"Great, kid, don't get cocky."

Two recent proposals for dealing with piracy highlight the US military's challenges in effectively dealing with piracy, despite the dramatic rescue of Captain Phillips. Given my recent (and yes, initial) encounter with Star Wars, I was pleased to see Donald Sensing at Sense of Events characterize the situation as such:



Although it is not clear that strikes on land would be much more effective than action at sea (and that goes for targeting Al Shabab as well), Sensing's points on this subject are generally well-taken, however, and it's good to hear an advocate for a non-reactionary response to piracy:

We need to refrain from getting caught up in action-reaction cycles in order to maintain the freedom to plan and act mostly analytically rather than reflexively. We must not become enamored with a "quick fix" under the illusion that the whole piracy problem can be solved as easily or quickly as Capt. Phillips' kidnapping was.

One plan that does not rely on a quick fix by the US Navy is that of a "Sons of Somalia" (think Sons of Iraq) Coast Guard. The Information Dissemination blog presents this as an opportunity for multilateral maritime nation-building, resulting in a Somali Coast Guard of 30 vessels and 2000 Coasties. The author of the blog estimates the cost of such an undertaking at around $130 million, considerably below the cost of ransom payments and maritime insurance premiums. As Nathan Hodge points out, the European Union is more interested in concentrating on land forces, though they did note Somali President Sheikh Sharif Sheik Ahmed's call for the establishment of a coast guard.

A second, non-US Navy pirate plan hearkens back to the 18th century. As Elizabeth Dickinson at Foreign Policy reports, Ron Paul is advocating that Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal to essentially commission privateers in the style of the late 1700s:



The Constitutional authority is there (Article 1, Section 8), though it hasn't been used since the War of 1812 -- with good reason. There are numerous problems with this plan, not the least of which is, as Politico notes, its resemblance to the use of private military contractors:

“It may work in the sense that if you give people incentives to fight piracy, you’ll see more action taken against it,” said Andrew Grotto, a senior national security analyst with the Center for American Progress. “The ocean is huge and, practically speaking, there’s no way the Navy can prevent piracy; it’s too big. But just given the experience in Iraq with private contractors, that effort showcases the difficulties dealing with folks who aren’t answerable to anyone but shareholders.”

There are also legal issues with this proposal pertaining to the prosecution of pirates and even to identifying them as such (which is, of course, of no small interest to us):

If bounty hunters chase pirates into territorial coastal waters or on to the shore of another country, the problem would fall under the jurisdiction of that country. And any plundering activity that takes place in coastal waters is no longer considered piracy, according to College of William and Mary national security law professor Linda Malone. Not to mention that there’s also no clear indication where and how the captured pirates should be prosecuted ... And how to determine exactly who is a pirate — and what constitutes pirate activity — could get fuzzy. “What happens when a ship flying under Congress accidentally takes out an aid ship bound for Somalia?” Grotto said. “At what time does an act seem pirate-like enough to cross the line? Do we really want these snap judgments being made on the fly in waters thousands of miles away from Washington? This is not Johnny Depp we’re dealing with.”

The wide range of anti-piracy proposals (and the flaws and challenges in all of them) demonstrate quite clearly contemporary difficulties in conceptualizing and responding to piracy, but it is reassuring to see a movement away from the heated calls for all-out invasion and death from a few weeks ago.