In the old days the naval commander in the vicinity would be allowed (and expected) to burn the pirate sheltering port down to the ground.
“...burn the pirate sheltering port down to the ground.”
That’s the missing linkage. Any port that shelters pirates is either governed by a criminal regime that gives shelter to pirates or is governed by the pirates themselves.
The other President who refused to save American lives was named Clinton.
‘Motivated by million-dollar ransoms, pirates have become increasingly bold in their attacks despite a flotilla of international warships patrolling the waters off East Africa. The last time pirates kidnapped a U.S. citizen — during the 2009 hijacking of the Maersk Alabama — Navy sharpshooters killed two pirates and rescued the ship's captain.
But Tuesday's bloody events are apt to leave U.S. military planners in a quandary: Do they go after the pirates harder? Do they attack their bases on Somalia's ungoverned shores? One maritime expert said it's too early to tell.’
To early to tell...Hmmm. For months we have been told that the pirate threat was overdone (U S Naval Institute Proceedings has printed several articles to this effect.) All we needed to do was keep our cool and law enforcement responses would be effective. Also they keep saying that pirates would keep to using small vessels and be only a local problem. Since the pirates have shown what they think of the law enforcement response how long is before they start experimenting with using bigger vessels and operating further off shore? The only way the Barbary pirates were completely shut down was because France invaded Algeria in 1830 and conquered the cities on the coast. Even the large scale raid on Algiers in 1816 by an Anglo-Dutch task force only put a dent of a few years in these rovers activities. What now about Somalia?