by Richard Watkins

Created on: April 24, 2009   Last Updated: May 03, 2009

On its face, (according to our reliable mainstream media) it seems like its a noble plan. A little bit extreme if you ask me, but I'm old school. I still look to the police when I think of personally being kidnapped, robbed or assaulted as who to call. So, when I heard that Obama wanted to send the Navy to Somalia to fight pirates, I thought, wow. Why now?

Piracy in Somalia certainly isn't a new. I wonder what could have happened to warrant sending the U.S. Navy to fight pirates on the horn of Africa in the 21st century. A few years ago, a cruise ship actually got robbed by pirates and even Bush who sent the entire Army after one guy in Afghanistan didn't think to wage a war against pirates, over it! But, then again, Bush's manhunt for Osama had by then expanded into an occupation of two countries and he might have felt the Navy was better off doing whatever they do when there are illegal wars being fought in the deserts.

As I read more news on the Somalia pirate problem, I realized what the decisive factor was for Obama. One captain of one container ship had been taken hostage by pirates. Yes, ONE captain. At least Bush had 2000 excuses to send the military to do what we normally use law enforcement for. I thought that must be some important captain, I wonder what company he worked for?

I found out it was Maersk. The name rang a bell for me. Then I remembered when I worked at AIG in 1987 as a clerk, I filed a lot of papers under M for Maersk. I wondered if they were still insuring the container and freight company. I found enough on the Internet to safely assume that yes, AIG still insures Maersk. We all know how much pull AIG has over our government and the president. The tax payers have already paid up the ying yang in bailout money, the cost to send the a fleet of Navy ships to combat pirates in dinghy's and schooners I imagine is pretty expensive. My question is who are we fighting pirates for? I hope its not AIG's call. If so, we should change the name of the country to American International Group. It pretty much fits more than United States of America these days anyway.

The second problem I have with the military fighting pirates in Somalia is that piracy is a symptom of other problems that I have not heard Obama utter or address as of yet. Namely the illegal dumping of toxic waste that many commercial ships have been doing in those waters since the early 90's. The 2005 tsunami washed up their dirty little secrets, which Somalis have been complaining about for a decade, so they can't deny it. Also the looting of Somalia's food supply and source of legal income. Western shippers have pretty much annihilated the sea life in those waters; either by polluting or looting them. Is the Navy going to police all the wrong doers or are we going to waste a bunch of time going after the petty criminals again? In order for piracy to end in Somalia there has to be another source of earning a living, there has to be good health among the people who live their so they can be productive builders of a law abiding society. Wouldn't leaving their natural resources alone be the answer?

Obama's response to the kidnapping of a Maesrk employee is extreme. Sending the Navy to fight hoodlums at sea whose vessels are equivalent to pool floaties compared to our ships seems excessive. It's not the answer either because fighting pirates and ignoring the reason they turned from fisherman into pirates is pointless if you truly want to end the problem. It leaves one to wonder also, if this isn't just another way to position our military for a new war. Is this a repeat of the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq years? What has been used so far as the reaon for his response doesn't make total sense.

Learn more about this author, Richard Watkins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.