Return of the Barbary Pirates 21st C Style (2 Viewers)

PolarBear

Major
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
6,706
Today's NY Times
April 12, 2009
Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
NAIROBI, Kenya — An American skipper in the hands of seafaring rogues. Some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes under attack. Tough men from a messy patch of Africa eluding and harassing the world’s greatest powers.

Sound familiar? Well, it’s not last week’s drama on the high seas we’re talking about, when Somali pirates attacked an American freighter in the Indian Ocean and took its captain hostage, then made off with him in a lifeboat. We’re talking about the Barbary Wars, about 200 years ago, when pirates from the Barbary Coast (today’s Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya) hijacked European ships with impunity and ransomed back the crews.

“When I first read about the Somali pirates, I almost did a double take and turned to my wife at the breakfast table and said, ‘This is déjà vu,’ ” recalled Frank Lambert, a professor at Purdue who is an expert on the Barbary pirates.

Dr. Lambert explained how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive. It wasn’t out of any enlightened sense of humanity. It was simply good business. They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted. The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships. They were crude but effective, like today’s Somali swashbucklers, who in November commandeered a 1,000-foot-long Saudi oil tanker from a dinghy in the Gulf of Aden, a vital shipping lane at the mouth of the Red Sea.

But the Barbary pirates’ bravado became their demise — something the Somalis might keep in mind.

The pirates’ way of doing business was described this way at the time: “When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.” The quote is from Thomas Jefferson, then America’s ambassador to France, after he and John Adams, the envoy in London, got the description from Tripoli’s envoy to Britain in 1786.

And that underscores a key point. The Barbary pirates actually had an ambassador — who met with Jefferson and Adams, no less. The pirates worked for a government. The Barbary rulers commissioned them to rob and pillage and kidnap, and the rulers got a cut. It was all official. And open. It was truly state-sponsored terrorism. And the Western nations’ response was to pay “tribute,” a fancy word for blackmail.

If a country paid tribute, the 18th-century pirates would leave its ships alone. Today, shipping companies fork over as much as $100 million in ransoms to the Somali pirates, a strategy that saves their cargoes but also attracts more underemployed Somali fishermen into the hijacking business.

The United States tried to play nice with the Barbary pirates and even inked a few treaties. That language, too, has a striking ring. The Barbary States were Muslim, as is Somalia. And America stressed that this was not about God.

“The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” a 1796 treaty reads. “It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” which is how Muslims was spelled back then.

Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants. That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast. The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.

They also figured early in the naval career of one William Bainbridge, an officer who was sent to pay tribute to the dey of Algiers in 1800, was later captured during the war along with his ship, and went on to become a hero of the War of 1812. Last week, in an irony probably lost on the Somalis, it was a destroyer named after him that the United States Navy sent rushing to help the skipper in the lifeboat.

The Barbary pirates were finally brought to their knees by their encounters with the Americans, and by the French invasion of Algiers in 1830.

Will this happen in Somalia? Last week — even before a French effort to rescue a family in a separate hijacking ended with the death of one hostage — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged the world to “end the scourge of piracy.” But Somali piracy is not an isolated problem. It’s the latest symptom of what afflicts an utterly failed state — a free-for-all on land that has consumed the country since the central government imploded in 1991. As any warlord there can tell you, the violence is almost always about cash. “We just want the money” is their mantra.

If that sounds like the 1800s, it also invites talk of solving the problem the same way: pound the bravado out of the pirates by taking the battle to them where it hurts most — on shore. But any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers. Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.
 

Attachments

  • 9781846030307.JPG
    9781846030307.JPG
    46.2 KB · Views: 212
NY Times
April 12, 2009
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Anarchy on Land Means Piracy at Sea

By ROBERT D. KAPLAN
Stockbridge, Mass.

PIRACY is the maritime ripple effect of anarchy on land. Somalia is a failed state and has the longest coastline in mainland Africa, so piracy flourishes nearby. The 20th-century French historian Fernand Braudel called piracy a “secondary form of war,” that, like insurgencies on land, tends to increase in the lulls between conflicts among great states or empires. With the Soviet Union and its client states in Africa no longer in existence, and American influence in the third world at an ebb, irregular warfare both on land and at sea has erupted, and will probably be with us until the rise of new empires or their equivalents.

Somali pirates are usually unemployed young men who have grown up in an atmosphere of anarchic violence, and have been dispatched by a local warlord to bring back loot for his coffers. It is organized crime carried out by roving gangs. The million-square-miles of the Indian Ocean where pirates roam might as well be an alley in Mogadishu. These pirates are fearless because they have grown up in a culture where nobody expects to live long. Pirate cells often consist of 10 men with several ratty, roach-infested skiffs. They bring along drinking water, gasoline for their single-engine outboards, grappling hooks, ladders, knives, assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and the mild narcotic qat to chew. They live on raw fish.

The skiffs are generally used to launch attacks on slightly larger crafts, often a fishing dhow operated by South Koreans, Indians or Taiwanese, taking the crews prisoner. In turn, they use the new ship to take a larger vessel, and then another, working up the food chain. Eventually, they let the smaller boats and crews go free. In this way, over the years, Somali pirates have graduated to attacking oil tankers and container ships; the bigger the vessel, the higher the ransoms, which the pirate confederations can then invest in more sophisticated equipment.

As Braudel suggested, there is nothing new here. Piracy has been endemic to the Indian Ocean from the Gulf of Aden to the Strait of Malacca, and particularly so after the Western intrusion into these waters, beginning with the Portuguese in the 16th century. Pirate groups, sometimes known as “sea gypsies,” tended to escalate in number and audacity as trade increased, so that piracy itself has often been a sign of prosperity. The Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta, who was the victim of pirates off western India in the 14th century, informed us that commercial ships in the Indian Ocean of his day traveled in armed convoys as a defense. Slightly earlier, Marco Polo described many dozens of pirate vessels off Gujarat, India, where the pirates would spend the whole summer at sea with their women and children, even as they plundered merchant vessels.

The big danger in our day is that piracy can potentially serve as a platform for terrorists. Using pirate techniques, vessels can be hijacked and blown up in the middle of a crowded strait, or a cruise ship seized and the passengers of certain nationalities thrown overboard. You can see how Al Qaeda would be studying this latest episode at sea, in which Somali pirates attacked a Maersk Line container ship and were fought off by the American crew, even as they have managed to take the captain hostage in one of the lifeboats.

So we end up with the spectacle of an American destroyer, the Bainbridge, with enough Tomahawk missiles and other weaponry to destroy a small city, facing off against a handful of Somali pirates in a tiny lifeboat. This is not an efficient use of American resources. It indicates how pirates, like terrorists, can attack us asymmetrically. The challenge ahead for the United States is not only dealing with the rise of Chinese naval power, but also in handling more unconventional risks that will require a more scrappy, street-fighting Navy.

In a sense, America needs three navies; yet, as this pirate crisis reveals, it may have only two. It has a blue-water force for patrolling the major sea lines, thus guarding the global commons. It packs enough precision weaponry on its warships to project power on land against adversaries like North Korea and Iran. But it still does not have enough of a sea-based, counterinsurgency component to deal with adversaries like Somali pirates and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. (The latter’s force features speedboats loaded with explosives hidden in the many coves of Iran’s coastline, which could ram ships on suicide missions.)

The Navy has plans to build 55 new Littoral Combat Ships to deal with this deficiency. Yes, these fast, maneuverable ships have low drafts and are thus suited for many different kinds of unorthodox missions close to shore. But the oceans are vast, and ships cannot be in two places at once. Without sufficient numbers of them, it’s hard to believe that they will make much of a difference. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his recent budget statement, indicated that only a few of these ships will be built at first, even as he endorsed the whole program.

In recent years the American public has been humbled by the limits of our military power in dirty land wars. But navies have historically been a military indicator of great power. That a relatively small number of pirates from a semi-starving nation can constitute enough of a menace to disrupt major sea routes is another sign of the anarchy that will be characteristic of a multipolar world, in which a great navy like America’s — with a falling number of overall ships — will be in relative, elegant decline, while others will either lack the stomach or the capacity to adequately guard the seas.

Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
 
I would argue that the author while knowing his facts shows the same problems this administration has, it's not the forces and equipment it's the political will or compentence to use these rescources.
They are way too worried about how they look and what they seem to be to a world who will hate us regardless of our actions. Unfortunately the world revels in our downfall and what these people do not have the strength to realize is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING will ever change that, except our downfall.
Ray
 
I would argue that the author while knowing his facts shows the same problems this administration has, it's not the forces and equipment it's the political will or compentence to use these rescources.
They are way too worried about how they look and what they seem to be to a world who will hate us regardless of our actions. Unfortunately the world revels in our downfall and what these people do not have the strength to realize is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING will ever change that, except our downfall.
Ray

Precisely. We no longer have the b*lls to do what needs to be done, with scum like these. They should be killed. They respect force, and that's what should be shown. A couple of .50 cal slugs speak volumes.
 
Ray is right 100%.The only thing these cutthroats understand is force and the governments seem to lack the will to do anything until many people are hurt or killed and much financial damage has been done.
Mark
 
I agree . . . why we haven't posted a squadron of heavily armed naval vessels to sink every one of the pirate ships and, if we know their ports of call, shell the ports as well, is beyond me. These people already either hate us and/or have so little concern for human life that they will kill and maim purely for profit, its not like we are going to win them over with overtures of kindness.
 
If you continue to occupy another country you usually set yourself up to be the fall guy no matter what good intentions you have. Piracy is very different, and any threat of piracy should be answered with lethal force, and I would recommend a much larger caliber than .50 :D
 
Can't disagree with anyones thoughts on this.

We've got armed forces specifically trained to take on exactly this type of scenario. As has been saisd, just needs someone with some common sense to give the go.

Simon
 
Page last updated at 18:04 GMT, Sunday, 12 April 2009 19:04 UK

US captain released from pirates

Capt Phillips' family was informed of his release hours ago

The captain of a US container ship taken hostage by Somali pirates has been released, the US Navy has said.

Three pirates were said to have been killed in the operation to free Captain Richard Phillips, who had been held in a lifeboat for several days. ..........."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7996087.stm
 
I think it is only a matter of time before this is resolved. I heard this morning there are SEALs in the area, specifically, the news reported them being on the U.S. ship that the hostage captain is from. They (the SEALs) appear to have come on board recently in order to 'escort' the crew as the ship heads to port. So, if they are around the area, and the Navy is monitoring the pirates location, it should only be a matter of time.

This type of think should never be looked at as a law-enforcement issue. It is not.

I should probably end there, without opening a huge issue.

Noah
 
Can't disagree with anyones thoughts on this.

We've got armed forces specifically trained to take on exactly this type of scenario. As has been saisd, just needs someone with some common sense to give the go.

Simon
Well it seems like they did just that. Excellent work by the Seals.
 
Precisely. We no longer have the b*lls to do what needs to be done, with scum like these. They should be killed. They respect force, and that's what should be shown. A couple of .50 cal slugs speak volumes.

Well I guess it turns out we do have the b*lls to do what has to be done. Funny how none of you guys commented further after news of the SEALS rescue.
 
Well I guess it turns out we do have the b*lls to do what has to be done. Funny how none of you guys commented further after news of the SEALS rescue.

No, it's not funny at all, I just haven't been online and on the forum since yesterday.

I commend the SEALs for carrying out the rescue.

Now, the next thing is for the merchantmen to be armed with .50s or with 20mm cannon, and to hire crews to guard the ships.

And we should hunt down the nests where these jihadis reside and kill them.
 
Could 19th-Century plan stop piracy?

International efforts to thwart Somali piracy would appear to be floundering. Perhaps words from the 19th Century could offer a solution, writes the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds.

If the navies of the world need some advice on ways to stop piracy off Somalia, they could look to Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary in 1841.

"Taking a wasps' nest... is more effective than catching the wasps one by one," he remarked.

Palmerston, the great advocate of gunboat diplomacy, was speaking in support of a British naval officer, Joseph Denman.

Denman had attacked and destroyed slave quarters on the West African coast and had been sued by the Spanish owners for damages.

It was British policy to try to destroy the slave trade, but this sometimes ran into legal complications.

The British attorney general, in a gem of delicate legal advice, declared the following year that he "cannot take it upon himself to advise... that the instructions to Her Majesty's naval officers are such as can with perfect legality be carried into execution...

"[He] is of the opinion that the blockading of rivers, landing and destroying buildings and carrying off of persons held in slavery... cannot be considered as sanctioned by the law of nations."

Denman, a hero of the anti-slave trade campaign, was eventually vindicated and the Royal Navy carried on with its anti-slavery operations.

James Walvin notes in his book Black Ivory: "Between 1820 and 1870 the Royal Navy seized almost 1,600 ships and freed 150,000 slaves."

With Somali piracy still threatening shipping, it sounds as if modern navies need a few Captain Joseph Denmans, or the like-minded American, Commodore Stephen Decatur.

Sent to attack the Barbary pirates off North Africa in 1815, Decatur simply captured the flagship of the Algerian Bey [ruler] and forced a capitulation.

When the Bey later tried to repudiate the agreement, the British and Dutch bombarded Algiers.

No such action against the "wasps' nests" along the Somali coast is possible today, even though the UN Security Council has authorised the use of the "necessary means" to stop pirates on the high seas and hot pursuit into Somali territorial waters.

Law of the sea

However, the resolutions that made these actions permissible (1838 and 1846) also contain restrictions.

Everything has to be done in accordance with "international law" and this is interpreted as complying with the conditions of the International Law of the Sea Convention.

This convention, in article 105, does permit the seizure of a pirate ship, but article 110 lays down that, in order to establish that a ship is indeed a pirate vessel, the warship - and it may only be a warship - has to send a boat to the suspected ship first and ask for its papers.

This is hardly a recipe for a Denman or Decatur-type action.

Add to this legal restriction the relative lack of warships in the seas off Somalia - more than there were, but still insufficient - and the reluctance to tackle the pirates in their home bases, throw in the chaos in Somalia, where there is no effective government, and you have perfect conditions for piracy.

Even if they are caught, they are simply handed over to Kenya whose legal system is not designed to deal with them.

The German navy transported another batch of captured pirates to Kenya recently. But nobody knows how long they will be in custody there.

And the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia issued a ****ing report last December in which it castigated ship owners for paying ransom.

"Exorbitant ransom payments have fuelled the growth of [pirate] groups," it stated.

The report also expressed concern about "the apparent complicity in pirate networks of Puntland administration officials at all levels."

Puntland is a self-declared autonomous region of Somalia, right at the tip of the Horn of Africa.

(Update: The French have adopted a different policy - that of trying to rescue hostages and capturing pirates, taking them back to France for trial. This was successful until recently, when commandos stormed a yacht and in the process the yacht's owner was killed, though his wife and young son were rescued.)

Since writing in December last year about the legal problems involved, I have had a lot of e-mails from people angry at the ineffectiveness of the measures taken so far and proposing their own solutions.

These include:

Convoys. Already done in the case of aid ships going into Kenyan and Somali ports
Arming the crews. The crews might not want this, though in the latest case the American crew of cargo ship Maersk Alabama did fight back
Arming merchant ships with heavy guns. Ship owners might not want to risk an engagement at sea
luring pirates into attacking apparently unarmed ships which then declared themselves as warships. Would this be in "accordance with international law"?
Other ideas suggested would appeal to officers Denman and Decatur.

(Update: I have had a flood of further e-mails, for which many thanks. The plans proposed range from having submarines on stand-by to surface when needed, to 'Q-ships' (armed, disguised merchantmen), to immediate sinking, to blockades, to invasion. The general feeling is that governments and navies are too weak. There have been a few writers, though, who say that the real problem is in Somalia itself and that the pirates take to their trade because they cannot make a living in other ways.)

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

 

Attachments

  • _45652144_-1.jpg
    _45652144_-1.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 133
Hi Randy,

Here is the link to an informative website on Maritime Security.

http://www.maritimesecurity.com

It has current articles on fighting maritime piracy in the Horn of Africa area.

Best, Raymond.

:)
 
Last edited:
Hang them in some port and leave their body rotting in a cage just like they used to do. I'd say what we should do to Somalia, but it really wouldn't make a good parking lot.
 
I'm just dumbfounded that four or five amateurs in a little open speed-boat armed with rifles and maybe a rocket-launcher/bazooka can heel-over massive sea-going merchant ships; take control; terrorise the crews; demand and get ransom money week after week after week and nobody does anything about it.

How about an update of the WWI Q ships-gun-boats disguised as merchantmen that tackled the German U-boat threat. One of those could sink a dozen of these so called pirate craft with a couple of salvos.

This continual pandering to the PC world will destroy all of us as sure as God made little green apples.

Reb
 
Last edited:
An excellent opportunity for people with the right experience and resources and cheaper and more effective than the shipping companies paying ridiculous ransoms:
 

Attachments

  • blackwater.jpg
    blackwater.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 80

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top