More recently when France refused to join George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing," the super patriotic types who litter the landscape of the Republican Party dubbed deep fried potato strips "Freedom Fries" in lieu of their ancient and honorable name, "french fries." (The Geek's non-partisan nature requires him to note that more than a couple of Democrats joined the renaming campaign.)
The days of Americans viewing the French as a collection of effete snobs looking down their Gallic noses at us hairy chested Yanks are over. Nicholas Sarkozy has made it quite clear that the French have reclaimed their testicular virtue--if, indeed, they had ever lost it. At his direction the French armed forces have for the second time shown the US and the rest of the world just how a responsible, civilized country deals with the seaborn scum of the Somalian coast.
This time French special duty personnel executed an escalade on a French flagged yacht seized by the Somali muggers last Saturday in the Gulf of Aden. On board the small craft were four French adults and one child. After several days of haggling with the thugs during which the Jolly Swagmen escalated their demands and threats, the commandos moved in.
In the assault one of the French adults was killed. It is unclear if the death occurred at the hands of the criminals or was one of those lamentable accidents which lingers in the shadows of combat no matter how well planned and executed. Also killed were two of the pirates.
Three adults and the child were rescued. Apparently unharmed. There have been no reports of casualties among the raiding force.
The previous use of military force by the French was on land. Surviving pirates were captured and brought to France. A French appeals court has cleared the way for these Somali pukes to go through the long process of inquisitorial proceedings and face a trial which may not only find them guilty but send them to the slam for life.
This is how piracy is defeated. Period.
It is not necessary for the "international community" to establish a viable, functioning government in the puddle of Islamist anarchy going by the name of Somalia. It is not necessary for the US or France or anybody to fund, train, equip and supervise a Somalian coastguard no matter what the man who goes by the title of "Minister of Fisheries" might say to the media. It is not necessary to stand up an international court under UN auspices.
All that is necessary is the robust employment of currently available military and naval resources. Yes, this means taking the risk of killing friendly personnel, either hostages or members of the commando party. But, the consequences of that risk are far less and far, far shorter term than those attending the current approach of hand-wringing and lawyer-consulting.
Piracy is an attractive option if and only if the risks are low in relation to the rewards. This is true if the pirates are of an opportunistic, free enterprise sort. It is also true if the pirates are the sharp point of a large, well-organised, international criminal combine. It is even true if the pirates are maritime jihadists part and parcel of the global Islamist movement.
Having died in front of French guns or being handcuffed by French troopies, it is probable that the Rollicking Pirates of Somalia will start checking the flags on target vessels. And, giving those flying the Tricolor a free pass. Why run the risk of having a French commando grab you by the nuts if you can find a softer target?
The NYT with a sort of lip-smacking glee examines the current "hostage standoff" a few hundred miles off the coast of Somalia as a classic dilemma in asymmetrical warfare. The Deep Thinkers at the Times are echoing the attitude of many others when they see the "limits of American power" on display in the confrontation between four pirates and their hostage in a drifting lifeboat and at least two US warships as well as helicopters, UAVs and P-3 surveillance aircraft.
The folks at the NYT and other media outlets seem to be pawing the ground with eager anticipation as they foresee the arrival of pirate reinforcements. Boats carrying a mix of gun-thugs and hostages from previously seized ships. The subtext seems to be one of certainty.
A certainty that the US will back down. A certainty that the Obama administration with a High Minded and Lofty Thinking commitment to the rule of law and the reality of international institutions will blink rather than use force. A certainty that the Obama administration will defer to negotiation and international public opinion rather than run the risk of seeing hostage Captain Phillips end up dead or even to risk the lives of "poverty stricken" fisherman forced by "twenty years of violence" to ply the trade of piracy.
The calm assurance projected by the NYT and other outlets that the new administration would never, never act in a way better suited to the evil days of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan may well be at work in the minds of the pirates as well. There is an undercurrent coming through the satellite phone interviews with the muggers in the lifeboat and their associates, comrades and backers ashore that the US would never risk the life of the American hostage--or the lives of other hostages who may be brought to the scene by their swinish captors.
Perhaps the media wallahs and Somali dacoits are right. Perhaps the Obama administration, a crew of lawyers, is too fastidious and too risk averse to do more than watch, wait and call upon global public opinion and the toothless dogs of the UN. Perhaps President Obama is not quite the mensch that President Sarkozy has shown himself to be.
But, before adopting a default position of doing as close to nothing as possible, the Obama team would be well advised to look back a few years. Back to the days of the Clinton administration. An honest appraisal of the Clinton years would show an important lesson.
The lesson?
A flaccid, ineffectual response to foreign provocation will only incite more provocations. By following a risk-averse approach in its responses to the al-Qaeda (and before those, Somali) outrages, the Clintonites only assured that more risks would confront more Americans in the years to come.
Arguably, a more robust response delivered in a way far more up-close-and-personal than cruise missiles with all the attendant risks to both American and target area non-combatants would have prevented the attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing wars which came in their wake.
What this means is simple: There is a time and place for violence.
That time and place comes in the very first confrontation between an armed enemy and the US. That time and place allows for the most effective application of the lowest risk, lowest casualty violence.
In the ocean off Somalia, the time is now and the place, a lifeboat with an American sea captain on board. We can hope he comes through it alive. But, if Captain Phillips goes the way of the presently unnamed French civilian, it will be with the result that skiff-riding Somali gangsters will avoid the Stars and Stripes in the future as they will the Tricolour.
No comments:
Post a Comment