Somali Pirate Escorted by French Marines, April 2009 (Tony Carumba/AFP/Getty Images)

On December 1st, President Barack Obama laid out his new Afghanistan strategy augmenting the existing 68,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan with more than 30,000 reinforcements. On the same day, reported with much less fanfare, was the hijacking of an oil tanker about 800 miles off the coast of Somalia containing $20 million worth of crude oil headed for New Orleans. The Greek-flagged tanker, the Maran Centaurus, was carrying 275,000 tons of crude oil. With the monsoon season ending in that part of the globe, the Somali pirates are back in action.

Capturing the Pirates is Not Easy

With increased patrols in the Gulf of Aden along the Somali coast, the pirates have moved further offshore into the open ocean away from the international naval presence. Finding the pirates in small motorized dinghies far offshore has proven difficult as hijackings have increased in 2009 over 2008 despite the larger international naval presence. The obvious response of placing armed guards on the ships does not always work. Not all ships can carry armed guards because the content is flammable. A firefight with pirates could prove deadly.

According to the International Maritime Bureau, 38 ships have been attacked and 10 hijacked in the last two months. Pirates now hold 11 ships and 264 crew members off the coast of Somalia. Rear Admiral Peter Hudson, commander of the European Union's Naval Force counter-piracy operations, said the area of ocean off the East African coast is too vast for international naval forces to secure from pirates.

Does the Response Seem Limited?

The US Government has an unwavering commitment to prosecute the war against terrorism in Afghanistan but where is the commitment to fight piracy? To be fair, there are no nuclear weapons in Somalia and no 9/11-type terrorist event emanated from Somalia. The pirate targets are not civilian populations but ships owned and insured by large corporations.

Nonetheless, the pirates, arguably out of economic desperation, terrorize international shipping, thumb their noses at international law, kidnap and threaten the lives of American and Allied sailors, cause large-scale financial damage and endanger the supply lines of oil to the United States. For all intents and purposes, Al-Qaeda activity in Afghanistan has been decapitated. Pirate activity in and around Somalia is hot and heavy. We can argue about the potential for terrorist activity against the US and its Allies that still exists in Afghanistan. However, there is repeated and persistent criminal activity against American and Allied assets near Somalia and the response seems limited.

What Can the US Do?

It is impossible to protect every ship particularly smaller fishing and pleasure craft in the ocean. The question is can we protect the larger ships and provide a measure of deterrence to the pirates.

The first idea is to increase the intelligence assets in the area to warn the ships of possible pirate activity along the ship's course. In addition, there should be penalties to shipping companies that do not heed warnings from intelligence sources. Some of the crew of Maersk Alabama, the ship hijacked by Somali pirates on April 8th, blame Richard Phillips, the ship's captain famously rescued when US Navy SEAL sharpshooters killed his captors, for the pirate attack because he failed to heed warnings about treacherous waters,

Most of the increased military presence off the Somali coast has been naval. Perhaps more naval aviation is needed to provide cover to ships scheduled to sail in the area and respond rapidly when necessary. The Predator drones or unmanned aerial vehicles, best known for targeting Al-Qaeda operatives in the Middle East, could be used against the pirates. The biggest problem with Predator is the potential for collateral damage. This problem may be mitigated by the pirates being on the open seas.

Finally, the pirates do need to land and refuel. Perhaps a few well-planned search and destroy missions would provide deterrence to high-stakes economic crime. Increased measures will undoubtedly cost the US and its Allies more money. However, the amount of money is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At stake is the safety of the oil supply, billions of dollars in economic loss and countries appearing powerless at the hands of random criminals.

See Also:

• A Guide to Somali Pirates
• Pirates of Somalia
• What Happened to The Somali Pirates?

President Barack Obama and General Stanley McChrystal (White House/Pete Souza)

News reports indicate that President Obama will announce a surge of 34,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the US Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, December 1st. General Stanley McChrystal, America's top general in Afghanistan requested 40,000 additional troops to quell the Taliban insurgency and stabilize conditions on the ground. Senior Defense Department officials believe the US is losing the war, the Taliban is gaining and increased troops are needed to turn the tide in the NATO forces' favor.

Premise

President Obama, who stressed in his Presidential campaign that Afghanistan was the "good war" and Iraq was the "bad war", appears committed to an increase in forces after weeks of debate and deliberation among US Cabinet and military leaders. Pierre Tristam, the Middle East Issues Guide, offers an excellent analysis of the debate entitled Escalating Debate: Should Obama Send More Troops to Afghanistan? This post focuses on the bottom line or what is the benefit to a buildup in Afghanistan.

The Bottom Line

Certainly, there will eventually be less Taliban aggression in areas where US troops are placed. The revised strategy is expected to focus on attacking Taliban strongholds in and around Kandahar and protecting the local population.

However, additional US troops will not provide greater security for Afghan citizens in other areas of the country. Taliban fighters will likely move to areas away from US troop strength and engage in battles on their own terms. A surge of 21,000 troops in March 2009 has not proven effective.

The US military considers the troop surge in Iraq a success. Senator John McCain lauded the surge during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Yet two years after the surge, General Ray Odierno, the US commander in Iraq opined that the US may not be able to declare victory in Iraq for 5-10 years, maybe ever. In Afghanistan, the US faces a more radicalized, battle-hardened enemy, which previously repelled the Soviets, in terrain less favorable than Iraq to American armored and mechanized capabilities. NATO soldiers in Afghanistan already outnumber Taliban fighters by a margin of 12-1. The odds of the US being able to declare victory in Afghanistan or leaving a relatively stable, peaceful Afghanistan in the coming years seem remote.

Outlook

It is difficult to foresee a benefit to the US buildup. General David Petraeus has stated we cannot "kill our way to victory" in Afghanistan. Assuming the US strategy continues to be focused on protecting Afghan population centers, then 34,000 or 40,000 troops are not nearly enough. The best hope for the US buildup is that it will increase NATO's capability to strike at Taliban bases in Pakistan and, if necessary because of a worst case scenario, destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability.

See Also:

Escalating Debate: Should Obama Send More Troops to Afghanistan?
Results and Consequences of the 2009 Elections in Afghanistan
Afghanistan: More Troops the Answer?

Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A post on November 9th asked if the US still cared about India because of all the attention paid toward Afghanistan and relatively little toward India.

On November 24th, President Obama met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and pledged to visit India next year. In fact, the Obama White House's first state dinner will be in honor of Singh. Hopefully, the china, food and guests will be A-list and Singh will feel properly feted.

On his four-nation November 2009 visit to Asia, President Obama met with President Hu Jintao of China and opined that the US and China were not destined to be adversaries. Obama held a town hall meeting in Shanghai and expressed his belief that the US and China can work together on issues such as climate change and nuclear proliferation.

If you poll US citizens, they believe otherwise. Only 51% viewed China as a military threat in a recent CNN poll but 71% percent of Americans viewed China as an economic threat to the United States. Economist Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that the Chinese economy will surpass the US's and become the world's largest in 2035. The United States' debt to China, global competition for markets and energy, influence in the developing world and the struggle for superpower status must doom the US and China to chronic conflict. Right?

Despite wars in Korea and Vietnam, years of tension over the status of Taiwan, and occasional harassment of US ships and airplanes by Chinese armed forces, there has been no significant threat of direct US-Chinese military conflict in decades.

In the economic sphere, the US and China need each other. The US needs Chinese financing, commodities at a sufficiently low price to keep inflation in check and markets for American high-value goods and services. Likewise, China does not want the US to default on its debts nor lose its biggest export market. Looking into the future, if China is to become a global power, it needs better technology, productivity and education - which the US has in vast supply.

There are more reasons for the US and China to cooperate rather than to start a new Cold War. In fact, the US is pushing for Chinese leadership in international bodies like the G-20 because it wants China to shoulder global economic responsibility befitting its economic status. Young people in China as they gain economic independence and greater exposure to Western ideas and culture should gravitate toward a more democratic and open way of thinking.

So, President Obama's appeal for cooperation and collaboration is on the right track ... Well, at least today it is.