Sunday, April 12, 2009
President Obama and the rescue
Without wanting to step on the first rescue post and the thread below, I think it is worthwhile to focus briefly on the narrow issue of when and what President Obama did or did not do, and whether his conduct warrants some acknowledgment ("tip o' the hat," or "kudos"), begrudging or otherwise.
As commenter Dawnfire82 has already linked to below, the AP is reporting that President "Obama twice approved force to rescue hostage:"
"President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration officials said after Sunday's rescue.
"The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast."
The requests can be seen as "pressure on the POTUS to act" as commenter JPMcT states in the thread below, or "tardy" with respect to the timing of the first permission to use force around 8:00 PM Friday night, as commenter Dawnfire82 states, but the bottom line is that permission to use force was granted, and the situation was favorably resolved in what amounts to five days time (from the taking of the Maersk Alabama to the rescue of Captain Phillips.)
The military, especially JSOC, is usually pretty good about following orders and not acting without specific authorization, understanding that it wants as much discretionary authority in the hands of commanders on the scene as is prudent. Such discretion was asked for, granted and used in this case. Based on what we know to this point, it sounds like the chain of command worked as it should.
If you are skeptical of the president's ability to act decisively to use military force, even in a very limited way, this episode should give you some degree of comfort. As CINC, he provided the necessary authorization and let the U.S. Navy and the SEALs take care of the heavy lifting. In my view, President Obama made the correct decision to authorize the use of military force.
The Maersk Alabama incident is over five days after it started, with the authorization to use force given two or three days after the taking of the ship. By comparison, the Iranian Hostage Crisis went on for nearly six months before the unsuccessful Operation Eagle Claw was given a green light. I doubt that Secretary Clinton will resign in protest now, the way Secretary of State Cyrus Vance did in 1980 (to protest the launching of the rescue mission.) I don't mean to damn by faint praise, but President Obama has a better understanding of both the real consequences and the politics of such situations than did President Carter.
38 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Apr 12, 10:04:00 PM:
"Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan." We've all heard that quote before.
From Armed Forces News Service, 12 Apr 09:
QUOTE:
President Barack Obama praised the U.S. military’s rescue of the kidnapped captain of the Maersk-Alabama cargo ship on the waters off the coast of Somalia today.
U.S. naval forces freed Capt. Richard Phillips five days after Somali pirates took him hostage.
“I am very pleased that Captain Phillips has been rescued and is safely on board the USS Boxer,” Obama said in a White House statement. “His safety has been our principal concern, and I know this is a welcome relief to his family and his crew.
“I am also very proud of the efforts of the US military and many other departments and agencies who worked tirelessly to secure Captain Phillips’ safe recovery,” he said. “I share the country’s admiration for the bravery of captain Phillips and his selfless concern for his crew. His courage is a model for all Americans.”
END QUOTE.
Story link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53899
By CDR J, at
Sun Apr 12, 10:37:00 PM:
The authorization to use military force should be a standing order in the case that an American flagged vessel or a vessel with an American crew is taken by pirates. The fact that it took several days to authorize it is shameful.
Yes, Obama is a little better than Jimmy Carter (but then, who isn't?). But this is not a real crisis -there was only one American held hostage, rather than almost the entire staff of an embassy.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sun Apr 12, 10:51:00 PM:
Jesus you morons just are never happy. Before 1/20 you couldn't have given a darn about these pirates, did you? They might as well have been Johnny Depp on the Black Pearl. Well, time for new talking points, boys. Move on to the next lunatic issue. Isn't there a "grassroots" Tea party to plan? Some pre-drafted denials when the eventual assassination attempt comes from yet another gun nut?
This crap on the Horn isn't like Tripoli in 1804 with Decatur and O'Bannion, or "Pedicaris Alive or Razuli Dead" from The Wind and The Lion, but you already knew that. You needed some nonsensical hook. Well now it's over.
Please move on. I can only ask you you move on, fellas, because asking you to wise up, adapt, find common ground is a fool's errand. Like Reconstruction.
Pardon the venom tonight but my Easter dinner's repeating on me and I have houseful of kids right now who refuse to sleep...
By Deplorable Dave, at
Sun Apr 12, 11:05:00 PM:
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Apr 12, 11:07:00 PM:
CC: "Before 1/20 you couldn't have given a darn about these pirates, did you?"
I've been covering Somali pirates on by blog for more than 23 months, CC. Why? As an international businessman, I knew that the situation would mushroom into a major problem.
By JM Hanes, at
Sun Apr 12, 11:13:00 PM:
Apologies if this is a double post -- got a bizarre dialogue window first time around.
I'm not so sure about the comfort factor. If imminence now means waiting till you can actually see a pirate aiming his a gun at a victim's head, and then hoping your sniper not only has a shot but can pull his trigger faster than the miscreant, I'd say the terms of engagement have been defined almost out of existence. I'd have said Captain Phillips was in imminent danger when he first set foot on the lifeboat.
It's a testament to Navy preparedness that they had someone of extraordinary skill positioned to respond to a split-second decision -- especially when you factor in the twofold moving platforms. Am I really supposed to be heaving a sigh of relief that the President didn't tell the Navy to do nothing, but just next to nothing?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Apr 12, 11:31:00 PM:
The Somali piracy problem will get worse. The Suez Canal makes Somalia one of the two best spots in the world to prey on international shipping. The other spot is the Strait of Malacca, between Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia
By 
, at
Mon Apr 13, 12:24:00 AM:
Let me just suggest that if the Maersk Alabama had a couple of Fifty Caliber Machine guns on board and some folks with the skill to use them, this incident would have ended much earlier. Though I am happy enough that it ended the way that it did.
But for Heaven's sake the ship was taken by four guys in a dinghy with AK's and a grappeling hook...
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Apr 13, 12:47:00 AM:
Here's a NY Times piece about arming crews, Anonymous @ 12:24 a.m.:
Headline: "Rescue Fuels Debate Over Arming Crews."
In a nutshell: "Many ship owners are reluctant to allow weapons, fearing their crews will be killed if they try to fight."
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html
By JPMcT, at
Mon Apr 13, 07:29:00 AM:
Let me simplify my syntax so that even Mr. Chambers can understand it. The rest of you bear with me.
This was the FIRST US flagged ship attacked by Somali pirates.
The fact that they were willing to attack a US flagged ship NOW, rather than over the past several years, says something about perceptions of US military resolve (sorry for the big words, CC, I can't help myself...)
It called for a firm, decisive and painful response....not just cutting the pirates an insurance check, as the Euro's have been doing to the tune of over 30 million dollars this year alone.
The response was appropriate and painful, but tentative.
Obama is in the right ballpark, but he didn't hit a home run.
His kudos to the military in the White House statement was tepid. Big surprise...
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 07:31:00 AM:
Link:
Monday morning quaterbacking.
I would have had a Navy Seal plant a few charges under the dinghy .. enough to sink it. Could have been done days ago. Wouldn't that have done the trick?
By Diogenes, at
Mon Apr 13, 08:40:00 AM:
Agreed. It should have been a standing order.
The fact that two requests were made suggests Obama's micromanagement or confusion on the subject of terrorism.
The fact this is the first time pirates attacked an American flagged ship shows what they expected from our leadership, sympathy and retreat.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 09:41:00 AM:
E81 is certainly free to draw any conclusion he wishes, but from the facts so far I think this conclusion seems nothing more than a wish: "If you are skeptical of the president's ability to act decisively to use military force, even in a very limited way, this episode should give you some degree of comfort. As CINC, he provided the necessary authorization and let the U.S. Navy and the SEALs take care of the heavy lifting."
The DOD release DEC linked to in the earlier thread, where this very same question was being debated, said clearly that the President had no say whatsoever in the decision to attack. The President gave clear orders that the pirates were to be attacked if (and, presumably, only if) Captain Phillips life were to be placed in "imminent danger".
If it were me in charge on scene I would have interpreted that phrase broadly in this instance, as in "he's a prisoner of desperate, armed men and is obviously in imminent danger. I must take action and save him". The Navy, however, interpreted the phrasing very differently, presumably reflecting an understanding of the administration's intended nuance not clear without more facts. The Navy believed their orders dictated waiting until they could clearly see a gun raised to his back by a pirate ready to fire. That seems very different than your very much to be wished for conclusion, E81.
DEC's link from the prior thread
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:13:00 AM:
Even the Darfur Times says the President was a reluctant stick-in-the-mud, who forced the Navy into a bad choice:
"The Defense Department twice sought Mr. Obama’s permission to use force to rescue Captain Phillips, most recently on Friday night, senior defense officials said. On Saturday morning, the president agreed, they said, if it appeared that the captain’s life was in imminent danger."
E81 would have us think the President "twice approved force" to rescue the good Captain. The Times says otherwise. He would have us conclude the President should be congratulated for approving the use of force, when it seems clear, even from the Times article, that he did no such thing. The Navy was forced by the President not to act except and until Captain Phillips life was about to be taken away. Not reassuring.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:13:00 AM:
Hey, he's learning; it's on the job training. However you slice it, Obama ordered the summary execution of three muslim terrorists, enemies of the US.
He didn't talk, he didn't invite them over to play with the puppy, he had them killed, just as they deserved. All in all, it was very Husseinish of Obama!
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:27:00 AM:
You've misread: He absolutely did not "order the summary execution of three muslim terrorists". Just the opposite, he ordered inaction.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:36:00 AM:
Let's all take a deep breath here....no doubt, there will be lot of details to come about this incident. Before we give this "affirmative action" president a gold star for doing the right thing, let's see what realy happened. And anyway, isn't POTUS SUPPOSED to do the right thing? (although it seems rare with this one.)
Now a hypothetical: if a terrorist has an AK-47 pointed at you, when should you consider this a "lethal threat" and use the president's permission to act.....?
A. After he/she slides the bolt..
B. After he/she takes aim.....
C. After he/she kills you......
Splitting these hairs is "above my pay grade".
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:37:00 AM:
Just to be clear, though, I'm all in favor of giving President Obama congratulations for being President when the Navy decided to save Captain Phillips' life. I prefer to think of it as a teaching moment, just as you suggest we ought to Anonymous 10:13.
I do wish he would now step up and say something publicly, anything at all really, about the Americans held captive in Iran and in North Korea. One little speech would be nice, something that gives me hope he understands we Americans expect he will acknowledge awareness when our citizens are kidnapped and imprisoned unjustly for the simple fact of citizenship. "Action" in defense of us may yet become something we can also expect.
By Diogenes, at
Mon Apr 13, 10:43:00 AM:
Pirate threats of retaliation suggest at least two things.
First, they put the lie to the claim pirating is just a business--no one has been killed before and ransoms are satisfactory to all involved.
However, a good businessman would have cut his loses, aborted the mission and released the captain once the takeover failed and they recovered their man.
Second, threats of retaliation suggest they have political motives indeed --justified under Islamic law at the very least, and al Qaeda affiliations at worst.
In short, the pirate culture--on land or sea--must be defeated now.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:56:00 AM:
Too many hairs to split right now for whether Obama is at risk of being called a cowboy by the leftists.
I'm glad this guy is coming home in one piece.
For Obama to get my respect, he needs to lay down the law American style: attack a US flagged ship again or US interest generally, and we come in with a wholesale 'punishment' to the fishermen/pirate population, and we cut off food aid, or whatever it is that brings us near their shoreline in the first place.
I am pleased that however circumspect the authorization may be, that we did allow some of our finest trained to do what it is they do. I'm am not surprised that it took a few days to make sure the three shooters had clear sight on each of the three targets, in a moment that increased the mortality of the captive.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 11:47:00 AM:
How could Obama be called a "cowboy" by leftists, when he ordered nothing done? The Navy was constrained not to act, except and unless they had evidence Phillips life was in "imminent danger". That's not splitting hairs and no one could describe the President as a "cowboy"!
As to your other comment, describing Obama's leadership style as "circumspect" is a hoot. Great choice of word, since it is so politic a description of burying one's head in the sand. Obama's policy of hiding and hoping for events to play out for the best can hardly be reassuring to Americans at the tip of the spear, working in foreign parts or even merely traveling abroad.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 12:16:00 PM:
Anon ... lol ...
... to clarify, I am NOT a big fan of the One. Point #1 was sarcasm, since he hardly took a strong enough stand ala GWB to go 'dead or alive' on these rats. But the point here is that whether by his inaction or action, we got the type of result Americans should be pleased with. Navy SEALs, or some other flavor of bad medicine, capping off three scumbags in three simultaneous shots. The only thing better would've been lining all three up and shooting a single round of appropriate muzzle velocity to snap thru all three skulls.
To point #2, what I'm suggesting is no matter how he came to 'authorize' action, at least he let our finest trained do what they train to do. This is high contrast to the last Democrat we had in office. He didn't block it, so we have that going for us.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 12:48:00 PM:
Oh, I get it now. Look, I'm not reflecting broadly on Obama here. I'm only saying I think the E81 conclusion at the top of this thread is the product of too many maritinis. It's illusory to believe the Pres had a substantive hand in saving Phillips, based on what even the Democrat party propaganda organ (the Times) said about the incident. These judgments matter, because other Americans will be taken at different future times and all the world is forming now their opinions of how Obama can be expected to act in those instances. That includes the bad guys.
In fact there are some Americans out there right now being held as prisoners merely because of their citizenship. Obama has to say something, even if he would not do anything. A decent respect for the opinion of mankind dictates saying something, anything about those Americans being held now. Of course, he never said a word, not a frigging word, about Phillips situation either.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Apr 13, 01:01:00 PM:
Two quick points:
Giving the SEALS authorization to kill the terrororists...um... Merchant Marine Orginizers in the event the hostage...um... unwilling guest was in danger. That's almost the same as saying "if you have a clear shot, take it" only with plausable deniability.
Second. If this is Bush's Recession, and Bush's National Debt, then how come this is not Bush's Navy that pulled off the rescue?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Apr 13, 01:05:00 PM:
Re: "The Defense Department twice sought Mr. Obama’s permission to use force..."
From American Forces News Service (DOD), 13 Apr 09"
QUOTE:
The U.S. military’s rescue of a kidnapped American ship captain yesterday was “textbook,” but the issue of piracy is likely to worsen in the absence of a systemic solution, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today.
Off the Somali coast yesterday, U.S. special operations snipers on the USS Bainbridge shot and killed three pirates who had held hostage the captain of the Maersk-Alabama cargo ship on a lifeboat for five days. Military officials said Capt. Richard Phillips’ life was in imminent danger at the time of his rescue.
“It was textbook,” Gates said of the operation. “They were patient. They got the right people and the right equipment in place, and then did what they do.”
Gates, speaking at the Marine Corps War College here, said two groups of military operators were involved in the rescue -- one based in the region and one based in the United States -- with each requiring separate authority from President Barack Obama. “And the approval was given virtually immediately in both cases,” Gates said.
END QUOTE.
Article link:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53905
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 01:06:00 PM:
"....bartender, I'll have a maritini......on second thought, make that a DOUBLE....."
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Apr 13, 01:11:00 PM:
P.S. Re: my last comment. Make that American Forces Press Service (DOD), not "News Service."
By Escort81, at
Mon Apr 13, 01:49:00 PM:
This is a good debate.
My point is that ROEs flow from the top. A president can say, basically, sheath your weapons, no use of force is permitted (Carter for the first 6 months of the Iran Hostage Crisis, Clinton when hunting bin Laden on site at Tarnak in the 1990s). I think it is good that such was not the case in this incident. Of course, nor did President Obama say, "go get 'em." I think Uncle Jimbo's take on it over at blackfive.net is on the money (and he is infinitely more knowledgable about Special Operations than I am, and is clearly no fan of President Obama):
He did affirm the military's authorization to use force if the captain's life was in danger, but they already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement. If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an imminent execution unless the ROE specifically forbid it. The AP is making it sound like there was an active rescue ordered by the President. It was not, there was an imminent threat and the local commander gave the order to fire. Good on Obama for ensuring their authorization was clear, but let's also be clear that he did not authorize or order an active rescue attempt.
If Uncle Jimbo is willing to give President Obama qualified props ("Good on Obama"), then that is something to think about.
Maybe I am setting too low a bar (the best ice hockey player in Ecuador?), as commenter JM Hanes implies above, but that is probably my own psychological defect or wound from too many years as a Philadelphia pro sports fan.
In an alternative scenario where the sniper shots were not perfect, and one pirate remained alive long enough to kill Captain Phillips, what would have been the political consequences for the Obama administration? The point of that hypothetical is to show that a Carter or Clinton won't take that risk to themselves (much less the hostage), so by granting or restating or reaffirming that force was permitted, there was some risk assumed.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 02:19:00 PM:
You misunderstood his post. He's saying the Navy acted in the absence of a go order because it wasn't necessary. He then goes on to say the president did not authorize or order a rescue attempt.
Look, you can hope for the best of the President if you wish. That's fine, and in fact I commend it as the only course one can take now that the election has determined who is our President for the next four years. But lets not confuse our wish the actual events, as you seem to want to do; lets look at events as clearly as we can. In this case, and based on the facts as presently known, the President failed to authorize a rescue attempt. All he did was not prevent the Navy from saving Phillips' life at the moment of absolute truth. Worse, the President failed even to speak up in condemnation of the pirates actions, just as he has with the North Koreans and the Iranians. This was not a good first test.
By Escort81, at
Mon Apr 13, 02:46:00 PM:
Anon 2:19 -
I suppose I am hoping to a certain extent. Also, bending over backwards to use positive reinforcement.
I do understand UJ's post. Force was not disallowed, pursuant to two requests coming up the chain of command. So, you are correct: "All he did was not prevent the Navy from saving Phillips' life at the moment of absolute truth." President Obama could have prevented the Navy from taking the shots by changing the ROEs. So that's something, and it's something that other presidents may not have done. If he had modified the ROEs to say no shots, and Phillips had been killed, well, then, we'd all be jumping on that.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 03:08:00 PM:
For a follow-up to this foray into international relations, Barack has decide to send US money to Cuba:
Apr 13, 2:59 PM EDT
Obama to allow travel, money transfers to Cuba
By JENNIFER LOVEN
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is allowing Americans to make unlimited trips and money transfers to family in Cuba and easing other restrictions Monday to usher in a new era of openness toward the island nation ruled by communists for 50 years.
The formal announcement was being made at the White House Monday afternoon, during presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs' daily briefing with reporters, a senior administration official told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity before the announcement.
(I'll send in the royalties to the AP later)
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 03:15:00 PM:
As I said earlier: "I'm all in favor of giving President Obama congratulations for being President when the Navy decided to save Captain Phillips' life."
By davod, at
Mon Apr 13, 03:54:00 PM:
"The U.S. military’s rescue of a kidnapped American ship captain yesterday was “textbook,” but the issue of piracy is likely to worsen in the absence of a systemic solution, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today." [he left off- and a fix to global warming]-pun
The US and other countries as well as the UN reachd agreement on ways to combat piracy. As late as July 2008 UN Resolution 1816 provides for countries to enter Somali waters (Normally a diplomatic no-no because piracy is a high seas crime).
I wonder if the dribbling from Gates is because they do not want to acknowledge the work ewas done under th Bush Administratin.
You might want to read Piracy, Policy, and Law,by By Commander James Kraska, JAGC, U.S. Navy, and Captain Brian Wilson, JAGC, U.S. Navy in the December edition of Proceedings
I recommend reading the complete article, but I have included extracts:
"...Less than a year later[2006], a dhow plying the ancient trade route between India and Africa was taken over in international waters by ten Somali pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault rifles. Fortunately for the 16 Indians on board, there was a U.S. warship nearby. When the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) encountered the besieged dhow, her immediate mission was clear: gain control of the vessel and detain the pirates.
...Once the pirates were in custody, the way ahead became less clear as the destroyer's commanding officer, and more broadly, the American government and the international community confronted the myriad diplomatic and legal challenges of piracy suppression in the 21st century. Who would investigate and prosecute the case? Where would the pirates be held, and by whom? What about the Indian crew members, all of them witnesses to the crime, and what would happen to their ship and cargo?
The successful interdiction by the Churchill sparked a global effort to develop a modern playbook for confronting piracy. In the United States, the Bush administration began to develop a policy consistent with national maritime strategy, which culminated in a comprehensive piracy policy governing diplomatic and legal action and signed by President George W. Bush in 2007. This establishes a framework for warships that encounter or interrupt acts of maritime piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as for agencies charged with facilitating the prosecution of perpetrators and the repatriation of victims and witnesses. But because much of the ocean's surface is beyond state jurisdiction, effective piracy repression demands international action and coordination...
Decisive U.S. Action
The wide-ranging policy signed by President Bush—the broadest presidential articulation of U.S. policy toward international piracy since the time of the Barbary pirates—was developed through the National Security Council by Navy judge advocates in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Staff. It establishes seven goals, each an important component for addressing piracy...
...Dramatic Action
Perhaps most significant, the UN Security Council took historic action against maritime piracy this past summer. Resolution 1816, which was decided under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore legally binding on all states, called on them to cooperate in counterpiracy actions off the coast of Somalia. The resolution authorizes operations inside Somalia's territorial waters to deny that area as a safe haven for pirates who operate outside the 12-mile limit. It also provides for disposition and logistics of persons-under-control detained as a result of counterpiracy operations.
The resolution encourages states to increase and coordinate their efforts to deter acts of piracy in conjunction with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, a weak ruling authority inside the fractured state. It also calls on states, the IMO, and other international organizations to build a partnership to ensure regional coastal and maritime security, and is designed to bring together flag, port, and coastal states, and other states with jurisdiction under national and international law. They will cooperate in determining criminal jurisdiction for acts of piracy, in its investigation and prosecution, and in rendering disposition and logistics assistance to victims, witnesses, and persons detained..."
By davod, at
Mon Apr 13, 03:57:00 PM:
PS: On a separate but related isssue. I have heard or read no commentary on Gates statements last week that the DOD was turning 41,000 contract employees into direct hire Federal employees.
A great way to reduce the personnel budget.
By , at
Mon Apr 13, 10:01:00 PM:
Anyone care to speculate on the fate of the captured pirate? I read that Human Rights Watch wants him tried as a juvenile (assuming he is one) and of course he will need to have his family by his side to help plan his rehabilitation. Is it a stretch to see this guy get off with some counseling and to have his entire family granted political asylum in the United States?
By , at
Tue Apr 14, 01:35:00 AM:
I suppose OBAMA will want to make it part of his infamous career knowing how liberals are always acting so rediculous
By , at
Tue Apr 14, 03:46:00 AM:
I can't figure out why the press never got around to asking how one of the few US flagged ships in the area (maybe the only one since there are few of such)was not given more responsive protection by US Navy forces in the area.
If our European brothers are content to pay the ransom, why in the heck weren't we able to cover our own US flagged vessel and prevent this event in the first place?
By , at
Tue Apr 14, 05:25:00 PM:
I'm a bit puzzled by why force would be authorized twice. Once would seem sufficient.
But the media should have told us the answer to that minor question.
It ended well enough and O was President. So I am content when he is praised. It sort of goes with the territory.
The incident says little about the best strategy for controlling and/or ending this plague of piracy.
First, I hope there will actually be a strategy. Second, I hope it will have teeth.
So far the nations haven't shown much appetite for heavy lifting. If they won't jointly cooperate and lend sufficient naval forces for patrolling and authorize tough actions then the pirates will keep laughing.
True, the pirates lose a few as they did this time, but the present rules mean they win many more.
K
