Somali Pirates
 

OK, perhaps I'm oversimplifying this whole thing with the current hostage situation. For those who may not know, Somali pirates took over a US Flagged cargo ship. The crew took the ship back, but the captain is currently being held hostage, floating in the Indian Ocean in a life boat with several of the Pirates.

Now, there is at least one US Naval vessel nearby.

So here's what you do - put a seal team in the water with one seal per pirate, having them submerge on the far side of the naval vessel so that the pirates are unaware. They surround the life raft, surface, each seal kills the pirate they've been assigned to, and it's over.

Am I oversimplifying this? It doesn't seem too hard.

Yeah, scaeagles, if I were king of the world, you'd be in charge of all hostage retrievals and negotiations. I wonder why no one has yet figured out it's as easy as you say? Sheesh, what a bunch of morons in this field. You win.

Because life is not a movie?

Is also isn't an episode of Kings where a hostage situation was similarly ended when a group of sharpshooters simultaneously shot all of the hostage-takers in the head and shooting through metal walls.

I'm sure forceful contingencies are being considered and at some point might be used but all of them carry increased risk of death or injury for the hostage. So, so long as continuing to talk does not do so, why not continue to talk?

And it may not be so easy as you think for a eight Navy seals to simultaneously surface, aim, and with 100% accuracy kill their assigned hostage all in less time than it takes for a hostage taker to shoot the hostage.

For a sense of how hard it is, I suggest taking your gun down to the local swimming pool, go down to the bottom of it and then surface, aim, an shoot some target within 1 second of surfacing. Once you get that skill mastered do it with a friend where you both have to shoot within the same one second. Then up the ante by doing it in sea swells and where whatever you're shooting at gets to duck if it sees you several feet before you surface (which very well might unless you are farther away in which case the shot gets exponentially harder).

So yes, I think you're oversimplifying.

I don't think I said the task itself was easy. I think I said the concept was easy. I don't think I could do it because I'm not a navy seal. These guys train for years to do such things, I suppose, and I would suspect their training involves such things.

With what these Somali pirates have been doing over the last few years, I think it's about time talking with them stops. So yeah, I think continuing to negotiate is problematic, to a point. Even if my suggestion is not practical or or even possible (and I still put a whole lot of faith in the seals and their training that they could do it), there is probably something similar they could do.

Are you aware that the lifeboat is fully enclosed, similar to this one:



The likelihood of getting in without risking the life of the captain is pretty slim.

Well, that certainly changes things. I guess I thought it was open because the captain managed to get into the ocean and attempt to swim away. I figured he just jumped over the side when he had the opportunity.

I hope for the sake of future US flagged ships this does not end well for the hijackers.

Perhaps the US could take a queue from those master diplomats the Russian special forces: Alfa.

They got style.

Meh, Toss a couple of flash-bangs through the windows. Problem solved.

I do think you overestimate what they can do. But even if they could pull it off 95% of the time without harm coming to the hostage, why risk that unless it is clear that harm is going to come to him anyway.

There are plenty of examples of elite military forces using such tactics to end hostage situations like this and a lot of them ended up with dead hostages.

See, for example, Entebbe in which a hijacked plane was stormed resulting in the deaths of all 8 hostage takers. And five of the passengers. And four of the storming soldiers.

Or the Moscow Theater hostage situation. When storming the building successfully killed 39 rebels. And at least 130 hostages. They tried to get fancy and use a knock-out gas.

Or the Iranian Embassy Seige in London. When the SAS stormed the building they killed five of the six hostage takers and saved 19 others. But one hostage was killed before the SAS could get to him.

And of course there is the German attempt at freeing hostages through use of coordinated sniper fire during the 1972 Munich Olympics. The initial attempt killed 2 hostage takers and one German policemen. And put the remaining hostag-takers in a position with no possible exit while still holding hostages. And so they then killed the remaining 9 hostages.

Or the Ma'alot Massacre in Israel where a school was taken by a Palestinian group. The attempt to storm the building by Israel's elite special forces did not go well and before they could be subdued the hostage takers opened fire on the confined students killing 22 of them.

Yes, these are all different from the current situation. But I think argue the point that such operations are not so easy or so clean as TV and movies lead us to believe.

Talk, raid, whatever. I just don't want a deal that allows these guys to sail away let alone get paid cash.

Perhpas a deal where you air drop them a couple of million and then follow them with a Preditor until they reach their mother ship, or home village for that matter and then let loose the hellfire's

Yes, because kidnapping for ransom is a criminal offense deserving of execution without trial even after no one is in at risk any longer.

The voice of reason doesn't sound nearly as "fun" as going all Rambo on their ass though.

I don't know....having someone at gunpoint sure seems to me like they are at risk. Holding someone against their will sure seems like they are at risk. Freeing the man might be the highest priority. If the men surrender and release the hostage I wouldn't suggest they should be executed. However, prior to releasing, I do not think trying not to harm the pirates should really come into the thought process.

Yes, the acceptability of using violence against them is completely different during the actual hostage crisis.

That was completely a response to the idea of getting the hostages freed by paying them off and then following them home and then killing them and anybody else who happens to live in the building.

I also do not think that preventing harm to the pirates should play into how you get the hostage freed. My argument is that a blitz attack is probably greatly increasing the risk of death to the hostage and is therefore counterproductive.

Since this is piracy on the high seas (aka International Waters), according to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, Pretty much.

Ok, technically you would have to order them to stop first but after that.... Rambo!

First, the United States has not ratified the Law of the Sea treaty so that is somewhat irrelevant. Second, no it does not allow for what you suggested.

Besides, they're more...guidelines than actual rules.

Suggestions, really.

It allows for the arrest of anyone involved in piracy. If they fail to stop use of force is not prohibited.

Bombing their home village while providing an effective deterrent to future crimes is admittedly not a realistic option.

Yes, which is what you suggested. I'll pre-emptively and post facto apologize for responding to what you actually say.

This occurred today:

http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/...yid=257#Story2

I thought we were talking about "some pilates".

Same thing

Woo-hoo! Freed unharmed!

Story

I'm really pleased about that, I thought it was looking pretty dicey. I can't imagine how scared to death he must have been, and how relieved he and his family must be now. Excellent news, thanks for the link.

Very glad the Capt. is safe. I'm also happy the pirates are paying the price rather than getting paid.

Well, the method used wasn't all that far off from your suggestion in the original post.

I think it's great that the first time they tried to get money by capturing a ship flying under an American flag, that all they got were three of them killed. The only reason they continue to try this is because other countries negotiate, and end up paying out millions.

**Removes sunglasses, stares off into the distance**


YYYYYYEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!





What, this isn't CSI: Miami?

So glad the captain was rescued.

In one of the articles I read a pirate said that now America would pay the price, they would retaliate against us for killing their men.

Given that I'm not a sailor and never go anywhere near Somalia , I'm quite comfortable in replying to the pirates: Bring it Bitches!

All that does is get them officially labeled terrorists :evil:

So now that the White House can talk about Obama's role in the successful rescue, will Glen Beck et. al be rescinding their assinine blatherings?

I'll give Obama props for ordering the rescue, just as I gave him props for sending military escorts to ships being harrassed by the Chinese in the South China Sea.

However, I could go the route - just for fun - of saying something like all he has done is create an atmosphere for creating more pirates and by making them angry is only going to make the situation worse. What were a few scattered bands of untrained pirates will now become united in their anti US sentiment. I think we should talk with the pirates and try to understand them and why they are doing this. I bet the ransom they get is going to health care and education.

I don't believe that, by the way.

That would make sense if, in response to Somali pirates attacking US ships, he invaded Kenya and deposed the government there in the name of stopping Somali pirates. And then labeled anyone who came to the aid of Kenya as Somali pirates so he could justify indefinitely imprisoning them.

If one of those seals had missed and accidentally killed the hostage (or allowed the pirates to kill the hostage) I wonder if those praising the action would still think it a great thing (and how hard Obama would be working to avoid any decision making responsibility).

But, it seems Obama's first siege face-off has come off better than Clinton's did.

Definitely a fine display of shooting (though next time they'll have to try to up it to scaeagles difficulty level and do it while surfacing from a dive) and I'm glad it came off ok.

On the plus side, if it does eventually require putting the Marines back to their original use we'll probably get another Josh Hartnett movie out of it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this triggers more violence by the pirates towards their hostages but that does not invalidate the appropriateness of a this action.

My way would have been more cool. Admit it.

I'm sure they really wanted to do it that way. But since you thought of it first they couldn't make the movie version as it would be stealing your idea - therefore they came up with plan B. And as they say - the rest is history.

Obama 1
Pirates -3.

We shouldn't prosecute the kid who jumped ship. We should do the Captains Courageous route and make him work on a navy boat to get his head on straight. Then, when he goes back to Somalia . . . well, he'll probably become a pirate again, but until then it would make a good movie.

The real version was insane enough - choppy seas, far off, momentary glimpse of their heads.

I hadn't realized at first that the lifeboat was only 100 feet away. Interestingly, at that distance for snipers a factor increasing difficulty is that they were too close (according to this the scope can't properly align at shorter than 300 feet).

With all of the increased pirate activity, this was the first ship flying an American flag that they went after. Presumably, they were avoiding them because they were wary of going after a ship backed by the government with the most powerful military that has a policy of not negotiating with pirates.

And what happened the first time they decided to take that risk? They were shot and killed, got no ransom money, and harmed no one from the ship.

Something tells me that perhaps that was a bit of an empty threat from the pirates, at least towards actual Americans and American vessels. Though I don't doubt there will be increased attacks on ships from other countries.

Possibly, but it may have just been dumb luck.

I was surprised to hear yesterday in an MSNBC interview how few U.S. flagged merchant ships are out there and this table bears it out.

There are only 216 (as of 2007) U.S. flagged merchant ships in the world out of a total fleet of 32,976. And a fourth of those are oil tankers which I suspect (though it is just a guess) are significantly focused on taking oil out of Alaska.

Probably true. But while perhaps the reason for not having taken US ships isn't what I first might have guessed, it still stands that they're a pretty dramatic 0-for-1. The fact that there are so few US ships makes it even more likely to be empty bluster as that means they won't even have much opportunity to be put in the position of making good on their bluff.

I hope you're right.

But the French have been killing them for a while (and capturing plenty) and that hasn't prevented continued hijackings of French ships.

Well it is the French...

From the annals of history:

That's even better than just sniping these guys. Demand payment from them for each ship captured.

That couldn't have been good for ol' Captain Moore's self-esteem.

"Self esteem" was not invented until 1972. So that was not an issue in this case.

Not much detail, and seemingly not as dramatic a fail, but make that 0-for-2 on US ships.

http://digg.com/d1ojum

Before that it was called "honor". But, like New Coke was rolled out to cover up the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup to the Coke formula, we had a name change to obscure the loss of sugary honor in favor of cheaper self esteem.

I'm looking forward to the Pirates of the Somali Coast attraction redo.

And now the excuses start:

Teenage pirate was ‘brainwashed,’ mom says
Family saved $6 each month to pay for school fees in impoverished Somalia
Story

Top 5 Blunders of Somali Pirates.

NATO has some good PR people:

And of course, the one that prompted this thread: