Bharat Rakshak

all these semi-shady 'resources' cos operate with tacit blessing of their parent govts. and if something is found, their cos will supply the equipment, food, township, security, thus creating a backward integration with other parts of economy.

shiv wrote:Somehow I am skeptical of this business of "weaning away people from isiamism".

India has plenty of experience with Islamic estremists. They attack you and they will stay at war with you. The best reply to that is to kill them.

To me there is no political solution to Somalia. If we go in, we go in to kill anyone who opposes us. Those who don;t oppose us will get the usual - roads, schools and hospitals. Or else - we don't go in at all and just protect shipping.

I would prefer prate boats to be sunk and no announcement made to the media when that is done.

Your formula and the weaning aka dharmification formula are not incompatible and can be complementary.

There will be a vast middle segment between the warmakers and acceptors of the RHS peace. They need a soft landing that preserves self respect even as they surrender. If they are doing taqiya that can be made de facto permanent by dharmification which makes them apostate and wuq.

Sanku wrote:

RajeshA wrote: We will be hiding our duplicity in the full public glare.

Some one has learnt well from the Americans

Keeping it unannounced is not the same as keeping it secret. All questions will get the same response: no comment on operational matters.

We want to be the silent monster that haunts the nightmares of the bandits, the lion-dream.

RajeshA wrote:We will be hiding our duplicity in the full public glare.

Sanku wrote:Some one has learnt well from the Americans

KLNMurthy wrote:Keeping it unannounced is not the same as keeping it secret. All questions will get the same response: no comment on operational matters.

We want to be the silent monster that haunts the nightmares of the bandits, the lion-dream.

Just a little clarification to the context in which I said that.

The trick is to create a narrative, parallel to one's own unspoken policy, that we can explain all that happens and all that we do in that narrative. There are a multitude of events in which we are involved, which we simply have to put in the public space with a very good explanation in the framework of our narrative - anti-piracy operations by the navy, etc.. There are other events which can take place behind the burqa and no one needs to talk about them - intelligence operations, special forces operations, secret negotiations, bribing, etc.

Others may suspect one of having a hidden agenda, but if we ensure that the other side is hard put to prove it or to gain enough publicity for it, then we can consider it a success.

More specifically what I meant was that even though the Good Pirates would be working for us, Puntland and Somaliland Government would be working with us, in more ways than one, we may be profiting from the piracy itself; our official narrative would be that we are fighting piracy, and all indication in the public domain would only reinforce our claim. Nobody would be able to prove otherwise.

And that is what I mean, that we hide our true agenda and our true role in the Somali piracy behind a very credible narrative of fighting piracy.

RajeshA:

"feeding milk to a snake" is a very dubious and risk-prone tactically brilliant policy. We had experience of this with LTTE even if we ignore the experience of USA and pak.

Cross post

SSridhar wrote:Mozambique, India to work together on maritime security

India and Mozambique have agreed to work together on maritime security to make the Indian Ocean a safe region for trade. An agreement to this effect was reached during delegation-level talks between the visiting Mozambique Minister of National Defence, Filipe Jacinto Nyussi, and Defence Minister A.K Antony here on Tuesday.

Mr. Nyussi thanked India for the help rendered by the Indian Navy in the rescue of a Mozambican shipping vessel from pirates off the Mozambican coast last year.

The issue of piracy off the East Coast of Africa prominently figured during talks between the two leaders, a Defence Ministry release said.

Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

KLNMurthy wrote:RajeshA:

"feeding milk to a snake" is a very dubious and risk-prone tactically brilliant policy. We had experience of this with LTTE even if we ignore the experience of USA and pak.

KLNMurthy ji,

there is a certain fatalism connected to that idiom. In essence we are being told to be risk-averse. Even crossing the street bears some risk.

Still there is some wisdom in the idiom as well. It says we should not be strengthening the hands of the bad guys, for some day, they can come back and hit us. But even there we make some assumptions.

We have some examples. Americans first supported the Mujahideen, and then the Mujahideen turned around, became anti-American and helped in attacking America. Today America's once blue-eyed boys have become snakes and are bleeding America. Indians too first supported the LTTE. Later on the LTTE turned against India, started fighting IPKF, and led to the death of Rajiv Gandhi.

There are a few salient features of the histories of these relationships worthy of note.

• Both movements had political goals.
• The patrons (USA and India) became obstructions in the achievement of the respective goals of these movements.
• When these movements turned against their former patrons, the patrons possessed neither the deep knowledge about the movements, nor the willingness to crush them completely, using that knowledge.

The Mujahideen were in many ways powered by Islamism. Their goal as such was the same as that of Pan-Islamism - Khilafat and Proselytism. Americans proved to be a hindrance in their way, as Americans were propping up all sorts of puppet regimes in the Muslim world, so America became a target. Once America was targeted, Americans did not want to take on their real enemies - those sitting in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Those they started fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere, were those on whom USA had scant information, as much of the support to the Muhahideen was channeled through ISI.

Similarly when India sent in the IPKF and told the LTTE, there is going to be no Tamil Eelam, it was obvious that LTTE would not like it. We had built too many high expectations and then we pulled the rug. So we came in the line of fire. It wasn't just India's fault. LTTE too had, strategically speaking, an extremely stupid leadership. But the problem was that if we had started supporting Tamil Eelam, we should have seen to its independence to the very end, and not changed our goals mid-way.

Whenever we get involved somewhere militarily, other than in self-defense, we should first ask ourselves one question: "Would after our involvement, the target region be more strongly bound to us either demographically (migration), ideologically (conversion/identity) and/or politically (accession) in an enduring way, or not?"

If we can't answer the question in affirmative, then we should ask ourselves another question: "Would the strategic and monetary benefits far outweigh our investments in blood and treasure?"

If that too, we can't answer in the affirmative, then we should not get ourselves involved militarily! Period!

If we do not have the capacity, the resources for a military endeavor of such a scale, or we expect resistance of a scale we would have a hard time matching, then obviously discretion is the better part of valor, and we should let it be.

If we go in, we should go in with overwhelming might and wise diplomacy, so as not to provoke resistance. And we should go in with a goal, which goes beyond that of just scooping water out of a sinking boat.

The situation in Somalia is different in many ways:

1. The pirates do not have political goals, they are not ideologically motivated, unless one of them is called Captain Jack Sparrow. They just want to get rich. Piracy is a means to an end.
2. We are not going to become an obstruction in their goals. In fact we are going to provide services to them.
3. Should the pirates turn against us, we would have collected sufficient intelligence on them to put them out of their misery, either through proxies or through our special forces, and we will do it without any hesitation.

So we should not be having an IPKF moment here.

As to the wisdom of a large scale military deployment:

1. I am proposing large scale demographic change in the composition of Somaliland and Puntland.
2. Ideological change is a long term prospect.
3. Politically binding to India can be accomplished in a limited but very useful way.
4. Not only do we want the deployment to be financially self-sufficient in the medium term, we want to strike riches in the sands of Somaliland and Puntland through Oil and other minerals, as well as by being the sole country whose products are sold in Somalia, having a near monopoly in trade with them.
5. Since we do not intend to be waging a war with any party, the risk to Indian lives is minimum. Indian intelligence agencies would cultivate their own proxies in Somalia, within organized crime, pirates, clan politics, Somalian militias, etc. that we need not put Indian lives on the line, even if things heat up a bit.
6. As far as piracy is concerned, our aim should be to see to it that Indians ships are not attacked, that Indians do not come to any harm, and as a secondary goal, that we get credit from other countries for fighting piracy, and for that we need not go head on against the pirates.

In case of Somalia, we should let the snake feed us milk!

Posts detailing the trade, conflict, piracy and cartel phenomenon in IOR during ancient and medieval times:

viewtopic.php?f=24&p=1070332#p1070332
viewtopic.php?f=24&p=1070342#p1070342
viewtopic.php?f=24&p=1070357#p1070357

There is a definite precedent in Indian history where the eastern seaboard has been cleansed of piracy by the Cholas. The IN would reset the equilibrium if it takes a decision and goes ahead with it in the IOR.

Cholas also cleaned up the Western seas and had settlements in Maladives.

The more I read about the history and society of Somalia the more I feel that Somalia is not a "failed state" but Somalia is a failure of the concept of "nation state" being applied to a people who have no use for the concept in the form discovered by European nations after their wars in the middle ages.

Somalia is not a state at all and to that extent the idea of dealing with Puntland or some other fragment of Somaila makes sense. But even these divisions are dsiputed. It does not look as if the "nation state" models applies even to sub-divisions like Puntland or Somaliland. The reason why the "West" has given up on Somalia was the same reason why colonialism eventually failed and left some countries with successful nation state models and others in chaos.

When you have clans that need free movement it makes no sense to have a "controlled border" with visas etc between Somalia and Kenya or Ethiopia. Just like Pashtuns will recognise no border between "Afghanistan" and "Pakistan".

Some kind of new model will have to be invented if we are not going back to old models of control of territory. the colonial model is certainly attractive for application in Somalia. The nation state model is not working. The Islam model is being applied but that has never been a unifying model.

by colonial model do you mean the outside power appointing a adviser/overseer with each clan and letting each of them have a free run against each other (within some limits) so long as their trade, external affairs, external defence and seas are controlled by the colonial power? it would mean have no fixed allies or principles but hooking up with whichever set of warlords has the upper hand at any point in time,arming them, educating and employing their children and relatives, supplying them guns, mirrors and salt....

Singha wrote:by colonial model do you mean the outside power appointing a adviser/overseer with each clan and letting each of them have a free run against each other (within some limits) so long as their trade, external affairs, external defence and seas are controlled by the colonial power? it would mean have no fixed allies or principles but hooking up with whichever set of warlords has the upper hand at any point in time,arming them, educating and employing their children and relatives, supplying them guns, mirrors and salt....

Very well put. The only addition is that the colonial power should retain the military might to take out anyone and everyone who is opposed to him in the land.

@RajeshA

thanks for a thoughtful response. I see a strategy of supporting the pirates in exchange for protection, influence and control as being fundamentally flawed. We would be giving up our core values of democracy, law and order for the sake of nurturing pure pakiness (which is what piracy is). Even in case of LTTE our goal was not pakiness per se but to provide some muscle for Tamils against racism.

Yes, we want to expand and prevail but there is nothing in our DNA(unlike europeans and pakis) that
is consistent with doing it for any reason other than self defense or for benefitting humanity.

The pirates are paki both in form and substance. Presence of al shahab is not incidental. Average pirate 'employee' getting ~1000x the income of the region's people means the wealth will go to build a paki empire with shahab providing the ideological glue.

Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

KLNMurthy ji,

1) The goal of the proposal is also to finish off Somali piracy.

2) The difference is to do it over 15-20 years, and not to try it right away.

3) In order to finish piracy, one needs an alternative economy which can wean away the pirates. At the moment there is none, at least none that really pays.

4) In a country where people are dirt poor and piracy allows one to win a lottery, there Somalis will keep on voting for piracy. That is simply the logic of it.

5) Going head on against the Somali pirates under such circumstances would not even make a dent to it

6) So why go for a policy that has zero chance of success, and can only mean that more and more Indians would be kidnapped by Somali pirates in retaliation.

Actually the proposal proposes the most humane way of dealing with piracy. By keeping control over it, we would ensure that there are no deaths, no killings. Neither Indian navy crewmen are hurt, nor Indian sailors on ships sailing through those waters, nor the pirates. I would ask, is a humane solution against our DNA?

Now you say, it is not in our DNA to go with such a policy as is proposed, but everything else would not work! Shri B. Raman himself says there are no solutions on the table how to deal with Somali piracy.

We cannot hug ideology, and reject logic.

The dissonance between my proposals and Indic ideology seems to be a constant feature of the proposals.

RajeshA wrote: The dissonance between my proposals and Indic ideology seems to be a constant feature of the proposals.

If I may say so Rajesh, that dissonance is a fundamental fact of all group reactions to any revolutionary or unusual idea, not just your proposals. In fact it is the difference between success and failure, acceptance and rejection.

I had an uncle (now no more) who claimed that he had devised some amazing technology for missiles. But this uncle had a personality problem and found it difficult to get along with people, and he had radical ideas. He interpreted his failure to get along and consequent inability to sell his ideas to jealousy caused by his brilliance. Needless to say his ideas died with him. No one will know whether his ideas were really revolutionary or not simply because he was unable to communicate his ideas in a manner that reduced dissonance.

You may have proof that black is white, but you have to sell it right. The discovery that there is opposition to the idea that black is white is no discovery. It's a no brainer. If you choose to break down the biggest mental hurdles to sell revolutionary ideas, the payoff of success could be large, but the chances of failure are equally large. But if revolutionary ideas are seen to have serious flaws that you are yourself unable to reconcile or explain (sell?) (perhaps black is not white) - then the ideas are not revolutionary, only outrageous and impractical, and skepticism and dissonance are the honest and appropriate reaction.

Ideas like "Indic behavior" are definitely hurdles to some things - but they are a result of centuries of evolution of collective experience. You can start wiping them now, but there is no guarantee that you will wipe them clean in your lifetime. There are people who see your attempts to change that as undesirable and you will end up spending effort fighting those people rather than getting on with the totally unrelated problem of Somali piracy.

In a nutshell what I am looking for is a flow chart that goes like this

Somali piracy needs to be addressed -->think of ways of doing that

What you seem to be doing is

Somali piracy needs to be addressed --> Change Somalian demography + change Indic attitudes --> achieve a long term revolutionary change with regard to Somalia and India

You are attempting to climb a huge mountain before getting to the point about Somali piracy and you are trying to sell the long term payoff like the 72 hooris we will all get in some distant future dimension after Somali women are accepted and Indic attitudes to good and bad are changed.

Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: The dissonance between my proposals and Indic ideology seems to be a constant feature of the proposals.

If I may say so Rajesh, that dissonance is a fundamental fact of all group reactions to any revolutionary or unusual idea, not just your proposals. In fact it is the difference between success and failure, acceptance and rejection.

shiv saar,

we need to make a fundamental distinction. Society has certain values, State has certain goals. Values just need their re-affirmation, but for goals, the State/Establishment needs to make strategy.

Strategy needs to show some logic, need to fulfill the goals, and the tip of the iceberg, the part of strategy whose movement all can see, needs to be sold to the people, but no more.

A state does not publish everything its intelligence agencies do, or the means they use to get what they want. They just do it, and upon media query the State burps out some halaal explanation.

So a strategy does not need the approval of everybody as if it is going to be decided by democracy. If the State thinks it will do the trick and they can pull the wool over everybody else's eyes, including those of its own public, then they would go ahead. Strategy is based simply on data, on the behavioral logic of people, projections of the future and state's capacity to deliver. Ideology has got nothing to do with strategy. Everybody can have different ideological sensibilities. Should the State go and beg everybody to bless some strategy?

Now the question is how much of a strategy really shows above the water. And whether the State would have an explanation for that. Only the explainability of that part needs to conform with the ideological sensibilities of others.

Now if I am correct, this is the "Strategic Issues and International Relations Forum", and not necessarily the "Ideological Approval Forum"! All I am doing is proposing Strategy for consideration of those who want to test the Strategy for its soundness - whether it can work, and if not why not! Sure there will be some comments on how our values would digest it, but those misgivings are not relevant as a test for the strategy's soundness.

In the Deterrence Thread, I am sure there are solutions proposed, which would terrify the peaceniks and the pacifists, but their ideological disapproval does not take away from the soundness of the proposals there.

shiv wrote:I had an uncle (now no more) who claimed that he had devised some amazing technology for missiles. But this uncle had a personality problem and found it difficult to get along with people, and he had radical ideas. He interpreted his failure to get along and consequent inability to sell his ideas to jealousy caused by his brilliance. Needless to say his ideas died with him. No one will know whether his ideas were really revolutionary or not simply because he was unable to communicate his ideas in a manner that reduced dissonance.

The dissonance I spoke of does not come from the revolutionary nature of the idea. It comes from the fact, that the proposed strategy is being put through ideological testing. Ideological testing has very little relevance to the soundness of the strategy.

Hence my comment in the earlier post on dissonance.

shiv wrote:You may have proof that black is white, but you have to sell it right. The discovery that there is opposition to the idea that black is white is no discovery. It's a no brainer. If you choose to break down the biggest mental hurdles to sell revolutionary ideas, the payoff of success could be large, but the chances of failure are equally large. But if revolutionary ideas are seen to have serious flaws that you are yourself unable to reconcile or explain (sell?) (perhaps black is not white) - then the ideas are not revolutionary, only outrageous and impractical, and skepticism and dissonance are the honest and appropriate reaction.

I can try to sell the notion that "black is white", but what if others objections are more on the lines of, "but black is not orange, and you haven't proven that it is orange"!

My claim is simply that the proposed strategy for fighting piracy would get the work done. I am not claiming that it would suit everybody's sense of dharma! And I don't think that is the brief of the strategy. It's brief is simply to get the work done.

One may say, that how can the strategy work, if it would not have any political support among the people. I say, the public will not get even a whiff of the true nature of the strategy. What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over. And this is not the peculiarity of this strategy alone. All strategies by any Establishment are off limits from public view.

shiv wrote:Ideas like "Indic behavior" are definitely hurdles to some things - but they are a result of centuries of evolution of collective experience. You can start wiping them now, but there is no guarantee that you will wipe them clean in your lifetime. There are people who see your attempts to change that as undesirable and you will end up spending effort fighting those people rather than getting on with the totally unrelated problem of Somali piracy.

I accept that people's ideological sensitivities are such that they do not approve of the strategy on this forum. I accept that criticism. I am not fighting the criticism at all, for the criticism is not directed at the soundness of the strategy - whether it will work!

shiv wrote:In a nutshell what I am looking for is a flow chart that goes like this

Somali piracy needs to be addressed -->think of ways of doing that

What you seem to be doing is

Somali piracy needs to be addressed --> Change Somalian demography + change Indic attitudes --> achieve a long term revolutionary change with regard to Somalia and India

You are attempting to climb a huge mountain before getting to the point about Somali piracy and you are trying to sell the long term payoff like the 72 hooris we will all get in some distant future dimension after Somali women are accepted and Indic attitudes to good and bad are changed.

shiv saar,

me thinks, if I may say so, you are projecting your theories about my theories without really reading my theories, and thus completely misrepresenting the proposal.

1) First of all where does the adage "change Indic attitudes" come from? Where have I said something like that? Which Indic attitude do you think, I propose to have changed?

2) "Changes in Somalian demography" too play a miniscule role in fighting piracy in the proposal. That is simply a means of securing the Horn of Africa for Indian influence. It was proposed here, because that is a collateral benefit of the strategy, just like drilling for Oil in Puntland is a collateral benefit of the strategy. One role that aspect plays is that it could soften Somali resistance to Indian plans for the country.

So if, according to me, "changes in Somalian demography" and "change Indic attitudes" have no centrality in the proposal, and since I made the proposal, I would know of it, it is obvious you haven't read the proposal at all, but simply want to project something on to it, and paint it with a brush of absurdity.

The central theme was about asserting Indian control over the pirate gangs, and how to go about it, and secondly how to wean away the pirates from piracy in 15-20 years by offering them an alternate mainstream economy, which India could have built up there in the meantime, having secured a more or less peaceful environment to do so.

Going head on against piracy is a dangerous proposition, as USA is learning in Afghanistan and IPKF did in Sri Lanka. Indian sailors working on vessels all over the world would have to pay the price, and that is not speaking of the huge strategic loss we will face on Horn of Africa in the long term!

US extends drone strikes to Somalia

after the first para the story moves almost entirely to pakistan and shamsi and houbaras and a replica of the dialogue we've had here on BRF re drones

but it looks clear that unkil is targeting al shabab as the primary local guardians for al-queda in somalia and its associated mysterious 'foreign fighters'

and therefore i can only conclude that the sweaty hands of paqui spies and jarnails is well and truly wedged into the somali pie

RajeshA wrote:
1) First of all where does the adage "change Indic attitudes" come from? Where have I said something like that? Which Indic attitude do you think, I propose to have changed?

2) "Changes in Somalian demography" too play a miniscule role in fighting piracy in the proposal. That is simply a means of securing the Horn of Africa for Indian influence. It was proposed here, because that is a collateral benefit of the strategy, just like drilling for Oil in Puntland is a collateral benefit of the strategy. One role that aspect plays is that it could soften Somali resistance to Indian plans for the country.

So if, according to me, "changes in Somalian demography" and "change Indic attitudes" have no centrality in the proposal, and since I made the proposal, I would know of it, it is obvious you haven't read the proposal at all, but simply want to project something on to it, and paint it with a brush of absurdity.

With respect Rajeshji - your objections are nonsense. You have written so copiously that you seem to have forgotten some of what you said.

I. Please tell me how the following proposals can be fulfilled minus a change in demography. The changes you propose are hardly "miniscule". You have yourself used the demography word and have suggested changing the demography, and you claim that you know what you wrote. Clearly you have forgotten.

On page 3 of this thread you said

RajeshA wrote: We will need a military deployment in Somalia of over 15-20 years, accompanied
with Indian investment and Indian civilians shifting to Somalia and settling
down there, setting up families there, marrying Somali women, integrating
themselves with Somali society, before we would see the alternative economic
model set up by India winning over the piracy-based economy.
<snip>
We would also be able to build a considerable demographic presence in North
Somalia to become a factor in the internal politics of Somalia.

On page 4 of this thread you said

RajeshA wrote:
Marriage with Somalis can be given institutional support from the Indian
Military deployed there, by all the Indian firms who set up shop there. The cost
of the wedding, cost of mehr, living quarters, etc. can be picked up them. In
fact marriage besides a job can act as a strong incentive to attract Indian
workers to move to Somalia.

One has to sell some good proposition to the Indians, if one wants to get 2-3
million Indians up there. (comment: 2-3 million Indians in a nation of 10 million)

On page 4 you said

RajeshA wrote:Initially though, I think religion would be a barrier. So if the Indian Army
encourage 2000-3000 of its Indian Muslim jawans to marry locally, the Somalis
would be far more willing to give their daughters. Subsequently they will simply
start saying that their daughters are married to an Indian, blending out the
aspect that the damaad is a Muslim, making marrying daughters to Indians a
normal thing, where the religion of the 'damaad' is not seen as too big a
hurdle. So many more Indian jawans, including Indics, would be able to marry
locally.

When Indian firms start putting up shop, they too can be encouraged by the GoI
to offer their employees similar offers of jobs and wives in Somalia, and many
more Indians will come, and Somalis would be willing to give their daughters to
many more Indians.

II. Please tell me if you think your proposals can be implemented without a change in Indic attitudes even if the state keeps it secret. You have stated that India should have a revolving door policy for "good pirates" and a different one for "bad pirates" and you have said that India should openly admit when it catches pirates (I will produce the quote on demand). You want to use the army for encouraging marriages (quote above) and you want to use the military for negotiating with middlemen (quote below) for this good pirate bad pirate business. Do you believe that the policy can be kept secret and that if word spread in India it will be hailed as a good one? I put it to you that your idea does not have the chance of fart in a hurricane of being supported by a majority of Indians in the population, GoI or military without a change of Indic mindset. And you are trying to fit your ideas into a sort of virtual "neverneverland" where the state does it minus the support of the population. And you want the population not to know for 20 years while Indians are supporting piracy and marrying Somalis. I may be mad, but your propositions sound insane to me.

Here are your ideas:
On this page you said

RajeshA wrote:A state does not publish everything its intelligence agencies do, or the means they use to get what they want. They just do it, and upon media query the State burps out some halaal explanation.

So a strategy does not need the approval of everybody as if it is going to be decided by democracy. If the State thinks it will do the trick and they can pull the wool over everybody else's eyes, including those of its own public, then they would go ahead.

On page 3 you wrote

RajeshA wrote:Any action on Somali pirates is undertaken only on those, who DO NOT want to
accept our "overlordship"!

So what is this overlordship? It means all pirates who

1. decline to give us 10% commission on the booty!
2. we see to be involved with Pakistanis in procuring arms from them
3. who do not help us in providing information on those, who reject our
overlordship
4. who object to Indian military deployment of 100,000 men to Boosaaso
5. who harm Indians who start arriving in Puntland in support of Indian
military deployment

Now what do the pirates get in return, who help us

1. They get tips on high value cargo ships that come or go through
Bab-el-Mandeb passage (between Red Sea and Gulf of Aden)
2. Communication is better facilitated with those, whose cargo or ship-crew
gets hijacked/kidnapped.
3. They are not attacked by Indian ships or Indian UAVs during the hijacking

We are basically dividing Somali Pirates into Good Pirates and Bad Pirates.

RajeshA wrote:Now the Indian Military need not "cooperate" with the "Good Pirates" directly,
but some credible layer of middlemen, both Indian and Somali can be set up, who
can move within this grey ethical zone.

Officially India would be there to fight Somalis. That is what West and the
others would be told, and in fact we would be working for that goal. Whenever
ships are hijacked, we will try to get them freed through negotiation. There
will be enough fights against the "Bad Pirates" to prove that we are serious
about piracy and are fighting it. There may be rumors here and there about
Indian complicity in all this, but a little loss of image is a fair price to pay
for Indian domination over Horn of Africa and an end to Somali challenge to
Indian domination over the Indian Ocean.

From page 5

RajeshA wrote:This pertains to Indian proxies selling the Somali pirates the
idea, that they can expect support from them in their piracy, but it would have
to be with some conditions. The idea is to shield Somali pirates from external
influences which come from their procurement of arms and gadgets from say
Pakistanis, etc. We become the one-stop services provider to the Somali pirates
- be it arms and weapons, be it gadgets, be it ships, be it creature comforts,
be it their banking needs, be it ship repairs, be it safe apprehension, be it
jail comfort, be it get-out-of-jail-cards, be it intelligence on ships, be it
support in ransom negotiations, whatever.

Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

RajeshA wrote:1) First of all where does the adage "change Indic attitudes" come from? Where have I said something like that? Which Indic attitude do you think, I propose to have changed?

2) "Changes in Somalian demography" too play a miniscule role in fighting piracy in the proposal. That is simply a means of securing the Horn of Africa for Indian influence. It was proposed here, because that is a collateral benefit of the strategy, just like drilling for Oil in Puntland is a collateral benefit of the strategy. One role that aspect plays is that it could soften Somali resistance to Indian plans for the country.

So if, according to me, "changes in Somalian demography" and "change Indic attitudes" have no centrality in the proposal, and since I made the proposal, I would know of it, it is obvious you haven't read the proposal at all, but simply want to project something on to it, and paint it with a brush of absurdity.

shiv wrote:With respect Rajeshji - your objections are nonsense. You have written so copiously that you seem to have forgotten some of what you said.

I. Please tell me how the following proposals can be fulfilled minus a change in demography. The changes you propose are hardly "miniscule". You have yourself used the demography word and have suggested changing the demography, and you claim that you know what you wrote. Clearly you have forgotten.

On page 3 of this thread you said

RajeshA wrote: We will need a military deployment in Somalia of over 15-20 years, accompanied
with Indian investment and Indian civilians shifting to Somalia and settling
down there, setting up families there, marrying Somali women, integrating
themselves with Somali society, before we would see the alternative economic
model set up by India winning over the piracy-based economy.
<snip>
We would also be able to build a considerable demographic presence in North
Somalia to become a factor in the internal politics of Somalia.

On page 4 of this thread you said

RajeshA wrote:
Marriage with Somalis can be given institutional support from the Indian
Military deployed there, by all the Indian firms who set up shop there. The cost
of the wedding, cost of mehr, living quarters, etc. can be picked up them. In
fact marriage besides a job can act as a strong incentive to attract Indian
workers to move to Somalia.

One has to sell some good proposition to the Indians, if one wants to get 2-3
million Indians up there. (comment: 2-3 million Indians in a nation of 10 million)

On page 4 you said

RajeshA wrote:Initially though, I think religion would be a barrier. So if the Indian Army
encourage 2000-3000 of its Indian Muslim jawans to marry locally, the Somalis
would be far more willing to give their daughters. Subsequently they will simply
start saying that their daughters are married to an Indian, blending out the
aspect that the damaad is a Muslim, making marrying daughters to Indians a
normal thing, where the religion of the 'damaad' is not seen as too big a
hurdle. So many more Indian jawans, including Indics, would be able to marry
locally.

When Indian firms start putting up shop, they too can be encouraged by the GoI
to offer their employees similar offers of jobs and wives in Somalia, and many
more Indians will come, and Somalis would be willing to give their daughters to
many more Indians.

1) I have said so earlier, I very much support an Indian demographic expansion into Somalia. The Indian Demographic Expansion was advocated as a part of our comprehensive policy towards Somalia. Sending in 2-3 million Indians to the region is a huge project, and hardly "miniscule" as you put it. All this becomes clear from those quotes.

However where have I said, that India would not be able to fight piracy, unless we do a demographic change in Somalia! Demographic Change in Somalia plays a peripheral/miniscule role in fighting piracy. It is not instrumental in fighting piracy. Demographic Change in Somalia plays a huge role in enabling Indian Domination of our Western Indian Ocean Rim. Those are two different objectives. Demographic Change is being advocated for our second objective, which I feel is even more important than fighting piracy.

What the quotes proved, was that I have spoken of Demographic Change in Somalia, and not that it instrumental in our strategy to deal with piracy there.

shiv wrote:II. Please tell me if you think your proposals can be implemented without a change in Indic attitudes even if the state keeps it secret. You have stated that India should have a revolving door policy for "good pirates" and a different one for "bad pirates" and you have said that India should openly admit when it catches pirates (I will produce the quote on demand). You want to use the army for encouraging marriages (quote above) and you want to use the military for negotiating with middlemen (quote below) for this good pirate bad pirate business. Do you believe that the policy can be kept secret and that if word spread in India it will be hailed as a good one? I put it to you that your idea does not have the chance of fart in a hurricane of being supported by a majority of Indians in the population, GoI or military without a change of Indic mindset. And you are trying to fit your ideas into a sort of virtual "neverneverland" where the state does it minus the support of the population. And you want the population not to know for 20 years while Indians are supporting piracy and marrying Somalis. I may be mad, but your propositions sound insane to me.

Here are your ideas:
On this page you said

RajeshA wrote:A state does not publish everything its intelligence agencies do, or the means they use to get what they want. They just do it, and upon media query the State burps out some halaal explanation.

So a strategy does not need the approval of everybody as if it is going to be decided by democracy. If the State thinks it will do the trick and they can pull the wool over everybody else's eyes, including those of its own public, then they would go ahead.

On page 3 you wrote

RajeshA wrote:Any action on Somali pirates is undertaken only on those, who DO NOT want to
accept our "overlordship"!

So what is this overlordship? It means all pirates who

1. decline to give us 10% commission on the booty!
2. we see to be involved with Pakistanis in procuring arms from them
3. who do not help us in providing information on those, who reject our
overlordship
4. who object to Indian military deployment of 100,000 men to Boosaaso
5. who harm Indians who start arriving in Puntland in support of Indian
military deployment

Now what do the pirates get in return, who help us

1. They get tips on high value cargo ships that come or go through
Bab-el-Mandeb passage (between Red Sea and Gulf of Aden)
2. Communication is better facilitated with those, whose cargo or ship-crew
gets hijacked/kidnapped.
3. They are not attacked by Indian ships or Indian UAVs during the hijacking

We are basically dividing Somali Pirates into Good Pirates and Bad Pirates.

RajeshA wrote:Now the Indian Military need not "cooperate" with the "Good Pirates" directly,
but some credible layer of middlemen, both Indian and Somali can be set up, who
can move within this grey ethical zone.

Officially India would be there to fight Somalis. That is what West and the
others would be told, and in fact we would be working for that goal. Whenever
ships are hijacked, we will try to get them freed through negotiation. There
will be enough fights against the "Bad Pirates" to prove that we are serious
about piracy and are fighting it. There may be rumors here and there about
Indian complicity in all this, but a little loss of image is a fair price to pay
for Indian domination over Horn of Africa and an end to Somali challenge to
Indian domination over the Indian Ocean.

From page 5

RajeshA wrote:This pertains to Indian proxies selling the Somali pirates the
idea, that they can expect support from them in their piracy, but it would have
to be with some conditions. The idea is to shield Somali pirates from external
influences which come from their procurement of arms and gadgets from say
Pakistanis, etc. We become the one-stop services provider to the Somali pirates
- be it arms and weapons, be it gadgets, be it ships, be it creature comforts,
be it their banking needs, be it ship repairs, be it safe apprehension, be it
jail comfort, be it get-out-of-jail-cards, be it intelligence on ships, be it
support in ransom negotiations, whatever.

1) Indian Military deals with Indian Intelligence (the Indian Middlemen) who deal with (Indian + Somali Pirate-Managers) who deal with (Somali Pirates)!

• Would the Military have a problem in dealing with Indian Intelligence Agencies (say RA&W). Does that require a change in Indic Mindset?
  
  In fact, except for a few military commanders, others do not even need to know about the Good Pirate / Bad Pirate policy. All they need to know is how to treat good pirates, when they take them into custody - that is with a minimum of force, before handing them over to the Puntland authorities. Indian intelligence will be embedded with the Indian Navy ships to make sure that correct protocols are followed.
• Would the Indian Intelligence Agencies have a problem with dealing with a proxy they have themselves set up (Indian + Somali Pirate-Managers) due to conscience issues? No, because the Managers give them a channel of communication.
• Indian intelligence often have contacts in organized crime in India (or should have) to provide them with intelligence.
  Would the (Indian + Somali Pirate-Managers) have a problem dealing with Somali Pirates? No.

The whole of Somalia would be swarming with Indian intelligence agents. They are the ones who would be doing the management of our policy there. Indian Military, like any military in a similar situation, would keep itself aloof from such operations, and does not need a "change in Indic attitudes".

2) So Indian jawans would be encouraged to marry locally.

• Is marriage in itself, some "change in Indic attitude"? The majority of Indian men marry.
• Is marrying a foreigner, some "change in Indic attitude"? Geez, am I a Mleccha now as I have done it myself? Indian diaspora is spread all over the world and they marry non-Indians as well. Nothing new here.
• So if somebody higher up in the military hierarchy were to tell the military commanders, that they may promote the idea in the Indian military ranks stationed in Somalia, would the military commanders do a mutiny, and refuse to follow orders?
• No Indian jawan is being forced to do this. It is their choice. But they will be told that it would help promote acceptance of Indian military presence in Somalia.
• If the Indian jawan agrees to the idea, matrimonial agencies would look after a suitable match, and Indian military would make a wedding gift - and pick up the tab. Does making a wedding gift require a "change in Indic attitude"?

To be honest, I can't get my head around why this constitutes a "change in Indic attitude". In fact, I suspect, that Indian Muslim jawans would in fact be quite eager for this, both because they would be able to contribute to a better Indian-Somali cooperation and understanding, but also because he would be marrying into the wider Ummah (and there is nothing wrong with any of that).

Anyway, Indian jawans and other Indians marrying Somali women is an issue that belongs in the "Demographic Change in Somalia" and is hardly relevant for Indian strategy to fight piracy.

3) Indian Naval intelligence in collaboration with Indian Intelligence presence in Somalia would be guiding Indian naval ships to where they feel they are needed and deciding on their patrol plans.

Indian naval ships when confronted with some Somali hijacking would proceed in the normal way they would - by stopping the hijacking, apprehending the pirates and turning them over to the Puntland authorities.

If they are Good Pirates, Indian intelligence would, even before the day began, already have negotiated a peaceful surrender of the pirates, just for the media and show. The navy would take the pirates into custody, without even knowing that they are good pirates. The intelligence officer on board the ship would be in the loop and would determine the level of caution and action of the Indian sailors.

Basically normal Indian Navy officers and crewmen are being shielded from the whole business with Good Pirate / Bad Pirate. They need not know everything. Indian naval ships are doing their job to the best of their conscience. They are capturing both Good Pirates and Bad Pirates, and most do not know the difference. Only Indian Intelligence knows the difference.

So I don't see, any reason for a deep "change in Indic attitudes" for this. The Navy is simply doing their job.

The services that are provided to the Good Pirates are provided by the Indian Intelligence via

• the "Indian + Somali Pirate-Managers",
• the Puntland authorities and
• the Indian Intelligence officer on board Indian naval ships

.
Indian Military is not involved.

I believe the Indian Intelligence agencies can handle this without the burden of a "change in Indic attitude".

4) What happens when it comes out? It will be denied. Everywhere in the chain one is allowing room for denial and putting the blame on organized crime, corruption in the Puntland authorities, lack of resources, some few bad apples, etc. etc.

What you call requiring a "change in Indic attitude" is all "log kya kahenge"? That is not how strategy is made. USA has had "Abu Ghraib", "Guantanamo Bay", "Prisoner Renditions", Torture controversies, talking with the Taliban, providing weapons to Mujahideen, dealing with the ISI, Iran-Contra Affair, supporting all sorts of dictators, Iraq-War without a UN mandate, etc. etc. The British colonized the whole frickin' world fighting distant wars. The Chinese just marched into Tibet and took it over and have brutalized their own people in who knows how many Cultural Revolutions. They have invaded Vietnam. It is not just the Americans, every country does what is needed to secure their interests.

And we are thinking about putting our strategies up for a referendum by the Indian people?

We would be minimizing loss of life - Indian, Somali, from other ships. We would be treating Somalis humanely. In the long run we would solve the piracy problem. We will be solving problems, and we are worrying about "change in Indic attitudes" for that!

As such the proposal, does not rely on "Demographic Change in Somalia" or "Change in Indic Attitudes"!

Indians really know how to make a hurricane out of a fart!

Rajesh you are now backing out of statements you made earlier. Be that as it may - I think your proposals are unworkable.
I wonder whether you are making them for kicks because the idea that Somalia would be swimming with Indian agents and soldiers would be asked to marry Somalis - and all for a period of 20 years goes totally against the delusion that such a policy can be kept "secret" with only a few "need to know" people knowing what is going on. You write only miniscule amounts about what could go wrong with the copious volumes of proposals you post. That means that you either think everything will work as planned, or that you have not bothered (or deliberately do not want to expend effort) thinking about what could go wrong with your proposals. That sounds more like marketing than analysis to me.

Either you are just having a big laugh at the expense of everyone on BRF or you don't have a clue as to everything that can go wrong with your proposals even before they can start, leave alone the disaster of actually trying to implement them.

Like you, I have a habit of writing too much and I will just withdraw from either endorsing or criticizing your proposals.

Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

shiv wrote:Rajesh you are now backing out of statements you made earlier. Be that as it may - I think your proposals are unworkable.

I wonder whether you are making them for kicks because the idea that Somalia would be swimming with Indian agents and soldiers would be asked to marry Somalis - and all for a period of 20 years goes totally against the delusion that such a policy can be kept "secret" with only a few "need to know" people knowing what is going on.

I haven't understood why you wish to misrepresent me. It is very easy to make broad brushes of accusations with some policy highlighting peripheral issues, putting them in the wrong context, and when in the defense of the proposal I show that you have made completely wrong assumptions, you say I am backing off.

E.g. You say my proposal to fight piracy involves "Demographic Change of Somalia" and "Changes in Indic Attitudes". I say it doesn't. What you don't tell me is:
1) How would the strategy to fight piracy collapse if there is no "Demographic Change in Somalia", as I contend, for that is for some other part of policy - long term Domination in Somalia?
2) Or exactly which "changes in Indic attitude" are required according to the proposal in which section of the policy makers and policy implementers?
3) Or what exactly is it that would come out that would cause an uproar, and why it cannot be fudged?
4) You also make it seem as if it is preposterous if it comes out that the Indian Military "does not object" to its jawans marrying locals, but why?
5) You don't go into why can't Somalia be swimming with Indian Intelligence Agents if India has committed a big military deployment to Somalia of say 100,000 soldiers. It is normal that any deployment is accompanied with intelligence people. Did IPKF deployment have no intelligence people alongside?

shiv wrote:You write only miniscule amounts about what could go wrong with the copious volumes of proposals you post. That means that you either think everything will work as planned, or that you have not bothered (or deliberately do not want to expend effort) thinking about what could go wrong with your proposals. That sounds more like marketing than analysis to me.

I just hope that others would find, what could go wrong. I also get many good points, which I do elaborate on what precautions one can take to prevent that it goes wrong. I welcome all that criticism, because it helps to make the solution much more sound. Others are doing, so to speak, beta-testing for me, for often it is difficult to find own bugs.

Often the proposals are criticized not on the aspect, whether they can succeed or whether they are sound, but rather because they impinge on somebody's dharma or value-system. I can understand that criticism but the criticism is nor really relevant. You name any strategy and I can do a moral grandstanding. Besides if a state or some establishment or group carries out some strategy, not everybody's morals are on the line or are put on the line.

Then I get criticism which just wants to misrepresent the proposals, and do not want to accept my clarifications, calling arduous explanations as just backing out.

"Backing out" sounds to me like as if someone simply wishes to score points, rather than sees it as an exercise to improving an initial framework of an idea by fleshing out the details subsequently.

shiv wrote:Either you are just having a big laugh at the expense of everyone on BRF or you don't have a clue as to everything that can go wrong with your proposals even before they can start, leave alone the disaster of actually trying to implement them.

Well that is indeed a new one, a nasty one too. People are here on Bharat-Rakshak Forum, because the well-being of their nation is dear to their heart, and I am just one of them, trying to put some ideas in the public domain, so that Indians don't say we are out of options.

If I may say so, you too did make some proposals on military attacks on the pirates, but you forgot to respond to my query about:
1) How does your proposal ensure that Somalis do not retaliate against Indian sailors serving on various ships passing through the area?
2) How does your proposal ensure that we do not have a long term enmity being created on the Horn of Africa, especially if start attacking Somalis, and with Somali-Pakistani Nexus taking shape.

At least I defend my proposals.

shiv wrote:Like you, I have a habit of writing too much and I will just withdraw from either endorsing or criticizing your proposals.

That is your prerogative. But I will always welcome your input!

RajeshA wrote:Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

KLNMurthy ji,

1) The goal of the proposal is also to finish off Somali piracy.

2) The difference is to do it over 15-20 years, and not to try it right away.

3) In order to finish piracy, one needs an alternative economy which can wean away the pirates. At the moment there is none, at least none that really pays.

4) In a country where people are dirt poor and piracy allows one to win a lottery, there Somalis will keep on voting for piracy. That is simply the logic of it.

5) Going head on against the Somali pirates under such circumstances would not even make a dent to it

6) So why go for a policy that has zero chance of success, and can only mean that more and more Indians would be kidnapped by Somali pirates in retaliation.

Actually the proposal proposes the most humane way of dealing with piracy. By keeping control over it, we would ensure that there are no deaths, no killings. Neither Indian navy crewmen are hurt, nor Indian sailors on ships sailing through those waters, nor the pirates. I would ask, is a humane solution against our DNA?

Now you say, it is not in our DNA to go with such a policy as is proposed, but everything else would not work! Shri B. Raman himself says there are no solutions on the table how to deal with Somali piracy.

We cannot hug ideology, and reject logic.

The dissonance between my proposals and Indic ideology seems to be a constant feature of the proposals.

The thing you call ideology, which is actually core values of an organization, is not an empty meaningless platitude to be negated in all pragmatic (what you call logic) situations; understanding these values and harmonizing with them is necessary for understanding about core competencies and capabilities and ultimately makes the difference between success and costly, even disastrous, failure. To have a basis for discussion, we have to first have a common ground on this principle.

We should be careful when using loaded 'sexy' terms like 'logic'. Logic is only a language and a process of arguing from premises to conclusions in a formal way. Without a framework, talking about 'logic' is equivalent to saying that we have to map the processes of molecular biology for understanding human psychology, or use the quantum drift of electrons to describe a computer program's behavior; it is not incorrect, but it is at the wrong level of abstraction.

1 & 2. If the goal is to destroy the pirates, and yet the strategy calls for befriending them, supporting them, and making money from them, and ultimately also betraying them, then the bar is very high for explaining why we would take a course that is opposite to the goals, why it is feasible, why the risks are manageable, why this is preferable to a more straightforward occam-compliant approach.

3&4. It is not as though piracy can be ended only by providing an alternate economy, though that would be desirable. There are plenty of places that are just as poor which don't do piracy. We can also, for example, find a way to make the cost of piracy much too high, and find ways to curtail access to the tools of piracy. What I as a person "vote for" and fantasize about is meaningless if pursuing that option will get me killed along with my family, for example.

5&6. Clearly Indian Navy and other navies' assault on the pirates has made a dent--it made them tense and belligerent, and caused them to threaten to destroy the assets (hostages) that they need to keep alive to be in business in the first place. This is not the desired end state for us, but it is still a plausible step in the process of getting to an end state. If you confront a bully he will first try to act more belligerent; that is proof that you have made a dent, not proof that you haven't. If you try to make a bully into a partner as soon as he makes belligerent noises, then he will conclude correctly that you are bluffing about your capabilities and are simply surrendering to him.

Indian navy is not the only one getting tough on the pirates; US Navy also shot and killed pirates, destroyed their ships etc., and maybe other navies did too. The pirates chose to single out India and not others because they perceive us as SDRE and 'soft'. Imagine now, India coming to them with a hand of friendship and partnership! Do you think they will be lungi-shivering at our ferocity and become our subservient bi**hes and agree to pay us our pimp's cut, and do dhandha for us till it pleases us to wipe them out in 15-20 years time? Is that, to use a familiar term, 'logical?'

The somali pirates are the sea-lane version of the arabian brigands who sat at the crossroads of trade and extracted loot and tribute, and ultimately leveraged Islam to institutionalize and globalize this mafia culture, which we know today as pakiness.

There is no shortcut to acquiring the necessary capabilities and prevailing over an enemy who embodies the core of pakiness. it will be a gradual process of strength building, but it can be done if the vision is clear. In the meantime, it will be an incremental game, with the non-paki side hopefully getting wiser and stronger.

I believe that this can be easily done well within your 15-20 year timeframe without ever becoming pakis ourselves, so I would want to see an explanation why we have to become pakis for the same or worse (longer time, more risks) result.

Somali Piracy: Looking for Solutions

RajeshA wrote: KLNMurthy ji,

1) The goal of the proposal is also to finish off Somali piracy.

2) The difference is to do it over 15-20 years, and not to try it right away.

3) In order to finish piracy, one needs an alternative economy which can wean away the pirates. At the moment there is none, at least none that really pays.

4) In a country where people are dirt poor and piracy allows one to win a lottery, there Somalis will keep on voting for piracy. That is simply the logic of it.

5) Going head on against the Somali pirates under such circumstances would not even make a dent to it

6) So why go for a policy that has zero chance of success, and can only mean that more and more Indians would be kidnapped by Somali pirates in retaliation.

Actually the proposal proposes the most humane way of dealing with piracy. By keeping control over it, we would ensure that there are no deaths, no killings. Neither Indian navy crewmen are hurt, nor Indian sailors on ships sailing through those waters, nor the pirates. I would ask, is a humane solution against our DNA?

Now you say, it is not in our DNA to go with such a policy as is proposed, but everything else would not work! Shri B. Raman himself says there are no solutions on the table how to deal with Somali piracy.

We cannot hug ideology, and reject logic.

The dissonance between my proposals and Indic ideology seems to be a constant feature of the proposals.

KLNMurthy wrote: The thing you call ideology, which is actually core values of an organization, is not an empty meaningless platitude to be negated in all pragmatic (what you call logic) situations; understanding these values and harmonizing with them is necessary for understanding about core competencies and capabilities and ultimately makes the difference between success and costly, even disastrous, failure. To have a basis for discussion, we have to first have a common ground on this principle.

KLNMurthy ji,

we can always climb up the ladder of moral grandstanding, and kill anything we come up with. If you had read my previous post directed to shiv saar, you would see, that the proposal intends to keep the Indian Military's hands as clean as possible.

The dubious, dirty, grey-zone work is being delegated to Indian intelligence agencies. I guess they would be more willing to do what needs to be done, and not cut off their feet, should they by mistake stand on ants.

KLNMurthy wrote:We should be careful when using loaded 'sexy' terms like 'logic'. Logic is only a language and a process of arguing from premises to conclusions in a formal way. Without a framework, talking about 'logic' is equivalent to saying that we have to map the processes of molecular biology for understanding human psychology, or use the quantum drift of electrons to describe a computer program's behavior; it is not incorrect, but it is at the wrong level of abstraction.

So does the Indian state have any organizations at the right level of abstraction, which would do what is needed and not say, "mummy mana karti hai!"

One can kill the effectiveness of every organization, by saying sorry ideology does not permit it.

KLNMurthy wrote:1 & 2. If the goal is to destroy the pirates, and yet the strategy calls for befriending them, supporting them, and making money from them, and ultimately also betraying them, then the bar is very high for explaining why we would take a course that is opposite to the goals, why it is feasible, why the risks are manageable, why this is preferable to a more straightforward occam-compliant approach.

The primary way of weaning away the pirates is not by betraying them, but by offering them the opportunity to participate in a new economy based on mining, Oil, trade and services.

If you don't make money from them, they will never trust you and will never work for you. They want to understand your motive, and it should be something they feel comfortable with. Secondly the many intelligence operations in Somalia may need a source of money, outside budgetary control.

While we are befriending them, and supporting them, we are also collecting vital intelligence on them - which clans they come from, which villages they come from, their addresses, their family trees, the marital networks, their friends, their colleagues, their bank accounts, simply everything. Because should they not dance according to our music, they can be pressurized appropriately, or should they abscond, it is easy to find them. We need intelligence on who are the weapons dealers, who are the ones involved in hawala, how the money moves, who are the corrupt people in the Puntland and Somaliland governments, what are the clan relationships and rivalries.

So the course is not opposite to the goals at all. If one wants to fight something like an insurgency or even piracy, the most premium commodity is intelligence on those who are involved. One needs a complete scan of how deep the cancer goes, if you want to start cutting out the melanomas. Without the right intelligence, we will just be putting pressure at one point, and it would start growing somewhere else.

I wonder how much of this intelligence would be forthcoming on Somalia in the occam-compliant approach.

There are other advantages over the occam-compliant approach:

• We will not be in a war with Somali pirates, so our military/navy would be exposed to a much less hostile environment.
• Since we would not sinking Somali ships, and shooting at them or taking Somali pirates captive, Indian sailors working on other ships crossing Gulf of Aden would also not be taken hostage or even killed.
• We would not be making enemies of the Somalis.

I don't know how you wish me to prove the feasibility of this proposal, or risk-management. You may ask if some aspect is feasible and how, and I can try answering, or you can point to some risk and I can try thinking of ways to minimize it. But for that you would have to pose the questions.

KLNMurthy wrote:3&4. It is not as though that piracy can be ended only by providing an alternate economy, though that would be good. There are plenty of places that are just as poor which don't do piracy. We can also, for example, find a way to make the cost of piracy much too high, and find ways to curtail access to the tools of piracy. What I as a person "vote for" and fantasize about is meaningless if pursuing that option will get me killed along with my family, for example.

There are hundreds of conflicts going on in Africa. Here is a report from Council on Foreign Relations: China, Africa & Oil.

But China also continues to sell arms to Sudan, among other African countries. The Congressional Research Service reports that China views these sales as a means of "enhancing its status as an international political power, and increasing its ability to obtain access to significant natural resources, especially oil" (PDF). In the period from 2003 to 2006, China's arms sales to Africa made up 15.4 percent ($500 million) of all conventional arms transfers to the continent. Notable weapons sales include those to Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Burundi, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Beijing has also sent Chinese military trainers to help their African counterparts. Arms sales and military relationships help China gain important African allies in the United Nations—including Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria—for its political goals, including preventing Taiwanese independence and diverting attention from its own human rights record.

So the arms flowing into Africa is around 3.25 billion USD worth. And that is perhaps only some official estimate. The truth may be even graver.

Arms to Somalis can come from all sorts of places - Sudan, Eritrea, Kenya, even Ethiopia where the Ogaden Darod Somalis live. They can simply come over the seas.

Can we Indians stop that kind of arms trade?

If we start doing that, we will never be done, and would have stepped on so many toes without much success, having only scratched the surface.

In fact, we would be giving our enemies a really juicy opportunity to get us bogged down. All Pakistan and China have to do is supply Somalis with arms, and make us hunt them all over the Indian Ocean. Have we nothing better to do?

Boats too are easy to come by. A few pirates just confiscate any little ship passing through the waters. Somali pirates are known to be spreading further and further into the Indian Ocean. So much to curtailing their tools of piracy.

If I understood you correctly, you speak of killing pirates. I wonder where my moral grandstanding values flag is!

KLNMurthy wrote:5&6. Clearly Indian Navy and other navies' assault on the pirates has made a dent--it made them tense and belligerent, and caused them to threaten to destroy the assets (hostages) that they need to keep alive to be in business in the first place. This is not the desired end state for us, but it is still a plausible step in the process of getting to an end state. If you confront a bully he will first try to act more belligerent; that is proof that you have made a dent, not proof that you haven't. If you try to make a bully into a partner as soon as he makes belligerent noises, then he will conclude correctly that you are bluffing about your capabilities and are simply surrendering to him.

There are plenty of hostages in the sea. They can always get more hostages. In fact if they want to make themselves credible they would always kill one or two hostages here and there, so that other governments and ship owners take them seriously.

We need to take their threats to the hostages very very seriously. These are Indian citizens being threatened by pirates. These Indian citizens have families back home, who are hoping that the Indian Government would do something to get them freed.

Other navies can only make piracy more risky for the pirates, but can never dent it, simply because pirates have tasted success, they have tasted untold riches worth millions. Even if they get killed, they will be still be taking ships and go out pirating, because the alternative to piracy is providing services to the pirates which also live off piracy, and the alternative to that is misery and poverty. It has become a case of male bravery to go out and make a valuable catch of hostages and ships and cargos. If you don't do that, you are a wimp! The culture of piracy is not easy to do away with.

We are not making a bully into our partner. We are making the bully into our boy/launda. There is a big difference. We have given them the choice - either they are our laundas, or they can rot in a Puntland jail for the next 20 years.

When we set up a base in Somalia and send in 100,000 Indian jawans and intelligence officers, we are sending out a message we mean business. It is not a message of groveling in front of some Somali pirates. It is about telling them, there is a new boss in town. If you work with us, you too will be happy.

KLNMurthy wrote:The somali pirates are the sea-lane version of the arabian brigands who sat at the crossroads of trade and extracted loot and tribute, and ultimately leveraged Islam to institutionalize and globalize this mafia culture, which we know today as pakiness.

Further South, one will see the real Islamists with Al-Shabaab.

Anyway, since Islam is already so spread out, the pirates cannot really reinvent the wheel. So at least one need not fear that.

Yes there would be paki culture among the Somali Pirates. But we have a choice, should the Somali pakis bow to us or should they bow to the real thing - the true Pakis. Do we want Somali pirates to become aligned with Pakistan's national interests?

KLNMurthy wrote:There is no shortcut to acquiring the necessary capabilities and prevailing over an enemy who embodies the core of pakiness. it will be a gradual process of strength building, but it can be done if the vision is clear. In the meantime, it will be an incremental game, with the non-paki side hopefully getting wiser and stronger.

How long have the Pakis been attacking Indians? 64 years! So we have seen our gradual process of strength building. Had the Pakis not fcuked up their economies so badly, and let loose the piety competition, we would still be facing a formidable opponent, with not even the hope of stewing in its own juices! After 64 years of strength-building we still just go red in the face and let Hafeez Sayeeds go scot free and are again into chai-biskoot love-making.

So strength building, clarity of vision, wisdom, etc. looks all good on posters, but need not translate into solutions.

So if don't can't crush our real enemy after all this time, what makes us think, that our "clarity of vision" and "wisdom" would really put us on dry land in the case of Somalis, where our motivations should be much less.

KLNMurthy wrote:I believe that his can be easily done well within your 15-20 year timeframe without ever becoming pakis ourselves, so I would want to see an explanation why we have to become pakis for the same or worse (longer time, more risks) result.

Americans are already in Afghanistan for ten years now, and nothing is solved.

It is your desire to call the proposal as "becoming paki", not mine. As far as I am concerned it is a proposal which lays out a logical path how it can work.

In the proposal there is no element of "hope" as part of strategy! I've tried to explain why every step is possible, what kind of dynamic would ensure that the situation bows to our plans.

Occam-compliant proposal on the other hand is based on simply more patrols, "clarity of vision", "wisdom", "strength-building". Honestly speaking, I see such a strategy based only on "Hope"! And it still doesn't answer how it will mitigate the disadvantages.

Whom are we going to send to the families of those Indian sailors who were taken hostage by Somali pirates and are killed because of Indian operations against the Somalis? That would not disturb one's "core ideology" and "Indic values" and all that, would it? The main thing is of course to call something paki and then feel proud of being less-paki by not doing it. If the families of the sailors wail, well who cares!

Perhaps you would like to read what B. Raman has written about the prospects of finding a solution to the Somali piracy!

May be we can get control over the Somali pakis by working together with the Real Pakis! For otherwise prospects are grim.

Somalia Islamists lift aid ban to help drought victims

Thousands of people have been fleeing regions controlled by al-Shabab in search of food...

Somali piracy is not about "starvin' Africans",it is akin to the drug trade and war being fought in the Americas.It requires the "lancing of the boil" for a permanent solution.Otherise it will inflict global maritime shipping,esp. tanker traffic with the equivalent of an incurable "diabetic sore".

We have historic precedents of the US fighting piracy and slavery a few centuries ago.The main base of Somali pirates at Eyl must be destroyed.Unfortunately,asininely,the US nd NATO prefer to wage war against a sovereign state,Libya,in total violation and abuse of a UN resolution,but remain impotent to carry the fight to the pirates of the Somalia! Was their embarrassing "Blackhawk down" incident the last time they intervened in Somalia frightening the world's strongest military power? Some one shoud tell Ghaddafi to simply raise the "skull and crossbones" nd the US and NATO will simply melt away!

With NATO and the US unable to effectively combat piracy today in the IOR of the African coast,it is upto other nations who are affected by such piracy to take the bit into their own hands and "kick ass".Unfortunately,the IN's amphibious and expeditionary capability is limited and our carrier strike capability is alsot a low until he Gorky arrives and if we kick ass in Africa,we need to intervene with land forces too.We have no equivalent of the US marines and should immediately set up a Marine Corps with at least a 3 division strength.If we do,we will have to use the IA,as we did with the IPKF and the intervention in crushing the attempted coup in the Maldives.It would be better if we found other nations also willing to join hands with India on the matter.

Continuing from TIRP Thread

shiv wrote:Basically the world has "given up" on Somalia and as long as it is no skin off their balls the world will "give up" on Pakistan. Maybe that would be a good thing - especially of the US "gave up".

But in the case of Somalia I think the problem could be reduced by international recognition of Somaliland as a separate country with the UN seat that goes with it.

This in fact is a great opening for India. I mention this in the pdf I sent to some BRFites.

Somaliland is crying out for recognition. Any nation that recognizes Somaliland gets concessions from Somaliland instantaneously.

The problem or some would say an opportunity is that Somaliland claims a region in the East which is disputed. As I mentioned earlier,

RajeshA wrote:Somaliland has an ongoing war with Puntland, or Puntland supported organizations like Northern Somali Unionist Movement which holds sway in Sanaag (Maakhir), Sool and Cayn districts lying between Somaliland and Puntland. Mostly these districts are inhabited by Warsangeli-Darod, as is the case in Puntland as well, but historically speaking they were part of British Somaliland, and as such Somaliland lays claims to these regions.

India can recognize Somaliland, at the same time recognizing that the above region is in dispute. Once we do that, we will be the ones getting priorized access to Somaliland naval basing possibilities, as well as to Somaliland's mineral resources.

Somali trio charged by US in yacht murder.

They were shot to death, along with their companions Bob Riggle and Phyllis Macay from Seattle, Washington, several days after being taken hostage and as negotiations were taking place with US Navy officials.

Named in the indictment were Ahmed Muse Salad, 25, Abukar Osman Beyle, 20, and Shani Nurani Shiekh Abrar, 29.

The indictment contends that they were part of a group armed with firearms and a rocket-propelled grenade which boarded the Quest on February 18 and took the four American citizens as hostages before killing them.

To date, 11 of the 14 defendants charged in connection with the attack on the Quest have pleaded guilty to charges which call for mandatory life in prison.

Iranian state mouthpiece reports:
Iran donates USD 25 million to Somalia

here is a clip of Russian Navy tackling the Somali piracy problem. Watch the end of the clipping.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d3_1312921330

Thought I should X-post this one here, from Iran thread:

Iranian ship with arms, contraband seized off Mumbai

The Indian Navy on Monday captured an Iranian cargo ship off the Mumbai coast carrying arms, ammunition and contraband, officials said. The vessel, MV Nafis-1, that set sail from Iran to an undisclosed location in July was reportedly hijacked and was being used for smuggling contraband.

Two AK-47 rifles and a pistol concealed in an empty fuel tank of the ship were also recovered from the vessel. The nine people on board — five Yemenis, two Tanzanians, one Kenyan and one Somalian — have been apprehended and will be handed over to the police for questioning.

During the preliminary interrogation the crew told the marine commandos that the ship had been drifting for nearly 20 days following mechanical problems.

“However, there are discrepancies in their accounts and they will be thoroughly questioned once they reach land,” said a Navy officer on condition of anonymity.

Usually, merchant vessels alert the closest maritime rescue co-ordination centre in case of mechanical problems.

“But despite rough weather, the persons onboard did not alert any of the rescue centres, which raises suspicion,” the officer said. MV Nafis-1 was spotted by a maritime reconnaissance aircraft on Friday, around 250 nautical miles of the Mumbai coast, and was kept under continuous surveillance.

Subsequently, INS Mysore, a guided missile destroyer, was sent to intercept the hijacked vessel along with two helicopters and 24 marine commandos, officials said.

The vessel is being towed to the closest port at Porbandar in Gujarat, where the crew will be handed over to the police.

“It is impossible to conduct a full-fledged investigation in the sea as it is extremely choppy, with waves rising as high as 12 to 15 feet,” said captain Manohar Nambiar, chief defence spokesperson.

Mogadishu car bomb claims 70 lives

Tuesday's attack was the deadliest by the Shebab since multiple bombings in Kampala killed at least 76 people in July 2010.

It was also their bloodiest in Somalia since the group formed around five years ago, largely in response to Ethiopia's occupation.

In a surprise move, the Shebab abandoned their positions in Mogadishu in early August, after years of attempting and failing to break the AU's defences and take over the capital.

They had vowed however that it was a tactical move and that their struggle against the Western-backed Somali government would continue.

They pulled back to areas they already controlled in the south and west and observers had warned that the Shebab could be reverting to hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.

AU and pro-government forces had re-asserted their authority over most of the capital and the Shebab's withdrawal had led to a relative lull in violence.

The Shebab have rekindled their insurgency on several fronts almost simultaneously, with clashes also reported in western and southern regions.

They launched an attack late on Monday in the city of Dhusamareb, which lies in western Somalia near the border with Ethiopia and is the main stronghold of Ahlu Sunna wal Jamaa, a Sufi militia allied to the government {Could be Hassan Abdullah Al-Turki's shadow org playing one off against another}.

Are there any links between some of the Somali pirates and Dawood Ibrahim?

Kenyan troops and military hardware moving through militant territory in Somalia.

The invasion came one day after Kenyan defence officials said the country has the right to defend itself against al-Shabab militants after a string of kidnappings inside Kenya.

In response, al-Shabab, Somalia's most dangerous militant group, tried to raise the alarm in areas it controls. Residents in the town of Qoqani who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals said militants were going into homes and forcibly recruiting new fighters.

Kenyan troops have frequently crossed the border into Somalia, but Sunday's push appears to be a bigger and more concerted effort. Minister of Internal Security George Saitoti told a news conference on Saturday that Kenyan forces would pursue al-Shabab into Somalia. {good on the Kenyans!}

Kenya's push north into Somalia will open another front that Somali militants must contend with. African Union forces from Uganda and Burundi have expanded their control of Mogadishu in recent months and have almost completely forced al-Shabab out of the capital. {does not necessarily mean that D'co would cease to exist there as well}

Al-Shabaab seems to be making this into a Muslim vs kufr issue for recruitment purposes.

Did India approach Burundi with offers of economic cooperation recently?

Things are not that clear cut. I happen to be in Nairobi and the situation is a bit more complex than the above report indicates. Will write in more detail at an appropriate time in the (hopefully) not too distant future.

JEM ji, the Kenyan incursion appears to have been prompted by the usual sources to foreclose other powers from devising a solution to Somali piracy, the abductees were Westerners. Unkil has also landed his troops in Uganda apparently to fight against a hardline cleric.

Car bomb explodes near meeting venue of two Kenyan ministers.

A suspected car bomb exploded in Mogadishu near the foreign ministry where Kenya's Defence Minister Yusuf Haji and Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula were meeting officials from the Western-backed Somali transitional government.

The government in Mogadishu has not yet commented on the military intervention by Kenya, which says it is acting in self-defence, to rid its territory of Shebab militants.

It was unclear how long Kenyan troops planned to stay in Somalia but Nairobi had been under growing pressure to take action and attempt to restore confidence that it could safely host tourists and one of the world's largest aid communities.

Kenyan troops have pushed at least 120 kilometres into Somalia to reach Afmadow region, guided by pro-government Somali forces, backed by heavy aerial bombardments but bogged down on mud tracks in heavy rain.

Meanwhile police stepped up security and beefed up their intelligence mechanisms, particularly in Nairobi.

"I appeal to Nairobians and Kenyans in general to be extra alert, and in case anybody sights any suspicious and strange person or any suspicious object to report to any police officer," Nairobi Provincial Police commander Antony Kibuchi said and circulated hotline numbers to the public.

"We have stepped up security across the city following these threats."

I read some where that Kenyan Govt officials are visiting Somalia to assure the weak civilian govt that they have no designs nor desire to occupy Somalian land.
The whole Somalian downward spiral started with the killing of Aidid. That was the landmark event. Need to research that one.

Kenya's move is really a gutsy move to attack Al-Shabab. I hope they deliver a mortal blow to Al-Shabab without incurring significant losses. India should provide any assistance it can to Kenya. I guess High resolution live Satellite feed would be very helpful.

Recognizing Somaliland

by Dr. Adityanjee

http://www.boloji. com/index. cfm?md=Content& sd=Articles& ArticleID= 11553

India made history when she liberated and recognized the Republic of Bangladesh despite fierce international opposition from some of the cold-war superpowers. India took that strategic step because that was the right thing to do and suited India’s long-term geopolitical interests as well as international humanitarian concerns. Though the doctrine of international intervention for safeguarding the responsibility to protect had not been codified by the UNGA or the UNSC at that time; India did act according to the spirit of the responsibility to protect (R2P).

Time has come for India to assert herself yet again and recognize diplomatically the break-away Republic of Somaliland on the horn of Africa. It suits India's geopolitical interests as well as the international humanitarian concerns. Lack of a functioning central government in Somalia since the ouster of the Muhammed Siad Barre government on January 26 1991 has led to anarchy, clan/tribal warfare and war-lordism. There was an international intervention by George HW Bush in 1992 but the Americans over-extended themselves, got a humiliating defeat and left in hurry. Since then various regional powers have intervened for upholding their narrow interests. Ethiopian invasion in 2006, backed by the US created Al Shabab (literal meaning 'the youth'). Somali civil war has killed approximately half a million people.

Somalia has become a fertile ground for recruitment by Al Qaeda and it local proxy Al Shabab. There is no peace in Somalia. There is no functioning government in the central and southern Somalia. Somali pirates have created an havoc in the Indian ocean and normal commerce has been affected owing to ongoing hijacking of merchant ships and their predominantly Asian and Indian crews. Ransom has been paid numerous times on behalf of shipping companies, national governments and NGO to free up the kidnapped crew members of merchant ships. Al Shabab and Al Qaeda have noted with vengeance the Indian vigilance and naval patrolling in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden and have vowed to target Indian interests.

The Somali pirates are now routinely making forays into Indian territorial waters and Indian Exclusive Economic sea zone. Some of these pirates have euphemistically called themselves as the self-styled Volunteer Coast Guards of Somalia. They have brought misery to numerous middle class Indian families who have become victims of their extreme ruthlessness and greed for money (running into millions of dollars). Somali pirates have openly targeted India and refused to release any Indian sailors till their fellow Somali pirates under Indian custody are released. Make no mistakes, these pirates are the naval wing of the nascent Islamic Emirate of Somalia under the tutelage of Al Qaeda and shepherded by Al Shabab. Beheading adversaries, chopping off hands, stoning women and girls to death, banning music, and implementing a strict Wahabi Islamic law is the ultimate aim of Al Shabab. UN sponsored estate building and peace keeping have failed in
Somalia which is now a lawless, failed nation with ongoing genocide.
In 2001 the wise and brave Somali-landers held a constitutional referendum and broke away from the failed state of Somalia. Republic of Somaliland is poor but an oasis of peace in the horn of Africa. The newly emerged nation has few natural resources and its limited exports primarily include fish and livestock. They have adopted all the democratic ways and have held multiple elections at local, parliamentary and presidential elections since then. Last presidential elections were held in June 2010 leading to peaceful and orderly transfer of power when the incumbent president was rejected by the electorate.
Somalia as a unified nation did not exist before 1947. Somaliland was a British protectorate and a paper colony and the rest of Somalia an Italian colony. India must not shed her tears for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the failed state of Somalia which was essentially the creation of the imperialists. Time has come for India to not only diplomatically recognize the democratically elected government of the break-away Republic of Somaliland but also enter into a formal strategic partnership agreement with that country analogous to the same with Afghanistan. A bilateral friendship treaty between the two nations for a minimum duration of ninety nine years needs to be signed.

India needs to obtain a naval base in the Gulf of Aden in one of the sea ports of the Republic of Somaliland to provide naval surveillance to our merchant ships as well as Indian nationals working as crew members in international marine merchant ships. India needs to assert her leadership in the region and not wait for international community to act. India must lead the international community in birth of this new nation and prevent the lawlessness and havoc created by the pirates of Somalia. India must learn from her mistakes of missed geopolitical opportunities and inaction in the past. It is better to act now instead of letting the situation drift and allow hostile Asian nations upstage India yet again. India must take a pro-active approach strategically vis-Ã -vis diplomatic recognition of the Democratic Republic of Somaliland and defeat the hostile intentions of Al Qaeda and Al Shabab. India will safeguard her maritime security and long-term strategic interests in the Indian Ocean region by offering diplomatic recognition to the new nation of the Republic of Somaliland.

20-Oct-2011

BBC:
Israel-Kenya deal to help fight Somalia's al-Shabab

Israel has offered to help Kenya secure its borders as it tackles Somalia's Islamist group, al-Shabab, the Kenyan prime minister's office has said.

It said Kenya got the backing of Israel to "rid its territory of fundamentalist elements" during Prime Minister Raila Odinga's visit to the country.

Last month, Kenya sent troops to neighbouring Somalia to defeat al-Shabab, which is linked to al-Qaeda.

It blames the militants for a spate of abductions on its side of the border.

In a statement, Mr Odinga's office quotes Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as saying that "Kenya's enemies are Israel's enemies".

"We have similar forces planning to bring us down," he is is quoted as saying. "I see it as an opportunity to strengthen ties."

At least 15 people were killed in a suicide bombing on an Israeli-owned hotel in the Kenyan coastal resort of Mombasa in 2002.

Four years earlier, more than 200 people were killed in co-ordinated bomb blasts on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, with some of its senior members operating from Somalia.

'Regional coalition'

Mr Odinga - who is accompanied on the visit by Internal Security Minister George Saitoti - said Israel could help Kenya's police force detect and destroy al-Shabab's networks in Kenya.

Kenya also needed Israel to provide vehicles for border patrols and equipment for sea surveillance to curb piracy off the East African coast, he said.

"We need to be able to convincingly ensure homeland security," Mr Odinga said.

The statement quoted Mr Netanyahu as promising to help build a "coalition against fundamentalism" in East Africa, incorporating Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Tanzania.

Israel's President Shimon Peres had promised to "make everything available" to Kenya to guarantee its security within its borders, the statement said.

"Consistently, Kenya has shown a very positive attitude towards Israel and Israel is ready to help," the statement quotes Mr Peres saying.

Kenya accuses al-Shabab of abducting several people from its territory since September - including an elderly French woman who suffered from cancer. French authorities say she has since died in Somalia.

Al-Shabab denies involvement in the abductions and has vowed to retaliate against Kenya for sending troops into Somalia. It has accused the Kenyan army of killing civilians.

Last month, a Kenyan man, Elgiva Bwire Oliacha, told a court in Nairobi that he was an al-Shabab member.

He pleaded guilty to carrying out grenade attacks on a nightclub and bus stop in the city, leaving one person dead and 29 others wounded.

Somalia has been without an effective government since 1991, with al-Shabab controlling most of the southern and central regions.

How many groups are in the Somali Piracy business?
Looks like al Shabab is an Islamist piracy group.