Israel's Terrible Blunder

Israel is usually pretty smart when it comes to security and mitigating the threats from terror. There is, however, one area where they repeatedly fail to maintain their vaunted standards: their willingness to negotiate for hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday that the Israelis had reached a deal with Hamas, the terrorist group and Gaza's governing regime, for the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit, who was abducted five years ago by Hamas agents, will be swapped for some 1,000 Hamas prisoners currently being held in Israeli prisons, many of whom are serving life sentences for terrorism.

The deal, however, is dreadfully foolish. By rewarding Hamas's kidnapping, the Israelis are only facilitating the re-occurrence of such heinous events. It is never wise to provide hostage-takers with incentives to continue their behavior. The payment of ransoms is a sure way to put future Israelis at risk. The only successful way to deter such behavior is to ensure that abductions will never be rewarded and that kidnappers can expect severe punishment for such transgressions.

Equally damning is the price that Israel has agreed to pay for the return of Shalit. It will now release scores of murderers and terrorists, many of whom are sworn to Israel's destruction. At least some of them will undoubtedly commit further terrorist attacks—in all likelihood causing the deaths of more Israelis. It is impossible for the Israeli government to morally justify the release of terrorists when death for some unfortunate Israelis is the inevitable outcome. Trading one captured prisoner for potential, even if undetermined, dead is unfathomable.

Finally, as harsh as it may seem, Israel will not be getting back the national hero that Shalit has been romanticized into over the past five years. As anyone who is familiar with Stockholm Syndrome knows, five years of isolation in a Hamas prison will not have worn well on the young Shalit, who was only 19 at the time of his capture. It is highly probable that Shalit has been completely brainwashed and indoctrinated by Hamas through years of psychological and physical control and torture. In all likelihood, over the course of his imprisonment, his handlers were able to break him. A worst case scenario is that he comes out of captivity as a mouthpiece for Hamas, slamming the very Israelis who sacrificed to gain his freedom. Obviously, such an outcome would be a huge propaganda win for Hamas and a demoralizing blow for Israel. Needless to say, it would only contribute to the mounting costs of this foolish prisoner swap. ^[1]

However misguided, the venerable roots of Israel's policy should not be denied. The intention is pure—to ensure that no solider is left behind, whether alive or dead. This is at least understandable, if not in some simplistic way commendable. It is undoubtedly comforting for the soldiers of such a small state to feel protected by their government. Nevertheless, while one's heart bleeds for the tragic Shalit, the government must consider the broader picture. There are better ways to maintain a commitment for the safe return of one's soldiers. Finding alternative means to punish Hamas, deter abductions, and obtain Shalit's release are the only method to fruitfully maintain Israeli security. Prisoner swaps will only lead to further tragedies and should never be a policy option.

---

Note:

[1] This is not meant to say that Israel should not do what it can to ensure Shalit's return—it should—but simply that the benefits the Israelis will get from a swap are not only most likely lower than they expect but certainly not worth the broader costs.

Hamas's Political Weakening May Help Israel

The political dynamics in the Middle East are slowly changing - quite possibly in Israel's favor.  A Reuters article reports that Iran has cut funding to Hamas due to the Palestinian movement's refusal to support besieged Syrian President Bashar Assad.  Hamas, which has its political headquarters in the Syrian capitol, Damascus, has long been used by Iran as a political and terrorist weapon against Israel (Hamas currently controls the Gaza Strip).  However, the Iranian leadership is obviously quite upset at Hamas's failure to support the fellow Iranian proxies in Syria.  Assad, who is backed by Iran, has been increasingly under threat as popular revolts against the dictator have increased.  The Syrian regime has also faced increasing illegitimacy across the globe as many leaders, including recently President Obama, have called for Assad's resignation.

Reuters also reports that Hamas has lost funding from its Muslim Brotherhood supporters who are fueling the Arab Spring revolts in Egypt.

Hamas is also widely believed to receive money from the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's most popular and organised political force. Diplomats said those payments also may have been reduced because the Brotherhood has diverted funds to support the so-called Arab Spring revolts.

Hamas's financial and political woes may bode well for Israel.  Hamas has recently indicated a desire for a ceasefire with Israel.  According to reports this ceasefire will go into effect Sunday evening. This followed a series of bloody attacks in southern Israel this past week, perpetrated by the PRC, a group of Muslim terrorist seemingly unaffiliated with Hamas.  Israel has responded forcefully to both the PRC attacks and subsequent rocket strikes from Gaza.

All of this seems to suggest that the political turmoil within the Arab states may be weakening Israel's enemies.  Growing infighting among anti-Israel groups, the weakening of dictatorial Arab regimes, and the loss of Iranian influence appear to have strengthened Israel's position.  While the loss of Egypt's Mubarak and the possible increase in Islamist power in Egypt, may have some detrimental effects for Israel, ultimately it appears that the weakening of Hamas, Syria, and Iran may be quite beneficial for Israel. (Egypt, under Mubarak, was a nominal ally of Israel's and now may be taking a more Islamist-friendly approach, as the recent PRC attacks, launched from Egyptian-controlled Sinai, show.) 

Body Bombs and the TSA

TSA has released a warning that terrorists are attempting to bring explosive devices onto planes by surgically implanting them into the bodies of suicide bombers.  While no specific plot has been discovered, TSA has released the statement in order to bolster airport security.  This is in spite of the fact that experts say current security measures are largely unable to detect explosives under the skin.

While discussions of these methods in terrorist circles is not new, the desire to employ such extreme tactics draws into question the entire approach to security that we currently rely upon.  The TSA is constantly playing catch-up to an innovative and determined network of terrorists.  This not only puts us on the defensive, able only to respond, but has steadily placed greater restrictions on our freedoms.  With TSA removing the diapers of 95-year old grandmothers and excessively and unsympathetically patting-down little girls, it is becoming questionable if our security methods are really protecting us - or letting the terrorists win by forcing us to drastically change our way of life.

Security is essential and we should all be willing to give up some freedoms to protect ourselves - that is the primary role of government.  Little girls can, unfortunately, not be exempt from pat-downs as such a rule would inevitably lead to terrorist use of children to carry their weaponry.  However, there is a need to find balance between security and freedom.

The first thing to understand is that we cannot continue to have knee-jerk reactions that restrict passengers behavior after every "chattered," or even attempted, terrorist plot.  A determined enemy will always strive to find new ways around our security.  While we should attempt to stay ahead of them, thwarting plots and instituting new security measures, security officials must be careful to understand the probability of such terrorist schemes actually working.  For instance, the terrorist liquid plot failed yet travelers are still burdened with not being able to bring liquids on planes.

The response to discovered or thwarted plots does not always need to result in greater restrictions for the traveler.  The more we continue to restrict ourselves in fear of that rare one-time event, the less the terrorists have to succeed to severely alter our way of life.  Instead, there must be a greater focus on winning the offensive battle.  Dedicated terrorists will never cease trying to destroy or injure the West.  Probability alone dictates that in playing a defensive game of catch-up we will lose at some point.  Instead we must rid the world of dedicated terrorists, both by directly killing or otherwise stopping current terrorists and preventing the creation of new ones through the use of our soft- and hard-power. 

Admittedly, this alone is insignificant to protect us.  Some will always be "out to get" the West and the TSA needs to continue doing a good job maintaining security.  However, in order to achieve this we need to jettison the outmoded thinking of non-profiling.  As Isaac Yeffet, former head of security at El Al, has said, it is essential to use profiling tools to screen for the greatest threats.  Random searches of, say, grandmothers are a waste of time and resources and ultimately a threat to our security. 

Such use of profiling is not about racial discrimination but about being smart in our approach to security, creating the least amount of inconvenience, and appropriately using our resources.  Profiles are not a simple call to perform invasive searches on every Muslim- or Arab-looking man, but the use of a compilation of looks, behaviors, actions, and other statistically- and expertly-derived characteristics to screen for the most obvious threats.  Such a profile will indubitably change, and it is the responsibility of security services to adapt accordingly.  Our terrorist enemies would be foolish to present their foot-soldiers in the same readily identifiable form.  Nevertheless, profiling will help us stop the clear threats while easing the burdens on the vast majority who offer no threat.  Since technology seems to offer little to solve the problem of "body bombs" we seem to be left with a choice to reevaluate our methods or turn to drastic measures, such as invasive surgery, to maintain our security.

What's Next? The Questions Surrounding Bin Laden's Death

A much expanded version of the today's blog post, "What's Next? Bin Laden's Death," has now been published at Futurechallenges.org, under the name "What's Next?  The Questions Surrounding bin Laden's Death."  Please click the preceding link for a more detailed discussion about some of the issues and questions that will arise over the next few months.  And stay tuned - a follow-up article will be written at Futurechallenges, tracing the results of some of these questions.

What's Next? Bin Laden's Death

Presidents Obama and Bush and their respective security and intelligence teams deserve a hearty round of applause for the death of Osama bin Laden last night. After nearly a decade of intelligence gathering and a successful special ops operation, the terrorist mastermind has finally been brought to justice.  President Obama particularly deserves credit for executing an extra-judicial killing (the mission was to kill not capture) and handling the event with poise and respectability.

As news reports indicate, bin Laden was killed in a mid-afternoon raid of a compound inside Abbottabad, Pakistan where al-Qaeda’s head was holed up. After a 40 minute battle, Navy SEAL forces were successful in shooting bin Laden in a firefight. Intelligence officials, including CIA director Leon Panetta, were able to watch the operation on a live feed from Virginia. While bin Laden’s death is undoubtedly cause for celebration it raises a couple of “what next” questions.

First, the location of bin Laden’s compound raises some significant questions about Pakistan’s complacency. The compound, described as a near fortress-like facility with four to six meter thick walls topped with barbed wire is located in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a suburb of Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Abbottabad is said to be an important seat of the Pakistani government. The building was only a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy, what BBC has called “the country's equivalent of West Point.”

Whether Pakistan knew of bin Laden’s whereabouts has yet to be determined, but obvious questions are buzzing around the media. It seems dubious that the world’s most wanted terrorist could be holed up in a fortress-like compound a mere 40 miles outside of the capital and across the street from a military college without someone in Pakistan’s government or in the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence services notoriously known for their ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban) knowing.

Further news will undoubtedly come forward in the next few days. If it is true that Pakistan had knowledge of bin Laden’s location and failed to assist the United States, it will be impossible for the Obama administration to avoid severe political reprisals against the country. No country or group can be excused for aiding and abetting the world’s most wanted terrorist. While the US will still need to work with Pakistan in the fight against radical Islam, punitive measures would be essential.

Second, while bin Laden’s death is certainly a major win for the United States and the war on terrorism, the West should be careful to avoid reading too deep into its operational significance. There are still many terrorists who wish to see harm brought to America. Bin Laden was, in many ways, a figurehead and his incapacitation does not negate the broader threat. Today we can celebrate, but we must not let down our guard. Instead we must continue to fight those who wish to destroy our way of life. This is especially true in the near future, as security forces have been put on high alert for possible reprisal attacks. For many in the Islamic world, bin Laden was a hero and his death a major loss. The war on terrorism will not be won solely by killing major leaders, but by defeating the very ideology that underpins a hatred of the West.

Poisoning at Fort Jackson, SC

Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports that a number of US soldiers have been detained at Fort Jackson in South Carolina for attempting to intentionally poison the food supply at the Army base. Reports indicate that the soldiers may be members of an Arabic translator team.  CBN News reports that the soliders were actually detained in December.  According to Fox News:

The ongoing probe began two months ago, Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, told Fox News.

The Army is taking the allegations “extremely seriously,” Grey said, but so far, "there is no credible information to support the allegations."

The suspects were part of a Arabic translation program called "09 Lima" and use Arabic as their first language, two sources told Fox News. Another military source said they were Muslim.
Grey would not confirm or deny the sources’ information.

 This appears to be a growing trend of infiltration of the US military by Muslim extremists.

Updates will follow as they become available.

Who Is Responsible for al-Qaeda's Attack?

The recent attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound flight has served as ample fodder for attacks on the Obama administration and the TSA. While there are grounds for criticism, the knee-jerk reaction to begin the blame-game, alongside the TSA’s predictable reactionary response, needs to be evaluated in a more rational light.

Without going too far out on a limb, the administration does need some defending. Critics on the right, and even the left, have been lambasting the administration’s snafu. Bloggers, such as Karl DeVries at The Bootleg Press, have (tentatively) called for Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s sacking. Other critics  have demanded explanations for why the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not on the no-fly list.

The problem is that in American political culture, the impetuous urge to find a scapegoat ubiquitously overrides true insight into a potential (or actual) disaster. When dealing with issues like security, particularly when threats come from disparate sources, there is always some probability that the ‘bad’ event will occur. No matter how secure a system is, it will never be foolproof.  If a system is 99.99% perfect it means that 1 in 10,000 times the law of averages dictates that the bad guy will get through.  This is especially true when having to weigh tradeoffs between security and issues such as efficiency and personal liberty. An extremely cumbersome yet vastly more secure process could be designed (Maybe have everyone disrobe, wear TSA issued jumpsuits, and be forbidden to have any personal effects on planes); however, the costs in terms of money, time, and personal freedoms would most likely outweigh the added security.  For instance, it is absurd to demand that a single phone call from an individual’s father should warrant inclusion on a no-fly list. Such a precedent would overburden the system with meaningless names added to the list. [And, it might prompt fathers of rebellious teenagers across the globe to literally ‘ground’ their children.]  Furthermore, such an inane system would still fail to be foolproof as some committed terrorist would inevitably find a way to beat it.

Likewise, the TSA has clamped down on security in the most arbitrary and ineffectual way.  For instance pilots are now allowed (and have) to prevent passengers from keeping anything in their laps during the last hour of flight.  It is not clear how keeping a Grandma from the Midwest from reading her copy of Going Rogue during the last hour of flight, is going to stop the next Abdulmutallab from blowing up a plane one and half hours before arrival.

The problem is not the current system, per se.  Potential terrorists will inevitably find new and ingenious ways to breach our systems in the never ending game of cat and mouse. We should continue to monitor their methods and tactics and respond by altering our strategies.  However, the unavoidable infiltration does not necessarily mean the system has failed.  What it means is that the laws of probability have finally caught up to us.  Instead of rashly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, mistakes like this need to be studied, understood, and used to incrementally alter the system. The costs of proposed changes need to be carefully understood and weighed against the perceived benefits.

More importantly, we have to dampen our urge to see heads roll. The fact is that the TSA is our defensive force. They will never be the ones to win this war for America. Their successes will be largely unheralded, while their failures painfully public. If every time a mishap occurs we reflexively burden ourselves with arbitrary restrictions and decapitate our leadership, we only raise the costs to the American people without actually addressing the source of the problem.

The real war is in the offense; America needs to stop these young, disillusioned men from becoming Allah’s warriors. The failed foreign policy that has yet to reap the grandiloquently stated rewards is where the Obama administration deserves its criticism.  Regardless of who is on duty – whether Napolitano or her successor, Obama or the Republican President that follows him – no American airline will be one-hundred percent safe when there are still young Muslim’s willing to take their own lives to satiate their hatred of the West. The culture of scapegoating is futile. Let’s focus on the real problems.

Real Justice is in a Military Court, KSM Does Not Belong In NYC

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) will stand trial in New York federal court. This is an egregious mistake on the part of the Obama administration.

The trial will surely become a show – a mere opportunity for KSM to have a platform to spout his anti-American gospel. KSM, who has admitted to being the 9/11 mastermind, has long wanted the opportunity to preach his hatred. A trial will not be about finding justice – everyone from Obama down to the average New Yorker knows KSM is guilty. Instead, it will become an opportunity to put the U.S. on trial and attack the legacy of the war on terrorism.

Additionally, a civilian trial has different standards of admissibility of evidence. This will require the government to introduce classified information in order to successfully convict KSM. Likewise due to higher standards, certain evidence will be excluded. Any confessions or information extracted through ‘coercion’ will be inadmissible. The change in admissible evidence will only put the U.S. at risk, by exposing sensitive information and making a clear-cut case open to legal technicalities and loopholes. Just imagine what will happen if some wily attorney manages to free KSM (who, by the way, has asked for death).

However, more important than either of these issues is the general, theoretical concepts that are at stake here. By trying KSM in a civilian court, the government is explicitly stating that acts of terrorism – the brutal murder of U.S. civilians – are not acts of war, but criminal acts. This is not only untrue, but creates dangerous precedents and incentives.

First and foremost, military trials, despite critics’ claims, are not above the law. They are a long-present instrument of the U.S. legal system and have justly and successfully been used before. Trying an individual in either system is not an issue of following law or not following law, but a matter of what type of crime and law needs to be addressed. Holder does not disagree with this concept as he has simultaneously sent a number of other Gitmo detainees to military trials.

The problem is that the Justice Department does not seem to believe that KSM is an enemy combatant, but rather a common criminal. According to Politico, Holder admitted that KSM could have been tried in a military court, but felt justice would be better attained in a federal court. In his mind, in order to be an enemy combatant one must attack a military target. This is a gross distortion of reality. The 9/11 terrorists were members of an enemy army. Just because they did not wear uniforms or have a physical nation to call home, does not negate the fact that this was an act of war.

By failing to correctly address this, Holder has created perverse incentives for the enemies of the United States. Those who wish to bring harm to the U.S. will now have greater incentives to avoid the rules of war (such as the Geneva Conventions). After all, what right-minded (if there is such a thing) Islamist terrorist would chose to fight Marines in Afghanistan and then face military laws, rather than bring the battle to American civilians and civilian courts?  William McGurn stated in the Wall Street Journal that Holder’s decision creates a world where, “If you kill civilians on American soil you will have greater protections than if you attack our military overseas.”

These perverse incentives create greater risk for American civilians. The current administration unfortunately seems more concerned with appeasing a misguided notion of fairness, rather than protecting the American people. Ultimately, they will reward a terrorist movement by providing a way for our enemies to wage war without suffering the appropriate penalties. The real path to justice is through the military court system – a system designed to handle war criminals. By avoiding this fact, Holder is flying in the face of justice and endangering our success in the war on terror.

With Nukes Failure Is Not An Option

The current situation in Pakistan is heading towards disaster. The Taliban, from Afghanistan and the border areas in Pakistan, are posing a grave risk to the state. The already weak Pakistani government is on complete verge of failure. (See CNN for instance http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/pakistan.swat.valley/index.html) A failure in Pakistan will have disastrous effects across the world.

First of all, a failure would negate the gains that have been made in the region since 9/11. Bush’s war in Afghanistan successfully removed the Taliban from power and, at one point, had them completely marginalized. Now under our new, ‘global-friendly’ leadership we are seeing a huge resurgence in their power. Certainly, not all of this is due to Obama’s faulty foreign policy. The fall of Musharraf and a myriad of domestic issues, such as the infighting amongst current moderates, play an enormous role in the current weak state of the country. However, a rebirth of Taliban leadership in Pakistan (and possibly Afghanistan) would be disastrous for the progress of the war on terror, the elimination of fanatical Islam, and establishment of global security.

The issue of global security is paramount. A re-failure to stem the Taliban’s ascent in Afghanistan would be bad enough. It would serve to undermine all the hard work over the past eight years. However, a failure in Pakistan is most certainly an existential threat to the U.S. Due to the nuclear capabilities of the country, a failure would mean there would be no accountability for Pakistan’s current nuclear stockpile. The Taliban would have access to nuclear warheads- to use themselves or sell to third parties such as Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, or any enemy of the free world. This threat exists even short of a failure of the state. The Taliban could easily seize a few unfortunately placed nuclear warheads without having to take down the state.

The world community has to address this issue in a much stronger and more forthright way. In the short run, everything has to be done to stabilize and strengthen the current government in Pakistan. Money and assistance should flow in readily. Pressure should be put on corrupt or disinterested bureaucrats. Most importantly, the world must put immense pressure on the Pakistani government to cease making conciliatory deals with the Taliban. The current deal of Taliban weaponry for sharia law is unacceptable. These deals only serve to postpone the fighting and allow the Taliban to retrench itself. The army must be convinced that it needs to fight in the North. They must do everything they can to remove Taliban strongholds. This includes Pakistani military action, but also increased coordination and facilitation of American cross-border attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan. The United States has to unapologetically go after targets in Pakistan, preferably with, but also without Pakistani assistance and blessings.

Furthermore, the world community must take steps to prepare for the worst case scenario of a government failure. The current government needs to be pressured to consolidate stockpiles of nuclear weapons away from the north. This will ensure that they are easy to account for and control. America must plan operations for an invasion of Pakistan. This, of course, needs to be a last resort; however, if the government fails the United States needs to secure Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile immediately. The Pakistani government needs to cooperate with the US (and the UN) to create ‘zero-hour’ contingencies- such as disclosures of stockpiles. [One necessary consideration is, of course, India- which Pakistan feels (incorrectly) is its number one threat.]

Pakistan is one issue where we cannot afford Obama’s ‘speak-humbly’ foreign policy. Every action must be taken to shore up the Pakistani government and decimate the Taliban. Right now, stability should be the sole goal. If not, we run the risk of facing catastrophic results.

What's Wrong with Waterboarding?

The potential prosecution of Bush-era officials for waterboarding and other alleged uses of torture during interrogations of terrorists is an outrageous plan of action for the Obama administration. First of all, it will prove to be extremely divisive. For a President who ran a supposedly bi-partisan campaign by promising to reach across the aisle, such a public investigation of and prosecution regarding these interrogations would certainly polarize the nation. This reeks, not of bi-partisanship, but the anti-Bushism that defined Obama’s campaign and the extreme liberal-left.

Secondly, it is disastrous policy to prosecute officials that were not only acting as instructed, but were doing a phenomenal and successful job of protecting America. Whether you consider waterboarding to be torture or harsh interrogation techniques is irrelevant. Frankly, I care little if it is termed torture. The fact of the matter is that if torture or interrogation yields truthful, useful, and otherwise unattainable intelligence that leads to the saving of innocent lives then it is one-hundred percent morally and politically acceptable. It is a simple utilitarian argument that justifies this. If injuring or scaring one man can save one or more men then the total harm done in society is minimized. Not torturing is morally equivalent to murdering those who could have been saved had the terrorist been tortured.

Far too often critics try to draw a moral distinction between active and passive actions. The argument implicitly distinguishes between harm caused by an active action, such as torture, and harm caused by a passive action, such as failure to stop a terrorist attack. Under this simplistic morality, actively caused harm is always worse than passively caused harm. For some reason, proponents of this belief seemingly feel a discomfort at being directly involved in harm. However, they feel a little better by being able to stick their head in the sand and, at least mentally, avoid harm that is distant. This may explain why they believe it is less moral to commit harm with an active action.

However, this is a deeply flawed philosophy. The fact that harm is more or less remote is irrelevant. Instead we must to look to the magnitude of harm- or more appropriately the expected value of harm. For instance, if there is even a 10% chance that 1000 people will be injured there is a greater harm in not torturing one man. Committing harm has to be judged in light of the harm it prevents. Harming another is completely justified if it reduces the overall global harm. Just because some types of injury may be caused by passive actions does not negate the fact that we have a moral responsibility to stop them.

The only caveat is that torture has to lead to true intelligence. Torturing for cruel or sadistic purposes is never acceptable. Torture has to be done in a way to extract useful information. Interrogators need to be trained to avoid creating situations where the captive says what the interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Likewise, less severe methods should be used first, in order to minimize the harm. Escalation should occur as necessary and appropriate. Ultimately, however, it must be recognized that the aim of such tactics is to minimize the amount of global harm. If enemies of our free society decide to create a situation in which there will inevitably be harm, we must do everything we can to minimize that harm. Sometimes this means not being passive, but actively inflicting a small amount of harm to avoid a greater amount.

If Obama decides to pander to an ill-informed and morally twisted ideology and punish those that have so far protected us, we will only be put at greater risk. If our enemies believe that they can harm us without harm coming to them there will be little to protect us. If we hamstring ourselves in the name of a false-morality we will only step down the path to America’s decline and ruination.

Shiver Me Timbers!!!

America must respond swiftly and severely to the increasing piracy attacks off the Horn of Africa. Pirates should be treated as terrorists, not criminals. Accordingly, there should not be any negotiations with pirates for ransom. Paying multi-million dollar ransoms to these Somali pirates only encourages more destitute men to turn to piracy. It rebalances the risk/reward trade-off in favor of increased piracy.

Naturally, the increase in piracy can, at least partially, be explained by the fact that Somalia (where the vast majority of these pirates are coming from) is a failed state. Men have little recourse to survive other than to turn to piracy. Negotiations and ransoms legitimate piracy as an acceptable, albeit it illegal and frowned upon, method of making money. If one is going to pay someone after they do something, they’ll continue doing it if it is profitable.

Instead, anti-piracy policies have to be strong and unforgiving. Pirate recruits have to view this lawless occupation as unrewarding, dangerous, and unprofitable. This not only entails cutting off all payments of rewards and ransoms, but assuring brigands that the penalty for piracy will be severe. Pirates holding seized items and hostages should be targeted and killed until the situation can be controlled. Commando missions should be used to rescue hostages and seize control of hijacked ships. Surviving pirates, and their on-sea and on-shore supporters and compatriots, should be charged to the full extent of the law. These harsh penalties and lack of reward will go far to dissuade these men from becoming pirates.

Furthermore, America, and the world, should couple these policies with further preventative measures. This includes doing their best to prevent weapon flows to rogue and failed states, directly stationing armed fleets to protect merchant vessels, and assisting failed, failing, and destitute states with finding meaningful employment for their populations.

Some of this is certainly easier said than done, but it is imperative that we think about long term solutions to these problems. Payments of ransom and ignoring the underlying impetuses to piracy will only worsen the problem. It is unfortunate for the brave seaman and captains that do not get negotiated for and get caught in the crossfire. Of course, policies and commando operations should be structured to avoid the loss of innocent life. However, it is far worse to pay a multi-million dollar ransom for one captain, only to have it encourage pirates to take four more captains hostage. Negotiations with and payments to anyone who tries to strong-arm money out of peaceful merchants should be completely off-limits. It is essential to enact these policies quickly and strongly, in order to nip this growing piracy problem in the bud. If not we can only expect global piracy to increase.