In my opinion, President Obama has no choice but to set a military precedent off Africa Horn

RollWithIt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-11-09 05:20 PM
Original message

In my opinion, President Obama has no choice but to set a military precedent off Africa Horn

Edited on Sat Apr-11-09 05:31 PM by RollWithIt

First off, I believe that up until now President Obama's response to the recent hijacking drama 300 miles off the coast of Somalia has been correct. There is a lot that we aren't seeing right now. Essentially, what is happening right now mirrors how local and federal officials handle bank robberies. They surround the facility and negotiate with the hostage takers.

Unfortunately these individuals are in fact terrorist criminals. They are well organized. They are well financed. They operate a highly lucrative hostage taking business on the open seas of the coast of Africa. There is no government policing in such activities in their home country (Somalia). They have no qualms about who they hijack. This hijacking problem exists in both large commercial vessels and extremely small pleasure vessels. It simply is not safe to be on a boat, even hundreds of miles offshore, off the Horn of Africa (Somalia). If the problem is allowed to continue then the problem will only grow larger over time. More hijacking, more death and mayhem.

The main problem is how to deal with it.

NO ONE wants to send troops to Somalia. Personally, I think that is a mistake as the systemic breakdown of society in NE and Midcentral NE Africa will never be solved without invasion and a subsequent generational policing action. When I said no one, I meant no one, and the reality is that the African Union has to do something as a collective whole. No, the United States isn't going to provide an invasionary force, but southern African nations certainly should. Does everyone turn a blind eye to the madness and just hope it goes away? That doesn't mean that I believe we should have sent troops to Iraq. Completely different issue.

In the short-term, my conclusion is that the hijackers cannot simply be bought off and the problem will just go away. The French have learned this lesson. When you pay them off that means they have more boats, more guns, and more people willing to risk their lives to do it.

A Somalia male, in his twenties or thirties, on one of those hijacking boats, carrying weapons and willing to kill someone, and stands to make more money for his family in a few days then he would have made in YEARS or DECADES.

What do you think happens?

In the end, we simply cannot let these hostage takers transfer a US citizen from a hostage taking emergency raft to a large ship and be transferred to Somalia mainland. We also cannot just hand them money and expect them never to never do it again.

I believe President Obama must send heavy naval reinforcement into this region. That includes several Destroyers, Cruisers, and at least one aircraft carrier. For the most part, our navy only operates as an aircraft launching platform. Well, all of a sudden we actually need Ocean based policing again. We've spent billions and billions and billions on Destroyers, Cruisers, etc that really have no use other than sitting off a coast and lobbing in rounds. 99% of the time they sit around and twiddle their thumbs. We start parking some of this equipment off the Horn and make it clear that if you hijack a vehicle you will either die or spend the rest of your life in lockup that money those hijackers enjoyed over the last 10 years won't look so enticing.