> I suppose another deviously brilliant solution would be to send some CIA fixer types out to the Somali warlords, bribing them to avoid ships with X, Y, Z symbols on them (whoever's paying the Navy Tax). Probably less money spent doing this than building and keeping loads of gunboats in the water at all times. Again, though, this creates its own negative externalities and perverse incentives. Plus, you're now in the business of keeping certain warlords in power, and we all know how well that usually works out for us.
America has been down that road before.
After the revolution, American merchant ships lost the protection of the British navy and had to fend for themselves in the Mediterranean against pirates from Barbary States of North Africa. At first, the young republic tried precisely what you advocate—send over some fixer with a big bag of cash. In 1795 the tribute came to 1/6 of the nation's entire budget, leading to the creation of the American Navy in order to end the problem by force rather than with cash.
This led to the First Barbary War. Some historians (like Michael Oren) even claim that the issue of piracy was one of the catalysts for revising the Articles of Confederation and forming a stronger central government.
The First Barbary War is a fascinating subject, and it's interesting as a point of reference. Not that I'm necessarily advocating the bribe or tribute system, per se; I'm just thinking about it as an intellectual exercise. But in theory, a key difference between the US today and the US in the 1790s is that we have the world's most impressive and dominant navy, and if push came to shove, we could retaliate pretty aggressively. So our bribe would be backed by a credible threat: take this payment, but don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Now, as I mentioned, this creates all sorts of perverse economic incentives. First, it encourages infighting among the warlords, further destabilizing the region as each band or group jockeys for top position. Second, it could just as easily be taken by the pirates as a sign of weakness. They'll want to test the limits of that weakness, either by raising their prices over time, by taking more ships for ransom. Finally, it legitimizes some no doubt unsavory leaders, whose American ties would cause deeper sociopolitical problems for us when they got out.
America has been down that road before.
After the revolution, American merchant ships lost the protection of the British navy and had to fend for themselves in the Mediterranean against pirates from Barbary States of North Africa. At first, the young republic tried precisely what you advocate—send over some fixer with a big bag of cash. In 1795 the tribute came to 1/6 of the nation's entire budget, leading to the creation of the American Navy in order to end the problem by force rather than with cash.
This led to the First Barbary War. Some historians (like Michael Oren) even claim that the issue of piracy was one of the catalysts for revising the Articles of Confederation and forming a stronger central government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War