IIMO, if a vessel carries a single American crew member, that vessel should be required to carry a well trained armed security group: if and when a suspicious vessel approaches the protected vessel, signal it to stay away. If it refuses and continuous to approach, blow it out of the water and make no attempt to rescue survivors. Other nations who ship other nationalities of crew members can make their own arrangements to protect them. If they choose to allow their crews to be unprotected, so be it.
I’m feeling really mean today; my darling Marcie has been driving me insane all damn day.
It isnot necessary to attack civilians…just sink the ships. Stop the “mother ships” at sea-if they don’t have any fishing gear, sink them. The word will get out, and the piracy will stop.
I think maybe we should look at the cause of piracy. Why does Somalia have no government? Would it be possible to jumpstart one? If so how much would it cost?
What if they just get fishing gear. They could even fish in the meantime. It ain’t that easy.
No company would hire American crews anymore. It would just be too highly an inconvenience. I am sure unemployed sailors will be thankful for your suggestion.
The fact is that everybody agrees that without commitment of troops and money the problem will not be solved. Since the people most invested in the problems don’t have the means, and the ones with the means have no interest, the problem is still unresolved.
In an ideal scenario Liberia, Panama, Gibraltar et al would be coughing up the biggest chunk of military and financial resources. Even Denmark, several times richer than all three “countries” above had to cut their mission before the middle of the year because they ran out of money. Even patrolling the area is more expensive that paying a ransom.
Pirates are basically the terrorists of the sea: their entire military strategy is based on asymmetrical warfare. If anyone seriously thinks that bombing pirates from afar is a valid and useful strategy, one should ask how successful we have been in destroying other unconventional warfare groups from the air. Al Qaeda? It seems we had to take over Afghanistan, and even after being driven out, they’re still a danger to those in A’stan from their caves in Pakistan. Taliban? Same thing. Sunni militants in Iraq? Bombing didn’t cause them to stop. Hamas? Does anyone think that the invasion of Gaza will stop the violence?
Fortunately, and unlike some of the rah-rah “let God sort 'em out” sort of commentary found in this thread and elsewhere on the internet, General Wilkerson seems to understand that the US would have to commit ground forces as we did in the case of the Barbary Coast pirates. Why would we invade Somalia when it is so clear – Operation Restore Hope, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom – that simply killing a lot of bad guys who dress like paupers, live in mud huts, and carry $50 AK-47s doesn’t mean winning the war? It isn’t like there is a finite supply of criminals and rejects. Others will come to take their place.
I’m still uncertain as all get out that with ground troops (especially being the precious commodity they are right now) would be effective in discerning whom they are supposed to attack from the ranks of the Somali civilian population. It’s likely the average coastal-dwelling Somali even if not directly involved in piracy is going to look up to them, look out for them, accept much needed money from them…I think it wuold be another quagmire. Some other solution is necessary.
I don’t see anyone in this thread “rah-rahing”. And you seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you ascribe to Gen Wilkerson’s solution that ground troops are necessary to sort out the matter, on the other, you make reference to the fact that such actions in modern urban conflict can often go awry. Which is it?
It seems to me that the best solution would just be to arm the merchant ships and let them fight the pirates on a case by case basis. Rather than an all out “war on piracy” which would waste billions and accomplish nothing. How hard would it be to just give every crewman on a merchant ship that sails in pirate-infested waters an M-16 and a crate of ammunition? I’m aware that there are laws prohibiting merchant ships from docking in some ports with armaments on board, but in light of this piracy problem, some kind of international agreement must be made to change these laws so merchant ships can protect themselves.
I wonder how much it would cost to put marines aboard some seemingly piratable vessels and cruise around waiting to be boarded?
Or the various companies pool their money and buy off some groups of pirates. If any ships are attacked, the paid off pirates would kill the offending pirates for messing with their sweet deal.
Quite a lot of countries will oppose arming their crews.
Most countries will not allow a ship with arms to enter their ports.
Most companies oppose arming their crews because of the liabilities (nevermind the legal) problems.
Crews oppose being armed.
Crews do not wish to fight for somebody else’s properties. They are merchant sailors, not soldiers.
Who will train these people? Or do we just give heavy weaponry to cooks and deck painters just like that?
Do you know that navigators already take several weeks of training a year, weeks taken out of their vacation time? They will not be happy to stay away from their families more than the 6 months plus some weeks that they already do.
Crews are generally very well treated by Somalian pirates, it will not be the case if they suspect they will meet opposition, in fact Maersk (and most companies I have heard of) have strict non-confrontation procedures: use evasive maneuvers, but if you are boarded, cooperate. Stand down and not not provoke them. We’ll cough up the money to get you back.
Etc.
This is a bad, bad idea. Of all the ideas presented here this is probably the second worst. It was addressed in the other thread about this.
If the crews are “treated well” by the pirates, it’s because the pirates know they’ll be paid off. If the companies stopped paying the ransom, then the pirates would have to kill crew members in order to send the message that they’re not fucking around. Right? This is the only conceivable outcome I could foresee if the companies stopped paying the ransom for the crews.
I wondered about that when someone brought up the “Italian Job” solution to this issue in the other thread.
Even if a united front against paying ransoms were to be agreed upon to discourage piracy, how many hostages would have to be killed before either the pirates gave up because they weren’t getting anywhere, or before Country X that the crewmembers were flagged under would cry uncle and pay it to spare their lives?
I am now of the belief that we need to start actively hunting these guys, monitoring their communications, etc.
In fact, I think that UAV’s are probably the most effective and likely way we’ll go with this. We’ve been buying a TON of them recently, and they are very versatile.
If they are allowed to continue unabated other regions will follow suit. Piracy is a serious thing even if it’s a small proportion of shipping losses worldwide. It needs to be handled delicately though, not by invasion but by strike teams that know their targets and go after them, a la the retribution for the Munich Olympics by Israel.
No; the pirates could just sink the ships they capture when a ransom isn’t paid to prove they are serious; something that’ll be a lot more impressive to the people paying the money than just killing people.
I’m not sure if this was meant as irony but if it wasn’t. I merrily suggested a solution that could make the situation better for everyone, and didn’t require killing innocent bystanders just trying to make it in some 3rd world hell hole.
But if you enjoy death and misery so much go right ahead.