Current (wrong) thinking and right thinking.

Bush Administration Had Issued Plan for Pirates in December
By PETER SPIEGEL

WASHINGTON -- In the waning days...the National Security Council issued a detailed yet little-noticed plan for combating piracy ...and laid out more than a dozen specific policy initiatives ... to make sure Somali pirates did not choke off the world's commercial shipping....nearly silent, however, on what to do if a ship is taken by pirates and crew members are held captive. ... U.S. naval forces were given authority to "terminate the act of piracy and any included hostage situation."...The choices facing a hulking navy destroyer as it confronts a ragtag group of Somali pirates holding an American seaman hostage in a small, propulsion-free boat are extremely limited.Pentagon and U.S. Navy officials have been reticent to engage in the kind of hostage rescues that could spring crewmembers from capture at sea, arguing it would set a precedent that would strain an already thinly deployed naval taskforce in the region and, more importantly, potentially lead to more bloodshed...."If we try to do some kind of hostage takedown,... Rear Adm. Ted Branch, ... "You certainly increase the risk to the crew members in that kind of takedown. ......Navy commanders have been left to rely only on intimidation and coercion to convince pirates to give up...when pirates capture the world's eyes and keep its most powerful navy at bay equipped with little more than small arms and adequate food rations....since the only way to stamp out the pirates would be on land... The U.S. and its allies have been unwilling to tackle the problem on land, Mr. Chalk said.
"I actually think this naval response is not the right thing to be doing at all," said Mr. Chalk ...Mr. Chalk said. "I don't think that the naval presence out there has anything to do with the protection of ships. It's been politicized."
****The distinction between pirates-as-businessmen and pirates-as-terrorists disappears as soon as the first hostage dies.
The idea that the US Navy can "only" rely on intimidation and coercion is curious: what else is a navy for but intimidation and coercion? Without the will to coerce, however, there is no intimidation.It is doubly curious for a putative expert to claim that the naval response is not the right thing. This situation is opportunistic since usually the navy is not available but IS in this case. To allow the pirates off when the navy is present would be folly of the most egregious sort. It would embolden lawless activity without limit.
Amb John Bolton has the right idea to reduce piracy: sink pirate ships, arrest or kill pirates. Attacking their land bases is sufficient but not immediately necessary. It is not a "standoff" against a powerful navy if they merely wait out the pirates while preventing them from escaping or being reinforced by other pirate vessels. There is no reason to rush things and, rather, time is on the side of civilization if the area is quarantined. A brave man is valuable beyond rubies but not if the cost of saving him is the jeopardy of other brave men in future. It would be sufficient to insure that murderers die for their crimes and that their abettors pay a price that will not be forgotten. Every hundred years it becomes necessary to remember the best way to deal with pirates is to sink their boats, attack their bases and kill them wherever they are found. As a "message", it has no peer. If the U.N. worries about the civil rights of pirates, it is time to stop worrying about the U.N. ****