Unintended Consequences

This is Steven Petrick Posting.

The U.S. Navy recently killed three Somali pirates. The pirates have announced that they will seek retribution. Most of us are just laughing this threat off. However, let's consider a few things.

To the best of my knowledge, the three Somali pirates killed by the U.S. constitute the first "deaths" on either side since Somali piracy became common. If the Somalis now kill crew-members of another ship, even if that ship is not an American ship, will the world accept this as the actions of pirates, or will the U.S. be blamed for starting it?

While the deaths were Somalis on the high seas, might Somali nationals not seek vengeance on Americans in other lands?

While the U.N. has sanctioned actions against the Pirates, will it not condemn the U.S. if the Somalis kill someone?

There are unintended consequences that may result from this action.

But will anyone remember that the real unintended consequence was not resorting to extreme force the first time Somali piracy reared its head? If the first Somali act of piracy had been responded to in force, and in blood, would there have been any other acts? Instead, Danegeld was paid, and the result of paying Danegeld was what it has always been, it encouraged the Danes (in this case the Somalis) to keep coming back for more, and encouraged more of them to get involved.

We might not like violence, we may feel sorry for the pirates (or the poor Somalis), but allowing the piracy to flourish as we have (and by we I mean the world as a whole) we have trod the road to this point.

The Somali pirates have no real reason to stop, and every reason (millions of them in point of fact) to continue their attacks.