Charlie Rose

ShalomFreedman  04/21/2009 08:41 PM Report

This was a truly fine discussion. Exum's explanation of the operational aspect was clear and convincing. Kaplan's knowledge not only of the region but of the parameters involved in various kinds of conflict added an additional dimension of interest to the discussion.

Kaplan's point that a coalition of forces is easier in a sea- operation than a land- one points to the way for U.S. action in the future.

JBoss  04/20/2009 06:13 PM Report

The capabilities of a German u boat crew to the pirates by any comparison is absurd. Look at the tonnage of the vessels lost in WW2, also how many combat vessels have been captured by the pirates or for that matter even assaulted. I also made no references to escort duties. In actuality I believe a strong mobile force, of small vessels with support from a permanently stationed; slimmed down and trimmed, battle group. The distinction between the vessels the pirates maintain is easily recognized from the merchant vessels (they stick out like a sore thumb). We also are familiar with the locations at which the pirates have there bases and friendly ports from which to launch. Easily recognizable targets at several but specific location should only cause our ships to consolidate force not protection. A few rounds fired across the bow of a target leaving a hostile port would in my opinion be much more successful and long term. My example is more like a cop patrolling areas saturated with drugs, You see them you get them and move to the next bust.Not escort groups through the area for safety.

Also to hrc; a good book about the subject

"Party politics: Why we have poor presidents"

by Leonard Lurie

hrc  04/20/2009 12:19 PM Report

In America we appoint pirates to cabinet positions, no trials or shooting and stuff like that.

cenneth  04/17/2009 11:52 PM Report

Pirates are pirates. The solution now is the same as it ever has been; shoot them. You see, when this happens consistently enough, they tend to quit. It is mainly a risk vs. reward equation, when the risk grows too great, the reward is no longer worth it. This is the _one_ approach that has worked in the past.

Netsbridge  04/17/2009 05:27 PM Report

Somali piracy which began in the early 2000s is in fact Somalis effort to deter illegal dumping and fishing. It is no secret that the US (the major exporter of toxic wastes) and some European nations to prefer to use “third world” nations as dumpsites for harmful wastes that they would not bury in their own nations. Until 1995 when the Basel Convention was ratified, making it illegal to dump toxic waste in developing nations, several “developed” nations dumped and continue to dump their untreated toxic wastes in developing nations; most in Africa. Unfortunately, even when the governments of developing nations under the original Basel Convention could accept toxic wastes, some willingly accepted without knowing the contents (seeing some were sent under false labels).

There are International laws that govern activities in the high seas inside and beyond the jurisdiction of Coastal Nations/Countries:

UNCLOS Article 101(a)(ii);

UNCLOS Article 228;

UNGA Resolution 44/225;

UN Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment;

The Bamako Convention

While these laws are expected to be implemented by the various nations, some nations and people often exempt themselves from those portions that do not please them; such as in the case of Taiwanese Chai Ding Bong who claimed “nobody has the right to tell you what you can do in International waters.”

Driven by a Self-Defense doctrine, the International protective principle and the precautionary principle give coastal nations not only the power, but the obligation to take affirmative actions to prevent people from degrading world marine resources. Accordingly, nations whose resources are threatened by illegal fishing, dumping and pollution have the right under both the protective and precautionary principles to take action!

In the past, the US, Soviet Union and others have seized vessels and/or arrested violators operating within their high seas jurisdiction. These considered, it appears the Somali "pirates" are acting in accordance with international laws!

A vessel just does not go in the high seas jurisdiction of another nation for covert activities (especially if its flag nation is noted for violations), unless of course when in distress – in which case, the trespasser will have to bear the burden of proof. Some nations, such as the US, even have national rules governing activities in the high seas for their coastal states for those portions of the high seas considered the territory of a US state. Please see Oregon’s ORS chapter 509.365 and ORS 509.015.

Lack of respect for others and disregard for the rights of others in their territories appear to be the major problem in most of our International disputes. If only we will all learn to respect others and their rights, we may all begin to live in harmony! Show respect or keep out!

Oh, thanks Guillermoramirez, for having commonsense and showing sound logic! I guess some people just do not get it!

bg6  04/15/2009 11:08 PM Report

I don't think the comparison is silly at all. The situation is very similar. Pirates want the same thing that the U-boats did in the past: an ocean full of helpless merchants to be taken out at will. The convoy system deprives them of this. The ships are harder to find and they have help minutes away, not hours or days. Pirate speedboats are quite vulnerable, I think. They tend to turn back at the sight of even helicopters. Patrol boats? fine but that's years away. We need a solution now with the resources we have already.

The question, I agree, is the economic interests of shipping companies. At some point the companies need to face some scruitany for treating ransoms as the cost of doing buisness when in fact they are feeding a global security problem. However, there has been discussion of routing shipping around Africa and a convoy system is clearly a cheaper alternative. If the companies are being hurt by piracy enough to consider going around Africa, then I think they will go along.

guillermoramirez  04/15/2009 05:34 PM Report

Killing three undernourished, uneducated, hopeless African men is not a military victory. However, an entire generation of young men in that region do fit the above characteristics and they are not going away. The U.S. government is always ready and willing to give away the treasury gold to Wall Street Pirates holding the entire U.S population hostage. Small time pirates only rate lead.

bratschekind  04/15/2009 02:36 PM Report

JBoss, you're proposing military escorts which is what convoys provided. I'm not taking any position as to the wisdom of convoys, but why do you feel that it is preferable or more efficient to escort ships individually rather than in a group or convoy?

JBoss  04/15/2009 12:29 PM Report

The convoy system was a very well planned protection throughout the world wars , but it is a little silly to compare German U boats and Japenese naval forces to Somali pirates. The pirates use small gunships(more like armed rafts) based from larger motherships to strike out at near by merchant vessals. Considering the buisness side of managing the pirates, the convoy system is not a reasonable solution for the merchant shippers flowing in and out of the area at great or at least regular frequency. I believe a much more sensable solution would be to resurect our speedboat/P.T. fleet. Actually similar to the pirates methods itself: small ,fast ,mobile gunships based out of a battle group of destroyers with support ships. This would give us the capablities of quick response and the cost to provide this kind of support is substantialy less than the convoy system.It would also protect the precious bottom line of the shipping industry straining in an already declining new world economy

Left_Flank  04/15/2009 01:04 AM Report

Never let Kaplan talk if there's another commentator. Exum should ask for a show of his own.

bratschekind  04/15/2009 12:24 AM Report

Charlie Rose: “What does this do for the president’s standing in the world in terms of anybody who might have had any question about his instinct to use appropriate force?

Robert Kaplan: “I think it really boosts his standing tremendously... over not being strong on national security.”

Is that supposed to be a joke? The seals did a fantastic job, but shooting three untrained, teenage, freelance pirates in the head is going to boost Obama’s standing on national security? I’m sure Al Qaeda, Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad suddenly view Obama with great fear. Right! I applaud Obama and the military for the success of the mission but how about a little proportionality? I think he's got a ways to before we declare him a great war time president like Roosevelt.

REMant  04/15/2009 12:10 AM Report

All I think that needs to be done, aside from finding and destroying what I understand are mother ships taking the pirates out to sea, is to place weapons and troops on the ships passing this region, and/or convoy and escort them, just as was done in WWII. These need not be permanent and it surely will not cause any escalation in tactics, as is alleged, and even if it did, what difference would it make? On the other hand, the 1st world should reflect on what had brought Somolians to this pass.

tartufe  04/14/2009 10:04 PM Report

FBI is considering investigating the pirate situation. DUH? These heroes will consider Somali pirates but ignore the financial pirates at Citigroup et al. With priorities like this we deserve the financial chaos and world condemnation being meted out.

Convoys a thought but shouldn't be used on American ships alone, lest they embellish US flagships as a more rewarding target.

Funny. When you weigh financial consequences anymore they're diminished against what our on homegrown pirates have looted. Tillions here, there. It's real money reduced to Monopoly money. So insurance companies have to shell out peanuts (relatively), I don't care. So Ahmed - the Somali - has a yacht as big as Bobby Rubins. Both equally earned and deserved as mush as the other. Well maybe something a little more honest and forthright about Ahmed's. No complicit laws passed aforehand. Just straight piracy on the high seas. Admirable by comparison.

bg6  04/14/2009 09:01 PM Report

It seems to me that the problem of defending a merchant fleet from attack was solved rather well during the World Wars and I see much in common with the U-boat threat of past. The take home message was that it's pointless to "patrol" hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean with so few destroyers. The solution then, as I believe it is now, was to implement a convoy system, and just as hesitation to do so in the past proved to be very costly, so it is now.

Convoys make ships harder to find and they are a more efficient use of escorts since they would now have to patrol only around the convoys instead of vast expanses of the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean. I believe that they make economic sense as well (unless of course the shipping companies are purposely trying to exploit the situation to increase prices, which is possible). Yes, it will add time and some expense since ships might have to wait for the next convoy. But I doubt that it would amount to the two weeks needed to go all the way around Africa. Also, we’re already paying for the warships in the region anyway, we just need to use them better. I say, implement a voluntary convoy system and see if pressure from insurance companies will get the shipping companies to go along.

I am saddened that the notion of air strikes on pirate shore installations received consideration while convoys received none. I think air strikes are a very bad idea. At best they will be an annoyance that destroys some dock structures that can be rebuilt in a few weeks while encouraging the pirates’ defiance. At worst, they will kill hostages and civilians, or otherwise contribute to global anti-Americanism. Likewise, I think that arming merchant ships themselves with guards, etc. will only escalate violence, but at least this probably will not happen anyway since it increases the liability of shipping companies too much.

The notion of air strikes leads me to believe that a convoy solution isn’t being considered simply because it is of a defensive mindset, whereas the national security groupthink still insists on power-projection and maximizing use of force. As if, if we only killed enough pirates, destroyed enough docks and boats, etc. the problem will simply go away. When has this worked in the recent past? I think that all we really need to do to discourage piracy is to take a big chunk out of their profit margin. And I think that a convoy system around the Horn of Africa is a good solution to consider.