I have been an advocate of an international force to handle the problem.

 

Besides as attacks on ALL nations ships in the region intensify this give Obama the perfect opportunity to build his own legacy by going before the U.N. and pushing for a U.N. Resolution authorizing an international force to patrol the area, led by the U.S. of course, to end this pirate menace.

 

In doing so he goes after people that many in the Western World want to stop, asks for international support, indicates America's strength AND "shows" how he is nothing like the previous administration.

 

It is a win-win for him at this point.

 

I might have missed it as I just skimmed some posts, but I thought the comments were USA going in and doing what we thought, not going to the UN and getting permission/coalition. That mindset is what prompted my comment.

 

Whatever the action, Obama will probably take heat from the liberals, Code Pinks, who don't like military actions but score points with conservatives. Saw an interview with one Pinky that was onto Obama for adding troops to Afghanstan.

I might have missed it as I just skimmed some posts, but I thought the comments were USA going in and doing what we thought, not going to the UN and getting permission/coalition. That mindset is what prompted my comment.

 

Whatever the action, Obama will probably take heat from the liberals, Code Pinks, who don't like military actions but score points with conservatives. Saw an interview with one Pinky that was onto Obama for adding troops to Afghanstan.

 

 

I am not sure if anyone mentioned that before, I think I might have hinted at it at one point but I am not 100% sure at this point. There are about 3 threads on this topic in some way, I am having a hard time remembering which is which anymore. :lol:

The owners of the hijacked ships need to pony up some money and hire someone like Blackwater to escort them.

The piracy situation is only a symptom of a much larger problem: the failed state of Somalia. I'm certain a massive force could be placed in the region that would severely curtail any threat of piracy, but that seems rather impractical in terms of financial costs or military strategy given that we would likely need to keep a force there permanently. Factor in the other problems of failed states (they are fertile breeding ground for terrorists) and it seems more pressing to look toward a solution that would provide legitimate governance to that region.

Back in the early days of pirates and warfare, powerful seafaring nations like Great Britain, France, Spain and the US all employed privateers. At times, privateers raideded commercial ships of certain nations much like unaffiliated pirates, but in some cases, privateers operating under the marque of a certain nation also waged war on pirates.

 

It is not entirely out of the question, or beyond legal precedent for the US to employ private mercenaries to take care of the Navy's light work. This deal could be solved in a month or two with the appropriate application of force and incentive.

The owners of the hijacked ships need to pony up some money and hire someone like Blackwater to escort them.

 

 

So all the taxes that they pay to the federal government on the business they do there offers them no protection whatsoever?

 

If the government cannot protect its citizens what good is it?

The piracy situation is only a symptom of a much larger problem: the failed state of Somalia. I'm certain a massive force could be placed in the region that would severely curtail any threat of piracy, but that seems rather impractical in terms of financial costs or military strategy given that we would likely need to keep a force there permanently. Factor in the other problems of failed states (they are fertile breeding ground for terrorists) and it seems more pressing to look toward a solution that would provide legitimate governance to that region.

 

And how did that UN force do the last time they went into Somalia?

 

This is a very hard situation for our new President.

And how did that UN force do the last time they went into Somalia?

 

This is a very hard situation for our new President.

 

 

That UN force was also hamstrung by politics and ROEs.

So all the taxes that they pay to the federal government on the business they do there offers them no protection whatsoever?

 

If the government cannot protect its citizens what good is it?

 

The govt can't hold peoples hands when they travel in international waters. It would cost a ton of money to have the US Navy protect them. If you were sending me a 10,000 dollar package wouldn't you pay for insurance on it?

The piracy situation is only a symptom of a much larger problem: the failed state of Somalia. I'm certain a massive force could be placed in the region that would severely curtail any threat of piracy, but that seems rather impractical in terms of financial costs or military strategy given that we would likely need to keep a force there permanently. Factor in the other problems of failed states (they are fertile breeding ground for terrorists) and it seems more pressing to look toward a solution that would provide legitimate governance to that region.

No implied statements, just questions:

 

1) Does that make what the U.S. did in this case wrong?

 

2) Is there a practical way to providing a legitimate government in that area? Furthermore, if the U.S. tries to speed up this process, doesn't that sound sort of like whatever we are trying to do in Iraq right now (under heavy criticism)?

No implied statements, just questions:

 

1) Does that make what the U.S. did in this case wrong?

 

2) Is there a practical way to providing a legitimate government in that area? Furthermore, if the U.S. tries to speed up this process, doesn't that sound sort of like whatever we are trying to do in Iraq right now (under heavy criticism)?

 

1. No.
   
2. Practical? No. Which is why we couldn't be sole occupier, as is the case with Iraq.
   

1. No.
   
2. Practical? No. Which is why we couldn't be sole occupier, as is the case with Iraq.
   

Off topic-and I'm sure you've touched upon these issues before- but now are you implying that building a government in Iraq would be successful if it were NOT just the United States involved? And in the event that the answer to this is yes, keeping in mind that it would be better to have a stable government there (either Iraq or Somalia), should not more fault be placed on other governments for not being willing to partake in an activity that would (theoretically) benefit everyone involved?

That UN force was also hamstrung by politics and ROEs.

 

Any reason to believe that another wouldn't?

Off topic-and I'm sure you've touched upon these issues before- but now are you implying that building a government in Iraq would be successful if it were NOT just the United States involved?

 

It wouldn't in and of itself make it successful, but it would give it the best chance of success, particularly since it would provide some sort of legitimacy and burden sharing that may make domestic publics more willing to deal with it.

 

And in the event that the answer to this is yes, keeping in mind that it would be better to have a stable government there (either Iraq or Somalia), should not more fault be placed on other governments for not being willing to partake in an activity that would (theoretically) benefit everyone involved?

 

I think so.

It wouldn't in and of itself make it successful, but it would give it the best chance of success, particularly since it would provide some sort of legitimacy and burden sharing that may make domestic publics more willing to deal with it.

 

 

 

I think so.

Interesting. It seems some variation of game theory makes an appearance too, as, in your opinion, the best options in order are: international nation-building, do nothing, USA nation-building.