Comments on: Confounding the Fuzzy-Wuzzies http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2008/12/11/confounding-the-fuzzy-wuzzies/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=confounding-the-fuzzy-wuzzies @TAC Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:36:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jason http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2008/12/11/confounding-the-fuzzy-wuzzies/comment-page-1/#comment-2926 Jason Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:39:53 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1349#comment-2926 This sounds like a good plan to me. http://rightklik.blogspot.com/ This sounds like a good plan to me.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/

]]> By: WRW http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2008/12/11/confounding-the-fuzzy-wuzzies/comment-page-1/#comment-2917 WRW Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:02:06 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1349#comment-2917 As I noted in commenting on your earlier post about Kristol, at least here he can cite the Constitution (Art. I, Section 8) which expressly empowers Congress to establish penalties for piracy. If a penalty is imposed that necessarily implies Congress' power to enforce the penalty. They have targeted US shipping as well http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/12/ap_piracy_120208/. Unlike the Army, maintaining a Navy at all necessarily implies its use away from the mainland US. It would not be an untoward US of our forces provided the Administration limits it work to the pirates (as opposed to Kristol's latest invasion project.) Perhaps we need to send Kristol to see Keanu Reeves' latest movie? As I noted in commenting on your earlier post about Kristol, at least here he can cite the Constitution (Art. I, Section 8) which expressly empowers Congress to establish penalties for piracy. If a penalty is imposed that necessarily implies Congress’ power to enforce the penalty. They have targeted US shipping as well http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/12/ap_piracy_120208/. Unlike the Army, maintaining a Navy at all necessarily implies its use away from the mainland US. It would not be an untoward US of our forces provided the Administration limits it work to the pirates (as opposed to Kristol’s latest invasion project.) Perhaps we need to send Kristol to see Keanu Reeves’ latest movie?

]]> By: Kinderplatz http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2008/12/11/confounding-the-fuzzy-wuzzies/comment-page-1/#comment-2916 Kinderplatz Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:58:19 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1349#comment-2916 The simplest of plans have a habit of going awry when violence is the tool of choice. There's a saying, "The battle plan is the first casualty of war." The more complicated the plan the greater the chance of failure. In addition, wiping out the current breed of pirate will inevitably lead to the establishment of an even more virulent strain of pirates who may not have any qualms about executing hostages if their demands aren't met. This IS an economic issue and you are trying to cure the symptoms, not the disease, with violence. Foreigners with guns rarely deter, or solve, anything in this region of the world. Why does everyone seem to think that firefights are easy things? "it would take them a long time to reequip and regroup." What makes you think this? Somalia is swimming in arms markets from which they could re-arm the following day. Not to mention the fact that there are more than likely multiple groups engaging in this activity who would be more than happy to pick up the others slack. "precisely what our Founding Fathers might have had in mind when they created the navy and marine corps." That was over 200 years ago and pirates weren't sporting AK's, RPG's and GPS systems back then. Technology has leveled the playing field in regards to non-state perpetrators of violence duking it out with established nation-states. Problems can no longer be resolved with hammers anymore, and that is what a military strike would be. Only it would more likely end up as a game of whack-a-mole. Also keep in mind that these pirates operate with the support of the local communities, and it would not surprise me if some of that ransom money was finding it's way back into those communities, or that the pirates themselves come from them. Move against the pirates and you move against the civilians in those communities, which will endear them to the pirates more so and exacerbate your pirate problem. And targeted at who? Suppose the pirates disappear into the local populace, who do you kill then? Sure you've destroyed the villa and maybe some weapons and boats. You have not removed the source of their funding, whatever funds they may still have, the arms markets or removed the appeal of piracy to the pirates. They live in a world of violence, what makes you think you can shock them with it? Somalia is in dire straights and they've been attempting to use violence to resolve their issues for decades now. It hasn't worked. What makes you think "judicious" use of force would be any more successful? The simplest of plans have a habit of going awry when violence is the tool of choice. There’s a saying, “The battle plan is the first casualty of war.” The more complicated the plan the greater the chance of failure. In addition, wiping out the current breed of pirate will inevitably lead to the establishment of an even more virulent strain of pirates who may not have any qualms about executing hostages if their demands aren’t met. This IS an economic issue and you are trying to cure the symptoms, not the disease, with violence. Foreigners with guns rarely deter, or solve, anything in this region of the world. Why does everyone seem to think that firefights are easy things?

“it would take them a long time to reequip and regroup.”

What makes you think this? Somalia is swimming in arms markets from which they could re-arm the following day. Not to mention the fact that there are more than likely multiple groups engaging in this activity who would be more than happy to pick up the others slack.

“precisely what our Founding Fathers might have had in mind when they created the navy and marine corps.”

That was over 200 years ago and pirates weren’t sporting AK’s, RPG’s and GPS systems back then. Technology has leveled the playing field in regards to non-state perpetrators of violence duking it out with established nation-states. Problems can no longer be resolved with hammers anymore, and that is what a military strike would be. Only it would more likely end up as a game of whack-a-mole.

Also keep in mind that these pirates operate with the support of the local communities, and it would not surprise me if some of that ransom money was finding it’s way back into those communities, or that the pirates themselves come from them. Move against the pirates and you move against the civilians in those communities, which will endear them to the pirates more so and exacerbate your pirate problem.

And targeted at who? Suppose the pirates disappear into the local populace, who do you kill then? Sure you’ve destroyed the villa and maybe some weapons and boats. You have not removed the source of their funding, whatever funds they may still have, the arms markets or removed the appeal of piracy to the pirates. They live in a world of violence, what makes you think you can shock them with it?

Somalia is in dire straights and they’ve been attempting to use violence to resolve their issues for decades now. It hasn’t worked. What makes you think “judicious” use of force would be any more successful?

]]>