I can’t figure out why we pay $500 billion per year in taxes to support our military and yet American ships are subject to piracy off the coast of Somalia. In a city where things have gotten out of control, the military imposes a curfew and shoots anyone who is found out on the street after dark. How come the combined military forces haven’t imposed a curfew on this stretch of the ocean? Legitimate merchant ships would register at www.iamnotapirate.com. Instead of expensive and slow destroyers, the military would use cheap and fast AC-130 airplanes. If the airplane crew saw a suspicious-looking and unregistered boat, it would sink it with a few rounds from 4000′. It is a big area and presumably they’d miss some, but you’d think a 10 percent daily chance of being sunk would be enough to deter any unauthorized vessels.
A simpler idea would be to impose the curfew on boats going in and out of Somali ports. Restrict unregistered boats to within 6 miles of the beach. Fly two AC-130s in opposite directions up and down the coast, approximately 10 miles offshore, sinking any suspicious-looking and unregistered boat.
An argument against this approach is that these are international waters, traditionally open to all. However, these are extraordinary times. What is wrong with saying these international waters are going to be open only by permission of a group of navies? International waters are already subject to some restrictions. One cannot drive up alongside a battleship in the open Atlantic. Why can’t a battleship say “I am operating near Somalia for a while and I don’t want any uninvited company?
What’s wrong with the curfew idea? Must we really continue to (1) pay 5% of our GDP to support our military, and (2) simultaneously read every day about our ineffective struggle against Somali teenagers?
Most legit vessels on the high seas have coded GMDSS transponders, or if that is not enough IFF, then give vessels that need to transit the gulf of Aden real IFF.
No IFF squawk, boom. Sorry, Sorry, as Monty Python would say. I would think we have the UAV’s to patrol, and a couple of carrier Hawkeyes to provide attack vectors for say, a few months? Or, armed UAV’s, or yes, AC 130’s?
So many options. To go boom.
Escorted convoys – proven solution.
You should read 1984 (again).
The pirates are just your two minutes of hate, used to cover up your government taking away more of your freedoms for less reason. We just needed another $83b to fight the war in Afghanistan. Exactly how many people are we fighting there? For $2b couldn’t we just move them all to South Dakota? New Mexico?
Ireland?
I think the idea is hard to implement as many Somalis still try to make a living from fishing. Who know what happens if you take the liveliohood away from the remaining fishermen. We should rather ask why the U.S. (as well as the other states’) navy doesn’t even sink those vessels it clearly identifys as the pirates’ boats.
The fact no nation in the vicinity would allow US airbases might have something to do with it. The cost of a sustained airborne interdiction would also bankrupt the US if it isn’t already. Consider the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars for an idea of the magnitude. Most of them are due to expensive air forces, not the cheap grunts in the Army or Marines. As for UAV availability, we don’t have any to spare or the staff to operate them due to the Air Force’s fondness for obsolete my oh-so-manly manned fighters like the F22 and F35 white elephants from the Cold War era.
I wonder if your proposed curfew would also apply to the Western ships illegally dumping chemical and nuclear waste on the Somali coast, or the ships illegally strip-fishing Somali waters.
The major thing that needs to be solved is giving the “pirates” an alternative. They can’t do fishing because other nations have plundered their waters. They can’t do other water based activities because other nations have dumped chemical waste in them. They can’t do agriculture because other countries (especially the USA and European Union) use subsidies to keep others out of their markets. They can’t do other peaceful activities since so many other countries are willing to supply arms and stand idly by while atrocity after atrocity is committed.
So they resorted to the only thing they could – piracy. They even used the minimal amount of violence possible and stuck to their deals (ie actually released crews and ships unharmed on receipt of ransom).
Having an arms and harms race will simply result in an unwinnable war and lots more casualties on all sides. See US interventions over the last 40 years for examples.
The US doesn’t seem to have had too much luck dealing with armed Afghani or Iraqi teenagers; I’m not sure whether it would have much more luck dealing with perhaps better armed Somali teenagers who actually receive commercial gain from their activities.
Other commenters raise good points. This plan would be pretty tough on Somalia’s fishermen. Keep in mind that Somalia’s fishermen are already having a pretty tough time as a result of foreigners plundering their fishing fields. Also it’s not like Somalia is overflowing with food.
Fazal: No bases for an AC-130 near Somalia? That hasn’t stopped us in recent years. We’ve used the aircraft over Somalia itself (most recently to unceremoniously kill a bunch of guys trying to drive away from the capital). The AC-130 can be refueled in mid-air and stay aloft almost indefinitely at the slow speeds that one would fly if looking for boats to sink. You think the cost of running a couple of AC-130s and a Web site is too high? The AC-130 has a crew of 13. A single US destroyer, such as the Bainbridge that rescued Captain Phillips, has more than 250 crew members. The replacement cost of an AC-130 is about $200 million. The replacement cost of the Bainbridge is going to be $6 billion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer ).
Alex: You don’t think we’d have much luck sinking a skiff with an AC-130 gunship? Because the Somali teenagers are well armed? Take a closer look at the Wikipedia page on the AC-130. I don’t think that a rocket-propelled grenade is effective up to 4000′ above the sea.
Everyone who wants to support the Somali fishing industry: Nothing stops a legitimate fishing operation from registering with the military (yes, they do have Internet cafes in Somalia, as well as mobile phones with Internet access (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm )). We have no idea how much of their fishing is close to shore and how much would normally be done in the off-shore area subject to curfew. Current fishing operations are probably suffering more from piracy than international shipping, as the pirates often will take over a fishing vessel to serve as a mother ship. Even if the military operation had a temporary negative effect on the fishing industry, that is one of the risks of being in business in an unstable country.
Roger: Your idea of rebuilding Somalia’s society and economy is laudable, but it is not an affordable goal for the U.S. taxpayer, especially as our own economy declines further. As you note, when we’ve defined our goal as “making Country X safe, stable, and prosperous”, we’ve typically failed. Nor is it the kind of goal typically achievable with military force.
On the other hand, a goal of sinking a handful of pirate skiffs from an airplane that costs about the same to buy and run as a big airliner is a realistic military endeavor and should not cost the taxpayer any more than if the same AC-130 were sent out on a training mission.
Though you seem to be celebrating Somali pirates for their entrepreneurial spirit and expecting a big lift from trickling-down ransom payments, typically an economy does better when there is an improvement in law and order (see Manhattan 1970-2000).
I agree that a handful of navy vessels seems like a hopelessly inefficient way to deal with pirates. My idea was to keep an AEW aircraft such as the Erieye, with a sensitive, long-range radar, on patrol along the African coast. In conjunction with the database of legitimate ships you suggest or othe intel sources, this would give the international forces a chance to react with a reasonable chance of success. And sure, the AC-130 is one whopping sledgehammer if you know for sure your target is hostile, but that aircraft would be politically difficult to deploy — far too much firepower.