1) Culturally and socially, it is almost impossible because, according to at least one very smart guy I heard on the radio yesterday, unsupported by anything in the social or cultural fabric. I can believe this for various historical reasons. This does not really make it impossible, but difficult.

2) The kinds of governments that seem to start to congeal, in the eyes of mainstream Western politicians and foreign affairs officers, is undesirable to the West. It is like Hamas forming up in Palestine: An undesirable result if you’re George Bush or Tony Blaire. In other words, the West has been undermining the forming up of an Islamic state in Somalia.

I’m not proposing a “no negotiations” policy. I’m just suggesting that making concessions when it’s not necessary is a bad strategy. So far, all it has gotten us is a (very) large population of pirates who think that their demands will always be met and that if they aren’t, a little bit of escalation will do the trick. In this case, it’s pretty obvious that no concessions were necessary.

If it comes to an all-out armed conflict, the pirates are outmatched. Their perceived incentive to escalate the conflict seems to be based on the idea that the Navy doesn’t realize this or won’t bother to act on it. We’re not going to go anywhere until they stop believing that.

What gets me is that these are not disorganized, starving fishermen who are desperate to feed their families and who have taken up piracy as a desperate stopgap measure. This is big business. A commercial operation undertaken by warlords and major businessmen for millions of dollars. One report noted that the mother ship had a complete array of radios and scanners and was reporting to other mother ships and shore to keep track of enforcement efforts and potential targets. This is similar to how German wolf packs operated in WW2. Difference being they sank the ships instead of ransoming them. When ransom was paid the pirates called in the straw boss to divvy up the loot and he brings commercial counting machines.

I suspect that some combination of armed escort vessels, armed teams on board commercial vessels and grouping (if not actual convoying) of ships would go a long way to controlling the problem.

A weak point in their operations are the mother ships which aren’t fast or maneuverable enough to use to board the commercial vessels. Eliminate the mother ship and the small boats are stuck. They don’t have the fuel of sea keeping capabilities to make it the several hundred miles back to shore. I give you odds they lack food, water, and alternative propulsion. Once their fuel is gone they can only pray the wind blows them ashore before they die of thirst. Makes capture look good.

I also think that people underestimate just how much of an advantage an armed party on a large vessel has against small boats. Shooting from a small boat trying to keep up with a ship doing 25 knots, ~29 mph, is not easy. Generally they hit the ship only because it is a very large target. Their ability to shoot a human sized target, assuming someone were to stand out in the open, is quite limited. In comparison a guy with a gun on the ship is standing on a well armored and quite stable structure.

Assuming the small boats can get close they still have to scale a sheer wall of steel 20′ to 40′ high. Usually by tossing a grappling hook until it catches and climbing up. This done, again, at 25 knots and fighting the waves and wake. As the saying goes, an old lady with a broom could stop them. Pirates are brave even when not facing any opposition. Trying that maneuver with a couple of armed guys shooting at you, foolishness verging on suicide.

This is pretty simple stuff. We had the same issues back in the 1700s. In the same area. Back then it was known as the Barbary coast and the pirates, Barbary pirates, naturally. The US Navy and Marines cut their teeth fighting the Barbary pirates off the north coast of Africa.

Frog, that’s true for both parties. However, it’s also true that the side that has nothing to lose and no way out has no incentive to change. It has nothing to do with the pirates’ happiness and everything to do with leaving them enough chips that they’re willing to play. When was the last time you heard about a hostage situation where those in authority refused to negotiate or were unwilling to make any concessions? If you’re going to use a poker analogy, try reading up on game theory.

Am I understanding that you’re proposing the following payoff schedule as a piracy deterrent:

Try to take a ship and succeed: Millions of dollars
Get caught: Go back and try again, no penalty

So far, that’s what the payoff schedule has been, and it seems that piracy has gotten out of control in the region.

I’m all for trying to get everybody out alive, but I think that we’re placing far too much emphasis on the safety and happiness of the offending party. We have allowed the pirates to get a truly warped view of how the world works and their position to make demands. That view needs to be brought back in line with reality. Negotiations don’t work if one side honestly believes they’re holding all the cards.

And the consequences have worked so well to deter piracy in the region, right, Porter?

The consequences over the last 4 days? I should hope our foreign policy has a longer view than that.

according to Abdul Aziz Aw Mahamoud, a district commissioner in the semiautonomous region of Puntland in northeastern Somalia.

Oh, well, there you go then! (eye roll)

But Mr. Abdul Aziz said that the Americans insisted that the pirates be handed over to Puntland authorities, and the elders refused.

Oh noes! Teh eVil Mericans didn’t want the pirates to just waltz away without consequences? HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!