Humane Justice, Political Policy, and "Enemies of All Mankind"

William S. Lind takes on the nations policy for piracy in On War #294: A Barometer of Order. As usual, very thought provoking.

Herschel Smith will be pleased. When I read William S. Lind's article, it reminded me of a post Herschel Smith contributed at Captain's Journal where he expressed frustration regarding the US policy on how to tackle the pirate problem. He focused his criticism at the Navy, and me.

The constant worry and hand-wringing over the legalities of counterpiracy operations and rules of engagement makes the Navy - and the law of the sea lawyers - and Information Dissemination - look weak and fragile. Is this a nice way of saying it?

I am not offended by the criticism Captain, I welcome it. Your ire is misdirected though.

The frustration of many conservatives is legitimate, because as William S. Lind notes, the policy of the United States towards piracy is ignoring common law practice going back to the Roman Empire. When western elites today suggest the best way to handle "enemies of all mankind" is to capture them and hold a trial, a position that throws away common law practice for nearly 2000 years that has been "hang on capture without trial," it does raise legitimate questions regarding the reasoning behind this new policy that disregards history.

Rules of engagement is a condition set established by policy, but policy is also driving the legal consequences for pirates, which in strategic terms influences both the ways the ends of strategy the Navy must apply in dealing with pirates. As a general rule, Information Dissemination tackles the piracy issue from the perspective of strategy, meaning an acceptance of policy from political leadership. Herschel Smith's frustration with the Navy, and me, is misdirected, what has him frustrated is the policy, something both the Navy and I accept as the driver for development of strategy.

Policy drives strategy, strategy drives operations, and operations drive tactics. When Abu Muqawama discussed this simple progression in a post today, it reminded me that the progression does go ignored in the piracy discussion just like the COIN discussion.

If you are frustrated with the way the Navy is dealing with piracy, or the way this blog approaches the problem of Somali piracy, your frustration is likely misdirected if you blame the Navy. While I'm not necessarily in complete agreement with William S. Lind's analysis, I do share his concerns that the policy of the United States regarding piracy is implemented by rejecting and ignoring essentially all of human history.

At a minimum, political leadership who determines pirate policy should be asked to explain why this new policy, which everyone has accepted as ineffective anyway, is somehow better than the policy applied consistently over the last 2000 years when dealing with a pirate problem. For 2000 years, humans applied an effective policy of execution to deal with piracy, why reject success and embrace a failing policy? Has our nation become too sensitive to violence to even apply justice to what human history calls the "enemies of all mankind?"

The application of moral humanitarian rights for modern pirates produces a policy that raises questions regarding the judgment, capacity to govern, and wisdom of international policy makers. Are they enlightened, or foolish with the new policy? By applying moral humanitarian conditions that results in a policy every nation globally accepts as ineffective, and because the application of those conditions is for the sole purpose of favoring a moral humanitarian application of justice to pirates, the US pirate policy ultimately sacrifices the laws of the global social order in favor of giving human rights to the "enemies of all mankind."

Those who argue that violent justice cannot solve this problem ignore several thousand years of history that suggests otherwise. It is absolutely a fact that Somali piracy can be eliminated on land, but history also shows that the application of the common law practice of execution also reduces the activity of piracy significantly. In the 19th century the Royal Navy proved all prior history correct by applying common law, the result was that piracy globally was virtually eliminated. Westerners should question and give serious consideration to whether we are evolving towards progress, or away from it. History is a solid guide for the future, but does this policy learn from history or ignore history?

It should be noted that even if the common law practice of execution was applied to Somali piracy, William S. Lind is still wrong in his advocated 'guns a blazin' approach to piracy. The Rules of Engagement condition will still apply. While I believe hanging pirates is for the greater good, destroying what is left of the fishing industry (thus domestically produced feeding capacity) of Somalia in the process is unacceptable.