News Somali Pirates seize super tanker

[zomgwtf]

I agree with turbo -- you seem to overestimate the pirates.

So I suppose they'll dock somewhere and then just go out to sea do their guard duty and they go back to dock? It's highly inefficient ontop of risking lives due to there not being adequate protection.

 

[JaredJames]

So I suppose they'll dock somewhere and then just go out to sea do their guard duty and they go back to dock? It's highly inefficient ontop of risking lives due to there not being adequate protection.

What's wrong with having two larger ships either side of the water way, with a number of smaller vessels running escort missions between them?

Are you honestly saying that a bunch of pirates in fishing boats can out match trained marines on a lightly armoured, armed boat?

Remember, if they attack the marines or the larger ships, the maines can call for some backup. Get a chopper/fighter on site asap to provide some backup.

If the pirates know that there are armed escorts with the larger ships and they have backup such as fighters and gunships in the air, are they really going to consider attacking that boat?

The way you're describing these pirates is like something out of Pirates of the Caribbean. They're not that amazing fighters, they're not fantastically trained (if at all), they're just regular people who've got their hands on some guns and are trying to hijack ships.

 

[turbo]

The way you're describing these pirates is like something out of Pirates of the Caribbean. They're not that amazing fighters, they're not fantastically trained (if at all), they're just regular people who've got their hands on some guns and are trying to hijack ships.

Thank you. Somali pirates are not ninja masters. They are thugs with small arms who have developed a cottage industry in theft, abduction, and ransom. They can be stopped without a lot of trouble.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Just convoy the trade vessels (tankers, cargo ships, etc) and protect them with small, fast armed patrol ships.

And where exactly will these patrol boats be based? An Island-class cutter has a range of 1900 miles and an endurance of 6 days. Ignoring the issue of having enough fuel for a mission, rather than going on station and immediately turning back home, your choices are Eritrea, Dijbouti, Yemen, and of course Somalia itself.

Frigates and larger warships are capable of much more independent operations. Even a Perry has a range of 5000 miles.

There is a more fundamental issue - the policy of most governments is that pirates should be captured and put on trials in civilian courts. This is more dangerous and expensive than simply sinking their vessels.

 

[Gokul43201]

The area to be covered is also non-trivial - a few million square miles.

http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/20...aritime-piracy-doubled-in-first-half-of-2009/

There are about 50 cargo vessels passing through the Gulf of Aden every day. Most of them going from or to different parts of Asia. They travel through the active piracy area for about 4-10 days. If each vessel has an escort for an average of 5 days, that's a total of 250 escort vessels.

 

[JaredJames]

They can be stopped without a lot of trouble.

A fact I feel every Navy out there is aware of, but powerless to do anything about thanks to the politics and red tape behind it all.

 

[JaredJames]

The area to be covered is also non-trivial - a few million square miles.

Which is why you escort the ships.

 

[Gokul43201]

Which is why you escort the ships.

Sorry, I was appending the argument for the escorts, and didn't see the follow up post. See above.

 

[russ_watters]

I have no idea who's making the decision to allow these pirates to remain active, or what criteria are used. But I'm not naive enough to think money is not a consideration.

Of course if you go high enough, eventually the cost of anything can be too much. What I really meant is is it a simple x > y calculus? That's what your post implied. Or is it worth it to spend $1 billion to avoid a $1 million ransom? Or more generally, has our government decided not to do much of anything about it because of the money or is there another reason (like political concerns)?

IMO, we spend so much on our Navy that if we can't use it to engage these pirates, there is almost no point in having it (and that's really both a financial and political issue).

(also, for clarity, the ransom itself isn't the only issue. It inceases the cost of shipping, both in the obvious ways of causing shippers to charge more, use more fuel and time going around Somalia, and less obvious such as increasing insurance costs.)

In an ideal world? No, but see above about naivete.

Well how about in the real world? We're not talking about a theoretically infinite cost. If we could do it for, say, $10 billion a year, do you think it is worth doing?

I do.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the US and EU have deployed an entire fleet.

Two destroyers and a supply ship isn't much of a "fleet".

It would take probably two or three dozen warships to fix the problem.

At the end of the day, if you're expecting them to start sinking Somali skiffs unilaterally, you're expecting too much. But they at least make some effort.

I may be asking for something I'm not going to get, but I'm not expecting it...and that doesn't mean it isn't worth wishing for it.

 

[russ_watters]

b)Continue to have a 'useful relationship' with Somalia.

Somalia doesn't have a government, so not only do we not hav ea "useful relationship" with it, there is no "useful relationship" possible.

 

[russ_watters]

We don't need to throw destroyers or frigates at that problem. What's wrong with deploying smaller armed ships designed for coastal patrol/drug interdiction, etc? They are cheaper to deploy, and are often quite fast.

1. It is illegal to use the Coast Guard for such purposes.
2. The Coast Guard doesn't have anywhere near enough of that kind of ship to do the job...unless perhaps you actually dedicated the entire Coast Guard to the task.

Frigates are absolutely the most appropriate ship for this task. They have a missile launcher, a 3" gun and .50 cal machine guns...and a helicopter pad/hanger.

We don't need to throw destroyers or frigates at that problem. What's wrong with deploying smaller armed ships designed for coastal patrol/drug interdiction, etc? They are cheaper to deploy, and are often quite fast.

Much, if not most, of our open-water drug interdiction is done by the Navy or the USCG "borrowing" Navy ships. When I was a mid, I participated in a counter-drug op off the coast of Equador that used a frigate and a cruiser. A small detachment of coasties took over our ship and ran the boarding party for legal reasons, during the interdiction...but that's not the appropriate tactic for dealing with piracy. You don't deal with pirates by boarding them and arresting them, you deal with them by sinking their ships.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you. Somali pirates are not ninja masters. They are thugs with small arms who have developed a cottage industry in theft, abduction, and ransom. They can be stopped without a lot of trouble.

Jardenjames wasn't exactly agreeing with you: a "fighter" implies an aircraft carrier and an attack helicopter requires that or the USMC equivalent. That's not the Coast Guard.

 

[russ_watters]

And where exactly will these patrol boats be based? An Island-class cutter has a range of 1900 miles and an endurance of 6 days. Ignoring the issue of having enough fuel for a mission, rather than going on station and immediately turning back home, your choices are Eritrea, Dijbouti, Yemen, and of course Somalia itself.

Frigates and larger warships are capable of much more independent operations. Even a Perry has a range of 5000 miles.

They can, of course, be re-supplied (which is how a Perry can sail as far as it wants), but captains never run their ships below about half full of fuel, so realistically, they'd need to resupply at least twice a week. Either way, your point is correct: a Coast Guard cutter isn't designed for anything more than perhaps a little operation in the Carribean.

There is a more fundamental issue - the policy of most governments is that pirates should be captured and put on trials in civilian courts. This is more dangerous and expensive than simply sinking their vessels.

Yes, that's the bigger issue. We've already been in plenty of situations where the traditional laws of the sea would call for the sinking of the pirate ships (they occasionally accidentally attack military ships). But we've gone so soft in wanting everything to be a police action/job for the courts, we've handcuffed ourselves. The way the situationbeing handled (with nation-less unlawful combatants) is currently unworkable, as the continued existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility demonstrates.

 

[russ_watters]

The area to be covered is also non-trivial - a few million square miles.

http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/20...aritime-piracy-doubled-in-first-half-of-2009/

There are about 50 cargo vessels passing through the Gulf of Aden every day. Most of them going from or to different parts of Asia. They travel through the active piracy area for about 4-10 days. If each vessel has an escort for an average of 5 days, that's a total of 250 escort vessels.

Individual escorts are not the way to do it - you'd end up bunching up a lot. The lineal distance of coastline is about 2,000 miles. A picket-fence of 36 ships could have a spacing of 55 miles, which means a radar coverage radius of only 28 miles and an hours' travel distance to the edge of each ship's immediate area of responsibility. That's a piece of cake for a Frigate.

Plus, you could use some statistical analysis to optimize the coverage. Fom the map, you need heavier coverage in the gulf of Aden and the southern end of Somalia.

 

[russ_watters]

We're not talking about a theoretically infinite cost. If we could do it for, say, $10 billion a year, do you think it is worth doing?

Googling for "frigate operating cost" brings up the wiki for the British type 23: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate

It's a little smaller than an OHP and cost 10.3 million pounds to operate in 2003. Assuming the average frigate deployed costs $20 million US, 36 would cost $720 million a year. Add another dozen support ships at a similar cost (not sure if they should be counted separately or not...) and that's another $240 or just short of $1 billion.

There's a great big caveat to this, of course: we already operate these ships, so it is likely that the delta between having them deployed and doing nothing and having them deployed to Somalia would only be a fraction of that.

I think we should do it.

[edit:] Here's a link that says an OHP cost $16 M in 1996, so they probably cost more like $25 M in today's dollars, but still, when you mix them with smaller frigates from other countries, $20M overall is probably not too far off the mark. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/FFG7_oliverhazardperry.html

 

[talk2glenn]

Two destroyers and a supply ship isn't much of a "fleet".

It would take probably two or three dozen warships to fix the problem. I may be asking for something I'm not going to get, but I'm not expecting it...and that doesn't mean it isn't worth wishing for it.

2 or 3 dozen warships? You want the entire Pacific fleet re-deployed off the coast of Somalia?

This is irrational.

That's approximately the firepower you'd need to invade North Korea. These are skiffs - a handful of Somalis with small arms aboard outboard motor boats.

 

[zomgwtf]

russ many of the points you've raised I agree with 100%. Except for the government part, Somalia certainly does have a govn't as ineffective as it is. The rebels never overthrew the govn't in the most recent invasion/attacks and the African joint forces is making sure that doesn't happen.

Also when I said a useful relationship I meant with the nation not the government. The govn't is only a small part of the nation, the most important part is the people.

All other points raised by turbo and jared have been sufficiently addressed. I was going to type up a responses to everything but started watching Easy A. Good movie.

 

[JaredJames]

All other points raised by turbo and jared have been sufficiently addressed.

I disagree. So far all you've told us is that you believe the pirates should be left to hijack ships and threaten their crews / owners / governments. And that you believe there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[JaredJames]

And for the record, Somalia doesn't have a central government:

Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm

They have too many warlords and the like trying to impose their own will and they can't get anything effective in place.

As can be seen in the report, they have tried many times (and still are) but so far haven't been very effective in bring control. There is still a lot of clan fighting making progress very difficult.

In every attack so far, the government they are trying to put in place is losing badly.

 

[zomgwtf]

Just because they do not have an effective govn't does not mean they don't have a govn't. If you read what I said I specifically said it was ineffective.

Secondly please don't troll and put words in my mouth. That's just retarded.

 

[JaredJames]

Just because they do not have an effective govn't does not mean they don't have a govn't. If you read what I said I specifically said it was ineffective.

Secondly please don't troll and put words in my mouth.

All I've seen so far is you telling us we can't do anything or how we shouldn't. You haven't given a valid reason to allow ships to be hijacked and crews put through the ordeal. You've just told us how we should let it happen other wise we face 'repercusions' from the somali people.

That's just retarded.

One of my pet hates is the incorrect use of 'retard'. It means slow or to slow down. So what you have just said there is "that's just slow". I don't find it insulting, however it does annoy me and I find it extremely childish when people use words linked to mental handicap conditions as insults. There's absolutely no need for it.
Yes, it's sensitive ground for me.

 

[russ_watters]

2 or 3 dozen warships? You want the entire Pacific fleet re-deployed off the coast of Somalia?

This is irrational.

That's approximately the firepower you'd need to invade North Korea. These are skiffs - a handful of Somalis with small arms aboard outboard motor boats.

Either you misunderstood or you really don't know what you're talking about. The US Navy currently has 289 ships including over 100 surface combatants (destroyers, cruisers, frigates). I'm not even suggesting we use any of the big ships - the aircraft carriers or amphibs, so it most certainly isn't "the entire Pacific fleet" that I'm suggesting we deploy for this. And I'm also assuming that our allies would at least pitch in a few ships of their own - perhaps a dozen. Frigates are something our allies have a bunch of.

We probably had more ships available in 1991 than today, but FYI, there were 42 surface combatants deployed for the Gulf war, not including the three battleships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War#Battleships

And we also had 6 aircraft carriers and 7 amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers).

If we wanted to, we could deploy a fleet like I suggested without all that much trouble. I said all surface combatants, but I wouldn't be opposed to swapping out a couple for a couple of aircraft carriers or amphibs.

 

[russ_watters]

Except for the government part, Somalia certainly does have a govn't as ineffective as it is. The rebels never overthrew the govn't in the most recent invasion/attacks and the African joint forces is making sure that doesn't happen.

Hmm...looks like they did finally put something together a few years ago - I wasn't aware:

Additionally, a Transitional Federal Government was created in 2004, which saw the restoration of numerous national institutions, including the Military of Somalia. While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Not much, but I suppose it is >0. According to that BBC article, though, it's the 14th attempt to create a government since the war in 1991.

Also when I said a useful relationship I meant with the nation not the government. The govn't is only a small part of the nation, the most important part is the people.

What relationship do we/can we have with the people?

 

[russ_watters]

When I was in the Navy, I participated in only one deployment. It was part of Standing Naval Forces, Atlantic, which is a permanent NATO squardron who'se primary mission, near as I can tell, is to hold receptions for mayors. And let me tell you, we had a blast. But here you have 6-10 surface combatants (usually Frigates), port hopping in North America and Europe all the time, when we could send them to do something useful like sink pirate ships.

NATO maintains standing maritime Immediate Reaction Forces in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT) is the world's first permanent peacetime multinational naval squadron. STANAVFORLANT was established in January 1968. Flying the NATO flag continuously for over 30 years, some 150,000 men and women have served aboard 600 STANAVFORLANT ships. Each year the Force steams more than 50,000 miles, participating in a series of scheduled NATO and national exercises and making goodwill visits.

Under the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT), headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, it is an immediately available reaction force which can rapidly respond to a crisis, establishing Alliance presence and resolve.

From six to ten ships (destroyers, frigates and tankers) are normally attached to the Force for up to six months, and Force command rotates on an annual basis among the nations contributing ships to STANAVFORLANT. The standing force in the Atlantic of destroyers and frigates has air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-surface warfare capabilities. Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States are the five permanent contributors to the standing force. In addition, STANAVFORLANT's strength can be augmented by units from Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Norway and Spain for short periods of time. Personnel are routinely exchanged between STANAVFORLANT ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/stanavforlant.htm

 

[talk2glenn]

Either you misunderstood or you really don't know what you're talking about. The US Navy currently has 289 ships including over 100 surface combatants (destroyers, cruisers, frigates). I'm not even suggesting we use any of the big ships - the aircraft carriers or amphibs, so it most certainly isn't "the entire Pacific fleet" that I'm suggesting we deploy for this. And I'm also assuming that our allies would at least pitch in a few ships of their own - perhaps a dozen. Frigates are something our allies have a bunch of.

We probably had more ships available in 1991 than today, but FYI, there were 42 surface combatants deployed for the Gulf war, not including the three battleships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War#Battleships

And we also had 6 aircraft carriers and 7 amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers).

If we wanted to, we could deploy a fleet like I suggested without all that much trouble. I said all surface combatants, but I wouldn't be opposed to swapping out a couple for a couple of aircraft carriers or amphibs.

You said "warship"; counting the total number of surface ships in the USN is a bit unfair. A warship is generally understood to be a combat vessel. Further, most of the Fleet isn't deployed at anyone time.

The Pacific fleet is the largest USN command, and is composed of the 3rd and 7th Fleets. The 7th fleet is permanently deployed to Japan, and includes 50 ships in 9 task forces. Of those, 3 are admin/logistics, and 3 are for special operations useless to sinking pirate ships (ASW, mine warfare, and landing marines). That leaves 3 forces, and about 17 ships currently forward deployed, including the subs (of tenuous utility). This assumes you move the entire Japanese and Korean fleets. The 3rd fleet currently isn't forward deployed as far as I know, giving you 0 ships to choose from.

So, the entire Pacific fleet is currently 17 combat ships, give or take. Less than 3 dozen by quite a ways.

 

[zomgwtf]

All I've seen so far is you telling us we can't do anything or how we shouldn't. You haven't given a valid reason to allow ships to be hijacked and crews put through the ordeal. You've just told us how we should let it happen other wise we face 'repercusions' from the somali people.[/quote[
No. I don't have to give valid reason to allow ships to be hijacked I just have to disagree with shooting them out of the water or trying to use coast guard like vessels in order to escort ships etc. all of which won't work IMO.

What I did say was that the situation in Somalia has to be fixed before anything can be done about the pirates. The govn't in Somalia is ineffective, it has limited power and limited territory which it can exercise that power freely.

Firstly why don't we just blow them out of the water all the time?
Well we can't just have another battle at Mogadishu situation and the western powers know this. It looks extremely bad on a country and it's not particularly good when you want to have the nation on yourside after things settle for potential trading (Somalia possibly has oil). This of course doesn't mean we DON'T shoot them out of the water because there certainly have been situations where they've been shot out of the water.

Secondly it's not worth it. The amount of ships that would be required to guard this area would need to be increased heavily and they would have to keep a constant watch. Judging by russ's numbers I do not think it's worth the 10s of millions that is lost due to the piracy. Protect the people? What people? No cruise ships or personal yaughts etc should be traveling through here really... and any businesses that want to operate through here assume the risk of being attacked by pirates. Defend themselves or pay up or don't go through. It's obviously necessary for economic reasons that they go through so that's not a 'real option' yet at least. I mean would you really send supplies or oil or w/e over land in Somalia? No? Then why do it by boat in areas you know they are? Sometimes they strike unexpectedly in different areas but I'm sure those are the exception.

Thirdly I don't see any efficient or effective way to use small boats. They amount of protection they would provide to the people on the vessel would be much to small to deal with armed pirates IMO. These people are coming at you with RPGs and assault rifles, they aren't shooting some small range pistols trying to evade being arrested, they are attacking you. (They attacked a freaking NAVY ship if you don't think they'll attack) That's of course on the side of how the heck are these ships going to patrol such a vast area and where they'll dock.

I've said all of this pretty much over the time period of my posts in one way or another. If you didn't take that in cause you're too dead-set towards shooting them outta the water that's not my problem.

So with that said I'll conclude my post by saying that we won't be able to fight piracy effectively and efficiently from the waters until we have solved the problems on the shore. Piracy starts on the shore.

One of my pet hates is the incorrect use of 'retard'. It means slow or to slow down. So what you have just said there is "that's just slow". I don't find it insulting, however it does annoy me and I find it extremely childish when people use words linked to mental handicap conditions as insults. There's absolutely no need for it.
Yes, it's sensitive ground for me.

Mental-retardation is a real term and it means you have an IQ of under 70. Retarded is just a slang/short form of that. Be sensitive to it I don't particularly care.

 

[zomgwtf]

Not much, but I suppose it is >0. According to that BBC article, though, it's the 14th attempt to create a government since the war in 1991.

This is true but their government has not been toppled in the recent attacks.

What relationship do we/can we have with the people?

We can try to remain 'friendly' and help them in their time of need. The reason why this is necessary in my mind is
a)al Qaeda operates in the region... we don't really need to be pushing more people towards extremism
and
b)most importantly... Somalia probably has oil... probs best not to piss of potential future traders?

 

[russ_watters]

You said "warship"; counting the total number of surface ships in the USN is a bit unfair. A warship is generally understood to be a combat vessel.

I was more specific: I said "surface combantants", which are destroyers, cruisers and frigates. And I said we have more than 100.

Further, most of the Fleet isn't deployed at anyone time.

Clearly, but as I showed with the Gulf War example, I'm not asking something we haven't already done.

The Pacific fleet is the largest USN command, and is composed of the 3rd and 7th Fleets. The 7th fleet is permanently deployed to Japan, and includes 50 ships in 9 task forces. Of those, 3 are admin/logistics, and 3 are for special operations useless to sinking pirate ships (ASW, mine warfare, and landing marines). That leaves 3 forces, and about 17 ships currently forward deployed, including the subs (of tenuous utility). This assumes you move the entire Japanese and Korean fleets. The 3rd fleet currently isn't forward deployed as far as I know, giving you 0 ships to choose from.

So, the entire Pacific fleet is currently 17 combat ships, give or take. Less than 3 dozen by quite a ways.

That's nonsense. Besides the fact that 3rd fleet ships are currently deployed all around the Pacific theater* (what do you think they do, run in circles off the coast of San Diego and Hawaii?), a ship does not have to be forward deployed to be forward deployed. They can sail around the world if they want. And again, we've already done much more than I suggest. You're being ridiculous and bordering on intentional misinformation.

*According to their Wiki pages, the Nimitz was deployed to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, the Lincoln is off the coast of Pakistan right now, the Stennis was in the Persian Gulf in 2009, which probably means it will be deploying again soon (or the wiki is out of date), and the same goes for the Reagan.

 

[JaredJames]

Firstly why don't we just blow them out of the water all the time?
Well we can't just have another battle at Mogadishu situation and the western powers know this. It looks extremely bad on a country and it's not particularly good when you want to have the nation on yourside after things settle for potential trading (Somalia possibly has oil). This of course doesn't mean we DON'T shoot them out of the water because there certainly have been situations where they've been shot out of the water.

Why would there be a battle? If you protect our ships adequately, there won't be anything even resembling a battle. If you make it difficult for them to get close and put a deterrent in place it will soon reduce the numbers of attempts. There'll be too much risk involved.

Secondly it's not worth it. The amount of ships that would be required to guard this area would need to be increased heavily and they would have to keep a constant watch. Judging by russ's numbers I do not think it's worth the 10s of millions that is lost due to the piracy. Protect the people? What people? No cruise ships or personal yaughts etc should be traveling through here really... and any businesses that want to operate through here assume the risk of being attacked by pirates. Defend themselves or pay up or don't go through. It's obviously necessary for economic reasons that they go through so that's not a 'real option' yet at least. I mean would you really send supplies or oil or w/e over land in Somalia? No? Then why do it by boat in areas you know they are? Sometimes they strike unexpectedly in different areas but I'm sure those are the exception.

Demands started at $2 million per ship and are now reaching around $30 million (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7647631.stm). How long before this increases again?

Thirdly I don't see any efficient or effective way to use small boats. They amount of protection they would provide to the people on the vessel would be much to small to deal with armed pirates IMO. These people are coming at you with RPGs and assault rifles, they aren't shooting some small range pistols trying to evade being arrested, they are attacking you. (They attacked a freaking NAVY ship if you don't think they'll attack) That's of course on the side of how the heck are these ships going to patrol such a vast area and where they'll dock.

Again, you are ignoring previous suggestions from others here. Plus you are overestimating these pirates abilities. A team of trained marines escorting a ship (whether on/off board) will be a good deterrent and provide strong resistance to anyone trying to board these ships. You seem to be under the impression these pirates are well trained. There's a difference between untrained pirates firing assault rifles and a team of trained marines with rifles and some form of rocket/missile system.
I'm curious where you get your image of these pirates from? Is there a reason you feel escorting ships through in convoy wouldn't work? We've answered the 'docking' problem.

I've said all of this pretty much over the time period of my posts in one way or another. If you didn't take that in cause you're too dead-set towards shooting them outta the water that's not my problem.

Believe it or not, I don't want to shoot them out of the water, not if there was a valid alternative. I abhor killing, but I also see a situation like this where the country isn't able to deal with things and we aren't able to simply sort the country out over night (why do you think we wouldn't have another Iraq on our hands?), where direct action is required.
Solving Somalia's problems isn't an easy task and would cost far more than any Navy deployment to protect our ships. This is of course assuming that helping Somalia would actually stop piracy. If hijacking a ship gets you a few million dollars, why would you give that up?
I'm looking at it more from a 'we can deal with pirates now' point of view, it is our duty to protect our ships. I'm not "dead-set" on shooting out of the water, but they leave us no choice at present.