Once again, Hanson sitting in Fresno, should stick to channeling his experiences as a slave in Sparta. Ah, those disciplinarian sessions, eh, Victor? Who have the Somalian pirates killed? These are not the type of killer pirates stealing boats around the world.

So, where was Shrub in stopping the wars in Somalia, helping to establish not only a government, but a viable economy? Where was Shrub in stopping the vast poaching of fish off the coast of Somalia, thereby ruining the economy for Somalian fishermen? Must not have been enough oil to flicker across Shrub's mind and desk.

Don't conservative "intellectuals" - the George Wills, Thomas Sowells and Victor Davis Hansons - care about discrediting themselves with foolish and transparently hypocritical arguments?

Apparently nobody (talking nations here) wants to spend the money to effectively patrol the area. Historically speaking, other effective measures against this sort of threat have been escorted convoys and armed merchantmen. There haven't been enough losses yet I guess.

That coastline has a long history of piracy going back to antiquity... culturally speaking it's an 'honorable profession'.

Hanson went on to argue that "Obamists" are weakening the country with "their serial apologetics" -- seriously, he wrote this without a hint of humor

Ummm... do neither Hanson or his editor know what the word "apologetics" mean? Or do they think there is something unAmerican about a reasoned defense of a policy?

Yes, just look how much Obama's screwed up in only 3 months. He's managed to go back in time and allow the Somalian pirates to rise in 2006.

That should be read "State Dep-ARRRRRR!-tment," of course.

Always fascinating to see how everything is always Obama's fault, even when it's demonstrably not. I guess he really does have superpowers if he's responsible for Bush administration actions in 2005.

I wonder what the right wing arm chair Admirals would propose. Should the Bainbridge put a 5 inch shell in the middle of the lifeboat? That would end things. The American would be killed but what the hell, proving we are tough is more important than saving the heroic Captain.

Ahh, these manly conservatives, they're not "soft on..." anything, they're so tough (dare I say "hard..."?)... ;-)

Oh dear, actually makes me think of the apocryphal story of a guy telling his shrink about a sexual dream about a women that he found disturbing, and then he says "But it's not my mother!".

What is it with these "soft on" this and "soft on" that people? Cheesh...

...and continuing in the same vein, if you'll excuse the expression,

"In academic circles the last two decades, pirates have been romanticized in a variety of contexts -- as in pirates being contrarian individualists, admirable anarchists, Marxist redistributionists, sexually ambiguous, cross-dressing, transgendered libertines, and Lotus-eater-like sensualists, rather than as murderous criminals."

Let's see now, that's 3 political references (contrarian individualists, anarchists, Marxist) as opposed to 4 (5?) sexual references, in just one sentence!

No! It's not my mother!

Somebody help me out here. Is Hanson's quote: "contrarian individualists, admirable anarchists, Marxist redistributionists, sexually ambiguous, cross-dressing, transgendered libertines, and Lotus-eater-like sensualists" a description of the pirates or predatory laissez-faire capitalists?

My question is, how are ships passing through the area getting insurance? Are the insurance companies just saying ransom is the cost of doing business?

Answers?

Tigershark asked:

> My question is, how are ships passing through the area getting insurance?
> Are the insurance companies just saying ransom is the cost of doing business?

Until recently, the answer to that last question was "yes" -- the occasional ransom was a cost of doing business. One million here, two million there, is not that on the balance books at the scale most of these companies operate at.

But pirate seizures have jumped dramatically in the last year or so, and insurers have been requiring more and more anti-piracy precautions from shippers, including only operating (relatively) faster ships on those routes, and directing them on passages further offshore. One recent and troubling development is that the Somalis are now operating further and further out, seizing legitimate (and unobtrusive) fishing boats as a temporary platform from which to launch speedboat attacks hundreds of miles out from the coast.

But also, remember that most of the attacks have come not in the Indian Ocean, but in the Gulf of Aden. That's a critical choke point for traffic on one of the world's most critical trade routes, through the Suez Canal.

Steve, stop being an idiot. The Somali pirates started working in 2005 because they new that soon, Obama would be president and they would have a free ride. How could it possibly have anything to do with Bush?

Think these things through, or I might have to leave this site for a more legitimate source of opinion, such as George Will WaPo columns.

Hanson seems to be confusing movie theaters and DVD shops with "academic circles." No wonder he has such silly ideas. Did he get his degree at Blockbuster? (Hint: Johnny Depp is not a scholar.
But what can you expect from someone who publicly suggests that a massive air strike following every act of piracy would actually improve things. I think he should just watch some of that "academic" show Mythbusters, he clearly wants to see stuff 'blow up real good.'

Shouldn't Hanson be complaining about the 'free market' capitalist approach to this problem that has been taken thus far? The cost of piracy is clearly being absorbed by the shipping companies as a cost of doing business, and providing good jobs to insurance underwriters, while providing a form of income for impoverished Somalis. Shouldn't we be keeping the government out of interfering with private business?

Isn't Hanson calling for Obama to "take over management" of the shipping industry? Damn socialist.

Obama is responsible for the financial crisis which began in 2007 - that's pretty well accepted fact. Thus, it's not a stretch to say he's responsible for piracy in 2005.

Using this same line of reason, Obama will be linked to 9/11, OKC, etc, etc.

I think we all know where this is headed: Obama killed JFK.

Yes, Johnny Depp isn't an academic, and since when does the State Department/Pentagon listen to academics?

What is VDH talking about? Why is he such a military jock-sniffer?

obama: the new clinton. it's all his fault.

Unfortunately pirates are a very real problem for the last twenty years in various parts of the world for cargo ships (Malacca Straits, Malaysia) and a much larger problem for small ships (yachts) cruising the world (Mexico, South America, Red Sea, etc). This problem has accelerated under Bush (as did many problems). There are many reasons: lack of cooperation among nations to police ocean or a lack of means to do so, neglected problem (i.e. busy fighting the wrong war), general rise of poverty/lawlessness in impoverished countries, etc.

All while pirates have been romanticized in American movies, real pirates have been busy stealing ships and killing people. As you can guess, I am a boat owner and I am tired of seeing other boat owners hoist up the Skull and Crossbones flag as a joke. It's no joke.

The smart question: has piracy ever been controlled without control of the land(s) from which it originates?

"The smart question: has piracy ever been controlled without control of the land(s) from which it originates?"

Actually, yes. See Barbary Pirates - Thomas Jefferson - US Navy - "Shores of Tripoli"

There was a small land action, but most was sea based.

But of course, Jefferson was a Democrat, so this probably doesn't count.

>"The smart question: has piracy ever been controlled without control of the land(s) from which it originates?"

The answer is yes... but removing 'ports of refuge' can be an effective part of an anti-piracy strategy. At this time, I think invading Somalia and taking control of port areas is not an attractive proposition.

Like most enterprises, the business of piracy is a matter of cost versus reward. It is managed by removing rewards or increasing risks until it becomes untenable.

The 'reasonable' answer to the problem is boarding virtually every vessel headed offshore from Somalia.

If they fight, you sink them and imprision survivors for an appropriate term.

If you board them and find weapons, the vessel is sunk and the occupants are put back on the beach. It wouldn't take long until they realize it's a losing proposition and/or they run out of boats.

The above would require a fair sum of money and ships. Like the pirates themselves, the will to extensively patrol is based on cost versus reward. A naval presence would need to be maintained until piracy as a viable economic option was off the table for Somalis.

The ultimate answer is for the region to develop a stable economic/political structure capable of supporting the inhabitants in a reasonably comfortable life. Good luck with that part.

"U.S. Cargo Captain Is Freed, Reports Say"

Well, it seems that this time they won't be able to blame Obama.

DSW

Not only are the republicans giving themselves a pass for the rise of Somali pirates under Bush, but they actually were blaming Clinton for their very existence, since he ordered the pullout from the First Bush adventure in Somalia, so naturally, it's all Clinton's fault for not "winning"..... (see Judith Klinghoffer for a prime example of this argument, but I've seen it elsewhere).

The dextronuts are going to have a harder time picking on Obama now, since breaking news: Captain Richard Phillips has been recaptured, three pirates killed and one capture (the last maybe still being clarified.) Hurrah!

Well. Now: how many of them are going to take back all that dumping on Obama, since he got the man back? I guess they'll be reduced to griping that ol' Ronbo would have done it right away, in person ... Like he bombed Russia after they shot down KAL 007, sent choppers into Iran to at least try to get back our hostages (instead of making secret deals to sell them arms, then lying about it, like Carter did! ... ; -)

So what emboldens the pirates anyway? Discussions on Meet The Press today revealed that private shipping companies won't let their crews carry adequate armament to defend from pirates. The companies would rather negotiate than fight, and want to avoid liability costs (well, the insurance agencies like Lloyd's have a role, let's ask if their policies should change too.) That just encourages the pirates - "It's win-win for the pirates."

The US Navy is already out there around the horn of Africa: there's just too much space to cover with a few ships (and remember, how much US military and money tied up in GW Bush's ill-advised and bungled adventures that could otherwise be deployed elsewhere!) Right-wing
shysters who say Obama is weak etc. about pirates were just using the affair for partisan propaganda. Now they have egg (tea? pee?) on their faces!

"It wouldn't take long until they realize it's a losing proposition and/or they run out of boats."

The boats are cheap, as are the weapons. Even a very low success rate is enough to keep things going in absence of better alternatives to slow starvation.

Hanson's broader point is silly, but the specific quote you mention is a joking reference to Marcus Rediker, a radical historian of the Atlantic world does indeed make some of the arguments he mentions.

I love it that conservatives conveniently forget that North Korea said a giant *F YOU!!* to the United States back when Bushie was prez. For all Bush and Dick's chest puffing all they really accomplished was tying our hands and making us impotent to any new emerging threats because we've been eyebrows deep in Iraq. So, back when Bushie was prez and the North Korean government said "Hey B-words! We're gonna make nukes and you can kiss our A-words!" what did lil' Bushie do? Not a damn thing - oh, other than take a month or two for a Crawford vacation.

So hey Republicans! Get your history straight! You want to blame Obama for your failures? Too bad over half the country isn't suffering from Republican Selective Memory the way you are. Why not go back to blaming Clinton and essentially saying that Bush was so ineffectual that his 8 years in office could never undo the "damage" that the Mighty King Clinton did? Morons.

I"m late to this conversation, but what has struck me in every reports is the almost offhanded comments that Somalia has had no central government since 1991. For example, here's the BBC's version:

"America was convinced that Somalia, having been without a government since 1991, was an ideal conduit through which al-Qaeda could advance into the region from the Arabian peninsular."

I mean, isn't destroying the central government the whole goal of the modern Republican party? You have to wonder if they have actually thought this through, or if they just all believe that the US would be a better place run by warlords and pirates.

if a conservative complains in the forest does anyone hear them?

I'm mystified that all the media breathlessly reports and discusses any and every bit of nonsense oozing from these people. The country has moved on. They;re a small group of malcontents. I think its time to ignore them.

Romantic Pirates:

This is just too stupid. These are not the days the Roman Republic when Pompey the Great was given imperium over the both the sea and fifty miles inward and swept the pirates from the Roman Empire that it was several hundred years before they were a threat once again.

I think the Republicans are soft in the head to think their patent lies will continue to work. Remember though, to paraphrase Lenin said, "People will believe any lie told long enough and loud enough."

Which, although it is tiresome, every single lie of theirs much be countered with facts again and again and again.

You know the more these conservative intellectuals speak the more I am reminded of the fate of flatterers in Dante's Inferno. When they opened their mouths to speak feces flowed.

Not the best image for an Easter morning, but I'm getting kind of tired of all this Dems are "Weak on..." stuff. As Steve points out here, this piracy began on the ever vigilant Bush watch.

They have no shame, they're Republicans.

Victor David Hanson = Idiot Idiot Idiot.
Republicans = Idiots

Enough said.

Tigershark: it was the "small land actions" -- plural -- that made the war on the Barbary pirates EFFECTIVE.

A couple things to keep in mind::

First, we started out paying tribute, like most other countries, to an actual GOVERNMENT, which controlled the Barbary pirates. William Bainbridge was the guy Jefferson sent with the dough -- the guy the destroyer we just sent was named for. (Bainbridge was capture, released, and eventually led us to victory.)

Second, we didn't like paying tribute, so we attacked twice, in 1801 and again 1815. The key to the 1801-1805 war was threatening to knock off the Pasha and replace him with his brother. This wasn't a "small" thing -- the Pasha (Bashaw) certainly believed it, being as how we had an Army in his country that was clearly capable of obliterating any of his troops that stood their ground.

Third, it was the 1815 war that was largely a naval affair, after the aforesaid Pasha broke his word -- first, the US took several Algerian ships, and second, the British and Dutch blew the shit out of Tripoli from offshore. But the most important factor was technology -- the corsairs couldn't take early 19th century frigates as easily as they could take 18th century merchant ships.

But finally, the end of piracy from North Africa had to wait until Algeria became a French colony, in 1830. That was primarily because France literally seized the LAND.

So my question stands: has piracy ever been controlled without somebody controlling the land it comes from?

Next time, learn what you're talking about, willya?

So three pirates are dead and the fourth is in custody and the Captain is free....So much for soft on Pirates. NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Depp and Knightly? No, VDH complains that pirates have been romanticized in academia, not in the movies.

So what the hell is he talking about?

Dunno, has Camille Paglia written lately about pirates?

So I guess the question would be, how many pirates did the US Navy kill when George Bush was President?

What's that you say- none? Why was Bush so soft on pirates?

Looks like the Easter BunnyPublican dropped another bad egg; they're not even going to get 24 hours out of the "soft-on-piracy" meme, and it's going to blow up in their faces with a vengeance.

Soft on pira....BANG BANG BANG.

/dead memes
/dead pirates

Fun with google:

"Somalia" + "arrr" gets how many hits? No cheating!

Tree: I think we all know where this is headed: Obama killed JFK.

you left out vince foster

But of course, Jefferson was a Democrat, so this probably doesn't count.

Actually, by today's standards, Jefferson was far more to the right in terms of a limited role for the feds--but I'm sure he would want nothing to do with the religious conservatives who dominate the Republican party now.