The U.S. should attack the pirate bases in Somalia.

The U.S. is currently involved in two wars overseas. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left us overextended, and in massive debt. The last thing America needs is more debt. There are five solutions that make much more sense than actually attacking Somali pirate bases. They include: 1) Onboard deterrents are far and away the most effective to combat piracy. Different ships have been using different deterrents from keeping the pirates away. Simple methods include fire hoses, deck patrols, and sometimes even carpet tacks. An advanced technique deployed by some ships is a non-lethal electric siren with a loudspeaker system that produces a sound so excruciating that it keeps the pirates away. However, almost all ships do not arm their crews; they do this because the crew members are untrained for the most part, because the captains are afraid of mutiny, and because the ship owners are afraid of being sued for the actions of the crew. The few ships that are smart enough to properly equip their ships with firearms or private guards do not and will not get attacked. Blackwater, a private security contractor, has even made available a ship to escort cargo ships through the Gulf of Aden, which no companies have used as of January 2009. The shipping industry has been calling on the world's navies to help them out, while most have failed to help themselves out. Properly armed ships are crucial to combating privacy, and could easily defeat, or maybe even eliminate piracy in the Gulf of Aden. 2) Naval deployments are also an effective way to combat piracy. More than a dozen countries, including Russia, France, the U.K., India, China, and the U.S. have all sent warships of their own to fight piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Two multinational anti-piracy patrols are also helping out; they include the E.U.'s military operation, EU NAVFOR, and Combined Task Force 150, a multinational naval coalition. The U.S. has set up a new task force, called Combined Task Force 151, in January 2009 which will partner up with Eastern Navies in counter-piracy missions. Navies have been proven as successful deterrents to combat piracy. While 40% of attacks were successful in 2008, a ramped up navy presence has led to a 23% success rate in 2009. (1) However, when navies leave areas, those pockets become susceptible to piracy again. More navies from around the world, not just the U.S., will help lead to a safer travel route through the Gulf of Aden. 3) The industrialized countries with strong navies could help regional countries set up anti-piracy patrols as well. East African and Middle Eastern countries patrolling the Gulf of Aden would be similar to the work being done in Southeast Asia. The countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand have teamed up to patrol the Malacca Straight and drive away pirates. The teamwork in Southeast Asia has been highly successful. Regional anti-piracy patrols would work greatly to deter piracy in the Gulf of Aden. (2) 4) Establishing a Somali coast guard is another option, while much more complex than the other three. A coast guard for Somalia initially run by the Africa Union or the U.N. would present great challenges, but could prove to be successful. Finding and training qualified individuals would be one problem, and figuring out how to hand over the coast guard to the corrupt Somali government would be an even bigger problem. The coast guard could be funded by a mandatory tax by the U.N. on shipping companies if the shipping companies refuse to properly equip their ships. (3) 5) Going after the investors instead of going after the pirates is another idea. A Reuter's article quoting a senior U.S. defense official, "the United States ha[s] gained a greater understanding in recent months of how pirate operations were financed using a model adapted from camel raiding. Investors funded the raids and provided money to supply the pirates and their captives while the hijacked vessels were held close to shore and ransom talks took place, the official said. "One of the ways to impact (the problem) is to go after the investors," the official said. "There's not that many of them ... They're probably moving around in major capitals -- Europe, the Middle East."" (4) The idea of attacking/bombing the Somali pirate bases off the face of the earth is unrealistic. "The idea that you are going to bomb the pirates into the Stone Age is completely naive and it won't work," said Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who has traveled extensively in the region. "It is a much broader problem that has to do with Somalia itself." (5) Many of the pirates are young men recruited from the local militias, where risk is very, very high and pay is very, very low. People are killed in Africa every day; from war, disease, and many other causes. The idea that attacks or bombings would crush the will of the pirates is ridiculous. Sugule Ali, the spokesman for the Somali pirates holding hostage the Faina said in an interview with a New York Times journalist, "We're not afraid of arrest or death or any of these things. For us, hunger is our enemy" (6) Even if pirates were killed in the attacks, more would be recruited and more would join. Young men would surely love a chance to make thousands of dollars in one day when they only have a chance to make a few dollars through the whole year. And the pirates live in villages with innocent civilians, who would surely be killed in the bombings. The killings of innocent civilians would surely help the recruiting efforts of Somalia's al-Shabaab group, an Islamic militant group which has relations with al-Qaeda. The innocent civilians do not deserve that. Attacking Somali pirate bases would only reap negative affects, such as more American animosity, and most likely even more pirate and terrorist recruitment. The past failures in Somalia have indicated that any military attack will not work. The ‘Black Hawk Down' incident at the Battle of Mogadishu is the most outstanding evidence of what can go wrong. 18 mutilated U.S. soldiers were paraded through the streets of Somalia after being shot down by Somali rebels. To intervene in Darfur is to destroy the importance of the Treaty or Peace of Westphalia that has successfully governed the world since 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia has been the guiding document on basic principles of state sovereignty for over 450 years. Simply discarding the Treaty sets up a very dangerous precedent on the future of state sovereignty. Is it fair for the U.S. to decide that using military action against Somalia is ok; but also decide that Russia invading Georgia to protect the people of South Ossetia is wrong? Of course it is wrong, and it is incredibly hypocritical. (7) -----SOURCES----- (1) http://gcaptain.com... (2) http://www.iiss.org... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (4) http://www.reuters.com... (5) http://www.boston.com... (6) http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com... (7) http://plato.stanford.edu...