Let’s not even mention the modern notion of a copyright pirate for a moment. That’s a distraction, a reduction of the word. A pirate is a desperate person who attacks ships either to capture their inherent worth or to ransom them and their crews. It’s cropping up again, off Somalia. This most recent batch has just “vow[ed] to take on US military might if attacked.”
We have dealt with this problem before. The cities of Algiers and Tripoli were havens for the pirates. Let us see how it ended for them:
- 1805: First Barbary War. Tripoli ends piracy vs. US vessels. In Algiers, piracy continues.
- 1812: Second Barbary War. Algiers ends piracy vs. US vessels. Against European powers, piracy continues.
- 1816: The British bombarded Algiers: secured the release of 3000 prisoners and the promise of ending piracy. Piracy continues.
- 1824: The British bombard Algiers again. Piracy continues.
- 1830: The French capture Algiers
The genocidal thoroughness with which the French conquered and colonized Algeria, causing the deaths of up to a third of Algeria’s population, put an effective end to piracy from the Barbary coast.
What lesson can we take from this? How about that pirates can be defeated en masse, so long as there is sufficient political will to just keep killing people until they agree to stop attempting piracy.
“But unrestrained aggression in that region will just drive more people to terrorism, exacerbating our long-term problems with them!”
There are two responses to that. The first is that attacking pirates isn’t aggression; it’s defense. It may be pre-emptive defense, but it’s still just a response to a provocation to protect the safety of our citizens. The second is that piracy is terrorism, on the seas. There are only two real differences: pirates neatly identify themselves, as anyone on a boat that is attacking or reinforcing attackers may be considered a pirate. Also, terrorists generally at least pretend to having a political goal; pirates are in it for the money.
All we need to do is bring down the hammer, such that the pirates have to decide what is more important: our money or their lives.
How do we do this? We just start killing pirates. Destroy any boat that comes to reinforce a pirate crew. Destroy any boat that contains only pirates, even if it contains hostages. We can’t let the fear of one casualty paralyze our ability to respond. If necesary, we can resort to historical precedent and just start shelling the ports from which they emerge. Shelling, historically, is at best a short term solution. Still, there’s no denying the fact that it does work.
I’d be surprised if this is what ends up happening. We’ve defined ourselves as a nation that sheds blood only as a last resort; any politician who remembers G.W. Bush is going to be very cautious about launching any sort of attack not necessary to the prosecution of the wars he started. Even so, it is appropriate to use both the carrot and the stick in national policy.
That if once you have paid him the Danegeld, You never get rid of the Dane.
No comments yet.