Herb was kind enough to pass on this interesting online exchange with a Davidson College professor about the Somali pirates. The Washington Post ran it on April 10. Two things — two things that have nothing to do with each other, and may even be contradictory — occurred to me while reading it:
- First, this is a remarkably intelligent and well-informed exchange. I’m struck by how relatively knowledgeable the questioners are, much less the professor doing the answering. I was impressed. Everyone involved seemed to have heard more about Somalia and pirates than I had.
- Second, that aside, the exchange illustrates the limitations of expertise. This was published during the Maersk Alabama drama, while the captain was held hostage in the lifeboat, and before the Seals took out the pirates and saved the captain. The expert, the professor, keeps making the point over and over that military action to save the captain would be futile, that the thing to do is just to play along and pay the ransom. This is a really stark example of the advice we get so often from experts who are just chock full of facts about a situation or a part of the world, who therefore have great credibility when they tell us that trying to DO anything would be useless. And they are so often wrong.
Related Posts
To Professor Menkhaus’ credit, whether or not you agree with his point of view, he’s sticking to his guns even after the successful rescue, in this piece that came out last weekend. It doesn’t seem exactly as though he feels that trying to do anything is “useless,” but–fitting for someone who has some knowledge of internal Somali politics–he’s looking at things through that lens rather than the military one.
Indeed, the professor is but one expert among many I’m sure, as would be the case in almost every scenario a President would have to confront. You’re right that “chock full of facts” experts who say doing anything is useless are so often wrong. But so, too, are “chock full of facts” experts who tell us (or a President) that decisively taking a certain course of action will pay off handsomely…often wrong as well. Those kinds of errors don’t necessarily have to be about the direct outcome of the intended action, but are more often in the nature of unintended consequences.
I didn’t follow the particulars of this case closely enough to have an opinion myself about it, but I think that seems to be Prof. Menkhaus’s point…not that we couldn’t take out a few pirates now and then, but that that approach might fail as often as it would succeed, and more to the point as he says in the Foreign Policy piece: “None of these options offers a sure-fire solution, but some — such as the call to attack the pirates on shore – risk making things worse and generating unintended consequences. The United States has much bigger strategic concerns than piracy in Somalia, and though the buccaneers are the ones making news, the real threats are elsewhere.”
Professor Menkhaus may be knowledgeable about Somali history, culture and its current political situation, but his resume shows absolutely no experience with piracy, ocean shipping, or Naval operations.
Paul Krugman is a similar example of someone who has a narrow expertise in trade between the USA and Europe, but offers opinions in areas like fiscal and monetary policy during recessions, where he admits to knowing nothing.
Professor Menkhaus was, and is, wrong not only about dealing with piracy through naval intervention, but also about the use of military air power and land forces to wipe out the pirate bases. Those are necessary steps, and would be quite successful, if we permitted our military to proceed.
Very insightful, Phillip. Our foreign relations and foreign policy have been deteriorating continually for the past 15 years, and it would have been a big help if we had stopped to think sometimes before we shoot. No matter how good a shot a person is, skill and ability should not alone determine who pulls the trigger, and how often. Same with nations.
The reason we have so many adult criminals is because politicians and police brass determined to ignore them when they were young, because, on the premise that, “We have more pressing crime issues.”
If you own a ship, or man a ship, in pirate-infested waters, you either have to have the protection of your navy, or your ship must be armed to protect itself.
SCN, Menkhaus’ latest essay on this topic makes the point that it is the very shipping companies themselves who are the most opposed to automatically seeking a military response, who in many cases would rather just pay the ransom. That seems an unsatisfying and unfair solution, to be sure, but the path to eliminating this problem may lie elsewhere other than counting on the Seals’ to be able to get off a good shot now and then.
The shipping liner companies certainly would prefer to be armed, but are restrained by treaties from WWI, and insurance regulations and contracts.
They have been paying $30,000 a voyage for escorts by private security firms. Most of the ships fly Panamanian flags for reasons of taxes and regulation. The pirates have heretofore avoided US, British, French Canadian and Russian vessels, because those nations have a naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Africa.
This is not a difficult problem to solve, militarily. We could accomplish it with little loss, in a few weeks. Our leaders just lack the will to enter Somalia after Clinton’s debacle there. Throw in Obama’s pro-Muslim bias, and you have a recipe for emboldened pirates.
I hate to disagree with Herb, especially since he’s the guy we have to thank for this interesting subject, but I will quibble with this: “No matter how good a shot a person is, skill and ability should not alone determine who pulls the trigger, and how often.”
Skill and ability alone did NOT determine things in this case. Those snipers acted upon legal and carefully considered orders from their superior officer, with the chain of command going all the way up to the White House. The commander on the scene, acting within authority granted to him, decided when it was time to shoot. All that “skill and ability” did was give the captain confidence that the men could carry out the order effectively (that they were likely to hit their targets every time, not just “now and then”) — that’s about the only way that skill entered into the decision.
If skill were the only determining factor, those guys would go around shooting people all day. But they don’t.
Well, conflict and disagreement can and should be the stuff of creativity, you know. Actually I was thinking in a broader sense, and that is–we know we can, but that should always be subservient to the purpose, and even more so, the larger implications. I wonder sometimes if we don’t have almost a paranoia of repeating Munich (1938), that no other factor gets considered.
I know we still need the big stick, but the truth is, our standing in the world has deteriorated over the last 15 years, and one major reason is that we rely too quickly on our ability to blow up the saloon. I’m not saying that force isn’t necessary, and maybe–even probably–it was in this instance. But I fear that we to easily cheer when we put bullets through our enemies. We would probably cheer if Osama bin Laden were killed today, just as we cheered when Hassan al-Banna was assassinated in 1949. Understandable, but some things tend to create more problems (enemies) than they solve. We are seen in the world, and to some degree understandably so, as trigger-happy cowboys. At least our reaction to “shock and awe” should have been more shock, and less glee.
I disagree with your stereoptyping of America as being disrespected in the world. That is propaganda from the left, from Democrats who have been out of power and willing to smear America in order to smear Presidents Bush and Reagan.
Don’t put much stock in the denouncements you see from thugs like Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and self-enriching potentates at the UN.
The people who don’t like us are the the world’s criminals, and the dumb masses under their influence. Frankly, we shouldn’t be wanting to make them happy. In most cases, if we get rid of the despotic leader, or go around him to communicate directly with the people, those formerly deluded followers now like us.
We have to clean up the world because we are the sheriff.
Most of the rest of the world is run by cowards, who are intimidated by Islamofascism. Conversations I have with civilians and military all over Europe finds them to be unanimous in support of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We obviously talk to different groups of people. But if you are talking to Europeans, it must be a very select group of Europeans. I’m speaking as a Lutheran pastor with congregational people, and with many friends who are of a Mennonite background (which has it’s own non-military convictions, of ocurse) and years of working with young people in a retreat center.
And travel to the Middle East, India, and Africa, people on the street. There is a strong anti-Taliban sentiment in Pakistan, but US military involvement there will drive the people in the opposite direction. They do not see that their people should die to protect an America whose culture is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as destroying their own.
I am talking to business people, engineers, managers, some top executives, college professors, and NATO officers.
Of course it is natural for any country to resent the fact that America has to protect them, to come in and chase our invaders like the Taliban. But if the Pakistanis cannot do it themselves, then they had better get out of the way. We cannot allow the Taliban to get control of the military weapons of Pakistan, much less the nuclear weapons and aircraft.
If we let it go on too long, then our only recourse will be a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Islamabad. I don’t think anyone wants that.
But I stated a year ago that Barack Obama’s election would force Israel to attack Hamas in the West Bank, and that someone would have to attack Iran. So far, his foreign policy failures are right on schedule.