How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

Hunt of the Sea Wolves » Blog Archive » How (not) to deal with the Somali pirates

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:22:24 GMT

PingBack from http://huntoftheseawolves.net/blog/?p=1864

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

gamespew — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:28:14 GMT

BS!!!

They're pirates. We should sink, burn or destroy any vessel they're found on, whether holding hostages or not. We bomb and strafe the ports they're emanating from. Within a year under this policy, their would be no more pirates. We should release our frigates from their ports and fleet duties, give them letters of Marque, and let them go hunting.

How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates - Newsweek Blog | Food Shopping Center

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:07:23 GMT

PingBack from http://food.buytohome.com/2008/11/26/how-not-to-deal-with-the-somali-pirates-newsweek-blog/

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

MisterQ — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:37:26 GMT

Not realistic. There is a very good reason why non-arming of crews and relatively passive policies exist on behalf of the shipping companies and world governments. The sea is a big empty place and otherwise the crew would be simply executed on the spot and the cargos hijacked alone. Meanwhile, the maritime insurance companies have very limited coverage and rules to follow else the liabilities would bankrupt the shippers. This is huge money involved. The only time the destroy option should ever be used is when the boat poses a direct threat to a port as a terrorist attack. Best attack at this stage is to run disguised navy crews in the same lanes and sucker the pirates and make them nervous --- that and the special ops going infiltrating directly, which has got to be happening now that this is world level news.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

ifknotnow — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:35:52 GMT

I cannot believe this is happening in this day and age and these ship owners don't provide security. They mention costs? What about the costs of life? What about the enviroment if one of these super tankers goes down? What about the millions spent to pay the ransom?

These days we have a plethora of available and reasonable equipment to deter such activities... like night vision! We were testing these in the Navy in the early 70's and they worked great then. Infrared... another tool. When seen boarding weighted nets can be used to drop on the assailants. Take 'em to the bottom. There aren't many men that can fight or cut their way out of being entangled in a net especially as to go deep. Make a security perimeter of 1000 - 2000 meters common international maritime law. You get that close you are fired upon... no questions asked... no warnings! In the vastness of the seas, there is no reason to be this close to another vessel... ever.

The last time I looked it was the 21st Century... this shouldn't be an issue, period!

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

eddie o — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:51:39 GMT

Take a small page out of WWII. something called "Q" ships that were military ships that were disguised to look like common freighters to fend off surface U-boat attacks.. Give me 3 and in six months time the problems would be greatly reduced in this area. It greatly increases the chance that the pirates will be unceremoniously sent to the bottom when they least expect it. The problem with this solution is that it requires some positive action by a single party.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

advoidleftists — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:55:47 GMT

The pirate attacks will continue even more because you have nations out there who appease these priates by giving them randsom i mean if they never got one randsom they would stop doing it because its not profitable but when you have stupid nations that appease thinking they saving somone life while risking future attacks. Please to god i hope these nations stop appeaseing i mean europe well known for appeasement they always appease russia i mean if russia invaded poland all europe would do is nothing because europe well known for appeasement they did it with hitler and look how well that turn and Russians going nuts over defense shield not offensive weapon it only defense somthing they been installing in rogue nations for money i mean its okay when russia sells high tech weapons to iran and many other nations but when we do it to them they get pissed. They make threats and people have to wake up because we not once threatened to attack russia while russia generals and leaders constantly keep saying their doctrine is to attack missle shield few times they said that and threats because Russia is a bully and all europe is doing is appeaseing them and when russia invades another country europe is to blame for their apeasement specially leader of france who is appeaser.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

ChiliMac — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:25:08 GMT

The world turns, but doesn't change. Two hundred eight years ago the U.S. was paying 20 percent of its annual revenue to the Barbary pirates -- 20 percent! These Muslim pirates had scourged trade throughout the Mediterranean for the preceding two centuries, demanding tribute, ransom from many nations and enslaving tens of thousands.

Prodded into action, the U.S. built its first real Navy ships, among them the "Constitution". In two wars between 1800 and 1815 U.S. naval power helped to break the pirates lock on Mediterranean trade. The U.S. never paid tribute again and world trade blossomed.

Pirates are pirates. The only real solution is not ransom or defensively arming merchant ships, it is applied power. First, you completely destroy their coastal bases of operations and leadership, then you patrol their coast and sink anything that won't let you board to check for arms. In months the problem is gone. Only when they learn that their is no profit in their piratical ventures, only death, will they stop.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

WorldCitizen — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:01:12 GMT

Imagine 5 or 6 heavily armed special forces personnel with state of the art remote sensing gear on each of these ships. Well worth the cost for a tanker with $100 million in crude oil. The line of volunteers for the job would be very long.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rtakers — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:16:01 GMT

The solutions posed here would take care of the symptoms but not the problem. The problem is that Somalia has no central government but is run by despots. The UN needs to work together (no small miracle in itself) to make live better for the average Somali.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:45:43 GMT

Wow these are quite possibly some of the dumbest responses to a Newsweek article I have ever read.

WorldCitizen: A supertanker is roughly 3 times as large as a navy carrier. 5 to 6 heavily armed personnel on board would change nothing. Assuming normal sleep patterns for the duration of the trip, at maximum you'd have 3 people watching at any given time. That's it. Guarding a ship 3 times as large as a navy carrier. Motion sensing equipment? Have you ever been out to sea? Everything is in motion!

ChiliMac: Yea lets bomb the entire coastline and every ship, legitimate or illegitimate in the area. Women, children, the elderly... who cares amirite? They live nearby so they deserve to die. And of course pirate ships all fly black skull and crossbones so it'll be so easy to figure out who are the good guys are who are the bad!

avoidleftists: Do you know what a period is? And what the hell are you talking about Russia? That is the most random illogical argument ever. It completely deviates from the discussion. First, no nation is paying the ransom. The companies are. No company wants to be known as the company that doesn't protect its employees. That's basic business. The rest of your post is just complete nonsensical drivel.

eddie o: We are talking about an area that is over 450 million square miles of water. 3 boats will do nothing. Further, this isn't WWII. This is the age of information. Within weeks your ships would be easily identifiable and avoided... unless of course you plan to regularly change the appearance of your ship or rotate multiple ships in and out.. a very expensive proposition.

ifknotnow: This is not a comparison about life and death. Captives are not harmed, and generally ransom transactions take place peacefully. Asking ships to arm or antagonize Pirates will actually cause the problems (oil spillage, loss of life) that you purport to avoid. Your advice, like so many others, is retarded and only creates the problem you seek to avoid. Further, the ocean is a big place. The Horn of Africa and the gulf of Aden is not. Consult a map before you post.

Gamespew: Totally makes sense. I mean we can tell the pirates by their swashbuckling clothes, eye patches and skull and bone flags. We totally won't harm innocent people in the process /sarcasm.

The only solution I can suggest is co-opting the Somali government into helping to control pirates. There are no other viable alternatives. Co-opting the government means demanding and creating stability in the region.

You cannot shoot your way out of this problem.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

mikewadestr — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:17:09 GMT

If you don't want to have a ship pirated stay away from Somalia. Otherwise. bring your own guns and defend yourself. Geez a world of babies. Everyone wants someone to protect them for free.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

travler55 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:43:57 GMT

It is time we stop being naive and weak about the sick world of opportunist we live with. If the Somalis can't stop Pirates from using their waters and ports then the world has the obligation to sink every thing that even floats in every one of their ports. That is how you stop having to deal with Somalis Pirates and any other bunch of hoodlums driving up the cost of shipping and travel..

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

js100@msn.com — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:48:30 GMT

Blow them out of the water. If a few fishing trawlers of innocents fall victim the rest will start helping identify the pirates.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

travler55 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:49:07 GMT

blow up ever ship, trawler, row boat or boogie board floating in a Somalia ports and no one will have to worry about Pirates from their ports.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

travler55 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:57:31 GMT

when the impotent UN went to Somalia to feed the starving and need the United Staes Military to keep order so the food would stop being stolen the peace loving people of somalia drug American Bodies through the streets. So much for helping out. Blow thir ports to hell and let them solve their own problems.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

shotgun — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:13:39 GMT

Whenever rocket science is involved, nothing gets done? Blockade every Somali port and check all incoming and out going ships. Stop every suspect ship in the area and check it for weapons of any kind. Sink ANY ship firing upon you and send it to the bottom of the sea regardless of any conditions other than being fired upon. Naturally, rocket science like this will get in the way of any such simple solution. And How many nations are there now to act upon these pirates? Cant be done?

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

obgyn — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:32:41 GMT

How dumb do they think the public can be? oh, I forgot, a third of the public thinks like Palin and the other third believes in Santa Claus. Those so called Somali pirates are just poor villagers being paid $50.0 US. to do the dirty work and take the fall for the real pirates who have white skin and European Bank accounts to transfer the ransom money.

If you go to Somalia and find those so called Somali pirates, they will be sitting in a shack eating the best meal they have had in months or years and a little change left from the $50.00 they were paid to hijack the ship. Why on earth do Americans believe everything they hear or see in the media without using their heads. There is not a single soul in Somalia who can get away with something like this, and the transferring of millions of dollars which can easily be tracked.

Come on people, use your head.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

tmaiers — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:21:32 GMT

Thank you rashid120583 for suggesting a logical solution to the problem at hand and identifying why blockading all ports and attacking all pirate ships is nonsensical.

The current situation in Somalia reflects upon what is occurring both on land and at sea, simultaneously. Crime at sea should be closely identified with similar criminal activity on land; the main point is that they are directly related. RATHER than blowing up vessels as has been suggested, the UN must realize where the problem stems: on land. Al-Shabaab, an extremist branch of the Council of Islamic Courts in Somalia has been identified as a terrorist organiation by the United States. Recent events give rise to the notion that they are gaining considerable power in Somalia; only a few final government-controlled strongholds stand in their way. Unless the international community can find a way to curb the growth of such extremist groups in Somalia or eliminate them altogether, crime on land and sea will flourish. Somalia needs sactioned national elections, a stable government, and help/encouragement from the rest of the world to bring this problem to an end.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:30:12 GMT

I see many posts advocating acts of war against innocent people, invasion of sovereign countries, etc. These are hideous, knee-jerk responses. Arming the ships will just put more weapons beyond the control of governments and in a volatile area of the world.

The best solution is the use of convoys.

This pirate area is a small corridor through which ships can be escorted by armed vessels. The armed ships can meet with merchant vessels at rendez vous points at either end of the corridor. Once or twice a day, the convoys can move through en masse. If any pirate vessels attack, the armed vessels can engage and destroy, or at least coordinate a response from other vessels.

This is a cheap, easily coordinated solution that can be arranged legally and multinationally. There will be no collateral damage, no civilian casualties, no cases of mistaken identity, and no engagements in the national waters of any nation.

A system of payments from shipping countries could even be arranged to defray the costs. Each convoy ship could be assessed a charge based on photographs or other means.

I offer my apologies that it is not excting. It is unlikely to make a good Michael Bay movie, but it will solve the problem safely and efficiently.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

Braes — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:49:54 GMT

Rashid, you dismiss the q-ship argument too quickly. It worked in full oceans, as the attackers come to you. Look it up.

As for shooting someones way out of things, if people shoot their way into things, sometimes it is a good response.

As for blockades and such, quarantine is very costly.

You are right about the observation and technology today. There are informants in most every port, most choke points like the Suez, etc. where ships can be identified for predation days later.

As far as sponsorship and all, no one wants to go back into Somalia. It is why Ethiopia's Army was rented in the first place, to tangle with Somalia. Of course, I have been to Moqadisu.

You can not impose a modern Government structure over that culture. They will self select what they have now, and elections do nothing. Once they are done with our nice western formalities and voting, they will go right back to Clan and Elder, as it has been for over 3000 years.

The UN is a joke. Diplomacy is good but there must be two willing sides. When one side already has everything it wants, there is nothing to negotiate.

This began with ships like the one from Thailand, fishing in Somali waters, and taking food that the Somali fishermen need to eat. So the Indian Navy shot up a poacher, being hijacked. The Somali fishermen who know the waters well have just adapted after being stolen from, they became the hunter.

Given that Somalia, Puntland, and Somaliland all claim independence from each other, and none have actual armed forces, or a coast guard, and that the hijackings are generally near the Punt, yacking at Moqadisu about Islamists will get us no where.

If you want to change the behavior of individual actors, you have to change the opportunity costs.

Rethink the Q-Ship. Properly done, and renting several dozen to rotate through will comlicate their decisionmaking tremendously. As for the traditional Navies, I'd suggest they impound any fishing vessel encroaching on traditional Somali fishing Areas so they can get back to eating.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:32:51 GMT

"If you want to change the behavior of individual actors, you have to change the opportunity costs."

Unfortunately, increasing the opportunity costs of INDIVIDUALS will necessitate changing them for EVERYONE living on the coast of that country, which would cost much more than the ransoms being paid now. After all, if you only make things better for pirates, then someone else will just take over their jobs and the problem will continue.

Solving the problems of Somalia is beyond the will, and probably the capacity, of the UN or any other body, as we know.

I agree that q ships are better than nothing, and better than shooting up Somalia to be sure. There is the problem of their being identifiable, though, and camouflaging them as, say, freighters will soon have pirates looking for tankers or yachts, and so on.

Convoys were used in WWII against a much better armed and coordinated adversary. No special outfitting or equipment is necessary. All that is necessary is coordinated action. Military service vessels of the US, India, Japan, and other nations can just cruise through along with other ships, then turn around and cruise back when they reach the other end of the corridor.

I guess every problem nowadays has to have its own equipment, bureacracy, etc. It is a shame. I think that the pirates are exploiting confusion and finding seams where they can pick from the tree of commerce. The answer is to close the seams in that area in a cheap and sustainable manner. After all, we know that the US will lose interest quickly because its people and government have the attention span of a gnat. We need a plan that can be carried out through the collective efforts of say, Saudi Arabia, India, Japan and others who rely heavily on trade through the area.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:25:11 GMT

This Q-ship idea is absurd. Look, in WW2 you were talking about a hostile sea environment. Every ship was clearly identifiable as friendly or enemy. This is not the case here. There are too many ships in the sea. Further, Q boats would make an already dangerous situation volatile. The reason that Somali pirates do not engage in violence when taking over a ship is because they are under the impression that the ship will surrender peacefully. If this is changed then you make every pirate more cautious and in turn more violent. What happens when some khat-chewing half-drunk pirate mistakes a boat hook for an RPG and creatively fires a rocket at it sinking a $100 million ship?

Further, whose going to maintain these sea lanes? Whose going to pay for it? How many ships would you advocate putting out to sea? 50? 100? What will you do with captures pirates? Turn them over to Somali? Try them at the UN? How much will that cost?

Isn't it just cheaper to pay a $5 million ransom one time then to pay the astronomical cost of maintaining a fleet of undercover boats in the region as well as maintaining prison facilities for them? And before everyone jumps in with "Just kill them" please shut up. Your solution is not realistic and will not be implemented. Everyone suspects you are an idiot; don't confirm it.

The same logic applies to why it is not worthwhile to bomb the cost line and harbor. What are you going to do? Fire a half million dollar missile to sink a $200 motor boats? How much would a sustained campaign (and yes, it would have to be sustained they will come back) cost in the long run?

Finally, a lovely quote for all you ladies and gents that purport bombing indiscriminately at their ports and killing civilians along with the pirates:

"We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this declaration."

Makes alot of sense huh? Congrats, you just agreed with Osama bin Ladens rationale for killing civilians on 9/11. Doh!

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:04:20 GMT

Look, I am not going to defend q boats, but as I said, it seems better than bombing OR welfare programs for Somalia. I much prefer the idea of convoys. Not much gun play or violence, but it solves the problem cheaply.

(By the way, pirates can be killed, I believe. International waters and all that. Once the shooting starts, I think that all is fair. No declaration of war is necessary... I think... self defense and all. I would just send the live ones back to Somalia, myself. )

Convoys would not require 50 or 100 ships. 10 destroyers would certainly be enough, with occasional support from larger ships that are already in the area. From what I understand, there are that many ships already there, but their actions are not coordinated in any way. As I said, the pirates are opportunists. Take away those opportunities to attack stragglers by eliminating stragglers.

Have ships assemble at rendez vous points outside of dangerous areas..

Assign one or two escort vessels to groups of vulnerable vessels.

Transit the dangerous area escorted.

Let ships proceed to destinations.

Have escort ships make a return trip with new group of merchant vessels.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

As I said, some minor fees could be assessed to shipping companies. These would be user fees, rather than your tax dollars at work. Let the Saudis handle the fuel costs, haha. If the pirates attack, kill the attackers. No detective work necessary. The missions themselves would likely be boring, but training and other activities could be done there as well as they could anywhere, and crews would probably appreciate the small probability of actual combat duties.

No refitting of any ship would be necessary. No weapons would be distributed to or operated by civilians. No danger to cargo or personnel. No muss, no fuss.

Why is it not being done now? No leadership.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:21:43 GMT

Rashid, you seem to not know what a U boat is. In WWII, such ships were not identifiable at all, sometimes even after the torpedoes struck, ...Q ships were, I believe, armed with depth charges to attack U boats if they were attacked. They worked well for what they were.

The q ships are not a bad idea because they do solve the friend or foe problem well. Any pirate ship attacking one is readily identifiable as a foe, so it gets obliterated. Problem solved. My criticism is that it might be expensive, requiring refitting, a bureaucracy, etc. Things would get bogged down. It is a high cost plan that could be circumvented cheaply by the bad guys.

The convoy alternative is cheap and difficult to circumvent. The pirates' best strategy would be to wait it out. But then, they could use that strategy for any other countermeasure anyway. Because the convoy plan is cheap and easy to coordinate, it can be implemented longer. Also, if a merchant ship DOES NOT adhere to the convoy plan, it makes itself vulnerable. One or two hijackings of non-conformists will enhance participation in the program. Furthermore, the more desperate and greedy pirates will be more likely to take risks and attack a convoyed ship. As those pirates are destroyed, others will be more likely to give up.

I would like to hear of a better plan. Its my plan. I thought of it and have not seen anyone else even suggest it, but it seems great to me. I think that a better plan does not exist. This plan aligns all interests. It is self sustaining, cheap and simple. It would be the triumph of civilization over barbarism.

If the powers that be DO accept this, I ask that they call it THE MCLOVIN PROJECT in my honor.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

ifknotnow — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:51:43 GMT

Rashid,

Just because you don't agree with other posts doesn't mean they are "retarded"... nice choice of words.

I'm with McLovinB on this one. I do know how vast the oceans are after spending many years in the US Navy. I also know the areas, Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa. I don't believe that a legal security perimeter would be hard to accomplish even in tight waters. Kind of simple actually, you enter the perimeter, you defend YOURSELF. Granted these are large ships but with todays' technologies they, the pirates, aren't invisible, by any means.

McLovins' plan would accomplish that... the perimeter with each other, for each other. Tankers in the middle as they would pose the greatest risk to the enviroment and loss of cargo. Strength in numbers...

There shouldn't be any legal problems once these scumbags realize they will be shot at if there are any breaching attempts... period.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

binderdundat — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:21:23 GMT

If these pirates can board and capture a ship why can't we do the same to a captured ship? We know where the ship is what is the problem?

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:43:52 GMT

Well, I am not familiar with the area, but I do know that shipping is done along lanes. I have read that one problem is that this is a large area with many small unidentified vessels. Having such an expansive area has led authorities to complain that "they can't be everywhere at once". OK. Fair enough, and defending some perimeter or creating some territory might engender the same difficulty.

The real problem is that you want your muscle right where your ships are because you do not really know where the pirates are until there is an approach or assault.

Anyway, the convoy is kind of a moving perimeter. As ifknotnow was saying, you put smaller faster merchant vessels along the outside, kind of as lookouts or pickets or whatever. Charge them less of a user fee to watch out. Have some patrolling ships... I mean, almost PT boat size kind of buzzing around the perimeter. Whatever. Hey, why not bounty hunters and mercenaries? Some people enjoy this stuff. You could mark the perimeter with smoke or lasers or maybe towed buoys or something so that the locals will not do anything stupid.

You can use qeueing theory and software to solve problems with faster moving and slower moving vessels. I could write that software, but it would cost a pretty penny. You could use drone aircraft or vessels for surveillance. Drones could take off from tankers or other large vessels. Or dirigibles could stay on station for weeks at a time.

Or not. All the gadgets are just the window dressing really. If they give me a budget, I will try to get it, you know... but you don't really need it. Somebody please tell me that it would be totally impossible to do with 10 properly armed craft. I bet you could do it. Get 3 from India, if they can afford a moon probe, they can afford this. Get 4 from the Saudis. Get 2 from Iran, 3 from Japan, and let the US chip in at least one or 2, and there you have it. Just assign them their convoy and send them down the line. Then they come back with another group. Have one or two running interference maybe, just to stir things up or be ready to respond.

And hey there good buddy, you got yourselves a convoy.

And yeah, there is strength in numbers. The wakes from something like this would swamp small pirate craft if they tried to get in there. They might get rammed or whatever. I am thinking that the pirates will just keep their distance. Again, it is the collective action of tens of vessels that is the key here. No special training or refitting or even personnel are necessary for the ships, and the escorts can be vessels that are already there.

OK, so someone with some connections contact the DOD or shipping companies or the insurance companies something and remember, it is called THE MCLOVIN PROJECT. If Newsweek wants to interview me after I become famous, they know where to find me.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:49:32 GMT

To binder....

Captured ships have hostages and valuable cargoes... sometimes explosive cargoes.

Shippers and insurers would rather do nothing and negotiate than risk destroying crew and cargo.

And, realistically, the rambo stuff never works out that well anyway. One navy seal or helicopter is probably worth much more than a million dollar ransom. A boat captain must be worth more, really. Killings just mess up the math.

The only defense is to keep the pirates from boarding.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:11:37 GMT

"Just because you don't agree with other posts doesn't mean they are "retarded"... nice choice of words."

I agree. However, your posts retardation has little to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with it. I can disagree with a post and still find it a valid argument and not retarded. I find your post retarded on its merits, not because I necessarily disagree with it. Do not confuse the two.

The Perimeter Option rebuttal: This idea will work. Much like bombing the coastline, sinking all ships in the area and aggressively targeting civilians it will work. It is impossible to pirate if you are dead.

The argument against it is not that I disagree on its effectiveness; rather I disagree on whether it is worth it. First, there are fuel and maintenance costs. You say, "Well the shipping companies can pay". Excellent! Lets charge them. So, lets assume that an American shipping company agrees to pay for Naval escorts to the Gulf of Aden. They meet up at the rendezvous point, share a pint and get ready to roll. Along comes another Merchant vessel from say... oh... I don't know... India? Except it hasn't paid for an escort but it still tags along behind the American shipping company. The Pirates see three ships, 2 merchant vessels and a big bad American missile destroyer. They think "To heck with this, lets go elsewhere".

So where does that leave the American shipping company? It has now footed the bill for escort costs and protection for not only itself, but another ship. The other ship received all the benefits of protection and yet none of the costs. So, it thinks "To heck with this, I am not paying anymore". And very rapidly your entire model falls apart.

Your idea will work in the short term but it not sustainable as long as their are selfish players in the world. And, since shipping companies are creatures of capitalism, they are always going to be selfish players. Hence, it is a BAD idea.

The only way to stop Pirating is to create viable alternatives. Somalia needs a government, It needs stability. This problem will not go away. It is not just shipping that is a potential danger of Somalia continuing to be a failed state. Look at Afghanistan. Look at what happened on 9/11. Consider that Somali is more densely populated, is awash in weapons (even more so then Afghanistan amazingly) and is surrounded by unstable states (Pakistan become unstable after the invasion and Iran is moderately stable). It is significantly more difficult then Afghanistan to invade and we STILL haven't managed to get that country right.

As someone else mentioned, you are trying to eliminate the effects without understanding the causes.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:17:15 GMT

Also, bear in mind that countries are interested in protecting their own vessels. It doesn't do Saudi any good to protect an American ship. In fact, it actually works in their favor. If American ships aren't protected the Pirates target them, if they avoid the area shipping costs for them go up and so X country rakes in the profits.

One last thing about shipping lanes... the ships moving through the area are Supertankers. These things take over a mile to just stop. You cannot pack together a bunch of merchant vessels of this size and realistically attempt to guard them with only a few ships. They would have to be stretched out.

Further, this it the Gulf of Aden. And the open seas. What happens when someone doesn't want to play by your rules and cuts through your convoy? Or perhaps ahead of it? You going to sink a Norwegian ship? An Indian one? It will slow your convoy down and create a bigger bottleneck then there already is.

Stop talking about fixing symptoms. Start fixing the problem.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:54:57 GMT

The arguments against the MCLOVIN PROJECT are nitpicky. I think someone is just trying to find something wrong, and not doing a very good job of it.

Rashid. You really do miss the point. The problem is keeping the bad guys off the good ships in international waters. It is not the symptom. It is the whole disease. Dont confuse the issue with politics and economic plans, or even Somalia. Why involve UNICEF, the State Department, and endless UN debates and committees?

>>>Ships cant maneuver? Captains cant move with others in some kind of formation? You really think so? When you drive at 50 mph, it takes tens of meters to stop, so why aren't people crashing into each other every other minute on the highway? Obviously, we are dealing with relative speeds and professional drivers here. You really are ... seriously... implying that no ships have ever travelled in groups before? This is the flaw of the plan?

>>>Saudis dont care about American ships? Americans dont care about Saudis? What world do you live in? I read Newsweek. The ship a few weeks ago with tanks on it got quite a bit of attention from many countries, including Kenya, if I am not mistaken. Who was India "protecting" when it went after the pirates, Rashid? I think it is very clear that many countries see this as enough of a threat that they will do something about it. I mean, you think it is reasonable to violate Somalia's sovereignty over it, but you think nobody will want to try and solve the problem some other way?

And if the countries don't want to solve the problem, then their insurance companies and shipping companies will.

>>>Play by my rules? Hey, it is a matter of right of way. You probably know the rules of the sea, right Rashid? If a Norwegian ship comes to the convoy and attempts to board a ship, you are darned right it goes to the bottom. It will be assumed to be hijacked if it does not hail. Let us just assume that adults will make rational choices and find good outcomes, shall we? I have a gut feeling we are safe from the Norwegians. Lets keep the discussion on the topic of pirates, not Vikings.

>>>As far as assessing fees, you are missing the point. The queue moves out, and if someone wants to freeload, well, what else is new? If someone is late, too bad. Someone is ALWAYS footing the bill Rashid, as your parents do, and someone is always busy finding ways to scam the system. Admit it, scamming the system is the first thing you thought of. You are familiar with Pareto optimal outcomes? Who is worse off if one more vessel joins? (Gotcha!) I say keep costs low and get the job done: the problem gets solved. Assessing fees is for the bean counters. Just to give you a history lesson, who gave the US money when it defeated the pirates off of North Africa? The pirates were terrorizing vessels from all nations and the US went in and defeated them. Who paid? Americans did. It is called community service and being a leader. Collective action would have been better, no? But was the outcome bad? NO. This is such a great idea that people will want to participate and do the right thing. The cost of participation is low. Korea, Russia, India and the Saudis will definitely be on board. OK, well maybe not America, too bad. But hey. Whatever. Iran could help out with this one if America wants to take a pass.

THE MCLOVIN PROJECT can work there, and it can work at MALACCA!

In summary, you are seriously saying that solving the problem with ten ships and some collective action and ingenuity in international waters is NOT preferable to invading Somalia and giving it a government we can all be proud of. The latter has been tried before, with the best of intentions and very little success.

Hey, good luck on that. Let me know how it turns out for you.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

Waljas — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:43:29 GMT

And how many of these ships are of US registry, most probably NONE!These shipping owners go to the cheapest and least regulated countries to register their vessels. LET THEM FLOUNDER!!!

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

poppymilner — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:25:40 GMT

lets go back in history. back to World War 1. Does anyone remember Q ships???? they were very effective against German U boats during World War 1. Perhaps something along this line would work in this situtation. Shoot and sink enough of them and there wont be anymore somali pirates.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

badda — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:57:23 GMT

World War I is right. But not Q ships. The Germans had a famous count who converted, a windjammer into an attack ship. THE SEE ADLER, OR SEA EAGLE I believe. Look it up, low tech, sail with back up engines and firepower.

Bring back the Windjammer.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

jayarr — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:10:38 GMT

An apathetic UN could deal with this pirate situation in a New York minute if they really were "united"- A couple of war ships with Marines should go into the harbors in question and clean them out. What about the safety of the hostages ? Well, the ship owners should provide protection for them and their ships by whatever means, or seek other routes- WHAT ABOUT THE EXPENSE ?

WELL, WHAT IS IT COSTING THEM NOW? If the pirates, and the ship owners understand that the taking of their vessels on the high seas will result in their eventual destruction by warships of the UN

the pirating will simply halt .No profit in damaged goods .

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

elyown2 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:36:41 GMT

I really can't understand why Somali pirates can not be stopped. Where are the world supper powers? Why don't they bombard the water coast of Somali? why can't they send some well trained soldiers to stop these pirates? It means that terrorists and pirates are as much as powerful as a supper nation since they cannot be stopped. All countries, not only the United States and England should put together regardless of their foreign political reasons to stop these both terrorists and pirates. If most nations become one force not about priorities to fight these criminals , it would stop. There is nothing in the world that we are dealing with that doesn't have a begining and an end. We do have solutions for these problems . The question is Can we unite ourselves in order to stop these particular problems . We have solution , again, for everything that we are dealing with. Good judgement and leadership are needed. United States is not the only country to lead in world affair. Other Countries can take some kind of responsibilities with the participation of the United States. Why is Russia as big weapon supper power come foward with an idea? Where is China with her trillion people? Where is Germany as a genious country? Where is Saudi Arabia as an oil rich country? Where is Australia as another powerful country? Where is Japan as a sophisticated electronical giant? Where is Napoleon Bonaparte as an aristocrat with their hornets? Where is Syria instead of hinding terrorists in her home?Where is Israel as a God nation and as well as powerful as the United States in her region? Where is everybody? If we really want, with the help of God of heavens we can put together and combat evils and we can win. But we rather fight with each other to repeat the story of "Lafontaine" "the lion and the shepard". If we renounce of killing one another as show of force we can combat terrorism and piracy. I hope everyone who read this understand what I am trying to say. I know criticism exist; but what is the purpose of it when we are suffering and can not take care of certain situations at hands?

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:20:09 GMT

Waljas. You mean let them FOUNDER, right?

JAYARR-- The UN would have to pass a resolution, then get funding, then get some country willing to do it. I think 4 or 5 countries could do a better job of solving this than 20 or so. The marginal cost would be minimal because many countries already have warships in the area just kind of cruising around.

The q ships require the purchase or refitting of vessels, which is wasteful. By the way, there are excellent accounts of CONVOYS and Q-SHIP activities in online archives. I think I saw some in military collections at PROJECT GUTENBERG, but I am not certain of that.

Also, reviewing TMaiers/Rashid arguments, I think they ignore that the Islamic groups in Somalia are not associated and might be antagonistic to the pirates. You want to pay Al Qaeda to attack the pirates for us? Yippee. That is exactly how Bin Laden got his start in Afghanistan, as you know. Getting involved in that can of worms is ... well... like walking two blocks out of your way just to step in dog poopy. Solving Somalia's domestic problems is probably fun to talk about at cocktail parties in Washington DC, but short term effects on this pirate problem are nil, and long-term effects are questionable at best. Surely a multibillion dollar nation building exercise is not the answer to a problem of pirates in international waters, is it?

Well, I see a lot of plans for shoot shoot shoot and then aid aid aid, with a little sneakiness mixed in there. There are some parts of the world where invasion seems like the cure-all for disputes. I am amazed at that. I am really surprised that people keep suggesting that cargoes be destroyed like some kind of scorched earth policy. The math does not work with that in any way. Makes no sense at all. I am the kind of person who thinks of explosions as very destructive and wasteful. Killing people for money and property is something that the pirates do not do, why should we? The Saudis' 100 million dollar cargo and 3 million dollar crew will probably be released for a ransom of 1 to 10 million. The shipper or insurer will take that hit. In fact, just sitting in port, the oil in that ship has dropped in value much more than that in the last two weeks. I think that the final word on that is that it has never been done. Humans have always found better alternatives. I think that there are many.

Does anyone have a realistic suggestion that can

1. Prevent killing of captives, villagers, special ops people, or any non-pirates

2. Spread costs among all or at least many who use the area for shipping.

3. Keep ships from being captured on this route

4. Maintain Somalian sovereignty

5. Use existing resources ONLY

6. Limit the use of weapons by non-military personnel

I think that only the MCLOVIN PROJECT has all of those features and their implied benefits.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:17:25 GMT

McLovinB: No, the disease is not keeping people off ships. It is a symptom of the instability of Somalia. If you solve one, the other will follow.

Ships can't manuever: I don't think you've ever been out to sea bud. Or realize the scale of the ships we are discussing here or the limitations in of the area. You make a logical leap from me saying "ships find it difficult to manuever" to "ships cannot manuever" so you can better attack the argument. Thats your perrogative but it is not what I said. The larger point I was trying to make is, with ships of this size and the location we are talking about any escort of a convoy would have to be very very long and spaced out. That means more ship defending and more expense.

When I referred to a Norweigen ship I did not mean one that attempted to board. I mean as one that simply ignore the rules of the convoy and cut ahead of you. What penalty would a ship captain pay for simply cutting ahead of your convoy, still getting the protection and delivering goods cheaper?

Fees: Assessing fees is for the bean counters. Companies are bean counters. So essentially... the very people you discard as being irrelevant are the people who are in fact most relevant. Companies that pay for your convoy lose out. The ones that free load cut costs. What do you think companies will do? If this banking crisis should have taught people anything it is that Companies will do what is good for them regardless of the larger system. No one wants to be the first guy to take the leap. The first thought in my head was not to scam the system; the first thought in my head was what were the flaws in this system? Don't be mad your system has flaws. Fix them.

Finally, supporting Somalia's efforts to build a governments does not entail a full scale invasion. There are many ways to support stability in the area without ever putting American boots on the ground. Your solution solves the problem of Pirating at a very high cost. My solution takes the same cost and tries to solve multiple problems. Somalia is a failed state. What have we learned about allowing radicalized Islamic states to fail? (Hint: See 9/11) It is not simply a question of solving piracy, this is just the newest symptom of a very old disease.

As I said when I introduced my post, your idea would work. The problem is not that it would work, it is that it is a never ending cost. Pirates will not attack convoys. In 25 years you will still have people willing to Pirate in Somalia and you will still be escorting ships through the area. Your idea is great for the short-term but fails to address the situation long term. Making Somalia stable means that in 25 years people will not be interested in pirating.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

canadianbear — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:22:40 GMT

McLovingB,

I think UN should purchase a super tanker cruse around with a fully armed military team and wait until pirates try to board the ship. That would eliminate all civilian casualties and after a few of their buddies disappears on the water the next group would think twice about attacking any tanker.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:03:02 GMT

BTW I realize I didn't offer a solution so here are a few:

Short-term: As this article mentioned, the addition of barb wire would be a cheap and effective deterrant. Add with that some outward facing curved non-electric fencing means that hooks will have little area to gain purchase. Further, even if they do manage to gain a secure line it is very difficult to climb on a moving vessel around an outward curving fence. This idea works because no one benefits from it other then those who participate. It is relatively cheap and easy as well as non-violent.

An active crew on alert when moving through this area with the suggestion I made would significantly reduce the likelhood of sucessful attack.

As has been mentioned before there are Islamists in the reigon who did not approve when Islamic ships were attacked. Create a treaty with these people and the Pirates to ensure that no Islamic nation ship is attacked. It is very easy to swap flags when moving through the area (swallow your pride). Further, it reduces the number of targets of opportunity which reduces the cash flow of the pirates. This is a good thing.

Note: I did not say to sign some sort of alliance with these Islamists. All I am suggesting is co-opting them so that we reduce the number of ships attacked and start to reduce the profitability of attacking these ships. The Islamists will eventually have to be taken care of on their own.

I would even co-opt McLovins plan by adding some sort of convoy system in the short term. Independently the idea would not work. However, coupled with a number of other things it can be a first step to a long term solution.

Long term: The creation and development of Somalia and its goverment. Yay... nation building sucks but in this case, some sort of stability is needed. It is cheaper to provide aid to Somalia for 10 years and solve a multitude of problems and generate good will then it is to escort ships through the area for the next 50.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

Stevie B — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:23:17 GMT

The solution is obvious. Albeit not politically correct.

Dont copy the US FIRST barbary pirate war of 1805.

The first Barbary war had grossly ineffective "diplomacy" that meant nothing to the pirates, followed by slow, gradual, escalation of military force.

The USN kept building more and more ships, all being sent to north Africa, losing one of its largest warships (a sister of the USS Constitution) as well as merchant ships to the pirates, the mess dragged on for years as pirates built forts at their bases and bought bigger guns before finally being worn down by a country that originated the saying for that war: "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute"..

That seems to be what the world is set on doing now.

Copy the second Barbary war of 1815 instead.

After winning the first Barbary war, the US navy was elsewhere from 1812 to 1815 because of an altercation with the Brits -- the 1812 war that included sacking of Washington and torching of the White House. This took priority, the resultant absence of the USN near North Africa allowed the pirates to resume their activities.

After peace with England in 1815, the bulk of the Navy, complete with Marines, was sent to Africa.

The Navy wasted no time.

On arrival they landed the marines, at night, at a leading pirate base.

The local pirate ruler awoke to find that his forts had fallen. All ships and boats in his harbor had been captured. The Navy's frigates were lined up along the waterfront, guns run out, ready to blow his palace off the map; with Marines confiscating or torching the entire contents of the storehouses where loot was stored. (If commingled - consider all stolen contraband)

The slaves and hostages (in those days hostages were sold as white slaves if ransom was slow) were promptly released, loot returned, and peace reigned.

Neighboring pirate bases sent their envoys to meet the fleet as it left harbor, and surrender their slaves and hostages early lest they meet the same fate.

The solution here is to

TAKE THE GLOVES OFF, LET THE MILITARY DO THEIR JOB, WITH AMPLE SHIPS AND MARINES TO DO IT QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY, INCLUDING LAND ASSAULTS WHERE APPROPRIATE.

Forget the meaningless but endless UN resolutions and slow amendments to rules of engagement.

As to penalty for captured pirates - while most nations have gone soft, with wrist-slapping of a few months in prison instead of the traditional penalty of hanging by the neck until dead and decomposed, Saudi Arabia still has appropriate penalties for pirates.

Send captured pirates to Saudi for amputation of head or hands.

AND make it a felony throughout the world to pay ransom to pirates or terrorists of any kind.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

baad — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:14:17 GMT

they should send some seawolf subs to patrol over there and sink the motherships it would put fear in the pirates soul not knowing if a subs around.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

bayravin — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:40:47 GMT

I love the suggestion by 'baad'. A few pirate motherships sunk, the pirates will 'high tail' out of the waters.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

studenlawyer — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:50:30 GMT

The UN needs to declare Somalia, a nation that must be quarentined. No vesel can leave without permission. Passing ships should have GPS and all somalie vessels should be equipted with such. They must keep a 4 miles distance. Any encroachment will trigger naval response. But all ships that leave Somalia must be inspected. Meanwhile the whole nations should be disarmed. Those in the field should surrender or sending the gunship that can shoot every square inch. The UN must change the rules of engagement-lethal force should be permitted immediately

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:57:08 GMT

studenlawyer: lol... oh man... hey while we are at how bout a puppy in every household? Maybe world peace as well? Oh I know! Lets also hand out chickens in every pot...

Try to ground solutions in reality? If you get any dumber I'm going to wonder if you have a pulse.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

shotgun — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:33:56 GMT

Law enforcement is as simple as the last four decades in any city that cares.

A cop on every block to stop, check, and disarm the criminal is what has worked regardless of political games, rocket scientists, or even technology.

Blockade every Somali port as best as possible, check every ship for weapons as best as possible, sink any and all offending ships, and leave the 23rd century solutions for the 23rd century.

Rocket science make great print, folly, and fools.

The more you keep them in check with such simple things like check points and sinkings of the guilty, the less you have to deal with them down the road.

Ask any successful mayor.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:32:16 GMT

I really do not know why Rashid is so quick to pooh-pooh Studnlawyer, Canadianbear, and other contributions. The suggestions seem to be focused on the problem and don't call for destroying Somalian sovereignty.

Rashid. I have been at sea plenty and know that ships can be operated safely. I have in fact piloted boats in the Pacific several.. no.. .make that many... times. Collisions at sea very rarely occur, your point is silly. If you really think ship captains are stupid, then why don't you become one? They get paid more than you do. Get in there and show them a thing or two. Seems like you know much more about all this than they ever could.

Other ships will be unable to avoid the convoys? How likely is that? Again, that is really splitting hairs. A convoy will certainly be easy to spot, and there is no fog in the area. It will be lit up at night, and it will look like a floating city during the day. And it is the ocean, for heaven's sake. Turning port or starboard or stopping would avoid collision. Your attack by Vikings idea is ludicrous. We are really onto a great job opportunity for you, I would say, Rashid. Apparently, ship captains can't avoid obstacles and can't guide their ships in straight lines either. Sheeesh, they are more of a danger to each other than pirates could ever be, right Rashid?

The costs of my plan are low and sustainable. The plan is focused on the problem. If the plan truly becomes obsolete, then it can be phased out simply. Stabilizing Somalia is an expensive and meaningless distraction. Sure, it would make the problem go away, but so would world peace, and since I am not a beauty pageant contestant, I won't waste time wishing for that. Rashid, these people are KHAT CHEWERS. What possible aspect of Somalia are you going to change that is going to make drug addicts see the light? Or are you just planning to kill them all?

Well, it is refreshing to see you show your true colors Rashid. Deep down, just admit that you don't like the convoy idea because it does not involve indiscriminate killing of brown people in a third world country. Many people commenting here just want a chance to start factional war, sweep through villages with women and children and a few pirates, just slaughtering people. You bought your ticket on that train, so ride it. Heave your bombs and spill your blood and do it in the name of elections for the free people of Somalia. That is the reality you want. As you know, even distributing aid a decade ago was a matter of warfare. You don't expect it to be different this time. You don't even care. You just want to reform Somalia the way you would like it. You would have better luck as a ship's captain, I think. The karma is certainly better.

Finally, you have painted yourself into a corner logically.

If Somalia were the single problem, as you have said, then just admit that any solution you propose would be useless to combat pirate problems in other areas of the world. Go on. Admit it. If you can't admit that, then you refute yourself and you can be ignored. Put more simply, you either believe that Somalia is the problem, so stop talking about pirates, or you believe that pirates are the problem, so stop talking about Somalia. You have said the former repeatedly. Want to change your answer?

No?

I am still waiting to see a comprehensive solution better than the one I suggested earlier.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

rashid120583 — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:54:39 GMT

Haha... I hit a nerve McLovinB. Hillarious! Try not to get so upset... your whole post just sounds like so much pent up anger. And you just jump from point to point repeatedly accusing me of stuff and then countering your own accusation a moment later... its like reading an essay from an angry 12th grader...

First, I am of Pakistani desent. Spare me your "holier then thou" attitude. I don't enjoy killing brown people nor did I suggest it. Don't play the race card.

Second, these ships are large. The Gulf of Aden is small. I am not saying these ships will crash into each other. I am saying for them to be safely spread apart so that the risk of an accident is small would create an excessively large convoy. Larger convoy equals larger ships. They cannot be clustered together in a formation in which 10 or fewer warships provide adequate cover. You are welcome to look it up or google it if you like.

My reasons for stabilizing Somalia expand beyond just pirating. Your world view and reaction is knee jerk. Mine is more comprehensive. Pirating is a problem, it should be controlled. While we are at however, we should also combat a failed state if we can. For moral reasons as much as to try and prevent it from becoming a terrorist haven.

I did not suggest indiscriminate killing of brown people. Ever. You are welcome to scroll down and read all my posts on this subject but nowhere did I suggest it. In fact, when someone DID suggest it I pointed how foolish it was and how much I thought it was a bad idea. Please do not put words in my mouth and take the time to actually read what I wrote.

Yes, my solution fixes pirating in Somalia where it is a serious international issue and where ships are forced to cluster together which makes them easy targets. The only other place where Pirating even hits the map is close to Indonesia. I evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis avoiding generalities and ideologies. I am a pragmatist and a realist. You come up with your idea (to steal a quote from someone else) by watching Micheal Bay movies.

Vikings: Yea I never said Vikings. Ever. I said Norwegians and I was only using them as an example. If, for some reason, this really seems to bother you feel free to replace Norwegian with Pakistani, Indian, Russian, American etc . etc. It was just an example of a possibility. It does not mean that I believe Norwegians are coming in longboats to take over the world.

Solution: This is how I know you don't read my posts. At best I am guessing you skim over them. I offered a comprehensive solution that co-opts your plan as well as several others. I am not typing it out again. You are welcome to scroll down and look however.

PS - I am done posting on this thread. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 5th grader albeit sometimes the 5th grader makes a valid point.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

tmaiers — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:32:13 GMT

I am utterly disgusted with the ignorance and naivety displayed in McLovinB's last post.

McLovinB: "If Somalia were the single problem, as you have said, then just admit that any solution you propose would be useless to combat pirate problems in other areas of the world. Go on. Admit it. If you can't admit that, then you refute yourself and you can be ignored. Put more simply, you either believe that Somalia is the problem, so stop talking about pirates, or you believe that pirates are the problem, so stop talking about Somalia."

PLEASE understand that there is NO difference when discussing Somalian piracy and Somalia, itself. They are one in the same. You must realize that piracy, on water, reflects the same exact trend on land; a rise in criminal activity. The point to be made is that piracy in Somalia will not come to an end without stabilizing all of Somalia. You can NOT propose a long-term solution to the piracy problem without adressing the inherent instability of the entire region. Immediate solutions are nearly useless for the underlying causes. Consistently you have demonstrated your inability to comprehend this.

Your post ignorantly describes a virtual bloodbath of military conflict culminating in Somalia. If a faction in Somalia can provide the people with the protection they deserve, crime rates will drop, and we will see a gradual decrease in piracy. Assuming there are feasible alternatives to crime, this plan will work. No single faction, however, has successfully demonstrated they are capable of providing for this. Let the international community address the real problem at hand; let them guide the most influential political figures in Somalia such that order can be restored and new jobs can be created; encourage unity in a land traditonally overcome by division.

McLovinB, you must also recognize the naivety in your assumption that one plan fits all. It is most obvious that the most fitting solution for Somalia will differ from that needed elsewhere; the political climate changes dramatically from one country to the next. Assuming you now understand the connection between piracy and instability, I hope you can identify the fallacies in your argument.

And think before you write, captain.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:01:36 GMT

Somalia is a sovereign nation. The pirates are from Somalia, but they are not agents of the government and there is no proof of any kind otherwise. If anything, the government appears to not have good relations with them. The pirates are NOT killing people, at least by all reports I have read.

A blockade is an act of war.

Invasion is an act of war.

Any incursion into their space without the government's permission is an act of war.

Pirates are Somalians, but Somalians are not pirates.

Many people got up before shock and awe and said over and over again that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do. There were no WMDs. Governments lied to people to get consent. Those opposed to killing innocent people were shouted down.

The mistakes of the last administration and many of the American people have bankrupted the nation morally and financially.

I learned. Did anyone else? Death is to be avoided if at all possible, period. War is bad and uncontrollable.

It seems beyond reason that so many people seem ... well... hell-bent... is an appropriate phrase ...to start it all over again for a couple of million dollars in ransom money.

Is senseless war and violence the new American disease? Does it really seem to be the expedient solution to everything? Maybe a whole generation of Americans has been raised this way. I have met very very few people from other countries who think like this.

Is it worth even a single human life to find some way of deterring the pirates without declaring war on whole nations of impoverished people and then exterminating them indiscriminately? Of course. Can we just solve problems while leaving nations out of it? Let's try.

Ghouls and Ghasts and war mongers. I had no idea there were so many.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

McLovinB — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:08:25 GMT

Utterly disgusted! Oh my.

TMaiers, are you and Rashid the same person? I think that violates the terms of this site.

Hey. Sure. I am ignorant and naive. I believe that the world can be improved mostly by peaceful means if we use the brains God gave us. If that is your problem, then I am proud to be your problem.

Your ignorance and naivete (that is the correct spelling by the way) are the kind that will get a lot of people killed and taxpayers bankrupted for nothing. Leave the Somalis alone. Go after the pirates. You are already thinking fallaciously about these people. Stop it. Even if all pirates are Somalis, not all Somalis are pirates.

SNIPSNIP

OK. I had a lot more to say about a lot more of this. I am full of opinions, as you can imagine.

I will summarize it and spare you all.

Nation building and meddling with sovereignty of other nations is a mistake. History shows it. The US should avoid that slippery slope just once in my lifetime. That would be refreshing. The meddling starts with freedom fighters and liberation of the oppressed and ends with torture cells and carpet bombing. The whole bloody history has been covered in the pages of Newsweek.

Piracy is the topic here. I presented a great idea, and it gets nitpicked to death by the nattering nabobs of negativism. Oh well. This is EXACTLY how Americans get distracted in their policy and their thinking. Some people arent satisfied because I cant cure the political or drug habits of all the people in Somalia, or that ship captains are all incompetent. Hey. Those problems are above my pay grade. You all go solve those problems. Try not to get people killed while you are at it.

My idea takes care of the pirate problem. It deters piracy efficiently at almost no cost. It uses simple coordinated action to achieve a limited but necessary objective. I advise leaving Somalia's problems to Somalia. The world is really too busy to deal with Khat chewers who are bent on killing each other. If they leave us alone, let em chew their Khat. When they come to take our ships, we blast em. Not before, not after. Nuf said.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

ifknotnow — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:53:14 GMT

Whew... I'm so glad I got out of this discussion early. To McLovin/Rashid... this post has been great, inspiring and informative. Thank you both!! Now, shake hands and realize nothing, I mean nothing said here is going to happen until someone, other than us commoners, takes a stand.

I don't, at this time, feel that will happen. It's kind of the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) theory. If we're not feeling it in our own neighbor hood, it doesn't hurt so bad. We'll take the additional costs, just don't bring the blood here. It's a shame that war is an inevitable human trait... no one seems to know why, really! Common sense, purpose and good, will never prevail. It's unfortunate, but true...

Issue Dated December 8, 2008

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:53:35 GMT

NEWSWEEK RSS WIDGET Sign up to get NEWSWEEK headlines delivered by RSS to your desktop NEWSTWEET Follow Newsweek on Twitter and send your replies Promise and Performance He made a lot of pledges on the campaign trail. But can President-elect Obama deliver?

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

CycoMike — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:42:09 GMT

You guys are just way too serious about all this. These guys are PIRATES. We are supposed to like Pirates aren't we? Pirates are at Disney World for goodness sake. I say you either have to be FOR the Pirates or AGAINST THEM. Me? I'm FOR them. I ordered a Somali Pirate T shirt off of ebay and will wear it to work under my shirt the day after it comes in.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

mac26x98 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:47:40 GMT

I think it was a good way to deal with them, they had taken over the fishing boat so why not blow them out of the water. It's to bad if that incident has the navies back off some. I think they should get much more aggressive.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

79stiletto — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:33:16 GMT

Yesterday Pirates attacked the cruise ship NAUTICA in the Gulf of Aden (DOWNTOWN PIRATE CENTRAL) I wonder how much the bleeding heart left handed press would cry if someone "blew the pirates out of the water" during that attempt to kidnap and rob 1000 innocent crew and passengers? I have no doubt the press would bawl with outrage.... why? Because if we chipped a fingernail on the international criminals and thwarted the rapeing and pillaging, it would certainly rob MEDIA pockets of a huge cash cow story!!!! The press would rather have all the crew and passengers drawn and quartered on deck with blood trails running down the side of the ship!! Now THAT's a story! (rubbing their grubby little hands together)

Think about it, if it doesn't make money for the paper, they don't have any interest in it. Everybody that thinks the press is the keeper of our huge moral compass please stand up....

There is no moral fiber in these pseudo-bunny huggers so don't be misled by their "press". That's whats wrong with America today, there is NO THOUGHT for the common good in society. Integrity was freshly defined by brother Clinton during his last years, Integrity has been watered down to a PERCEPTION of integrity, reality plays no part in it! How many people believe the REALITY shows aren't scripted?... As long as we can make it look, sound and smell good, then we can sell it....

Brother Bill epitomized the decaying moral fabric.with his "lawyer talk" and constant FRK@#N POLITICAL spin cycles..... The facts are "what I can make you believe". Our courts live on "perception of guilt or innocence" and it's spread to society as truth. How insane is that reality? The problem is, our society today accepts this "false integrity" we are tuned by the POLITICIANS to LIKE it!

What should we do about pirates, that's easy, can you say TROJAN HORSE. I wonder how many guns you could stick out each window of a fake cruise ship or cargo vessel or two. I'd take off work to go man the biggest gun on the boat, I'd truly enjoy a 2 month cruise around the Somalian coast. I'd feel like I was truly doing something for the planet. I'm not a skin head or radical cult leader... I'm just a mad American. Mad about POLITICIANS robbing my 401K, mad about POLITICIANS and their constant spin cycles, mad about the Lefthanded liberal press that vows to "protect" the sanctity of humanity in any way they can profit from it. I'm just mad.... and brother I doubt that I'm the only one.

I'm mad about Banks that don't have any integrity or any need to live with the bad debt they created, they sold it to Wall street and made ME pay for it, now the STUPID MF governement is giving them more of MY money to make sure they survive. OHHH it's for my own good.... If the Govt. didn't bail them out I would be in deep S#!t right? NO... I saved my money and worked hard. I took my money out of the market before it took a dump. I... the one that did it right needs to bail out the SOB's that screwed the USA in the first place. I don't need a Frkn loan.. let them soak in their own butter!!!!!

HEY STUPID ECONOMIST.... why give more money to the people that CAUSED the problem. I'm just a country boy.. but "I ain't that stupid" If somebody wastes my money I don't take a loan out to give them some more... IDIOTS.... Instead of the POLITICIANS throwing good money after bad, just make the lenders that made the bad loans responsible for their debt! Why do we need so many banks, we don't! Let the economy seek it's own level.

How does this relate to the subject at hand, PIRACY? I am tired of being the victim, I'm mad about foreign Pirates taking advantage of the world, and I'm damn sure mad about political PIRATES (that I pay salaries of) robbing ME!

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

shotgun — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:12:28 GMT

For the last Eight years this has been 100% true, so blaming only the politicians here is moot. You the majority chose a simian to run the WH and you got what you exactly what you deserve, and it wasn’t liberal tree huggers that got us into this mess. So Hopefully this president elect plays more than just checkers because the world plays chess. Perhaps HE will have a solution that fits the crime.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,

more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land

will reach their heart's desire at last and

the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

And remember, even a bigot like Mencken can get one right in his life time.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

H.nazar — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:11:26 GMT

The Indian navy could have at least searched for survivors, as I have heard that Thai fisherman was found drifting five das on from the incident. This piracy has to be dealt with, but more on a united level and a bit more professionally. Otherwise a few more incidents like this may lead to more civilian deaths than actual pirates being caught.

re: How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

ali111 — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:05:35 GMT

@##^^$#@^^#Q%

Generic finasteride.

Anonymous — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:08:37 GMT

Finasteride side effects. Finasteride mg hair.