Thursday, April 9th, 2009 01:32 pm

“International efforts to thwart Somali piracy would appear to be floundering. Perhaps words from the 19th Century could offer a solution [...]”

A pretty good historical retrospective comparing the Somali piracy problem with the Barbary pirates and the suppression of the slave trade.

With Somali piracy still threatening shipping, it sounds as if modern navies need a few Captain Robert Denmans, or the like-minded American, Commodore Stephen Decatur.

...And I can’t find it in myself to argue with that.

Thursday, April 9th, 2009 05:54 pm (UTC)
Required reading.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/somalia-piracy-backgrounder.html
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 06:19 pm (UTC)
Good pointer. Thanks.
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 06:31 pm (UTC)
Interesting stuff. A fair bit of it corroborates stuff I learned while I was in Kenya over Xmas.
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 05:58 pm (UTC)
I've been wondering myself if we're going to see some letters of marque being issued.
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 06:13 pm (UTC)
Yup, I was speculating on that a while back. I'm not sure it could legally be done under current law-of-the-sea treaties though... not that most of the Somali pirate gangs have anything worth taking as spoils or prizes.
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 07:05 pm (UTC)
Yeah, it's a big issue. For a lot of small private craft, being able to have ordinary rifles and pistols aboard would dramatically increase their safety. Somali is far from the only area where piracy occurs. Drug smugglers have a habit of capturing boats, killing the crew, and making a single drug run with them.
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 10:23 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, too much of the "civilized" world has the idea that "No, you can't be armed, that would be uncivilized. You should rely on us to protect you. ...Oh, did we fail to protect you? Too bad. Sorry about that. ...No, your next of kin can't sue us. You see, we're not actually obligated to protect you. We can't be everywhere at once, you know."

Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society." Available evidence suggests that a uniformly armed society also tends to be a relatively law-abiding one. (Naturally, nations like Somalia, where the unarmed majority of the populace are ruled by a small minority of heavily-armed violent thugs, do not qualify as "uniformly armed".)
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 07:44 pm (UTC)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090409.wpirates0409/BNStory/International/home

mmm

they finally attacked a USA ship. the wrong one?

now they are to paraphrase "pooping themselves"

#
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 08:19 pm (UTC)
I've been muttering about how "Sometimes, gunboat diplomacy is a Good Thing."

For a Bondian sort of solution, I keep wondering if it's feasible to make a bait transport ship, sort of a drone ship, operated by remote. Sail it into the area, and when it's boarded, make it look like the crew are barricaded in, so you get all the pirates on board, trying to take over and break into the bridge or whereever. Then you push a button and ... BOOM. Problem solved.
Thursday, April 9th, 2009 10:05 pm (UTC)
I think the cost in terms of ships expended per pirate killed would be prohibitive. One ship per gang of four to eight pirates is a pretty lousy ratio.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 12:09 am (UTC)
Gas. Doors go down, Sarin goes out.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 02:33 am (UTC)
I think the political consequences of having robotic ships loaded with nerve gas sailing around on remote control off the Horn of Africa would be just a little more than even Bush would have wanted to get anywhere near.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 05:48 pm (UTC)

We don't need to stretch our imaginations too far to find a solution.

We have a team of highly trained personnel who specialize in boarding ships and oil rigs (in seas more violent and unfriendly than the one in question), and eliminating all threats encountered, including while dealing with hostages.

All it takes is giving them a green light.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 05:55 pm (UTC)
Yup. I'm surprised we haven't sent them in already.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 06:21 pm (UTC)
I saw an article in my RSS feeds this morning that says Obama doesn't want to go down that path. He's sending in hostage negotiators from the FBI.

I'm of a split mind about that decision...
Friday, April 10th, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
This is his first sharp-end crisis, even if it's a small one, and he just blinked.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 07:54 pm (UTC)
Yup.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 09:28 pm (UTC)
Here's the article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/09/national/w165754D30.DTL&feed=rss.news) I was talking about.
Friday, April 10th, 2009 10:10 pm (UTC)
But, this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/10/national/w110056D07.DTL&feed=rss.news) looks like he's at least got the stick ready if the carrot fails. That's a good sign.