Mission Of The US Navy – Did They Fail?

Published: April 8th, 2009 by John | SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Enjoying the blog?


We welcome you to take the next step and join the community of gCaptain readers by sharing thoughts and opinions on the forum. Click HERE to get started today!



“The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.” -US Navy

I was contacted by a fellow US Merchant Mariner questioning why the US Navy did not protect the Maersk Alabama, a US flagged vessel. He asked “Has the USN written us off?”.

During my brief stint at the US Naval Academy I vividly remember being taught that the US Navy Mission (quoted at the top of this post) and the professor stressing that the Navy’s top priority is the protection of US Merchant Ships.

Today less than 400 ships fly the US flag and protection, although rarely the motivation of ship owners, is one of the few benefits to flagging a vessels US… alongside a long list of negatives. Out of these <400 vessels no more than a handful sailed the east coast of Somalia the day the Maersk Alabama was attacked.

My question is… Why did the USN not assure the protection of this single ship?

I do not have an answer to this question and I was even more confounded after learning the same ship got attacked on earlier in the week and it has been publicized that the recent change in tactics, by the pirates, were going to have major negative impacts on vessel security.

I have posed it on Information Dissemination, the blog that best analyzes US Navy strategy, but I would like to hear your thoughts as well. Has the USN written off protecting the US Merchant Fleet and failed to uphold their mission to maintain freedom of the seas?

UPDATE: The US Naval Institute Blog asks many of the same questions and explains why protecting US Merchant Ships is an obligation layed out in the US Constitution:

The mandate to take piracy seriously is not political, it is Constitutional. The Constitution makes clear that our political leaders may or may not raise an Army, but it is a constitutional requirement for Congress to maintain a Navy. The Constitution of the United States was not written that way by accident, Thomas Jefferson was one of several founding fathers who insured the language was specific.

As of 2006, the United States only had 347 US flagged merchant vessels. The probability that there were more than five US flagged merchant vessels within 500 miles of Somalia is very low. How exactly is it possible that one of our, potentially five, US flagged merchant vessels was hijacked by pirates while our Navy, the largest in the world, is not only aware of the piracy problem but with the establishment of Combined Task Force 151, is specifically organized to address this problem?

Should we review the policy regarding Somali piracy to insure our efforts are in line with our national priorities? The priorities for CTF-151 may be in line with policy, but I do wonder where protecting US flagged ships numbers on the list of CTF-151 priorities. The evidence would suggest that role is not #1 on that list, and probably not #2 or #3 either.

Read the full article including excerpts from the US Constitution HERE.

Related Posts:


This blog is sponsored by:




About The Author
Captain John Konrad is co-founder of Unofficial Networks and Editor In Chief of this blog. He is a USCG licensed Master Mariner of Unlimited Tonnage and, since graduating from SUNY Maritime College, has sailed a variety of ships from ports around the world. John currently lives in Morro Bay, California with his wife and two children.
Full Profile: John

Categories: Maritime Security Incidents · Navy

Tags: · , , ,





  • Mike
    DOD Rules of engagement are pretty clear, and the preservation of life, whether it is the Alabama Captain or 50+ other hostages on pirate motherships, is the highest priority. Even with the best technology, it is difficult to determine a friendly from (4) hostiles especially at midnight in a lifeboat on the open ocean. These pirates are ruthless terrorists and likely funneling their past ransoms back to other terrorists cells in the region. If this threat is to be defeated, it will only be through a multi stakeholder approach which includes the federal gov't, internatiional partners, civil maritime agencies, and the US flag commercial industry. Hopefully this crisis will have a peaceful resolution.
  • Mike
    After the initial attempt to high jack the vessel on the 7th, did the Master hail any of the Naval forces as it continued to steam south through Somali Basin east of Eyl? Given that the Navy has historically provided escorts and protection in the Straits of Hormuz, was the Bainbridge or any other multi-national navy (approx 15) aware of the Alabama's presence as it approached known piracy area south of Soctra Islands on the 7th? If AIS was off, probably not. Was the ship's master under pressure to tender his Notice of Arrival in Mombasa?
  • Mike
    Strategically, the 25+ (ships) multi-national maritime naval force perhaps could have been better positioned in the Somali Basin instead of concentrated in Gulf Of Aden. Upon departing prior ports of Dubai and Oman, did Maersk or the Alabama advise 5th Fleet of their Mombasa destination and intentions to steam southerly through the known Somali basin piracy net? As a practice in this hostile region, most regulated merchant ships turn their AIS off which eliminates organic situational awareness. Are there any reporting mandates in the area or when a US Flag ship is under some form of US gov't charter (MARAD???) and transporting US Aid cargo? Maersk has managed the TAGOS fleet and should be well aware of the Navy's multi- domain and classification networks and procedures. As a former US flag ship's master, ship operator's often discourage their crews from sharing "proprietary" information with regulatory authorities.

    My prayers are with Capt Phillips and his family..
  • mark scease
    Sorry for all the Navy suscribers out there, but the USN has fairly well buggered off in the face of no balls to make a decision. And given the amount of servicemen in the dock for what can be rightly called "doing their job", i'm not to sure they haven't made the correct decision. Modern day law when combined with outright lawlessness, seems to throw some serious challenges in the face of what was a "hang them high" decision. The Roe is going to have to change or the shippers are just going to steer clear.
  • Nanuk
    Do it like the Norwegians did it 2.5 million Dollar problem solved...
    The price of transportation is to low for the risk.Why should the taxpayer take the risk for transporting goods i dont get it...

    btw now we have one one dead hostage on that french yacht so nothing solved one dead and counting...

    This pirate thing is more about the sealaw then anything else as you may know many sea countrys want that to be changed to dig for some commodities and the freedom of seas will be changed believe me...
blog comments powered by Disqus