Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't expect to win any popularity contests in this, particularly from a largely American audience. Nevertheless wish to make the point, as Karl von Clausewitz pointed out that, "War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means." (War) not as a first response. He also mentioned the virtue of audacity, but all things in measure.
This has implications far beyond the Indian Ocean. The American military has acknowledged that a purely military solution will not work in Afghanistan. It is more a question of winning hearts and minds. Something not usually effected at the point of a missile, particularly when innocent women and children end up euphemistically as 'collateral damage.' Then take Pakistan and one can exponentially multiply the difficulties faced in Afghanistan, especially in politics. A viable outcome will require deep understanding and subtle influence. A deft touch. The local audience there who matter most in determining the outcome could care less what American's think, or how right they perceive themselves to be.
This entire world needs a better and much finer balance.
von Clausewitz is absolutely correct. We tried negotiating for days. The Somali who surrendered is being cared for. But the Navy has a saying
"You don't step on Superman's cape,
you don't spit into the wind,
you don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger, ....."
and be very careful about threatening the United States Navy.
Your right Idunn. You won't win a popularity contest. If it will make you feel better though, if I ever decide to become a criminal, I would want you in the jury.
FYI - Admirality Law governs the Laws of the Sea. And, an attack on an American Flagged vessel (or any nations flaged vessel) is the same as an attack on that nation.
In other words, it is the same as if the Pirates attacked the United States
The use of United States Military was appropriate.
Shipping companies have decided to take the payoff route with pirates, and all that is doing is encouraging more and more pirates to get into the game, hold people ransom, and get a big payoff. Somalia can't really do much about it, their police and military are so corrupt they can be bough off with all the money the shipping companies throw at the pirates...and the UN has no warships to patrol international shipping lanes. So if they attack the ships of the respective countries the pirates should expect those countries military to do something about it.
Until some one decides to get rid of the threat, it's just going to keep happening...and more instances of operations like this are going to be needed.
By most accounts American's are pleased with the way the standoff between Somali pirates and the US Navy ended. But should they be?
There remains the issue not only of imprudent force, but likely results thereof. Not to mention international law and who, of anyone, is blameless in this situation.
One might be pleased that Maersk-Alabama captain Richard Phillips was freed unharmed. Or for some that this largely improves US President Obama's international credentials, at least in the Western world. However largely ignored in the accolades that three life's lost, those of the Somali pirates. And the liberty of a fourth decidedly at risk. This may seem a meritless point to those pointing out these were after all pirates by choice, and if matters had gone wrong Mr Phillips could have lost his life. All true, but not perfectly clear.
For one thing the US could have chosen a different course of action, with no loss in life, and achieved much the same result in freeing Mr Phillips. In the end these pirates would probably have elected to trade his freedom for theirs. They apparently were not given this option.
But what of it, who cares? Beyond the issue of taking life when unnecessary, perhaps a good many will care before this ends. The objective of these pirates is primarily money, but this action risks changing the equation from a relatively minor annoyance and cost of doing business for shipping companies to revenge on the pirates part. In fact that is already beginning to happen, with actions by the French and Americans to free hostages by force the reason. To date the aims of these pirates has been monetary, but now the risk far more political.
Still, one might be willing to overlook this when something as egregious as piracy as concerned. That could be the case save there are a good many pirates involved, and many of them are nation states.
Somalia has had no effective central government since 1991. It also happens to enjoy one of the richer fisheries still extant on this planet. Species such as sardines, perch, lobster and shark exist, not to mention the predominant catch: tuna. Combine this with declining fisheries across the globe and the rapacious appetites of countries such as India, Italy, Japan and Spain who regularly overfish these waters and the issue of who is a pirate becomes less clear. Somali fishermen have complained for a long time that fishermen from the developed world fish their waters with impunity, since they cannot protect it, but also in an unsustainable manner, even at times denying Somali's access by such tactics as ramming their boats or destroying nets: Prelude to Piracy: The Poor Fishermen of Somalia - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
To add insult to injury some take advantage of Somalia's chaos to use its national waters as a dumping ground for toxic waste. Not only must this surely affect the overall health of their fishery, but in some of this having washed onto shore has directly affected the health in dire ways of those coming into contact with it.
Common wisdom is that these pirates spawned from desperate fishermen looking to protect their territory and livelihoods:
Somali Pirates Threaten Indian Ocean Tuna Industry - Food Industry News (http://www.flex-news-food.com/pages/21570/Fish/somali-pirates-threaten-indian-ocean-tuna-industry.html - broken link)
While a certain truth to this it is more probable most are opportunists from a chronically poor land without many viable alternatives. Moreover that a good many fishermen and those of the general populace applaud their actions. Ironically from one perspective rather than being pirates or terrorists they are, if inadvertently, conservationists:
"In a perverse way, the pirates are definitely doing a good thing because maybe it will raise awareness about the benefits of leaving a fish alone for a while so that people see that it is possible for them to replenish," said Lawrence. " Over-fishing will disrupt the balance of marine eco-systems and will have a critical effect on local and national economies around the world that depend on fishing for their survival."
Somali Pirates Disrupt Fishing Industry, Increase Fish Stocks (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-01/2009-01-26-voa51.cfm?CFID=162876641&CFTOKEN=34025202&jsession id=84302a4c4a8755c6bc18403fd7a2c10632e3 - broken link)
Many Somali's have claimed, with more than a little justification, that they are merely protecting their own. Something a foreign navy might claim in rescuing one of its own from kidnapping. But a hard look at the history involved and prelude to that now taking place reveals a far more complex picture. Any wishing to claim the side of angels might first consider how close they are to such a position.
They aren't protecting their own and that is the problem. That money is not going to medical aid. That money is not trying to feed the masses. That money is not going to water. Cell phones, wives and khat is where it is at.
This is a ship that was delivering food aid to Somalia, Rwanda and Uganda. You want me to feel bad about pirates that were going to store the food for their own families? No.
Dropping toxic waste in the waters is bad. Fisherman being pushed out of their own area is bad. Post colonialism is bad. Watching Bridgestone/Firestone in Liberia is bad. These are all bad, bad things.
Until some one decides to get rid of the threat, it's just going to keep happening...and more instances of operations like this are going to be needed.
I'll tell you what would go a long way towards eliminating the threat, particularly in the region of Somalia. There hasn't been a legitimate, national Somali government for at least two decades. If there was one, and its concern was for the Somali people (as opposed to waging war, for example), then the likelihood of pirates preying in the waters there would be greatly reduced.
I'll tell you what would go a long way towards eliminating the threat, particularly in the region of Somalia. There hasn't been a legitimate, national Somali government for at least two decades. If there was one, and its concern was for the Somali people (as opposed to waging war, for example), then the likelihood of pirates preying in the waters there would be greatly reduced.
Oh heck yeah! However, what are the chances of that happening in the next decade?
Through most of history, pirates have been dealt with in a similar or even more violent fashion. Although romanticized in the past a bit, the end result to piracy has typically been the same. I'm sure they knew this when going into the business. That's the way things work, and it doesn't really matter whether they were shot or swinging by the neck from a yardarm--it goes with the territory.
Piracy isn't going to fix an ailing nation and will not garner much sympathy from the international community for relief, either.
I think this action was a great success! I give props to President Obama and and everyone involved on the Captain's safe return. Many courageous stories.
More must be done to prevent future attacks of piracy. I think the wasted money in Iraq could go to efforts like eradicating piracy, which supports different terrorist groups and is a negative factor on world trade. We're authorized by the UN to conduct missions in Somalia. We should capitalize on this opportunity by using concentrated missle attacks on Somali soil and expanded military force in the Gulf of Aden.
We're authorized by the UN to conduct missions in Somalia. We should capitalize on this opportunity by using concentrated missle attacks on Somali soil and expanded military force in the Gulf of Aden.
You may not have noticed this, but a recent military incursion by the United States in Iraq has not proven excessively popular at home. Particularly in light of A) needless deaths by American troops, and B) economic conditions that might conceivably make us question such expeditures.
Using a United Nations authorization to go to war doesn't sound especially inviting just at present. (Totally aside from the fact that lobbing missiles at Somalia isn't going to kill too many potential pirates, who won't be sitting still waiting for them to land). If they move against our shipping interests, we're perfectly within our rights to deal with them as we've just done. Otherwise, perhaps the legitimate government I hinted at a few posts above might be a strategy to consider).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
