For a strong military, I convinced a Ron Paul support using a similar argument - Granite Grok

For a strong military, I convinced a Ron Paul support using a similar argument

“…the near-elimination of piracy was a major accomplishment of the two centuries of British/American naval dominance…”

Although it was more of a generalized one than that below, I did make the case during the Prez Primary with a very strong Ron Paul supporter that a strong Navy did have a definite role to play with Ron Paul’s major tenet on foreign policy: free trade.  This post makes a tangental argument more specific than mine, but Glenn sums it up with pretty much what I said (emphasis mine, reformatted):

In 2011, the U.K., Greece, Norway and other major maritime nations began letting their merchant ships carry armed private-security personnel for self-defense in hazardous waters. This overcame longstanding legal and cultural barriers such as stringent local firearms laws and fears of liability.  The result? Successful hijackings off Somalia fell by half to 14 in 2012 from 28 in 2011, and overall attacks dropped to 75 from 237. Through the third quarter of 2013, there have been just 10 incidents, with two hijackings.  The main reason for this drop is that Somali piracy is an industry like any other, albeit far more brutal. When risks are low and profit margins are high, piracy flourishes. Investors on land buy shares in a piracy venture, funding weapons and equipment in exchange for a stake in any ransom. Thus to suppress piracy, the return on investment must be made unfavorable.

…Armed private security fills the breach not by winning high-octane gunfights against pirates—although there have been a few—but through deterrence. Security companies know that most pirates are profit-seeking criminals, not fanatical terrorists. Armed guards, either on merchant ships or in their own escort boats, make their presence known, firing warning shots if pirates approach. This almost always persuades hijackers to abort their mission and seek out easier prey.

The firepower necessary to achieve this deterrence has proven cheap enough that private security has been widely adopted by the shipping industry.

Yes, just as homeowners with guns make home invasions less likely. Given that merchant vessels have been armed for nearly all of human history, the real surprise is that anyone finds this surprising.

The money line:

On the other hand, the near-elimination of piracy was a major accomplishment of the two centuries of British/American naval dominance that appears to be coming to an end. This is just one small way in which the world will pay a price.

Free trade cannot happen unless there are free trade routes to wherever profit can be made.  There is a role for protecting our interests around the world for maintaining and extending free trade (as opposed to Pro-Biz).  While I am loathe to agree that the US MUST be the World’s Policeman, there is much to be said for being such for keeping the sea routes open with American power.  Disagree?  Flip it around.

How likely is it that a newly emerging superpower like China will respect our demands for openness, or how willing is a re-building Putin to do the same (especially in light of the “international law” that Russia is not bothering to observe in the jailing of the GreenPeace sailors that tried to “make a statement” on a Russian oil rig)?  It is HIGHLY doubtful that they would simply slip into the vacuum left by a collapsing US Navy and keep the same policies.

Determined Weakness, this time, taking the Globe with him.

>