Friday, January 16, 2009 - 1:28 PM
Better late that never to be going after the Somalia pirates. To me, this is a strategic issue. Keeping the sea lanes open, especially for oil, should be a top priority for the U.S. military. Instead we seemed to defer to the Indians, Chinese and others, letting them take the lead. The Navy may feel that all its special operators -- the guys trained to board and take over ships -- are busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, admiral, does that tell you that you probably need more ship boarders, and maybe fewer aircraft carriers or anti-missile systems? You think maybe?
You may be dealing with the tendency of the Navy to repeat the great wild goose chase that nearly lost the Battle of Leyte Gulf ie Halsey's run to engage his battleships (a surface line officer's bias for the ultimate battle.) Carrier Task Forces may provide the same hubris. Small warships and shallow water gunboats are for the young, even if the young are the ones needed for the war.
Maybe, Tom, we have have too many officers in the upper ranks who are not young enough to be current. Strategic sclerosis and tactical atrophy. The world in all forms is getting younger and more creative. Even the Presidency. We, the general staff and fleet commands - we as you can see from Admiral Hayden - are seeking quiet retirements.
FP has offered a lot of good information on the pirate crisis.
One piece was an interview with a naval general who had won wargame. His opinion is that if you're going to stop the pirates, you have to get rid of their nests. To get rid of their nests, you would need to stabilize Somalia. Basically, to stop piracy in Somalia you need to get rid of the poverty and chaos in Somalia. This means somebody would need to do peacekeeping.
I like your blog alot and enjoy your articles. Keep it up!!!
It's a bit of a misrepresentation to say the Navy is "finally showing up". The U.S. Navy has maintained a presence off of Somalia for years monitoring and collecting information on pirate activities, and acting where possible within the limits of the law--long before the other nations you mentioned were even considering the piracy problem. Until the recent surge in acts of piracy and recent action by the UN (and a lot of hyperbole about the costs of piracy), the Navy was unable to take strong action.
YS
Information Dissemination
informationdissemination.blogspot.com
The US Navy was always there, but they didn't want to intervene because they knew that holding or prosecuting the pirates was a legal morass (Britain has held off for the same reason: because smart lawyers could have these pirates claim asylum and force the government to let them establish residency in the UK). The key here if you read the article you linked is that they achieved an agreement with a local government to prosecute the pirates, thereby preventing them into the US court system and having smart attorneys find enough loopholes to make the mere notion of prosecuting them a legal nightmare.
Somalia is being hit from many angles; climate, humanitarian and government issues. Unfortunately this means there will be no shortage of pirates and gunmen hijacking ships. I agree w/ FP and the naval general who indicated we would need to help stabilize the region.
From what I understand, most hijackings are being resolved w/ ransom payments. Our Naval support would therefore need to include financial aid to be effective. With the exception of the Iranian ship (Deyanant) in Sept when the Pentagon wanted to inspect it's toxic cargo, it won't happen.
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE