US Navy and the Pirates off the Somalian Coast?

[Pangloss]

I was listening to a report on NPR yesterday afternoon about the piracy problem off the coast of Somalia. I didn't realize it has become to widespread and so dangerous to commercial shipping and travel in the region. According to the report, humanitarian groups in Somalia (which has been essentially government-less for 15 years now) are unable to get food shipments right now because of the problem, and it seems to be getting worse. And unlike that passenger ship we all heard about a couple of weeks ago, most freighters apparently can't outrun the pirates.

 

I wonder if this might be a use of the US military that everyone would generally agree upon as a good idea, and in international best interests. It just seems like a perfect tasking for a Carrier Air Group and a small contingent of Marines, doesn't it? A chance to bring peace to a region without hurting innocent people, an opportunity to show benevolence and spend money where it counts, and heck, it's even a reasonably useful combat training opportunity for the troops. Sure sounds like a win-win to me.

 

Thoughts?

[Helix]

Piracy has become a big problem recently, in other places besides Somalia too. It sounds like a good idea to send in Marines, but there are a few problems.

For one, we can't just go into another country and begin kicking A and taking names, that road has led the current Admin. into trouble. The government would have to ask the U.S. or the U.N. for aid, and judging by the condition of the Somalian government now, that isn't going to happen.

 

And then there's the problem, and this I truly agree with, that we are entering into yet another conflict. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Somalia? The American people, on the whole, are getting fed up with Bush and his gallant conquest of the known world; this might tip the boat a little too much for the lead Texan and get him in serious trouble. With all the conflict, politically, surrounding Iraq, Bush should be advised to not enter another battle; he has a habit of losing.

 

The pirates are a threat, but the U.S. is neither capable or cautioned to take on the challenge, no matter how small it is. The government should take care of the current problems it's facing, then move on.

[Pangloss]

Hey, I was wondering if I'd get a reply on this! Thanks! I was starting to think i was totally out in left field here. (grin)

 

Just to clarify, I was thinking that the Navy/Marines would NOT go into another country, but would in fact stay in international waters and patrol only there. All of the piracy events that I know of have taken place 60-80 miles off the coast of Somalia (because the freighters are smart enough to stay that far out).

 

In terms of entering another conflict, I would think that the limited scope I've defined here would actually prevent any kind of slippery slope. I just want to shoot the fools out of the water, not bomb their homes.

 

Do you really think the US Navy is incapable of policing the relatively small operating range of 20-30 foot, outboard-powered seacraft, crewed by men with only RPGs and AK-47s? Really? I'm a little a-boggle on that one, but maybe that's my fault if I gave the impression that I was advocating another invasion of Somalia -- I'm definitely not.

[Helix]

Just to clarify, I was thinking that the Navy/Marines would NOT go into another country, but would in fact stay in international waters and patrol only there. All of the piracy events that I know of have taken place 60-80 miles off the coast of Somalia (because the freighters are smart enough to stay that far out).

 

Well the aspect of Int'l waters significantly changes things in my mind. If we were to simple patrol those waters for the good of everyone, and provided at least someone asked us for help, I wouldn't consider it a waste. People may see through it as a feeble attempt for the Bush admin. to lose the persona of the World Police, but that's a good thing. If people can see the American government is trying to be nice and friendly, than I think they would regard us as less of a "bully". Foreign nationals could start to see there is active reform in America and it has taken hold in the gov't.

 

In terms of entering another conflict' date=' I would think that the limited scope I've defined here would actually prevent any kind of slippery slope. I just want to shoot the fools out of the water, not bomb their homes.

 

Do you really think the US Navy is incapable of policing the relatively small operating range of 20-30 foot, outboard-powered seacraft, crewed by men with only RPGs and AK-47s? Really? I'm a little a-boggle on that one, but maybe that's my fault if I gave the impression that I was advocating another invasion of Somalia -- I'm definitely not.[/quote']

 

That too is pretty good. We wouldn't be entering another snake pit where their rocks and landmines can beat our state-of-the-art battle technology. If it's our battle cruisers vs. their rowboats...I really can't see us losing. And considering that the Navy SEALS would most likely take this on, because its a smaller undertaking, losing would not really be a posibility. The pirates aren't exactly well-trained and, this is the biggest difference between this idea and Iraq, aren't loyal or fanatic. The insurgents are fanatics to a religious cause. These pirates just want money and aren't ardent about piracy as a moral objective, so they are more inclined to take a "f*** this" approach and run.

 

I usually am anti-war and anti-killingotherpeoplewhenitsnotcompletelvital approach, but this could do a lot of good both to the Somalian gov'tm who would start to realize they are under the microscope and should get it together, and to America by reminding people we aren't that bad.

[JohnB]

Why spend all that money? And a Carrier group is quite obvious.

 

How about 2 or 3 old tramp freighters and a couple of luxury looking yachts? Put the needed men and equipment on board and go cruising up and down the coast as nice juicy targets. Q Ships worked quite well before, there is no reason they won't work again.

[Pangloss]

Interesting points.

[Phi for All]

I wonder if this might be a use of the US military that everyone[/i'] would generally agree upon as a good idea, and in international best interests.

Personally I think it's a great idea. I'm a big fan of killing two birds with one stone (a barbaric expression which I need to replace). I hate hearing about the government paying some farmers not to grow crops while it's buying food from others to donate as charity around the world. I've always thought, "What the heck, pay the first farmers to grow crops for charity!"

 

Similarly, why pay the costs of military training exercises that only train when you can train AND stop pirates? I think the military would get triple points for being effective, efficient AND smart. The only drawback for them is that we'd probably start asking them to be this efficient with our money all the time.

[Sisyphus]

I'm a little confused about calling it "training." I mean, it's not like you join the navy, and instead of sending you to boot camp they give you a rifle and point you at pirates. I don't see how it could take the place of anything, and so it's not really more efficient, per se. That is, unless you're talking about a routine drill kind of thing, but even that is not quite right. By that logic, any war is a good, efficient solution, because it saves on training......

 

That said, if American ships are getting attacked in international waters, of course the navy should intervene. What else do we have a navy for?

[Helix]

I'm a little confused about calling it "training." I mean' date=' it's not like you join the navy, and instead of sending you to boot camp they give you a rifle and point you at pirates. I don't see how it could take the place of anything, and so it's not really more efficient, per se. That is, unless you're talking about a routine drill kind of thing, but even that is not quite right. By that logic, any war is a good, efficient solution, because it saves on training......

 

That said, if American ships are getting attacked in international waters, of course the navy should intervene. What else do we have a navy for?[/quote']

 

 

I can't speak for others, but what i inferred is that the operations would be like "training" because it provides experience at little risk to the soldiers. Iraq isn't "training" because normally in boot camp you don't get attacked by suicide bombers. Iraq's far too dangerous to be labeled "training". On the other hand, patrolling the Int'l waters off Somalia is very low risk as our Navy is vastly superior to the speedboats of the pirates.

 

And the reason we haven't done this already, if American ships are being attacked, is because the pirates are attacking all nationalities. So, this isn't strictly an American problem. Therefore, I guess the US gov't decided it wasn't our affair. Also the pirates are just becoming a large problem in recent months, so they hasn't been a lot of time to deploy teams. Especially in the midst of two wars which brings me back to my point that people might not like another conflict. And since the pirates are so amorphous, it's sort of like saying "We should really handle murder. It's out of control". Easier said than done.

[JohnB]

Who says the governments involved need to tell anyone?

[Skye]

A good idea but certainly no need for a carrier group! Some old Oliver Perry class frigates would do the job.

[Tetrahedrite]

Just start calling the pirates "terrorists", and bingo, you will have the justification and all the funding you need to fight them.

[padren]

I think it would be fair to engage in stopping piracy, there are a few legal issues.

 

What if hostages go down with a pirate ship? An outraged family could have been getting a random together for their daughter's release, and suddenly she is lost when a Navy gunboat takes potentially suspect aggressive actions.

 

If the family is another nationality it could be even more difficult of a situation.

 

 

I am not saying we shouldn't try to take action, but I think it would be smart to use the UN to determine the legal implications.

 

 

It could also lead to the practice of pirates taking on hostages of children as human shields, and again I am not saying we shouldn't try to solve the problem, but we should be prepared for how complicated it could get.

[john5746]

I am not saying we shouldn't try to take action' date=' but I think it would be smart to use the UN to determine the legal implications.[/quote']

 

Yes, please let the UN take care of this. The US is a declining superpower, the world needs to learn how to take care of things without our intervention.