“…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.

