Poll - What Does the US do to rescue the Maersk-Alabama Captain

[FactFinder]

The other pirates aren't going to kill hostages on land. To them it is money in the bank. That would also leave no reason for international forces to not step in with that overwhelming force. No the hostages on land are both their potential meal ticket and their safety as far as they are concerned.

 

[editec]

I'm pleased to see that many of us are actaully thinking about this event, rather that spouting off a load of military nonsense about how we need to nuke people or get hostages killed to prove how bad-ass the USA is.

This is obviously an INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM that has been getting worse for quite some time.

And if the solution were as easy as blowing places up, I'm reasonly certain that the USA or some other nation would have done that already.

Those of you thinking with you balls instead of your brains need to grow up.

Ya'll sound like a bunch of childish chickenhawks.

There are, we're informed HUNDREDS OF HOSTAGES in Ely and surrounding communities that we cannot locate or save easily. That is the nature of hostages held in foreign lands, folks.

That alone makes this event ever so much more complex than something a SEAL TEAM can solve.

You people watch too many movies and think that military wetwork is something easily done.

IF it was THAT easy I'm sure THAT would ALREADY have been done.

The military is not STUPID, and neither was BUSH II (who did nothing about this) or neither is OBAMA, who is now facing this most recent event.

Back off and let the EXPERTS do their thing.

This isn't an AMERICAN political issue this is way more complex than that.

Who are the experts ?

The military and diplomatic people ON THE GROUND who actually know the DETAILS of the moment by moment events as they unfold.

Certainly not we digital generals here saying we ought to bomb everything because they think that makes them sound tough.

If these people are so bellicose why don't THEY join the SEALS and show US how it's done?

Chickenhawks!

 

[FactFinder]

This Viet Nam era vet already served his time. Besides at my age I no longer qualify.

 

[dilloduck]

The other pirates aren't going to kill hostages on land. To them it is money in the bank. That would also leave no reason for international forces to not step in with that overwhelming force. No the hostages on land are both their potential meal ticket and their safety as far as they are concerned.

agreed----kidnapping is just another form of terrorism that challenges the law abiding and civilized. While we sit around and wonder what the legal and moral anser to the problem is, they just carry on. Fixing sociopathy is a real pain. Can't think of anyone who has done it without use of force.

 

[FactFinder]

Another possibility would be 4 synchronized sharpshooters.

 

[dilloduck]

Another possibility would be 4 synchronized sharpshooters.

Worth a shot !

 

[Toome]

Clinton prevented the Armor from being avaible to the commander in the field in the first place. You need to go read the history of the event. Clinton tried to do with just having a few choppers and light infantry type units in the field. The CO wanted armor back up just in case Clinton said no.

First things first: the mission into Mogadishu was a success. The RANGERS successfully captured the personnel they intended to get; Mohammed Farrah Aidid was an unconfirmed target of opportunity, but the rest of his lieutenants were confirmed.

Secondly: this was a special operations mission. You don't go into a snatch-and-grab with tanks. They don't have the speed necessary for these types of missions.

Thirdly: where things went wrong was when the second Blackhawk was shot down. Until then, the mission was pretty much going as planned. The RANGERS already had a contingency in case one helicopter was shot down; having a second shot down, while not an impossible contingency, redirected their mission focus. It happens in combat.

Fourthly: not taking anything away from the courage of the RANGERS, there were many small unit leadership level things that went unchecked. RANGERS were accustomed to the quick turnaround times on these missions and a number of them failed to stick to their basic load plan such as water, body armor, night vision goggles, etc. Commanders had established a predictable pattern for the Somalis to exploit.

Lastly (and there are still many more points to be made): no one underestimated the Somalis. The RANGERS, above all, greatly appreciated the warfighting experience the Somalis had, and knew they were facing a formidable adversary. It was the Somalis who underestimated the RANGERS. Strictly speaking, the RANGERS should have been slaughtered to the last man. With a clear and distinct advantage of outnumbering and having more guns than the RANGERS, the thousands of Somalis gathered in that combat zone should have easily wiped out the 100 or so RANGERS they had under siege. However, the RANGERS inflicted more casualties, estimated to be in the hundreds, than the Somalis did, and they left that zone alive. This speaks volumes about the fighting prowess of Army RANGERS, a number of whom, keep in mind, had foolishly left behind things like night vision goggles that would have given them a much more decisive advantage.

It's too bad the politics of the time distorted this as a failed mission and too bad the Army buried the valuable lessons-learned. Could have made a difference when our troops went into Iraq.

 

[FactFinder]

Another possibility would be 4 synchronized sharpshooters.

Worth a shot !

At least 4 well placed ones.

 

[editec]

The other pirates aren't going to kill hostages on land. To them it is money in the bank. That would also leave no reason for international forces to not step in with that overwhelming force. No the hostages on land are both their potential meal ticket and their safety as far as they are concerned.

agreed----kidnapping is just another form of terrorism that challenges the law abiding and civilized. While we sit around and wonder what the legal and moral anser to the problem is, they just carry on. Fixing sociopathy is a real pain. Can't think of anyone who has done it without use of force.

I have no moral objection to using force when force works. I've probably personally used force more times to put down some idiotic bully than the rest of this board combined. I'm not remotely a pacifist.

What I object to is calling for force when it won't solve the problem

I especially object to idiots calling for the DEATH OF THE HOSTAGE just to prove to the world how bad assed America is.

 

[dilloduck]

The other pirates aren't going to kill hostages on land. To them it is money in the bank. That would also leave no reason for international forces to not step in with that overwhelming force. No the hostages on land are both their potential meal ticket and their safety as far as they are concerned.

agreed----kidnapping is just another form of terrorism that challenges the law abiding and civilized. While we sit around and wonder what the legal and moral anser to the problem is, they just carry on. Fixing sociopathy is a real pain. Can't think of anyone who has done it without use of force.

I have no moral objection to using force when force works. I've probably personally used force more times to put down some idiotic bully than the rest of this board combined. I'm not remotely a pacifist.

What I object to is calling for force when it won't solve the problem

I especially object to idiots calling for the DEATH OF THE HOSTAGE just to prove to the world how bad assed America is.

Force WILL stop sociopaths. Whether or not it proves anything about America looking "tough" is a whole different question. Why do we use force to stop sociopaths ? Because it's the only thing that works and it prevents ONE sociopath from harming MORE people.
Unfortunately too many believe there is any hope for a sociopath to rehabilitate.

 

[WillowTree]

wells wells wellls,, I guess it safe to say after this length of time, that sweet talk ain't a gonna work,, sugar don't bake the cookie, hhhhhmmmmm???

 

[editec]

agreed----kidnapping is just another form of terrorism that challenges the law abiding and civilized. While we sit around and wonder what the legal and moral anser to the problem is, they just carry on. Fixing sociopathy is a real pain. Can't think of anyone who has done it without use of force.

I have no moral objection to using force when force works. I've probably personally used force more times to put down some idiotic bully than the rest of this board combined. I'm not remotely a pacifist.

What I object to is calling for force when it won't solve the problem

I especially object to idiots calling for the DEATH OF THE HOSTAGE just to prove to the world how bad assed America is.

Force WILL stop sociopaths. Whether or not it proves anything about America looking "tough" is a whole different question. Why do we use force to stop sociopaths ? Because it's the only thing that works and it prevents ONE sociopath from harming MORE people.
Unfortunately too many believe there is any hope for a sociopath to rehabilitate.

Now, I've actually worked with documented sociopathic killers in closed unit psychiatric facilities.

So if you're under the impression that I don't understand that violence is necessary sometimes, you have sincerely misjudged who I am.

However, this situation is NOT about ego-gratifying chickenhawks.

It's about getting that hostage (and eventually all those hostages) back alive.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Americans taken hostage, while on a US drug erradication mission, were left unadressed by the Bush administration for five years.

No war.

No military action.

Nothing.

That's what Bush did.

ROFLMNAO... Well sure... No EXAMPLE, NO BASIS IN REASONING, NO POTENTIAL CORRELATATION...

So what you're saying is that the Bush administration left Americans to be held captive, knowing their location... they simply left them to rot in captivity.

Yep.

They were left for five years. Bush mentioned them one time in that five years.


Take a history lesson.

"YEP"

ROFLMNAO... So what you're saying is that you know that the Bush administration knew where these people were, and left them there? And as PROOF of this asserted fact, you submit yet ANOTHER baseless assertion that "Bush mentioned them one time in that five years."

LOL...

You're an idiot. You can't even name the people to which you speak, meaning you don't know their names, meaning you have NO IDEA of anything beyond 'they were captured and remained in capitivity during the Bush administration...

It's likely you're speaking of the Burnhams; Missionaries captured in the Philipines and held for many years by Islamic terrorist guerillas; hiding in the vast jungles of the Philipines... terrorists which were pursued by US Special Forces assisting the Philipino government... until the camp in which they were hiding was raided by Philipino Special Forces... where the hostages were released, the husband through his death, leaving the wife to return to their children back in The States.

In that circumstance, the Bush administration had no idea where those people were located, beyond 'somewhere int he Philipne Islands; and in contrast to your lies, the Bush administration dedicated thousands of US Troops to the rescue operations which assualted those terrorists DOZENS of times over thousands of square miles of some of the most dense jungle on earth.

So shut the **** up... you're full of shit and you seem helpless to change it.

 

[Gunny]

Clinton prevented the Armor from being avaible to the commander in the field in the first place. You need to go read the history of the event. Clinton tried to do with just having a few choppers and light infantry type units in the field. The CO wanted armor back up just in case Clinton said no.

I'm up to snuff on the incident, thanks. When you gather your best trained cutthroats for a lightening raid to kidnap bad guys, you don't drive up to the front door in an M-1 Abrams.

While denial of armored assets is one of 3 reasons given for the incident playing out as it did, it is not "the" sole reason as your statement implies. Of far more importance to this mission's failure was the lack of intelligence gathering and underestimating Aidid's capabilities. Everything that follows THAT is a direct result of it.

If the US had an accurate picture of Aidid's capabilities, different tactics would have been used or the mission not attempted.

And it was Les Aspin that denied General Montgomery's request for armored reinforcements. Not Bill Clinton.

 

[Gunny]

Paying the ransom is out of the question. That will only encourage this type of behavior. The last thing we should be doing is giving these pirates what they want.

And why is this still an issue anyway? Why isnt there a snipper on the deck of one of the Navy ships out there picking these bastards off?

It's still an issue because it's not a sunny, cloudless day, the water in the Gulf of Aden is not as smooth as glass, and the both hostages and hostagetakers are in a cabin and out of view.

Using a sniper on the open sea would be about as effective as throwing rocks. He'd as likely hit the hostage as hit a pirate under those conditions, if he hit anything at all.

Barring any of the aforementioned, there are 4 pirates. One sniper is not going to take out 4 pirates before one of them can kill the hostage.

Better you just sit still and be quite until it's over.

 

[Gunny]

But in answer to the OP, fighting piracy has always been a tough nut. These guys have no government to address, no real leader or organization and they operate in a vast sea. It's like herding cats. There is no turn key solution. The shipping lane is too valuable and busy to abandon and the corridor to large to protect effectively. It's easy to sit back and demand action but real, effective solutions are hard to come by.

Why not narrow the corridor? I'm not sure if anyone here really knows whether or not that is possible, but it seems to me, in order to better protect these ships, the routes they travel should be narrowed down. I would even think that they could run together as convoys.

The problem with going after these pirates is that it won't deter future attempts. Even if we have a successful mission to save one ship, and we kill those pirates, others will follow. And as long as this goes on, if military action is used, and the loss of life of these merchant marines rises, many will choose not to work, knowing that their lives have no value.

I, as much as anyone, would like to see them capture these idiots and hang them by their balls, but it will only make matters worse, not better. In order to stop them, they must be stopped before they can take these ships. Restricting the routes these ships may travel could help matters.

I disagree that killing the pirates won't have an effect. This is the first time they have attacked a US flagged ship. Stomp them now, they might decide there are easier pickings and leave ours alone.

The UN blew Somalia out its ass. This is the result.

 

[Gunny]

I think you blow them all away and send the captain's widow a flag and a medal of honor.

Teach those goddamn pirates who's boss!

I assume you're being a smartass. The pirates have to deal in good faith or they have no bargaining leverage.

We don't. We can promise them whatever and as soon as the hostage is freed, blow them off the ocean.

We haven't had a ship attacked by pirates since the 1800s. If we pay and allow these pirates to go free, every US vessel hereafter will be a target.

I personally think this is a great idea but unfortunately our current government is filled with those that would cry how unfair it is that we lied to pirates. Then the idiots would go on television and say that the next time pirates took a U.S. hostage then they shouldn't expect them to keep their word either. Two hours later you'd find the pirates on television saying " We're not keeping our word next time either." Then it will all turn into a giant circus and Obama will appoint a commission to study who was responsible for lying to pirates and what punishment they should receive and how we can learn to work with the pirates for the greater good. I'm not sure we could stand the two years of hearings and recriminations if we actually did accidentally hurt a pirate.

Sadly, I agree.

 

[Gunny]

A coastline on the Somalia side roughly the length of the US eastern Seaboard. [Not even discussing Yemen-based pirates]

Loose coalitions of criminals set in a chaotic area that has already been the subject of a failed UN and US military mission.

Rising Islamic tensions throughout the area.

US, European and Russian naval ships currently in the Gulf having limited if any effect.

It doesn't seem like such an easy problem to solve. We could send the entire US naval forces into this area to prevent the hijacking of ships from all over the world, but that doesn't seem cost effective from the point of view of US shipping interests. What are the details of your solution?

Interesting. The second line in the Marines hymn is "... to the shores of Tripoli." Barbary pirates were doing the same thing. They sent Marines. This is the first incident since then.

Obviously, Jefferson and Madison had a solution.

Yeah...they paid ransoms.

And true the did invade once.

But the outcome wasn't entirely what they'd hoped for.

This problem is going to take both carrots and sticks to resolve, I suspect.

I doubt very much the military ALONE can resolve the issue.

What outcome would that be? No piracy of US ships for over 200 years? I'd say that outcome was MORE than anyone could possibly hope for.

If you are referring to 92-93, the Marine Corps didn't lose anything in Somalia.

 

[Gunny]

The other pirates aren't going to kill hostages on land. To them it is money in the bank. That would also leave no reason for international forces to not step in with that overwhelming force. No the hostages on land are both their potential meal ticket and their safety as far as they are concerned.

Why would they fear an international force? Because UNOSOM was so successful?

If these pirates are connected to other pirates still holding hostages, it IS something that has to be considered.

 

[Annie]

I assume you're being a smartass. The pirates have to deal in good faith or they have no bargaining leverage.

We don't. We can promise them whatever and as soon as the hostage is freed, blow them off the ocean.

We haven't had a ship attacked by pirates since the 1800s. If we pay and allow these pirates to go free, every US vessel hereafter will be a target.

I personally think this is a great idea but unfortunately our current government is filled with those that would cry how unfair it is that we lied to pirates. Then the idiots would go on television and say that the next time pirates took a U.S. hostage then they shouldn't expect them to keep their word either. Two hours later you'd find the pirates on television saying " We're not keeping our word next time either." Then it will all turn into a giant circus and Obama will appoint a commission to study who was responsible for lying to pirates and what punishment they should receive and how we can learn to work with the pirates for the greater good. I'm not sure we could stand the two years of hearings and recriminations if we actually did accidentally hurt a pirate.

Sadly, I agree.

These particular pirates are not in a good position. They already reneged on a promise of exchange.