Let us thank the Somali pirates

American Thinker ^ | April 11, 2009 | James Lewis

[xone]

fentanyl

Use BZ instead. Unfortunately it is likely that the effects must be instantaneous so lead is the only option. Sink the boat and put them all in the water.

[freeangel]

Hey—0 never said he wanted the US to play at being the world cop—as far as he’s concerned, as long as he can have his pizza flown in, all that the world can count on from him is to vote “present”.

[JimRed]

Flip the flipping lifeboat...

This is a covered, self-righting lifeboat; it won't stay flipped. It can be sealed watertight unless damaged.

[upcountryhorseman]

It seems that the pirates now think american ships are
“easy pickens”.

[pillut48]

Somehow the captain escaped, if only for a few seconds...that’s when the Seals should have gone in, turned over the boat and let it fill with water—stupid HOLYO tying the hands of the USN!!!! >:-(

[JohnBovenmyer]

Likely the results must be nearly instantaneous. In a prolonged standoff like this its unlikely there will literally be a finger on the trigger, safety off, pointed at him 24-7. Fatigue will be a factor. If you can get surprise you may have a couple seconds. IIRC there weren't many hostages shot by terrorists in Moscow after the fentanyl, but there were more cases of respiratory arrest than they could handle at once. The Russians must have done a thorough analysis of their actions which should help determine whether such tactics are feasible here. If the pirates are all sealed inside the lifeboat then they have limited situational awareness making surprise easier to obtain. Another thing that crosses my mind is the IR devices cops use to see into drug houses before raids. I wonder if they could 'see' the 5 inside and somehow deduce who was the prisoner. If so, I wonder if the accuracy shooting through the lifeboat would be sufficient for an assault. I would hope that the generalities of such hostage circumstances had been gamed out by SEALs, etc. a long time ago and that the specifics of this had been promptly looked at by those in the know. If, as is likely, there is no 'good' option they should at least be able to advise on the best timing and circumstances for "not so good options" and have the ships OR and transportation ready for fast action.

The problem with the big picture is all the media nonsense over "saving every hostage." They never say that they are talking about saving every current hostage, but are completely discounting the value of the future hostages the pirates will take if not stopped. There is no family or media outlet whining about those not yet taken, but they will certainly greatly outnumber the current crop if the status quo is allowed to remain or likely grow through inaction. The world needs some statesman to stand up and say we will not sacrifice the many, in the future, for the few, in the present. Pay their ransom demands in ordinance specially delivered to those they care about. They don't worry about threatening our killing our men, women and children. We should care no more about theirs. And we should declare any lawyers, courts and special interest groups that act in their defense are also hostis humani generis and treat them accordingly. It's the only solution to this common problem that has ever worked. But since the sensibilities of our Dour Leader don't allow for such common sense as my fallback liberal position we should pre-position trained pirate negotiating teams of AmeriCorps volunteers on all ships transitioning the area. At least their side would be at risk instead of hogtied conservatives in the military.

[Marine_Uncle]

As some have indicated, the vessel the captain is being retained does not provide a means of a sniper crew from picking off the four or whatever goons simultaneously.
It appears if they are all sitting inside a metal clad haul there is little we can do to free the captain without the risk of him being killed.
But that should not prevent the world community from realizing it is time to armed their ships. One cannot use the excuse of cost additions. In fact if I where a Insurance company I would set a huge additional premium for any ship that did not have a few 50 cal. mounts, or more installed and have able bodied men capable of defending the vessels.

[gleeaikin]

Could someone please explain why merchant ships are not allowed to carry small arms, flash bangs, tear gas and the like to defend themselves?

[JohnBovenmyer]

I've seen several reasons offered, in no particular order:

1. Owners fear liability if anyone/anything is shot.
2. Many ports won't let in private ships carrying arms greater than a shotgun.
3. Sailors fear bad guys will be harder on them if they resist unsuccessfully.
4. The sailors still are paid while being held captive and expect to be ransomed so see no good reason to risk a good fight.
5. The sailors and merchant vessels don't see fighting piracy as their job.

The first needs legal reforms, although I'm not holding my breath waiting for them. The second needs local legal reforms, which could be encouraged if ships started skipping their ports. I suspect those laws could be fixed if we had a real American State Department. The third and fourth require education of the sailors and, alas, for the pirates to show their true colors rather act like vacation resort hosts to those captured. Up to a point they are right on the last point. Their governments are supposed to protect them, but currently are doing a better job protecting the pirates.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[gleeaikin]

Well, it looks like the Obama has some bite after all, since the captain is rescued and 3 pirates dead.

JB, thanks for the explanation; and MU, thanks for the analysis.

[Marine_Uncle]

We should always give credit where credit is due. And Zero actually did the right thing this time around. Surely he was encouraged by our military and some Intel folks to take the course he gave thumbs up to.