Quoting JonIrenicus: ...I still do not understand...

That is a fine premise to start with. Now put down the video game controller and consider a real world perspective on the big question of why not?: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0118-32.htm

Quoting graz: That is a fine premise to start with. Now put down the video game controller and consider a real world perspective on the big question of why not?:

Frhttp://www.commondreams.org/views06/0118-32.htm

Haven't watched this diavlog yet but props to Graz for mentioning this issue. Along the same lines of the link, I would encourage people to check out the Frontline episode that premiered yesterday titled Pakistan: Children of the Taliban. It will give you an up close picture of the problem with the civilians killed by the drone attacks although it is also of course extremely anti-Taliban. I do have to warn people, it may make you more concerned about the situation in Pakistan than you were before.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda men, 687 civilians

Friday, April 10, 2009

By Amir Mir

LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

Figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities show that a total of 701 people, including 14 al-Qaeda leaders, have been killed since January 2006 in 60 American predator attacks targeting the tribal areas of Pakistan. Two strikes carried out in 2006 had killed 98 civilians while three attacks conducted in 2007 had slain 66 Pakistanis, yet none of the wanted al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders could be hit by the Americans right on target. However, of the 50 drone attacks carried out between January 29, 2008 and April 8, 2009, 10 hit their targets and killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda operatives. Most of these attacks were carried out on the basis of intelligence believed to have been provided by the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen who had been spying for the US-led allied forces stationed in Afghanistan.

The remaining 50 drone attacks went wrong

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

Ew. "Perishing" as an active verb. Other than that, a good article. Thanks for it, and thanks to graz, as well.

Quoting graz: That is a fine premise to start with. Now put down the video game controller and consider a real world perspective on the big question of why not?:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0118-32.htm

I have a question for you. IF it was shown that drones could effectively target and destroy the desired targets off the Somali coast, would you be OK with using them for that purpose to clear out pirates? I have no idea what the success rate of the drones is, surely not 100%, but if the success rate was as close to zero as some suggest, why use them at all?
I thought the entire point of http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18348 was that the drones are more effective than any of us thought.
but in any event, please answer the first question:

A minor quibble - there may be some short range beacon that would be useful in finding crewmembers aboard a ship, but a GPS won't do it. It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of steel - a GPS has to be able to see the satellites it uses, and it can't in the hold or cabins of a freighter.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I have a question for you.

IF it was shown that drones could effectively target and destroy the desired targets off the Somali coast, would you be OK with using them for that purpose to clear out pirates?

That's among the world's biggest IFs, Jon. I think the articles graz and Abu Noor linked to have already demonstrated how hard it is to find the right targets and how easy it is to hit the wrong ones. It seems to me that in the pirate case, the problem is compounded by at least two more things: the coverage area is vast and the boats the pirates use are almost certainly indistinguishable from actual fishing boats. You're imagining, I think, some sort of eye in the sky that can watch all small craft all the time, which strikes me as pretty much magical thinking.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I have a question for you.

IF it was shown that drones could effectively target and destroy the desired targets off the Somali coast, would you be OK with using them for that purpose to clear out pirates?

I have no idea what the success rate of the drones is, surely not 100%, but if the success rate was as close to zero as some suggest, why use them at all?

I thought the entire point of

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18348

was that the drones are more effective than any of us thought.

but in any event, please answer the first question:

It is not a hypothetical I need engage seriously, since the evidence for failure is enough for me. The underlying principle also works for me:

Civilized nations should band together to renounce and outlaw these sloppy and obscene aerial assassination attempts, which send the terrifying message that killing civilians is acceptable in the pursuit of justice. But if the international community can't go that far, they can at least ban the use of unmanned vehicles like the Predator. Murder by mistake is bad enough when a human being can be held accountable.

As for the Robots

I don't see a difference between the piloted aircraft and the drone. In either case a person pushes a button which sends the missile on its way. the distance from the button-click to the missile is pretty irrelevant. Aren't the problems with drones the exact same problem with all aerial bombardment?

This may be an over-simplified view informed by the sense of outrage at piracy Dan alludes to, but it seems to me that this may be a more productive use of Obama's time than either of the diavloggers credits it with. Pirates are the "squeegee men" of international relations, it seems to me. They don't do that much economic damage in the grand scheme of things, but they do help to create a sense of uncontrollable lawlessness that may contribute to other, more dangerous problems. If that's true, the application of some "broken windows" policing may be of value in dealing with them - it could provide a common project for nations to cooperate on, and it would be a concrete step that nations could take in defense of civilization in general. Such a project might not be a bad thing in itself, and more importantly, it might get nations in the habit of considering how to protect civilization itself. That leaves unanswered the question of how to deal with the issue on a tactical level, but as a strategic goal, it might be a winner.

Quoting popcorn_karate: I don't see a difference between the piloted aircraft and the drone. In either case a person pushes a button which sends the missile on its way. the distance from the button-click to the missile is pretty irrelevant.

Aren't the problems with drones the exact same problem with all aerial bombardment?

In this recent rescue case, how would a button pushed in Washington
D.C. have targeted the three pirates and not the Captain as well? In other circumstances, your point is taken.

Quoting Shouter: This may be an over-simplified view informed by the sense of outrage at piracy Dan alludes to, but it seems to me that this may be a more productive use of Obama's time than either of the diavloggers credits it with.

Pirates are the "squeegee men" of international relations, it seems to me. [...]

You make a good case. I'd say first that it was my sense that Dan and Rob did acknowledge this aspect, if perhaps not emphasizing it. Dan, I think, expressed something about the "moral" aspects of the problem, IIRC, and Rob appeared to agree, while seeming not to have much he felt would be useful to say. I'd also say that there are many, many squeegee wielders in this world besides the Somali pirates, and it is still going to come down to choices about how to allocate scarce resources and how much bang one gets for one's buck. We have to be careful not to let a burst of media attention paid to one particular intersection trick us into thinking that people aren't getting their windshields smeared -- or smashed, even -- at a whole lot of other stoplights.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's among the world's biggest IFs, Jon. I think the articles graz and Abu Noor linked to have already demonstrated how hard it is to find the right targets and how easy it is to hit the wrong ones.

It seems to me that in the pirate case, the problem is compounded by at least two more things: the coverage area is vast and the boats the pirates use are almost certainly indistinguishable from actual fishing boats. You're imagining, I think, some sort of eye in the sky that can watch all small craft all the time, which strikes me as pretty much magical thinking.

If anything, the targets in this case are FAR easier to pick out. In Afghanistan and Iraq in many cases, the backdrop is a densely populated areas with many civilians in harms way. What is the backdrop for a boat of Somali pirates? The Open ocean, NO collateral damage, NO civilians in harms way, those objections wash away. A batch of pirates chasing down a merchant vessel is one of the purest targets I can think of.
Tactically it just makes sense if it was feasible. Imagine a ship spotting pirates about 15 minutes

Quoting graz: It is not a hypothetical I need engage seriously, since the evidence for failure is enough for me. The underlying principle also works for me:

As for the Robots of War, while not merely hypothetical, the ethical and practical results are a part of the equation always.

And, the Navy Seals did the job required without the stigma of killing by proxy.

The dodging of the hypothetical is a cop out, but you hint at your real opposition in the second part. The idea of killing by proxy bothers you, this is fine, and there may be persuasive arguments for that being a solid reason against using drones. But how about being honest with where you are REALLY coming from and make THAT argument. Not throwing out the dart that has no bearing on your case or how you feel one way or the other.

Quoting JonIrenicus: If anything, the targets in this case are FAR easier to pick out. In Afghanistan and Iraq in many cases, the backdrop is a densely populated areas with many civilians in harms way.

What is the backdrop for a boat of Somali pirates? The Open ocean, NO collateral damage, NO civilians in harms way, those objections wash away. A batch of pirates chasing down a merchant vessel is one of the purest targets I can think of.

Tactically it just makes sense if it was feasible. Imagine a ship spotting pirates about 15 minutes out, there is no way they can outrun them, and no way a patrol ship could get there in time. But a drone flying through the air would have a much better shop getting to the area in time and blasting the pirate ship out of the water.

What is the downside again? it missing and killing 10 civilians? that excuse to stay ones hand is gone, there is only the feasibility left. And even IF current drones were not accurate enough to get the job done, is it such an unimaginable stretch to assume that with further development, they could?

So again, I ask, IF it was tactically feasible

Quoting JonIrenicus: The dodging of the hypothetical is a cop out, but you hint at your real opposition in the second part.

The idea of killing by proxy bothers you, this is fine, and there may be persuasive arguments for that being a solid reason against using drones.

But how about being honest with where you are REALLY coming from and make THAT argument. Not throwing out the dart that has no bearing on your case or how you feel one way or the other.

Easy for you to call for indiscriminate killing from your video game lair.
I don't treat it like a video game.

Quoting bjkeefe: We have to be careful not to let a burst of media attention paid to one particular intersection trick us into thinking that people aren't getting their windshields smeared -- or smashed, even -- at a whole lot of other stoplights.

Absolutely true, and I wasn't trying to make the case that this is the only place where some broken windows work would be well placed. Nor do I think we should unilaterally decide to solve this problem, as I think that would be both impossibly consumptive of resources and likely counter-productive from a perception standpoint. I do think, though, that it might be a place where cooperation with other states (pretty much all of which, local and international, I imagine would be happy to see this problem solved) would get us a fair amount of bang for that buck. It would be a concrete place to try what president Obama has alluded to as a renewed effort at international cooperation. It will also likely require some international efforts at "nation-building" to be effective, but since the problem seems in part to have grown out of our failure of nerve at nation-building

Quoting graz: You are condoning preemptive strikes. Sound familiar? Mark a territory or line in sand... I mean water... cross at your peril.

Sorry if we mistook your fishing vessel to be a potential threat. Collateral damage and all. Have a nice day.

this actually made me laugh a bit. so a guy is running toward a crowd with a knife, and an officer shoots him, the officer is in the wrong? what if a warning flare of sorts is fired near the pirate/fishing vessel telling it to steer clear of the merchant vessel and it barrels forward anyway? a surveilance dron spots armed men in the same boat, but its still not OK to blast them out of the water after a warning?
The arguments in opposition given here can be addressed, but even if they were, that is not the source of your antithesis to drones in the first place. Which btw, is perfectly fine, but lets make that case instead. You are dancing around the edges of the concerns you REALLY care about, the concerns where if they were overturned would ACTUALLY make a difference on your position.

Quoting JonIrenicus: this actually made me laugh a bit.

so a guy is running toward a crowd with a knife, and an officer shoots him, the officer is in the wrong?

what if a warning flare of sorts is fired near the pirate/fishing vessel telling it to steer clear of the merchant vessel and it barrels forward anyway? a surveilance dron spots armed men in the same boat, but its still not OK to blast them out of the water after a warning?

The arguments in opposition given here can be addressed, but even if they were, that is not the source of your antithesis to drones in the first place. Which btw, is perfectly fine, but lets make that case instead. You are dancing around the edges of the concerns you REALLY care about, the concerns where if they were overturned would ACTUALLY make a difference on your position.

Well apparently you've got it all figured out, including my thinking on the issue. But, again back to the issue of the unreliability of the big "if." Your stipulation makes it as simple as pie. I like pie... No problem then.

Quoting Shouter: Absolutely true, and I wasn't trying to make the case that this is the only place where some broken windows work would be well placed. Nor do I think we should unilaterally decide to solve this problem, as I think that would be both impossibly consumptive of resources and likely counter-productive from a perception standpoint.

I do think, though, that it might be a place where cooperation with other states (pretty much all of which, local and international, I imagine would be happy to see this problem solved) would get us a fair amount of bang for that buck. It would be a concrete place to try what president Obama has alluded to as a renewed effort at international cooperation.

Yes. I should have been more explicit than just saying "you make a good case" as I did in my last. This was a key part of what made me say that. I do believe such a notion is already being studied, and maybe even implemented to some degree. I would support more along these lines, unless there are practicalities involved that I'm not yet aware of. One concern I do have, though, is that it's still a resource allocation issue; i.e., just

Johann Hari: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

Quoting JonIrenicus: If anything, the targets in this case are FAR easier to pick out. In Afghanistan and Iraq in many cases, the backdrop is a densely populated areas with many civilians in harms way.

What is the backdrop for a boat of Somali pirates? The Open ocean, NO collateral damage, NO civilians in harms way, those objections wash away. A batch of pirates chasing down a merchant vessel is one of the purest targets I can think of.

I agree in the sense that the density issue is removed from this problem, but I don't agree that there are no civilians in harm's way. The desired targets are by no means easy to pick out. You're always going to have a lot of boats in the area, and up until the last minute, there is no easy way to pick out one transporting fisherman from one transporting pirates. Further, the overwhelming majority will contain fisherman. And further still, let's remember that we so far have seen very few deaths from the pirates' actions. If you make a couple of mistakes and kill ten or twenty innocents, proportionally speaking, you've got a disaster on your hands, in humanitarian terms, in PR terms, and in the likelihood

My biggest concern would be: what is the evdenciary standard for making the decision that the boat that is 15 minutes away, is intent on piracy? I assume pirate boats don't carry some sort of neon light announcing to everyone that they are pirates. Subterfuge is probably a pretty important part of their plan. I worry that calling in that there's a pirate boat on your tail to get a drone strike, would be a pretty tempting way to get your competitor out of your fishing turf. Not to mention acts of terrorism. This idea seems to me to be like having the police open fire on some creepy dude who some other person claims is following them. PS I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'm not very knowledgeable on how much intelligence is known of the pirates, until they actually attack their prey.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Johann Hari: You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

Thanks, Abu Noor. I always like hearing what Johann Hari has to say. I can imagine that article caused not a few heads to explode, but even if we dial down the case he makes for pirates as defenders of their own coasts, if the facts he presents about dumping and overfishing are true, it just adds to my view that this problem is way more complex than it appears in the mind of, say, Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich is a politician though, and politicians don't do complex well. Gingrinch probably understands the piracy thing perfectly well, but why would he tell us that when he's likely running for political office or pushing some kind of political agenda. Of course he's going to not say things that undermine the political point he wants to make. Johann Hari is always an interesting read though. I think he gives the pirates a bit too much credit, but even if they're just some African dudes trying to make a quick buck or protecting their waters from European bullys, if they hijack the wrong ship, they may perish. It's just tough being pirate, even if you're the kind hearted kind. You just don't take other peoples' property.

Quoting Lyle: Newt Gingrich is a politician though, and politicians don't do complex well. Gingrinch probably understands the piracy thing perfectly well, but why would he tell us that when he's likely running for political office or pushing some kind of political agenda. Of course he's going to not say things that undermine the political point he wants to make.

Exactly my point -- it's going to be hard to address this problem properly because of the way our political system is set up, because of what is perceived to be necessary to do to succeed (or gain power, not always the same thing) within our system, and because of the kind of people it attracts who will end up in power.

Quoting bjkeefe: Exactly my point -- it's going to be hard to address this problem properly because of the way our political system is set up, because of what is perceived to be necessary to do to succeed (or gain power, not always the same thing) within our system, and because of the kind of people it attracts who will end up in power.

I'm not sure about that. More often than not this is the case, but sometimes the people out of power can only grandstand. Lots of conservatives initial reaction to what happened off the coast of Somalia was to applaud the President. The more partisan of course looked to discredit him as much as possible. Blah. I just don't think the piracy issue is something that conservatives will make an issue of. Some will kick and scream about every little thing Obama does, but that's about all they can do because Obama is the President and the Congress is Democrat. And most, if not all, Republicans don't seriously disagree with killing pirates or bombing their hometowns if it comes down to it. If anybody makes a mistake with

Quoting bjkeefe: I can imagine that article caused not a few heads to explode, but even if we dial down the case he makes for pirates as defenders of their own coasts, if the facts he presents about dumping and overfishing are true, it just adds to my view that this problem is way more complex than it appears in the mind of, say, Newt Gingrich.

It doesn't really make it any more complex, though. They're taking hostages for money because it's they think it's the best way to deal with the shitty living conditions they were born in. That isn't changed by a tiny fraction of those problems coming from overfishing (Hari blames this on the West, apparently considering Yemen, Taiwan, China, and Ukraine to be representatives of the Western world) or water impurity from warlords selling off the coastline as a garbage dump. Terrorism isn't justified even when there's an actual coherent grievance and political instead of mercantile motives.

Quoting pampl: It doesn't really make it any more complex, though. They're taking hostages for money because it's they think it's the best way to deal with the shitty living conditions they were born in. That isn't changed by a tiny fraction of those problems coming from overfishing (Hari blames this on the West, apparently considering Yemen, Taiwan, China, and Ukraine to be representatives of the Western world) or water impurity from warlords selling off the coastline as a garbage dump. Terrorism isn't justified even when there's an actual coherent grievance and political instead of mercantile motives.

I'm not taking a stance on justification. I'm just pointing out that the problem is many-layered, and is not going to be quick-fixed by magic bullets and bluster.

Quoting pampl: It doesn't really make it any more complex, though. They're taking hostages for money because it's they think it's the best way to deal with the shitty living conditions they were born in. That isn't changed by a tiny fraction of those problems coming from overfishing (Hari blames this on the West, apparently considering Yemen, Taiwan, China, and Ukraine to be representatives of the Western world) or water impurity from warlords selling off the coastline as a garbage dump. Terrorism isn't justified even when there's an actual coherent grievance and political instead of mercantile motives.

I agree.

Despite the springing of stiffies over the fact that the US killed a couple of these pirates, and the reflexive urge to try to solve problems by just going around kicking some more ass, the solution to the problem is as both the diavlog and history suggest, on land and not on the seas. Piracy in US waters was ended when the corrupt port towns in which they could unload their stolen cargoes, resupply, and drink and whore until the money was gone were cleaned up. Absent a ready market for their stolen goods, the business model no longer worked as we would say today. As Mr. Farley pointed out, these modern folks are more kidnapping and ransom gangs than classical pirates. Like a lot of crime, the way to clean up the problem is through following the money. Its a pretty safe bet that the grunts who are going out in boats aren't seeing a whole lot of that dough. Shutting down the paymasters who orchestrate the ransoms, run the operations, and keep most of the profits is a far more effective solution than whacking a couple easily

excuse my english. I read a lot of technical suggestions on how to get rid of pirates. That's the "just nuke them", cow-boy point of view. But why are there pirates ? How do you call a country without government ? Ie Somalia.
If I were living in Somalia a country "run" by armed rival gangs, chances are I would be a pirate too. These pirates are supported by their villages. Large populations are surviving because of the pirates. A permanent flow of western or northern world wealth just brushes the coast. It is like a constant stream of gold. Possibly just as obscene to watch from the Somalien coast as the golden (platinum) parachutes of greedy bankers if you lost your job and all the rest.There is no design for any future in Somalia. No law. No justice. No educationnal system. No perspective. Just survival. Average income is 600 $ a year. Either you become a pirate or you try to enter Europe as an illegal immigrant... No drones, no warboats, no commandos will ever solve that.

Quoting massilian: excuse my english. [...]

Not at all. There's nothing to excuse. You made your point very well. And welcome to this site.

So I guess we should be jailing the insurance executives, and heads of state that are paying the cash ransoms. I'm not to sure that you are going to find a lot of it in the traditional financial institutions since it is a cash operation. Absent some boots on the ground to track the wheelbarrows used to haul it away I don't really see how you will follow it.

Quoting massilian: excuse my english. I read a lot of technical suggestions on how to get rid of pirates. That's the "just nuke them", cow-boy point of view. But why are there pirates ? How do you call a country without government ? Ie Somalia.
If I were living in Somalia a country "run" by armed rival gangs, chances are I would be a pirate too. These pirates are supported by their villages. Large populations are surviving because of the pirates. A permanent flow of western or northern world wealth just brushes the coast. It is like a constant stream of gold. Possibly just as obscene to watch from the Somalien coast as the golden (platinum) parachutes of greedy bankers if you lost your job and all the rest.There is no design for any future in Somalia. No law. No justice. No educationnal system. No perspective. Just survival. Average income is 600 $ a year. Either you become a pirate or you try to enter Europe as an illegal immigrant... No drones, no warboats, no commandos will ever solve that.

And when you try to get boots on the ground to help out and someone is killed public opinion turns south and we get

Quoting JonIrenicus: And when you try to get boots on the ground to help out and someone is killed public opinion turns south and we get out.

No one, least of all the very people arguing against a military assault on the pirates, want to spend a drop of their own country mens blood for the sake of building the nation of another.

They are up for flecking coins at their feet, even sending people to help build coalitions, but as soon as things turn violent the support for intervention dries up like raisins in the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

I agree that piracy is one of the better options for getting ahead in Somalia. But lets be clear, this is not a long term solution to the countries ills, it will not bring millions out of poverty, and even if it could, the tolerance of wanton thuggery as a pathway to such an end is not an option.

I remember seeing some images of a US soldier being dragged through the streets when I was a young kid, seeing crowds around cheer this spectacle, and I remember thinking what an astonishing display of pathetic

Quoting cragger: As Mr. Farley pointed out, these modern folks are more kidnapping and ransom gangs than classical pirates. Like a lot of crime, the way to clean up the problem is through following the money. Its a pretty safe bet that the grunts who are going out in boats aren't seeing a whole lot of that dough. Shutting down the paymasters who orchestrate the ransoms, run the operations, and keep most of the profits is a far more effective solution than whacking a couple easily replacable guys who can sit in a boat and wave an AK around.

There isn't crime when there isn't any law. Pirate financiers aren't providing a special type of service a la mob bosses, they're lending capital to an enterprise that's not legally different from any other small business opportunity and as such they're faceless and interchangeable. I don't know why people have such rosy views of stabilizing Somalia right after we spent 6 painful years transforming the stable, functional government of Iraq into a hopefully stable, functional government sans-tyrant. Trying to create a government out of whole cloth would be more difficult and

I haven't presented a rosy view of anything, nor suggested a quick and easy solution. I think the latter is what is falsely offered by the "just blow 'em up" approach. It is conceivable that the other approach you suggest as plausible, continuing to pay ransoms, does offer the cheapest and easiest way of dealing with the issue and is the approach whose cost is borne most directly by the commercial interests that profit by transit through those waters. Whether that makes it the best approach is another question. Historically, the pirates of song and legend were skilled seamen in ocean going ships of the day, much higher value targets than the handfuls of flunkies in coastal boats now operating. History still found the solution in dealing with the root of the problem in the lawless ports and corrupt power centers associated with them. Take that as a lesson or not. It does represent what I have to offer on Somali piracy, not an issue I spend a lot of time fretting over or thinking about.

Firstly, I was disappointed by the attitude in this diavlog, which I would characterize as broadly puerile. There's a much more informative backgrounder on Greg Laden's blog. The way these two 'heads are framing the issue supports the gladiatorial perspective the mainstream media tends to amplify. Yes, there's a long history of blowback, path dependence, and just sheer stupidity, and now there needs to be a solution. But, so we need to smack our lips while we clean up our mess? Secondly, I expected two scholars to consider topics, like fishing and waste disposal, with as much gravity as the high-dollar topics, like deterrence. Thirdly, as a former service-member, I defer to civilian "experts" to devise solutions that don't just write-off service-members as the cost of doing business. It's sickens me when civilian politicians, chicken hawks mostly, who devise twisted schemes to get service-members killed, and not even considering how the policies they devised and supported created the mess in the first place. Fine, there's a certain boyish thrill in snipers and pirates. But, really, listening to officers task me to do lame shit without any utility was insulting; listening to my former civilian bosses snicker about it just leaves me cold.

Quoting cragger: I haven't presented a rosy view of anything, nor suggested a quick and easy solution. I think the latter is what is falsely offered by the "just blow 'em up" approach. It is conceivable that the other approach you suggest as plausible, continuing to pay ransoms, does offer the cheapest and easiest way of dealing with the issue and is the approach whose cost is borne most directly by the commercial interests that profit by transit through those waters. Whether that makes it the best approach is another question.

Historically, the pirates of song and legend were skilled seamen in ocean going ships of the day, much higher value targets than the handfuls of flunkies in coastal boats now operating. History still found the solution in dealing with the root of the problem in the lawless ports and corrupt power centers associated with them. Take that as a lesson or not. It does represent what I have to offer on Somali piracy, not an issue I spend a lot of time fretting over or thinking about.

We already have a precedent for what is effective against piracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Granted the current

Quoting Baltimoron:
Thirdly, as a former service-member, I defer to civilian "experts" to devise solutions that don't just write-off service-members as the cost of doing business. It's sickens me when civilian politicians, chicken hawks mostly, who devise twisted schemes to get service-members killed, and not even considering how the policies they devised and supported created the mess in the first place. Fine, there's a certain boyish thrill in snipers and pirates. But, really, listening to officers task me to do lame shit without any utility was insulting; listening to my former civilian bosses snicker about it just leaves me cold.

I would LOVE to have a sampling of current service members and retired veterans to see how many would be opposed to using our armed services like our navy to fight pirates. Of course no enlisted man wants to be tasked on a useless project. But how many do you think actually consider taking out pirates among the category of a "useless task?"

I think it might surprise many civilians to know many service-members can hold two seemingly contradictions in fairly easy balance. One, "Oh, well, we have to clean up another mess!". Two, "Lock and load!" In a close third place, I'd say, too, "Another day at the office!" The compulsion to perform the mission drowns out the voices ridiculing it - if only to get it done - but soldiers are never quiet about it. Perhaps most civilians only listen to the happy few, who generally prefer war-gaming over the tedium of family life, the officers select for tourists and the press. I volunteered for exercises and assignments as soon as they arose, but I never failed to let officers know I had as much education and experience as they did, and that I preferred to do the job instead of learn how to boss soldiers who knew more than they did. As a SIGINT analyst I also often told officers to go away because they were distracting me from a task more important than them - and that they might never know if I were withholding information or just didn't have a chance to get it because of them. My

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Haven't watched this diavlog yet but props to Graz for mentioning this issue. Along the same lines of the link, I would encourage people to check out the Frontline episode that premiered yesterday titled Pakistan: Children of the Taliban. It will give you an up close picture of the problem with the civilians killed by the drone attacks although it is also of course extremely anti-Taliban. I do have to warn people, it may make you more concerned about the situation in Pakistan than you were before.

Thanks for the link Abu Noor. When I watch videos like that, it is not clear to me what the intended take home message is. For me, the take home message is that God must be insulted and horrified by people's claim to be his special creation, created in his image, acting in accordance with his instructions. In my mind, there is no better evidence for evolution than human behavior. Only something wicked would have created humans on purpose. I know you are devout, and I do not intend the above as an insult. More a lament for a hominid species that could have been but will

Jim Henley has a pretty sensible-sounding post up about dealing with piracy, especially given that he's titled it "Radical, Man."

Moneyquote:

It’s hard not to see the current predominance of public concern about piracy off the coast of Somalia as a sign of how much the United States is still in the grip of imperial fever. People have done bad things somewhere in the world. Surely the United States needs to attack somebody. Because, in fact, there is at least a hazy outline of a target that could be attacked, we are especially beguiled. Or at least, our elites are.

The Economist also points out the other pirate outbreak - in West Africa:

The Gulf of Guinea gets less attention than the waters off Somalia but is one of the world’s most lawless stretches. From Senegal in the region’s west, thousands of Africans brave the seas in dugout canoes for a chance to enter Europe illegally. The lucky ones wash up on Spanish shores but many others drown. Farther south, tiny Guinea-Bissau, with a largely unpoliced coastline and archipelago, is awash with traffickers taking drugs, mainly cocaine, from South America into Europe. Earlier this year, Equatorial Guinea accused militants from Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta of staging an attack on its capital, which lies on

Quoting Baltimoron: Again, those little issues - immigration, resources - "scholars" like Drezner and Farley don't care about. But the article implies, if only we could militarize all of Africa and turn AFRICOM into a bulky force with muscle, the US could get a handle on both the east and west coasts.

I read - sorry, link not handy. I believe it was CSIS - about political reform in Somalia centered around autonomy or sovereignty for Puntland. The US needs to engage failed states, but trying to create a centralized state from Somali clans seems Sisyphean. Devolution has a better logical ring.

In fairness, I don't believe Dan or Rob is as clueless as you portray them. I do agree that such a mindset is too widespread in the US in general, though.