues, and appropriate groups should be tasked to direct rebuilding efforts regarding critical infrastructure. With that the natural market should create a need which would be fulfilled by internal sources, or create trade via importation.

That's a great idea and I support it fully as long as America isn't part of it.

[JALU3]

NEWS UPDATE: MSNBC reports that the lifeboat has reached a point due to natural drift to within 20 miles of Somali coast. (Side note, MSNBC is LOL as they show in this video a Spruance Class Destroyer and a, Iowa Class Battleship in the graphic (haven't you noticed some news agencies are now calling the A. Burkes Battleships (more LOLs)))

Originally Posted by UnderseaLCpl

That's a great idea and I support it fully as long as America isn't part of it.

Why shouldn't the US play a roll in it, if the US didn't lead the backing out after the Battle of Mogadishu, there may have been a chance of bringing security and order in that country. Rather that administration, having extended the mission objections without providing adequate support to said mission, did not provide overwhelming force to achieve the objectives, thus leading to the Osama Bin Laden coming to the belief that the US was only a "paper tiger". But that's a different arguement, that relates to it, but isn't directly connected.
I do see the US as having a roll in this idea, but definatly not a leading one. The US has one of the few global logistic abilities that very few other nations posess. However, at the same time, it is overstretched (until the eventual draw down of US forces in Iraq), even with the continuing growth of its active force (i.e. the increase in BCTs). What I would like to see is an AU or other region power, such as India, take the lead, with other nations providing support and expert know how that the lead nation lacks.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Why shouldn't the US play a roll in it, if the US didn't lead the backing out after the Battle of Mogadishu, there may have been a chance of bringing security and order in that country. Rather that administration, having extended the mission objections without providing adequate support to said mission, did not provide overwhelming force to achieve the objectives, thus leading to the Osama Bin Laden coming to the belief that the US was only a "paper tiger". But that's a different arguement, that relates to it, but isn't directly connected.
I do see the US as having a roll in this idea, but definatly not a leading one. The US has one of the few global logistic abilities that very few other nations posess. However, at the same time, it is overstretched (until the eventual draw down of US forces in Iraq), even with the continuing growth of its active force (i.e. the increase in BCTs). What I would like to see is an AU or other region power, such as India, take the lead, with other nations providing support and expert know how that the lead nation lacks.

I have a lot of reasons for not wanting the U.S to be involved at all (or as minimally involved as possible), most of which reach beyond the bounds of controlling piracy and into the realms of proper administration of state.

This is a difficult thing to argue, because you are very right on a number of points. U.S. logistic support would be very helpful to restoring order in Somalia, and I agree that the U.S. should not have a leading role in any such effort. You are also correct in stating that U.S. withdrawl from Somalia was a less-than-ideal outcome, and that it possibly contributed to future violence ( unless I mistake your meaning)
Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having some other nation assume the burden of Somalia.

Despite how correct you are in many things, I maintain my stance of U.S. non-involvement.
Firstly, there is the assumption that U.S. withdrawl from Somalia caused a problem, or that continued U.S. presence would have been wise. Somalia was in dire straits before the U.S came along, and our presence ultimately did nothing to fix it, nor could it have. Somalia is an economic quagmire. It is a near-worthless piece of land with an almost equally worthless and factionalized populace. Like many quagmires, this is a quagmire that the U.S. did not create. Europe is responsible for it.
Let them fix the problem.

Seondly, there is the matter of U.S. success in nation-building and/or foreign aid in Africa, or for that matter, the success of any nation in nation-building Africa. The point stands on its' own. You already know what the statistics say.

Honestly, I think you have great case for solving Somalia but I don't see why the U.S should be a part of it at all. The risks are great, the rewards are small, and it is none of our business. Better to let some other nation(s) deal with it and forget the whole business.

My preference is to stand on the principles that made the U.S. great to begin with. Private industry and non-interventionism. Also, by looking out for America's interests and paving the way for private firms to ensure the security of our shipping (should our shipping companies choose to employ it) we can avoid all the hassle of wasting taxpayer money whilst benefitting from the economic cost to (and any anti-pirate success of) other nations. The world is already pissed at us for interfering all the time, it would be a simple political matter to transfer state regulation of piracy to other nations if we are sufficiently obsequious.

Finally, I will address your implied desire for the U.S to effectively back up its' foreign policy (the paper tiger thing). Honestly, if we just stayed out of other nations' business, it wouldn't be a problem. Free trade with all nations, alliances with none. We need to move in the direction of "we weren't there, don't blame us" Ultimately, no one is going to be mad at us for not being involved at all. They only ever get mad at us for interfering incorrectly.

You really do have a great idea for Somalia, but I don't think U.S intervention on any major scale would be effective or appreciated, even if it does work (which it usually doesn't) at best, we'd be accused of colonialism or supporting colonialism. At worst, the U.S would take the forefront(as it often does with major international endeavors) and then we would be accused of imperialism (already happening) and the predictable backlash would follow.

The only winning move is to not play the game at all. Let some other nation take the fall (or the credit, as unlikely as it is) for once.

[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.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Here's an idea, since the Mogadishu UN/AU backed government is not effective in controlling its territory, both land and sea, the state of Somalia should be retrograded to the status of a Trust Territory, as it was post WWII. A lead nation should be designated, and a UN military mission be reestablished to bring law and order to the territory and its territorial waters. Those who do not comply are considered hostile, and appropriate action be taken. Once a safe environment is established, aid agencies can enter to assist in any humanitarian issues, and appropriate groups should be tasked to direct rebuilding efforts regarding critical infrastructure. With that the natural market should create a need which would be fulfilled by internal sources, or create trade via importation.

Good luck in finding a nation that wants to take that on.

Imperialism and colonialism didn't end because the European nations had a sudden change in heart and decided that the other races of the world should be allowed to rule themselves, it ended because it was horribly unprofitable.

Even if everything goes right in the "Somali Mandate" (for lack of a better term) it will be horribly expensive for the lead country, and you can bet that nobody will step up to the plate to help them shoulder the costs. No European nation will step up - the stigma of imperialism is just too strong, and none of them are exactly swimming in cash. Because of Afghanistan and Iraq the US doesn't have a dime or a troop to spare, and even if we did the memory of Blackhawk Down would keep us out.

The grim reality is that a Somali Mandate operation would probably go horribly wrong. Any operation would require troop deployments to subdue the warlords. That would put off the Somalis in a big way. People become irrational when it comes to foreign troops on their soil. The troops may be helping them, but they still resent their presence. I remember after Katrina, Castro offered the services of the Cuban army to help the recovery efforts. Can you imagine the outrage if he had just sent the army in on his own accord, without even asking us? Even if all they had done was hand out blankets and food we would have still been irate at their presence.

In Somalia you'd have that outrage, and everybody is armed. It wouldn't take long for a cycle of violence to break out and spiral out of control. Then you'd end up with an Iraq-style quagmire, only without the stubborn insistence on sticking it out.

But getting back to the issue of who would take it up, there are only two nations I can think of that might want to take on such a Somali Mandate: Russia and China. When you think of either of those nations controlling Somalia (and the adjacent shipping lanes), suddenly the mandate idea doesn't seem too appealing. In fact, piracy suddenly seems like a better option.

One easy step the US/international community could take is to recognize Somaliland's independence. Despite zero help from the international community, they've managed to set up a relatively peaceful and democratic state on their own.

So, the guy is free. Three of the pirates got killed. The US clearly send a signal there, one I can fully support. The pirates had enough time to give up, they gambled and lost.

Hope these pirates learned a lesson today.

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

So, the guy is free. Three of the pirates got killed. The US clearly send a signal there, one I can fully support. The pirates had enough time to give up, they gambled and lost.

Hope these pirates learned a lesson today.

I hope the lesson won't be 'Shoot the crew first, ask questions later.'

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Etienne

I hope the lesson won't be 'Shoot the crew first, ask questions later.'

Shooting the crew doesn't get them anywhere. To make their money, they must ransom either the crew, the cargo or the ship itself. What, are four guys going to just going to operate a container ship by themselves?

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Shooting the crew doesn't get them anywhere. To make their money, they must ransom either the crew, the cargo or the ship itself. What, are four guys going to just going to operate a container ship by themselves?

True. One reason the pirates have been so successful at getting ransoms is that they've treated the crews well. If they start killing the crews they won't get anything except a ship they can't use and a bunch of cargo that they don't want.

It sounds like Obama gave the order to shoot if the captain's life was in danger, and the US sailors decided that the pirates were about to shoot. Fortunately, our guys didn't miss. Some reports have said that the captain started the whole thing when he tried to swim away, but that hasn't been confirmed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7996213.stm

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Shooting the crew doesn't get them anywhere. To make their money, they must ransom either the crew, the cargo or the ship itself. What, are four guys going to just going to operate a container ship by themselves?

The crew itself's probably not worth that much money - Easily replaced, probably don't work directly for the shipowner, and most of them are from countries where tort laws aren't up to US standards anyway. (It's probably not the country where the ship's registered, probably not the country where the company owning the ship is based and definetly not the country where the guy owning the ship lives...)

The only difference it might make is that the navy would be a lot more open to shooting, althought that would piss off the owners handsomely.

As for operating the ship, yes, four guys could do it. Especially if one of them has some engineering knowledge, or if they keep one of the engineers around to get the engine going.

When I was in nautical school, there were a lot of second and third hand stories going around of pirates offing the entire crew, or at least the captain and the chief engineer as an example. Don't know how much of that was campfire stories and how much was truth, but the stories were floating around.

Anyway, we'll find out soon enough if the pirates have changed their MOs...

[gordonmull]

It seems that the pirates do not attack in force. Why not just TRY to get every nation which is running cargo ships in the area to start randomly putting marines on them? Eventually the pirates will run into a very big problem for themselves. They won't know which ships are crewed with highly trained, well armed military and this should act as a deterrant at least.

For this to work I have to take the more violent side of things and say take no prisoners. Shoot them on sight and pursue them until they are dead . Until they learn piracy = death then they will continue to do as they do. I'd have thought that in boarding a ship you would be at the tactical disadvantage so any casualties on the marines' side should be minimal.

Between the US and the UK we've got plenty of troops in backwater countries that we had no business getting into in the first place, so why not Somalia as well? At least our men would be doing something productive for a change and it would be good training for our collective marine infantries.

Really, and sadly, these pirates do deserve to get shot for what they put merchant sailors and their families through.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Etienne

When I was in nautical school, there were a lot of second and third hand stories going around of pirates offing the entire crew, or at least the captain and the chief engineer as an example. Don't know how much of that was campfire stories and how much was truth, but the stories were floating around.

These kinds of events were not unusual about 20-30 years ago when piracy was a bit bigger around Latin America and the west coast of Africa. Rapes, murders, and assaults were a little more common, especially in attacks on ships anchored in port. For good and fairly graphic accounts of these kinds of violent attacks may I recommend Piracy Today: Robbery and Violence at Sea Since 1980 by the late Cpt. Roger Villar. Villar compiled several pretty thrilling reports of raids on yachts and other pleasure craft that end tragically.

Modern piracy is a pretty bloodless affair, though. Casualties to piracy in the last five years are in the single digits. As someone else said (maybe Takeda), they are not ideologically motivated. To inflict mass casualties is not an objective.

Anyway, we'll find out soon enough if the pirates have changed their MOs...

Yeah, the figures for the first quarter of 2009 should be out in the next few months.