Some of the ISR is, but absolutely not all of it.Killing terrorists? Protecting Americans?
Do you really think that?You are sorely mistaken. Did you stop and think that some of that ISR is more valuable that knocking off a few pirates?
How frequently has an FFG killed terrorists? I don't mean to be snide, but I think you are distorting the information you have to argue beyond the pale against going after pirates. The Navy is stretched a bit thin, but this is a completely legitimate use of resources that would otherwise not be used to as significant a strategic end. As a related example, from a policy perspective, no matter what you think the most important issue is for the nation (education is the most important issue, bar none), nobody would argue putting 100% of tax dollars towards that issue.
What would your argument be when an American ship is hijacked, or an American is a member of the crew of a hijacked ship? I'm just curious what the criteria will be to warrant what you are arguing against.
Further, I can't tell if you are arguing against further escalation of the anti-piracy efforts or arguing against the current armada that is off the coast of Somalia. Please clarify.
I don't know the full extent of resources, I will admit. However, I have been "over that way" on a small boy that had 80 fewer sailors on it than it was designed to operate with. We did good things over there, and simultaneously we knew of other assets that were doing good things south of us, near Somalia. We were jealous, but we had to stay in the NAG/SAG. I can tell you that our presence there was very valuable, but the other assets south of us were also very highly valued. We can do both, and I do understand the magnitude of traffic in that region.Flash said:
I'm not just some "Let's go get 'em" zealot, I just see this issue as more important than you do.
Additionally, my position is being misrepresented here. Notice how I have repeatedly said that the Navy can't solve the problem. That doesn't mean we can't help, or shouldn't offer any assets at all. All or most of your arguments can be applied to a host of other issues that are also being tackled, such as the Afghanistan poppy trade, the border region with Pakistan (or even with Mexico, for that matter), etc.
I understand that your post was not just to me, but to others who advocate similar stances, but please take note in the irony of the questions you raise. As I said earlier, I can't seem to understand your position because it simply seems to be a devil's advocate one, arguing against others for the sake of doing so. Take, for example:
[quote="Flash]And what happens when you do capture some pirates? It was significant that Kenya took custody of the pirates that the Royal Navy caught, but can we really depend on Kenya to take the entire burden? Where else are we going to send them? And whose laws are they breaking if they are in international or Somali waters?
You have to give a lot more thought to this than just saying 'we should do something'. We are doing something, and will soon be doing more. But there are serious limits to what the US Navy can do, simple as that.[/quote]Surely you don't think the questions you raise shouldn't get answered. If that is true, then doesn't that acknowledge the importance of putting a spotlight on the issue generally?
Regardless, I think we essentially agree on the basics. My position is more nuanced than others, after all.
