America must be removed from the "Islamic World."

[JimC]

As well as stronger action against the pirate ships, it may well be valuable to attack their bases, but in a very precise and targetted way that minimises civilian casualties.

The pirates themselves are civilians, as are those in their entire support infrastructure. By definition, if you go after them, you're going after civilians.

Possibly some attacks on ports could be useful, but I think with modern satellite tracking techniques, a gloves off approach to destroying pirate vessels would be sufficient. Their speedboats could be taken out pretty easily with Apache miniguns if we weren't overly concerned with taking the pirates themselves alive.

I'm unconvinced about the value of a formal "coalition" of countries. There are already forces from many navies patrolling the area and they are cooperating informally, but requiring them to go through a bureaucratic international chain of command would likely doom operations against nimble pirate vessels.

Action against the "mother ships" might require a bit of coordination with the nation that was the flag nation of the ship before it was pirated.

1. The pirates may technically be civilians, but they are a clear and murderous enemy of the civilian maritime trade of the civilised world, and as such deserve no mercy (their dependents and others living near their bases are not fair game, however...)

2. You may be right that it would be more effective to attack the boats rather than the ports. However, in an ideal world, that would be a military judgement, not a judgement by paralysed fools in high places. However, any military solution needs to be minimal and highly targetted, not Seth's barbaric Gotterdamerrung...

3. The coalition idea, if workable, would be in the American interest. If you had warships from many nations, perhaps even including China and India, taking effective, coordinated action against an enemy of all, much of the automatic antipathy to "arrogant America" would dissipate... I agree that such cooperation woukld not be easy...

[Warren Dew]

Um I think if the Merkins want hostages rescued they had better contract out the work to somebody who knows how to do that .Recent history suggests that your life as a hostage is going to be significantly shorter if a rescue by Merkins is attempted either from the middle east or Somalia . Were I to be taken hostage in the Indian ocean I would pray it was on a South Korean ship .

Well, I think the issue was the negotiations, rather than the rescue attempt; it seems disagreement among the pirates on whether to take some deal resulted in one of them going postal and attacking the ship and the hostages.

Again, the problem here is the administration's policy of treating the situation as a normal law enforcement situation. In most law enforcement hostage situation, the hostage taker is in an extreme position that he doesn't want to be in, and feels he was forced into; subconsciously, he often doesn't really expect his demands to be met and actually wants to be talked down. That's why talking him down under the pretense of negotiating can often work. In the case of the Somali pirates, hostage taking is part of their normal course of business; they don't want to be talked down, they just want to talk about the amount of the ransom. They'll spot quickly that the negotiations are a pretense, so the situation is much less likely to end in a surrender.

I do agree the South Koreans seem to have done a better job recently. Perhaps the world's political leadership is shifting to the far east along with economic power.

I think you only heard what you wanted to hear.

I doubt that, since my original suppositions were quite different.

I don't actually agree that a peaceful bargain would be "great" or preferred; I think there would be greater deterrent effect from killing pirates unless they surrender promptly. I'd bet that most of the military directly involved feel similarly. However, it doesn't matter what the uniformed individual thinks; they're there to follow orders, not to follow their own impulses. They're constrained by the orders or "preferences" their commander in chief - Obama - gives them, even if he has a complete lack of understanding of military situations. Obviously they need a tactical opportunity too, but if the Commander in Chief is unhappy with the result, they're still in trouble.

The pirates may technically be civilians, but they are a clear and murderous enemy of the civilian maritime trade of the civilised world, and as such deserve no mercy (their dependents and others living near their bases are not fair game, however...)

Personally, I'd agree with you. To me, they're "illegal combatants". Somehow, though, I doubt shipping them off to Guantanamo would do the U.S.'s image in Europe a lot of good.

I don't know about the "bases" thing. I don't think they have well defined "bases". I don't think it's very easy to tell the difference between their support people on shore - the people who bring them supplies or whatever - and random civilians, and I suspect the line there is broad and grey.

The coalition idea, if workable, would be in the American interest. If you had warships from many nations, perhaps even including China and India, taking effective, coordinated action against an enemy of all, much of the automatic antipathy to "arrogant America" would dissipate... I agree that such cooperation woukld not be easy...

Operationally, effective action and coordinated action are in tension; the more coordination that's required, the less effective the action will be. The question is whether the other benefits of coordination outweigh the operational disadvantages.

The U.S. already has good relations with China and India. The antipathy to "arrogant America" is mostly in areas unlikely to provide useful forces, like Europe and Latin America. In the case of Europe, the antipathy is to a large extent mutual, anyway; many Americans see Europe as arrogant and vain. I'm unconvinced that the advantages outweight the disadvantages of trying to get a whole bunch of fractious nations to agree on anything concrete.

[Seth]

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

I like your thinking Seth. I would like to apply this to America's thieving "friend" in the Middle East that I so frequently talk about...... Don't you agree?

Nah. Israel isn't engaging in piracy. I say we need to loan Israel a bunch more nukes and aircraft at the moment, to induce the grasshopper-eating camel fuckers next door to cool their jets.

[Seth]

As well as stronger action against the pirate ships, it may well be valuable to attack their bases, but in a very precise and targetted way that minimises civilian casualties.

The pirates themselves are civilians, as are those in their entire support infrastructure. By definition, if you go after them, you're going after civilians.

Possibly some attacks on ports could be useful, but I think with modern satellite tracking techniques, a gloves off approach to destroying pirate vessels would be sufficient. Their speedboats could be taken out pretty easily with Apache miniguns if we weren't overly concerned with taking the pirates themselves alive.

I'm unconvinced about the value of a formal "coalition" of countries. There are already forces from many navies patrolling the area and they are cooperating informally, but requiring them to go through a bureaucratic international chain of command would likely doom operations against nimble pirate vessels.

Action against the "mother ships" might require a bit of coordination with the nation that was the flag nation of the ship before it was pirated.

1. The pirates may technically be civilians, but they are a clear and murderous enemy of the civilian maritime trade of the civilised world, and as such deserve no mercy (their dependents and others living near their bases are not fair game, however...)

That pirates are not members of any national military does not mean that military action cannot be taken against them on sight. The international laws of the sea permit any nation to prevent and punish piracy at sea, including by the use of lethal force.

2. You may be right that it would be more effective to attack the boats rather than the ports. However, in an ideal world, that would be a military judgement, not a judgement by paralysed fools in high places. However, any military solution needs to be minimal and highly targetted, not Seth's barbaric Gotterdamerrung...

Traditionally, the authority to deal with piracy has always been directly in the hands of the commanders of our naval vessels. That was of necessity, but it was also of great utility. First, military action could be taken as necessary, in the moment, without having to await orders from Washington. Second, it gave the United States plausible deniability. If some ship commander overstepped his authority, he could be cashiered and the blame laid upon him, and the President could give sincere condolences to the nation or individuals who were wrongfully harmed by an error in military judgment. Ship's Captains knew and accepted this heavy responsibility as a part of their commission. Nowadays, with modern communications, military decisions, which are often hard and often result in death and destruction, are relayed back to someone who of just about every President in history, is absolutely the least qualified person to be making tactical decisions in the heat of battle. Presidents are "Commander in Chief," but they are only rarely qualified military strategists who need to be worrying on a moment-to-moment basis about the individual decisions of military commanders in the field, because they have neither the intelligence data nor the skill to make such decisions. Presidents set broad military policy, and then they let their professional military officers produce the desired results, as best they can, without micromanaging by the White House.

The President should set a simple policy: "Save innocent hostages whenever possible, and kill pirates in every instance." This policy is necessary because to have a policy that says "Save hostages at all costs, and only kill pirates if there is no other choice," as we have just seen, emboldens the pirates and costs more lives. We SHOULD have raided the pirate's den while they were still focused on getting money. Now they have decided that if they are attacked, they will always kill the hostages. So be it. It sucks to be a hostage under any circumstances, but like the Entebbe raid, it's more important to kill all the pirates/terrorists than it is to try to save every single hostage's life. The Israelis believe that once you are taken hostage, you are dead already. They will try to save you, but they will first ensure that the hostage takers are killed as quickly as possible.

We've missed a golden opportunity to extirpate the pirates, and now it's going to cost hostages their lives, but it's necessary to wipe out the pirates completely, down to the last armed individual, be it man, woman or child, in order to save many MORE innocent lives that will be lost if the pirates are not eliminated quickly. We can no longer afford to allow this to escalate, and drastic measures are called for, including the summary execution of all persons found at sea under arms off the coast of Somalia who are not authorized to be there.

The only way to persuade the pirates to take up another line of work is to kill them on sight, without mercy, and make sure that their pirate havens are utterly destroyed.

3. The coalition idea, if workable, would be in the American interest. If you had warships from many nations, perhaps even including China and India, taking effective, coordinated action against an enemy of all, much of the automatic antipathy to "arrogant America" would dissipate... I agree that such cooperation woukld not be easy...

Fuck "coalitions." I say we tell the other countries that we're going to wipe out the pirates, and if they want to join in the fun, that's fine, but we won't be asking them for permission to do anything. Never in US history has a "coalition" been of any real use to us. The "coalition" forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were insulting dribs and drabs, a few hundred or thousand "coalition" forces that were quickly withdrawn when the cowardly fuckers who supplied them couldn't stand up to the whining of their own people over combat deaths. We've always pretty much gone it alone in such conflicts, and "coalitions" just slow us down and prevent us from getting the job done.

If we hadn't been part of a "coalition" during the first Gulf War, we might have continued to Baghdad and killed Saddam the first time around, and saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and no few American lives, in the process.

We do not need any "coalition" authority to wipe out pirates.

[Seth]

I don't know about the "bases" thing. I don't think they have well defined "bases". I don't think it's very easy to tell the difference between their support people on shore - the people who bring them supplies or whatever - and random civilians, and I suspect the line there is broad and grey.

Don't care. If they are "support people" they are pirates, and they need to die, as an example to everyone else who might think about supporting pirates.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.p ... er=1160416

http://earth.google.com/kmlpreview/#url ... r%3D741377

[Warren Dew]

The "coalition" forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were insulting dribs and drabs, a few hundred or thousand "coalition" forces that were quickly withdrawn when the cowardly fuckers who supplied them couldn't stand up to the whining of their own people over combat deaths.

While I do generally think coalitions are of limited value, I wouldn't go quite that far. The British forces did a good and useful job in the Basra region for the first couple years of the Iraq war. Granted they didn't stick around until the end.

[aspire1670]

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

I like your thinking Seth. I would like to apply this to America's thieving "friend" in the Middle East that I so frequently talk about...... Don't you agree?

Yup, it's high time the US bombed the shit out of Saudi Arabia.

[devogue]

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

I like your thinking Seth. I would like to apply this to America's thieving "friend" in the Middle East that I so frequently talk about...... Don't you agree?

Yup, it's high time the US bombed the shit out of Saudi Arabia.

Sweet.

[aspire1670]

I don't know about the "bases" thing. I don't think they have well defined "bases". I don't think it's very easy to tell the difference between their support people on shore - the people who bring them supplies or whatever - and random civilians, and I suspect the line there is broad and grey.

Don't care. If they are "support people" they are pirates, and they need to die, as an example to everyone else who might think about supporting pirates.

Nice picture of pirates in your sig, Seth.

[aspire1670]

Incorrect.

My description is absolutely correct. The SEALs were not allowed to shoot until one of the pirates pointed a weapon at the hostage because of the law enforcement style rules of engagement requiring "imminent danger" to the hostage. See for example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/ns ... ws-africa/

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said Phillips, 53, was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed because a pirate on the lifeboat held an AK-47 assault rifle to the back of his head.

Why do you think the Navy sources emphasized the words "imminent danger" in all the quotes found in the news reports? They wanted to make sure Obama had no excuse to court martial them for violation of the rules of engagement. They played it well, too - Obama had no choice but to congratulate them, even though my SEAL sources say he was privately seething about the fact that violence was used to resolve the situation.

Sorry, you're still incorect. Capt. Phillips was in "imminent danger" from the moment those pirates seized his ship. Maybe Obama would've preferred a peaceful resoultion, but that's beside the fact. While a peaceful resolution was being discussed, the snipers took the first available shot.

And how would I know the details of the incident anyway? Because I was the guy who stood up at a podium and briefed the details to the CO of the Office of Naval Intelligence the next morning. And my sources did not include MSNBC.

[Coito ergo sum]

[
Why are you telling me all this? Tell SeEth.

Because of what you wrote.

[Seth]

I don't know about the "bases" thing. I don't think they have well defined "bases". I don't think it's very easy to tell the difference between their support people on shore - the people who bring them supplies or whatever - and random civilians, and I suspect the line there is broad and grey.

Don't care. If they are "support people" they are pirates, and they need to die, as an example to everyone else who might think about supporting pirates.

Nice picture of pirates in your sig, Seth.

Actually, it's a painting of the Battle of Lake Erie, September 10, 1813, by J.O. Davidson, painted in 1885-1887. The American ship to the right is the U.S. Brig "Niagara," commanded by Oliver Hazard Perry. The ships being fired upon to the left are the British ships "Queen Charlotte" and "Detroit."

Fitting image for "The Broadside" I think.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not as simple as that. I am not anti-American as such; I still value the American alliance with Oz, for example. However, people from the US need to listen to the pronouncements of their leaders (including Obama) about world events, listening as if they were non-Americans. There is a level of arrogance which may not be perceived from within...

There is likewise a level of arrogance that thinks that being non-American means one thinks about the world in a less insular way than Americans. Are Canberra residents better at imagining themselves as non-Australians?

Given that a large portion of them have been overseas, YES.

This is such ignorance. I love the complete bollocks some folks spew as if they know what they're talking about. Oh, Americans are so insular! Australians travel so much more! Really? Got the numbers?

In a 2005 Gallup survey one in 5 Americans had traveled outside the United States in the past year. That's 1 in 5 JUST IN THE PREVIOUS ONE YEAR - not talking about lifetimes.

So - what's the percentage of you non-insular Australians?

[Coito ergo sum]

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

I like your thinking Seth. I would like to apply this to America's thieving "friend" in the Middle East that I so frequently talk about...... Don't you agree?

Which friend? Is he committing acts of piracy on the high seas?

[Gawd]

Right. Raid the place, kill everyone holding a weapon, save the hostages, release the ships, and tell everyone still living to leave the area and never return. Then carpet bomb the place. Post some signs saying that the area is an interdicted zone subject to being bombed without notice. Sow a few hundred thousand land mines. Then watch from the sky, and if someone tries to reestablish a base there, carpet bomb the place again. Repeat as necessary, until they get the message and give up piracy.

I like your thinking Seth. I would like to apply this to America's thieving "friend" in the Middle East that I so frequently talk about...... Don't you agree?

Which friend? Is he committing acts of piracy on the high seas?

What? You already forgot about Israel and pirating the Gaza Flotilla already? Or how about how Israel shoots any fisherman that tries to fish offshore? Or how Israel demands bribes for everything that enters Gaza? Or how Israel steals land, homes, and water wells from the Palestinians?