Somali pirates don't scare easily.You have no government to speak of in Somalia and these pirates who have the weapons and the will to act with apparent impunity.
Last month, they hijacked a Ukrainian merchant vessel loaded with tanks, heavy weapons and ammunition, and still haven't relinquished control of the freighter to the American and Russian navy ships that have besieged it for weeks off the Somali coast.
Last week, they tried to snatch an Indian merchant ship in the Gulf of Aden only to be thwarted by the Indian navy, which had dispatched assets to the region to cope with the pirates' rising threat.
Undeterred, on Nov. 18 in the Gulf of Aden, Somali pirates took over a Hong Kong-flagged Iranian ship carrying Chinese grain bound for Iran. Only a day earlier, Somalis commandeered a Saudi-owned oil supertanker carrying two million barrels of oil almost 500 miles from Somalia. They've been responsible for 84 attacks in 2008 alone--a 75% increase on the 2007 pace.
Given their range of targets, one might think that they are suicidally determined to antagonize as many major powers as possible, perhaps obscurely motivated by jihadism or nationalistic pride. But that would be wrong. Although 97% of Somalis are Sunni Muslim, they are traditionally secular and socially oriented more toward their extended family networks--their clans--than their state, which is in any case dysfunctional.
Prevailing ransom payments range from $500,000 to $2 million, up from only tens of thousands of dollars five years ago. While they may deal for profit with some Islamist militias, they're probably into piracy mainly for the money.
Somalia itself has had no effective government since the end of the Cold War, when strongman dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and his vast arsenal of Soviet and American arms--he played both sides of the street--was expropriated by the clans that underpin Somali society.
Although over a dozen "transitional governments" have been formed in exile and anointed by the international community over the past 17 years, none has been able to overcome the clan militias' rule of the gun. Throughout the 1990s, their common practice was to steal food shipments and sell or barter what they didn't need to the unarmed populace. Then Islamists, some with links to al Qaeda, gained political traction by offering a semblance of social cohesion and the refuge of faith.
What Stephenson argues is that we need a multi-lateral force with a central command to police the waters and chase down these pirates. Right now the U.S. has been patrolling the waters, but needs help. You would think that these sorts of attacks against merchant shipping is something that all nations can agree that they need to put down. They can ignore the need for true multi-lateral efforts to fight the Taliban and terrorists in Afghanistan, but attacks on merchant shipping are attacks on nation's lifeblood.
India has recently taken some strong action against the pirates in those waters.
An Indian warship came under attack on Wednesday from a suspected pirate "mother ship," but managed to destroy the pirate ship, sending three speedboats packed with pirates fleeing for safety.India can't afford to have their shipping from the Gulf endangered from these pirates and they are stepping up to lead this fight. The United States, on the other hand, is claiming that we're too busy in the region to take on the pirates.
Meanwhile, the INS Tabar, a Russian-made, high-tech Indian warship, managed to thwart the attempted hijacking of an Indian cargo ship off the coast of Somalia.
As the global community copes with the mounting pirate threat, India has taken a leading role in the fight. With nearly $100 billion of cargo passing through the pirate-laden Gulf of Aden each month, India cannot afford to let the threat go unchecked. It also puts the emerging Indian Navy front and center on the world stage.
The U.S. Navy said Wednesday that it's not about to use its military might to free a giant oil tanker or any other ship captured by Somali pirates because if naval forces recover one ship, they would have to recover them all.What a lame response! The Pentagon spokesman is putting the onus on the merchant shippers.
Besides, a Pentagon official asked, what would they do with all the captured pirates?
"I also take issue with this whole issue that it's incumbent upon the armed forces of the world, the navies of the world, to solve this problem," Morrell said.Can you imagine if FDR had said in 1940 and 1941 that it was not up to the Navy to protect merchant shipping from attacks from the U-boats?
While the Navy has a responsibility to protect shipping lanes, "the shipping companies also have an obligation to secure their ships to prevent incidents such that we've been seeing at alarming rates over the past several months," he said.
Here is an opportunity for Obama to put together a multi-lateral force to attack a real problem. This will be more than a naval problem since the heart of the problem is the chaos in Somalia itself. As long as the civil war continues there and Islamic terrorist groups gain strength there, we will have to be concerned about what is going on in Somalia. We'll have to see what sort of direction the Obama administration will take to address the acts of piracy emerging out of failed state in Africa. Imagine Al Qaeda gaining a strong toehold there and then working to take over tankers and warships traveling in the area. As James Phillips of Heritage writes, Somalia is a dangerous candidate for being the new headquarters for Al Qaeda.
Our young nation, lacking much of a navy, finally was able to take care of the Barbary pirates and stop their threat to merchant shipping in the Mediterranean in the early 19th century. It's time to step up again.
18 comments:
It's simple. Institute a naval quarantine of Somalia. Every boat that tries to leave port is sunk. Every one. Problem solved.
Put a $1 million bounty on any pirates head. Non-pirate Somalis will clean out the pirates in about 3 days. In fact, they will probably do it for $10,000 per head.
As far as anyone can tell, Bush is president for the next 2 months.
Why doesn't Bush do something productive, and take care of it?
I suppose people anticipate that Bush would invade Australia in reaction to Somali pirates.
"Put a $1 million bounty on any pirates head."
Always the simplistic solutions from regressives. It's not like pirates carry an international ID card listing their job.
This would simply lead to exactly the same problem we have in Gitmo - large numbers of innocent men who were sold out for the bounty, along with a few renegades. And no way for anyone to tell them apart.
Errrr Bill B.,
Catch up with the news. Somali pirates are not attacking American shipping.
...and Jawbone, are you proposing the standard liberal solutions of sensitivity training, better day care facilities and gay marriage to entice the pirates into better behavior?
Jaw Bone,
I am curious... What, then, would be your recommendation for getting rid of the pirates?
Just import a Democrat community organizer to start midnight basketball - that will straighten out those silly pirates.
"What would be your recommendation for getting rid of the pirates?"
The same approach that Bush completely failed to do in his incompetent response to 9/11.
1. Ask neighboring governments to handover the criminals.
2. If neighboring governments are unable or unwilling, then take direct action to seize them ourselves, and destroy their land bases.
3. Keep our actions proportionate to the size of the problem (i.e. don't drive the US economy into ruin by running up a huge debt attacking and occupying a country that had nothing whatever to do with 9/11).
And to Forrest -- your imagination is not very accurate in predicting my actual proposals; no wonder your fantasy-based right wing policies have failed so completely. Think about that for a bit.
Jawbane,
Catch up on the news about Somali and enjoy your fantasy that neighboring countries are going to intervene on America's behalf.
Perhaps you overlooked steps 2 and 3 of my proposal, Forrest.
It's always easier to criticize something you invented for yourself, rather than the proposal someone is actually making. Regressives do it all the time, which is why the country is in such a mess after 9 years of GOP incompetence.
'Jaw Bone':
Your proposal is incoherent right from Step 1. What are these "neighboring governments"? Neighbors of Somalia? Neighbors of the Gulf of Aden? Either way, your plural makes no sense. The pirates are all in Somalia, which has no effective government. The ineffective government it has is supported by Ethiopian troops, and the regions of Puntland and Somaliland (confusing name) are semi-autonomous. So just what are these "neighboring governments" you mention? Somalia? It can't control its own territory. Puntland and Somaliland? Ditto. Ethiopia? Already trying to civilize the place, with little success. Kenya? There's no reason to think it is either willing or able to intervene. That leaves Djibouti, not exactly a major military power. If you have any evidence that your plan would work, please provide it. And avoid calling others "regressives" -- it makes you sound like another Bill Biddle sock-puppet.
Maybe Pres. Obama plans on demanding that they wake up and "...Sheikh Djibouti," for new allies.
Sorry, I've been wanting to use that pun forever!
The problem isn't confined to the pirates attacking shipping. The problem is that there is NO central government control over 2/3 of Somalia. We cannot stop the pirates without a central government in Somalia to continue the work once the pirates are destroyed. Stamping them out in one place, without a central government to prevent them re-forming, will only see them rise up somewhere else. Right now, we ARE too busy to establish a government in Somalia, and I'm sure the Pentagon has some bad feelings about trying - especially under a Democratic president.
Perhaps, like Forrest, you simply overlooked steps 2 and 3 of my proposal in your nitpicking, Dr Weevil.
And for other regressives who favor reduced government, Somalia provides a dismal lesson in the end result of your rigid ideology.
If you want lower taxes or no taxes, move to Somalia. Enjoy no taxes at all! Of course, there is also no civilization, either. Taxes are the small price we pay to live in a civilized part of the world.
I actually think that Jaw Bone's 2nd and 3rd points have possibilities. With the new administration looking more like Clinton: Part Deux then a cruise missile attack on an Evinrude dealership in Eritrea makes as much sense as bombing the Al Qaeda "chemical weapons" factory in Sudan.
But only if it can be done for less than the cost of one of the new Lockheed Martin Low Cost Minature Cruise Missiles(LCMCM). Of course with these new budget realities the missile will probably have to sent via Federal Express. And that the EIR is approved by a Cabinet officer first.
Indeed Patrick, I agree -- what you describe is the inevitable failure of the last wasted worst eight years.
Thank you.
Tin ear?
He won't know how to do anything, but actions can't be scripted for the left-wing illuminati to act out.
Post a Comment