How to stop the somalian pirate threat.

[RandomIdeas!]

It's becoming a huge problem to international trade, military resources and obviously the sailors being captured. How do we deal with this, there are thousands of small boats, tugs, in the area of piracy used for fishing as well as ones used for piracy. How do you tell the two apart, protect the ships without it costing millions upon millions.

[riksavage]

It's becoming a huge problem to international trade, military resources and obviously the sailors being captured. How do we deal with this, there are thousands of small boats, tugs, in the area of piracy used for fishing as well as ones used for piracy. How do you tell the two apart, protect the ships without it costing millions upon millions.

The problem is shipping companies operate on very tight budgets, personnel costs are a critical factor, hence most large modern ships have very small crews. Paying for additional trained and armed personnel who can man watches 24-7 and have the firepower to fend off a coordinated attack by armed men (RPG's RPD's AK's) is expensive and very risky. The last thing shipping companies want is a fire-fight breaking out on or near their ships, particularly those carrying dangerous or flammable materials. Many companies chose to transfer the risk to an insurance broker by investing in K&R coverage for the fleet. In the event the ship and crew are taken a K&R team with negotiate the release of ship and crew for a fee. The premiums are high, but no way near what you would have to pay for a well trained armed protective details on all your vessels transitting through the gulf.

Also companies invest in L-RADS & M-RADS, which provides an acoustic deterrent and does not require a firearms licence. The device allows the crew to communicate over long distances warning suspicious vessels to stand-off and can be ramped up to cause excruciating pain in your ears. These are non-lethal, but unfortunately can be mitigated by a good set of ear defenders. Ships also electrify their perimeter rails and fit high-power hoses to try and prevent hook-ons. Ships with higher freeboards are more difficult to attack, anything over 40 feet will require the use of a plummet or similar device because a ladder or hook-on device is simply not long enough.

Convoy systems are also in operation, ships will form-up and be escorted by one of the standing military vessels in the area.

[Abraxas]

The problem is shipping companies operate on very tight budgets, personnel costs are a critical factor, hence most large modern ships have very small crews. Paying for additional trained and armed personnel who can man watches 24-7 and have the firepower to fend off a coordinated attack by armed men (RPG's RPD's AK's) is expensive and very risky. The last thing shipping companies want is a fire-fight breaking out on or near their ships, particularly those carrying dangerous or flammable materials. Many companies chose to transfer the risk to an insurance broker by investing in K&R coverage for the fleet. In the event the ship and crew are taken a K&R team with negotiate the release of ship and crew for a fee. The premiums are high, but no near what you would have to pay for a well trained armed protective detail.

Plus, with armed individuals on board, the regular insurance premiums you pay already suddenly jump up with the increased risk of accidental injury or possible death. Shipping CEO's simply couldn't legitimize the cost with the relative small chance their ship would even be targeted. Beyond that, international shipping laws would require all ships with registered weapons on board to submit to inspection by that country's coast guard, which slows them down considerably... which cuts deeply into a companies revenue.

But in all honesty, pirates are surprisingly non-violent. Afterall, they need the crew alive to operate the ship and can recieve much larger bounties if they don't kill anyone, so it makes sense to not kill anyone.

Also companies invest in L-RADS & M-RADS, which provides an acoustic deterrent, which do not require a firearms licence. The devices allow the crew to communicate over long distances warning suspicious vessels to stand-off and can be ramped up to cause excruciating ear pain. These are non-lethal, and unfortunately a good set of ear defenders will mitigates their effectiveness. Ships also electrify their perimeter rails and fit high-power hoses to try and prevent hook-ons. Ships with higher freeboards are more difficult to attack, anything over 40 feet will require the use of a plummet or similar device because a ladder or hook-on device is simply not long enough.

They electrify the railings?

I heard they put grease and barbed wire around them, but how do they physically electrify the railings without essentially making the ship a ground?

The convoy system is also in operation, ships will form-up and be escorted by one of the standing military vessels in the area.

That's provided good buisness for companies that specialize in organizing these convoys.

[riksavage]

Plus, with armed individuals on board, the regular insurance premiums you pay already suddenly jump up with the increased risk of accidental injury or possible death. Shipping CEO's simply couldn't legitimize the cost with the relative small chance their ship would even be targeted. Beyond that, international shipping laws would require all ships with registered weapons on board to submit to inspection by that country's coast guard, which slows them down considerably... which cuts deeply into a companies revenue.

But in all honesty, pirates are surprisingly non-violent. Afterall, they need the crew alive to operate the ship and can recieve much larger bounties if they don't kill anyone, so it makes sense to not kill anyone.

They electrify the railings?

I heard they put grease and barbed wire around them, but how do they physically electrify the railings without essentially making the ship a ground?

That's provided good buisness for companies that specialize in organizing these convoys.

I understand there is a system, a bit like a fence used to control cattle, it is designed in way which stands off from the rail, but would touch any intruder attempting to scale the side of the ship. Clearly it must come with caveats as to what type of ship is suitable?

[JonMusser]

the way iwould deal with pirates in the gulf of Aden is Helicopters via american and allied Amphibious Assault ships have a marine group deploy to ships in area being chassed i would say 3 LHD placed well could take the pirates on effectively with their Helo's going on regular patrols

[Duffy]

Convoys so far have worked the best . Communication has also improved. I would think reaction time has also.
The mother ships are where to start. With coast gard type operations just off the coast would cut the aria needed to patrol drastically. That will still need large Numbers of smaller vessels. There must be some sort of supply line going to these mother ships. If the ships them selves come back for food and fuel? If thy do and you board a ship that has been out for six weeks and it has no fish those would be good ground to take it for awhile.
Trying to find a small ship or even several in the open ocean is no small task. Most navy's count on that simple fact.Thy have to move the fight much closer to shore but that bring its on complications of course. The number of boats will increase .

[turin]

It's becoming a huge problem to international trade,

The economical aspect is overblown. Actually its no problem for international trade at all, the number of ships captured, even those only attacked is not even close to one percent of the complete trade being conducted using that particular route.

What is affected greatly is our perception of safe waterways because of the extent of media coverage and the idea of free and unharmed trade. Lets face it...even in those times, when trade basically depended 100% on the freedom of the seas (because air and land transport were not existing or not relevant), piracy was taking place much more often and affected more regions.

I am not saying that we should ignore this problem. However the perception that this sort of piracy affects worldwide trade, economical growth or whatever, is extremely misleading.

As far as a solution is concerned...well, turn Somalia into a working nation state again. Its of course the most demanding and extensive task, but also the only one that will work continuously (with the introduction of coast guard operations and such). Everthing else will have no permanent effect and the costs dumped on operations already taking place drain more resources than they safe. Thats somewhat of the elephant in the room nobody likes to talk about when it comes to policy-makers.

[Duffy]

[



I would agree but turn Somalia into a working state again don't seem to be on any ones agenda. I would have to say the US is out after Iraq and on going Afghanistan, not to over look there is no political relations there. If anything resentment and distrust . So who will step up? I know Egypt and Saudi Arabia had relations in the not so distant past. Also China was doing oil exploration a few years back.

I also agree the media blows it out of proportion, But there is always the possibility of these morons hitting a tanker with a few RPGs .

[kay_man]

Wy not create a defensive / offensive perimeter around somalia so that the pirates have no axcess to deep sea or the shipping routes.
With the navies world over co-operating it should not be too difficult.
Also it would save the trouble of occupying the somalian land.

[Duffy]

Thats kinda what I was getting at in my first post with the small boats and the coast guard action . Thats still only a temporary fix.

Turin was right about stabilizing the state before any real long term fix is even feasible. But it will take something a lot more drastic that a few hijacked vessels to force that to happen.

[swerve]

Wy not create a defensive / offensive perimeter around somalia so that the pirates have no axcess to deep sea or the shipping routes.
With the navies world over co-operating it should not be too difficult.
Also it would save the trouble of occupying the somalian land.
It is too difficult. Look at the distances.

Also, remember that these pirates are difficult to distinguish from ordinary fishermen or traders. The waters around there are full of small boats plying peaceful trades. What do you propose - sinking them all? That's a cure far worse than the disease.

[swerve]

i would say 3 LHD placed well could take the pirates on effectively with their Helo's going on regular patrols
There are more helicopters than 3 LHDs can carry already in the area, & better spread than 3 LHDs could be.

Look at a map. The distances are greater than you think.

[The Swordman]

For the short term IMHO the only way to discourage piracy is strike hard where they move the captured ships. I don't mean by bombing any fisherman village but by sending in people like U.S. Navy SEAL o UK's SBS. Once the gangs know for sure that nobody will pay them any ransom there will be a decrease in such illegal operations. Problem is, there is so much poverty in that area that even risk a bullet in their heads will be an acceptable alternative in front of famine.

For the long term countries like Somalia have to be restored someway. Since the "Restore Hope" operations there is no real government at all and all the countries in the same area are getting weaker for this mess.

[Duffy]

The problem with counter terrorist type operations is even if your successful 99% of the time. That 1% is still very appealing to the pirates. You have to remember that life on shore is basically S@#T. The hole premise in the use of force is to make the consequences out way the prize. In Somalia the consequences that you propose are part of daily life.
In short of stabilizing the government you have to make it impossible for them to take control of ships.Which is easer said than done.
I have to agree with Turin . When and if it becomes a real problem there will be more resources available. The operations on going are a deterrent but are no solution. Helicopters in the aria do nothing more than show a presents. A simple tarp will hide the tools of there trade from the air.

[John Sansom]

Do we have any idea of the extent to which crews are expressing unwillingness to operate in Somali (and related) waters. There may come a tipping point here when unions, for instance, say, "Nope, no more."
Of course, there are many non-union seamen of diverse national origins out there, but they may be tempted to follow a job action lead as per the above.

And, hey, just what have the unions and other related/affected organizations been saying--and more to the point--doing about all this?

[Duffy]

The percentage of shipping affected is still very small.also the loss of life.If they were killing the crew or a large portion of them the union may do something. Since the owners are taking the hit, Its up to them to collectively either raise rates or refuse to ship in the aria .They would all have to agree to this of course and thats not likely. In the event of a ship and its cargo being lost and the insurance company has to cover the loss then you will see the premiums go up across the Bord.When it starts costing more people money then the bitching will start and something happen. Until then it gives all the worlds navy's a place to work together :D

[John Sansom]

Generally in agreement, Duffy. However, what shop stewards and other reps should be worrying about is increasing risk to union and association members. Should be? They probably are...and see risk assessment as a critical party of the game.

The brighter side of the coin--as you noted--is that the situation certainly does provide an opportunity for a number of the world's navies to operate together within a "real" context.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sort out the mess that is Somalia. Escorting ships is just treating the symptoms. It was a big mistake to back the Ethiopian intervention. There are better ways to kill a few Al Qaeda than further a decade of civil war.

[Duffy]

Generally in agreement, Duffy. However, what shop stewards and other reps should be worrying about is increasing risk to union and association members. Should be? They probably are...and see risk assessment as a critical party of the game.

The brighter side of the coin--as you noted--is that the situation certainly does provide an opportunity for a number of the world's navies to operate together within a "real" context.


I tend to agree, It does depend on how you look at it. I don't personally know how the Unions in that industry are structured. I do know that there has to be some acceptable risk assumed by the Business Agent and any members below them.Do to the fact that going to sea has its own dangers.Weather/Accident/and a hundred other thing that could go wrong.
If people were being harmed the Unions would have allot more support by other unions, Long shore-man,Mechanics, even none union workers and would be less likely to breach a contract.But if the employees are being paid while there being held and also for there release,Plus the likely hood of being hijacked is still no different than the likely hood of being caught in a bad storm that assumed risk is no different.
It always comes back to the percentage affected and to what existent. I hate to say it but its business. There is one thing to keep in mind. The over head involved in shipping is enormous but the labor is next to nothing.For all we know the crews sailing in the waters around Somalia could be making ten times that of crew else ware;)

[Duffy]

Sort out the mess that is Somalia. Escorting ships is just treating the symptoms. It was a big mistake to back the Ethiopian intervention. There are better ways to kill a few Al Qaeda than further a decade of civil war.

Well why don't you Aussies have at it :D

Us Americans like to rebuild countries we got to destroy.Theres nothing left in Somalia, Plus Obama spent all our money on General Motors and Chrysler.:onfloorl:

[GI-Gizmo]

The only real way to put an end to the pirate problem is to land troops ashore to clear the pirate gangs and hold the captured ground. The problem is no nation wants to get their feet stuck in the problematic tarpit of Somalia.
It would take a few thousands troops to patrol, aid the local populous and deny the pirates a base to launch from. Special forces detachments would also be needed to target the pirate gangs and kill or capture the leadership.
Naval quick reaction forces would need to be on alert to intercept and destroy any pirates who did get out to sea. The mission could go on for years and quickly escalate into a more complex situation depending on what happened once troops were on the ground.
The only real way to end the piracy threat coming out of Somalia is to help the nation [even though it is not a single nation, more like a bunch of statelets and clan and gang controlled areas with Islamic radicalism thrown in]. Somalia is in a deep pile of shit, no nation or group wants to lend a hand to help pull it out. It is seen as being hopeless and pointless. The current US strategy is to arm the TNG [Transitional National Government] so that it can fight Al-Shabaab [the Islamic radicals] so that the Gov't can eventually focus some decisive attention to the pirate problem.

[The Swordman]

It's a matter of fact that Somalia is a failed state. The question is: who wants to put it back on track? UN mission in the '90 was a mess, same for the US sponsored intervention (remember Black Hawk down?); locals are oppressed by ghost government, warlords and so called Islamic courts, no surprise that there is a massive emigration form the area.
Who wants to pay the bill for such an action?
We're talking about a 10 years or more intervention, with plenty of troops and tech to be deployed.

[Duffy]

GI-Gizmo
I do agree the only long term solution is a stabilized governed state. That sounds feasible on the suffice. First, Somalia has a population of 9.5 million people so a couple thousand troops would be more like 20/25,000 at the onset then 10,000 for at least five year at best. Now if you want to try in stamp out Al-Shabaab you will have to close the borders of Ethiopia and Kenya another 60,000 + troops,Second,the infrastructure is for the most part nonexistent.So after you have control.Then rebuilding just the basics will take probably four to five years and say $2 billion at best. That does not include investments on industry so the country can become self sufficient.
who's the lucky one that gets to do this? The US is out for a few reason.First and probably the most important is our relation ships with our Arab allies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put allot of stain on our friend do to the fact that there populations are starting see America as anti Muslim.The second is this is the United Nations baby. and has been since the early 1990s. The USN along with several others will work in the waters off the coast witch it is doing for the UN but would do any way simply because of obligation to NATO.
In 2005 the shipping company's filed a formal complaint with the International Maritime Organization witch is a UN agency , The World Food Program has shown concern witch is a branch of the United Nations. So the ball is in there hands.(I personally have no faith in the UN they cant accomplish any more than the red cross. Just my opinion)
The big question is what country would take on that responsibility when the pirate can be stopped from off shore.It will take a little time and cost some money but nothing in the magnitude of putting men on the ground.Plus in Jan,2009 Sheikh Hussein was elected president who then appointed Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke as prime minister these two together represents the best chance of Somalia in the past twenty years .So I don't see anything but some coast guard duties for the navy's and see what happens on shore. I believe the new president just received some thing like $230 million to help.
Check out the link below there is some interesting reading.
Piracy in Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia)
PS Its nice to see another non liberal here in Mass.;)

[GI-Gizmo]

The September issue of National Geographic has a great 30 page feature
on the failed state of Somalia. It focuses on the seperatist Somaliland in the
North which is thriving and stable compared to Somalia. The article is well written by two journalists who recap their recent visit to the area. They showcase the everyday life of normal people who are suffering horribly because of their surroundings, the history of Somalia going back to colonial times, through the period of dictatorship, into the civil war and famine of recent times and into the present day. It is the NatGeo issue, September 2009, with the picture of Manhatten and the title 'Before New York' on the cover, on the bottom left it says 'Somalia: The Number One Failed Nation'.
I bought the issue yesterday to bring to the beach with me to read and it was so interesting that I ended up reading it again today. I highly recommend that anybody with any interest in the subject buys the issue. :)

[Duffy]

The September issue of National Geographic has a great 30 page feature
on the failed state of Somalia. It focuses on the seperatist Somaliland in the
North which is thriving and stable compared to Somalia. The article is well written by two journalists who recap their recent visit to the area. They showcase the everyday life of normal people who are suffering horribly because of their surroundings, the history of Somalia going back to colonial times, through the period of dictatorship, into the civil war and famine of recent times and into the present day. It is the NatGeo issue, September 2009, with the picture of Manhatten and the title 'Before New York' on the cover, on the bottom left it says 'Somalia: The Number One Failed Nation'.
I bought the issue yesterday to bring to the beach with me to read and it was so interesting that I ended up reading it again today. I highly recommend that anybody with any interest in the subject buys the issue. :)

Thanks Gi-Gizmo sounds like an interesting read. There are few country's that have witnessed the blood shed that Somalia especially for that long.

[stoker]

It's a matter of fact that Somalia is a failed state. The question is: who wants to put it back on track? UN mission in the '90 was a mess, same for the US sponsored intervention (remember Black Hawk down?); locals are oppressed by ghost government, warlords and so called Islamic courts, no surprise that there is a massive emigration form the area.
Who wants to pay the bill for such an action?
We're talking about a 10 years or more intervention, with plenty of troops and tech to be deployed.

A UN sponsored intervention force would be the only politically acceptable way for any peace keeping force to be inserted in to Somalia.

The best way to select a peace keeping force that would be acceptable to Somalian citizens would be to form this "Army/Police Force' would be to select this Force only from the young Somalia men (and women) who are part of the massive emigration that has fled from Somalia to the West.

I am trying to select my words very careful here because of the peceived perception of racism could very easily be thrown at this idea.

Its is NOT my intention to be seen as being racist in only selecting Somalian refugees as the only possible source of an Intervention Para-military Force under UN command and control, because the fractured state of the tribal/clan groups that make up what we call Somalia have no cohesion as a national group at all, and they all basically hate and distrust ALL outsiders.

This distrust and hatred of the West was most apparent in our last attempt of an intervention.

Fellow native born Somalians under UN control working alongside what passes as the Somalian government, to eliminate the insurgents that are bent on destroying the present Goverment any forcing their fundamentalist religous dictatorship on all Somalian citizen, would be the only way for Somalians to accept and trust as a peace keeping Forces that are genuinely there to safeguard and protect fellow Somalians.

Somalia at the moment is a terrible mess that is not going to go away, either we do something drastic to halt this carnage, or we wash our hands of the whole mess and let the carnage to carry on and gradually destroy the whole fabric of what passes as the Somalian population.

Waba

[Duffy]

It is hard posting on a world wide forum with out offending some one.Perception vary greatly. Sound like a good idea but a few problems come to mind. How many of the refugees do you think would be willing to go back and kill fellow Somalis.Thats a lot to ask of any one. This hole mess is more about power than race or religion, Both do play a small roll. For there to be a central governing body all tribal/clans will have to give up a considerable amount of power. I don't see that without blood shed
If any one plans on putting any type of forces on the ground it will have to be a swift and aggressive. action. The United Nations is simply not capable of this type of action. I do agree that training refugees for the longer term police action makes sense. But some one has to take control first. Who is the question?
To much is read into the "fundamentalist and insurgent" part of this. Look at any county in turmoil and you will find religious fanatics of all flavors. The new President was the Commander and Chief of the parent group (ICU) that most of the existing spawn from. The word insurgent is perceived as foreign militants fighting for religion agent a government . (An insurgent is anyone rising in opposition to lawful authority). Something that happens daily in all country's.But it paints a grim picture in the media.
Time will tell if the new government can get a handle on whats happing. The UN will not, and can not, do anything but sit around and talk about what to do.The only county willing to go in is Ethiopia, and thats the last country Somalia wants involved.
I think at this stage the only thing we can do is sit back and "wash or hands of the hole mess". If the government thats in place cant at least stabilize the state there will be few options left. None are good for Somalia as a state.


.