About f***ing time.

Maybe more ships need to hire armed, private guards. The Somali pirates attack ships because (until now) they could do so without fear of being killed. Once merchants start killing them, they'll stop.

It's about time we got into the action.

I mean, seriously. If France has a naval force fighting Somali pirates--and succeeding--we look pretty piss poor if we don't get stuck in.

Fortunately, someone else came to that conclusion, too.

I can't believe it!

Not only does France have at least one working naval vessel, but it actually didn't surrender when it came face to face with a Somali pirate vessel!

Good for them! Maybe the success, small though it was, can help France's armed forces learn to grow a pair.

Anything you can do, I can do better...

China recently announced that it would be sending naval vessels to the Gulf of Aden to protect its shipping interests from the Somali pirates. The ships should depart before the end of the month.

Japan just announced that they'd be sending naval vessels to the Gulf of Aden to protect its shipping interests from the Somali pirates. No Japanese vessels have yet been taken, but three have been shot at.

Does anyone else see a case of oneupsmanship here?

At least someone's doing something.

China is putting together an anti-piracy fleet.

The lesson to be taken from this is that it's best to be willing to act with or without U.N./NATO sanction.

We all know what the answer to this is going to be...

The United States is asking the UN for permission to go after the Somali pirates on land.

The UN disapproves of us hunting pirates in international waters. What makes our government think they'll give us permission (that we don't really need) to hunt the pirates on land?

Can't tolerate them. Can't hang them. What then?

Well, according to international law, should we encounter pirates in international waters, we can engage them with any type of force we choose. International law and the U.N. discourage ships and ships' crews from carrying weapons, however. So what do we do?

How about seeding the area with UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles? It avoids the whole "you shouldn't carry guns on your ships because guns are bad" argument.

On the other hand, it does have us policing things we shouldn't have to. There are times when I think Kipling was bitter toward his own government, rather than racist (as he has been read by post-modern anti-imperialist literary theorists because of this piece, which seems, in my opinion, to have the most anger. I think he went native--but that's a post for another time, and only if you're interested in reading it). Oh, yes, Kipling was bitter about the British army being expected to police the world--and I can understand and sympathize.

Proof that NATO has passed its expiration date

World shipping leaders have called for one good way to cut the piracy around Somalia: blockade the coast to prevent the pirates from making it out of the national waters.

NATO has, of course, rejected the idea.

Makes me wonder if some of those millions the Somali pirates have already made has been funneled into member nations' pockets.

Crow's cages would work.

The world is still confused about what to do about the situation in the Gulf of Aden. The best solution merchant fleets can come up with is to avoid the problem.

And there is no doubt that the Somali pirates are a problem.

Update: Now, that's what I'm talking about!

Jefferson had a good answer for this with the way he dealt with the Barbary Coast.

The pirates around Somalia have been much in the news, lately; recent stories have told readers that the pirates have released a Thai vessel whose ransom had been paid, and that the world at large has no idea how to handle the problem.

I have a suggestion.

After America won Independence, we faced an issue from which we'd been sheltered before, first by the British navy, then, during the war, the French: the pirates of the Barbary Coast. The pirates demanded a yearly payment, or else they'd take ships for ransome, or maybe sell their crews into slavery.

From the first, Jefferson advocated fighting: he attempted to put together America's first coallition of the willing to take on the pirates. He failed, not least because America's presidents prefered to pay the tribute.

In short, once Jefferson got into office, he carried out his plan unilaterally: he sent our navy to the Barbary Coast to rescue the sailors from a taken vessel, which had been burned by one of its officers rather than allow it to fall into the pirates' hands. The marines aboard fought hard, and all the way to the palace in the middle of town (hence, the line, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine's Hymn).

Thus, the threat to American shipping was broken.

Thus, someone should do with (and to) the Somali pirates.

Heh. Good luck getting that done.