“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?
[polldaddy poll="1525677"]
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.
Too easy a question. For an answer; look at the response to the Barbary Coast pirates of the early 1800's (no, not giving a frigate up as ransom, as an answer). Look at the naval shelling and land bound attempts aimed at destablizing the quasi-governments which were lending aid to the pirates.
Let's hope the powers that be, become a little more serious at ending this latest threat, as the Navy appears to be incapable at fufilling their duties in this regard and the press coverage seems to have wheedled out some good tricks and hiding places.
Too easy a question. For an answer; look at the response to the Barbary Coast pirates of the early 1800's (no, not giving a frigate up as ransom, as an answer). Look at the naval shelling and land bound attempts aimed at destablizing the quasi-governments which were lending aid to the pirates.
Let's hope the powers that be, become a little more serious at ending this latest threat, as the Navy appears to be incapable at fufilling their duties in this regard and the press coverage seems to have wheedled out some good tricks and hiding places.
We did look at the history of piracy a few months back:
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/dangerously-mis…
Maybe it's time to revisit the issue.
We did look at the history of piracy a few months back:
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/dangerously-mis…
Maybe it's time to revisit the issue.
I did read that, did the DOD? I see your point about the contractual duties of the USN, but given the ROE and large area involved, isn't this a job for the marines. Shores of Tripoli and all that.
I did read that, did the DOD? I see your point about the contractual duties of the USN, but given the ROE and large area involved, isn't this a job for the marines. Shores of Tripoli and all that.
"The necessity of naval protection to external or maritime commerce does not require a particular elucidation, no more than the conduciveness of that species of commerce to the prosperity of a navy."
So wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 11 (The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy)
He justifies a navy as a means to protect US commerce from the predations of European powers. Piracy is not directly addressed although he does address a navy's value in preventing attacks on coastal ports by raiders and the fact such protection avoided the risks to liberty of a standing army. Given that the necessity of naval protection of commerce was so obvious no one questioned the proposition and there was little written about the need for a navy. "The palpable necessity of the power to provide and maintain a navy has protected that part of the Constitution against a spirit of censure, which has spared few other parts." (Federalist No. 41, James Madison) What is obvious is that the navy to be provided and maintained was needed to protect commerce permitting a free republic and prevent "wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other; who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse, supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way." While the discussion if about nations at war,
Implied within these discussion is the naval protection of maritime commerce from pirates extending further from the US coastline as the capabilities of the new navy grew. Few could argue that today's Navy doesn't has the capability to protect the few US flagged merchant ships remaining, especially when such vessels are traversing choke point known for piracy.
Unfortunately for the Naval Institute blog argument, regarding piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, "The provision of the federal articles on the subject of piracies and felonies extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses." (Federalis No. 42) Essentially, this places the admiralty law jurisdiction under the federal courts to avoid confusion over the governing state statute that would occur without federalization.
"The necessity of naval protection to external or maritime commerce does not require a particular elucidation, no more than the conduciveness of that species of commerce to the prosperity of a navy."
So wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 11 (The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy)
He justifies a navy as a means to protect US commerce from the predations of European powers. Piracy is not directly addressed although he does address a navy's value in preventing attacks on coastal ports by raiders and the fact such protection avoided the risks to liberty of a standing army. Given that the necessity of naval protection of commerce was so obvious no one questioned the proposition and there was little written about the need for a navy. "The palpable necessity of the power to provide and maintain a navy has protected that part of the Constitution against a spirit of censure, which has spared few other parts." (Federalist No. 41, James Madison) What is obvious is that the navy to be provided and maintained was needed to protect commerce permitting a free republic and prevent "wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other; who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse, supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way." While the discussion if about nations at war,
Implied within these discussion is the naval protection of maritime commerce from pirates extending further from the US coastline as the capabilities of the new navy grew. Few could argue that today's Navy doesn't has the capability to protect the few US flagged merchant ships remaining, especially when such vessels are traversing choke point known for piracy.
Unfortunately for the Naval Institute blog argument, regarding piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, "The provision of the federal articles on the subject of piracies and felonies extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses." (Federalis No. 42) Essentially, this places the admiralty law jurisdiction under the federal courts to avoid confusion over the governing state statute that would occur without federalization.
The discusion doesnt go to center of the problem and is ridiculous.Why do we wonder that they are capturing the ships when the so called west has stolen all their fish and destroid their way of living.Pirates are Kapitalists so its easy to make a deal with them.They just want to make money.
The discusion doesnt go to center of the problem and is ridiculous.Why do we wonder that they are capturing the ships when the so called west has stolen all their fish and destroid their way of living.Pirates are Kapitalists so its easy to make a deal with them.They just want to make money.
I wouldn’t say they “failed”. This attack happened off Somalia in the Indian Ocean
and the attacks are beginning to happen further and further offshore.
What would you have the Navy do, patrol the whole Indian Ocean? In
case you haven’t noticed, the Indian Ocean is a HUGE place! They
cannot be everywhere at once! To try would be to stretch resources to
the limit. If this attack didn’t happen in this area of the ocean, it
would have happened somewhere else. We cannot protect this whole
ocean. Once we start patrolling one section, they’ll simply move to
another. The earth is a HUGE f**king place!!
And before I get
flamed for this response, believe me, I know of what I speak. I’ve
been in these waters as well as the Straits of Malacca many times. As
a matter of fact I am in Atlanta right now to fly out to the “Liberty
Spirit” which is currently in Jeddah with a cargo from Argentina. In a
week or so, I may very well be in these exact same waters running this
gauntlet.
“Do what you can, with what you have, where you are” Theodore Roosevelt
I wouldn’t say they “failed”. This attack happened off Somalia in the Indian Ocean
and the attacks are beginning to happen further and further offshore.
What would you have the Navy do, patrol the whole Indian Ocean? In
case you haven’t noticed, the Indian Ocean is a HUGE place! They
cannot be everywhere at once! To try would be to stretch resources to
the limit. If this attack didn’t happen in this area of the ocean, it
would have happened somewhere else. We cannot protect this whole
ocean. Once we start patrolling one section, they’ll simply move to
another. The earth is a HUGE f**king place!!
And before I get
flamed for this response, believe me, I know of what I speak. I’ve
been in these waters as well as the Straits of Malacca many times. As
a matter of fact I am in Atlanta right now to fly out to the “Liberty
Spirit” which is currently in Jeddah with a cargo from Argentina. In a
week or so, I may very well be in these exact same waters running this
gauntlet.
“Do what you can, with what you have, where you are” Theodore Roosevelt
I think many are jumping to the conclusion that the Navy has written off protecting the US Merchant Marine because they are not escorting those vessels through choke points. While I agree that escorting is the only way to completely ensure our shipping is not taken, it does not address ending piracy in the area. There are many different ways to achieve the objective of maritime security. If your specific ideas are not implemented does not mean the objective is not being pursued.
Having spent some time in that area of the world at sea, I do believe the Navy should be doing more and being more aggressive towards the piracy. The will of the American people did not allow for strikes against the known pirate camps because there was no real tie to the US. Previous vessels taken rarely had allied crews let alone US crews onboard. Unfortunately, I knew it would take an incident involving an US flagged ship and crew to possibly give the added shove toward a more aggressive options.
I think many are jumping to the conclusion that the Navy has written off protecting the US Merchant Marine because they are not escorting those vessels through choke points. While I agree that escorting is the only way to completely ensure our shipping is not taken, it does not address ending piracy in the area. There are many different ways to achieve the objective of maritime security. If your specific ideas are not implemented does not mean the objective is not being pursued.
Having spent some time in that area of the world at sea, I do believe the Navy should be doing more and being more aggressive towards the piracy. The will of the American people did not allow for strikes against the known pirate camps because there was no real tie to the US. Previous vessels taken rarely had allied crews let alone US crews onboard. Unfortunately, I knew it would take an incident involving an US flagged ship and crew to possibly give the added shove toward a more aggressive options.
Nanuk: If you are ever at sea, it is not US fishing interests that over fish the Indian Oceans. If you want to look at world-wide fishing fleets, look to developed Asian Countries which isn't the "west."
The point is that there are very few US merchant ships in that area at any one time, and even fewer that aren't on MSC charters with armed guards on them. These unarmed ships are mostly food aid and/or container ships. There is no reason that the navy can't spare assets to escort (even in convoy) these specific ships from the Red Sea to at least the coast of Kenya.
As far as what to do with them, since they are pirates, they can be tried anywhere, and since most of them are muslim, why don't we drop them off in Saudi Arabia and let them try and punish them as Islamic Law dictates.
Prevention is stop paying ransom.
Jeremy, CM
Nanuk: If you are ever at sea, it is not US fishing interests that over fish the Indian Oceans. If you want to look at world-wide fishing fleets, look to developed Asian Countries which isn't the "west."
The point is that there are very few US merchant ships in that area at any one time, and even fewer that aren't on MSC charters with armed guards on them. These unarmed ships are mostly food aid and/or container ships. There is no reason that the navy can't spare assets to escort (even in convoy) these specific ships from the Red Sea to at least the coast of Kenya.
As far as what to do with them, since they are pirates, they can be tried anywhere, and since most of them are muslim, why don't we drop them off in Saudi Arabia and let them try and punish them as Islamic Law dictates.
Prevention is stop paying ransom.
Jeremy, CM
I visited the Navy website today http://www.navy.mil, and its interesting to note that you will find very little mention of the current crisis. In fact, I don't see anything about the Maersk Alabama. The Navy also publishes numerous photos each day for the media, and if you look at the roll of current photos, with absolutely zero concerning the Maersk Alabama. I don't understand this. This event is THE event for the Navy right now. Instead, their focus seems to be on promoting visits and tours by Admirals, readiness drills, and award ceremonies that ultimately have little interest to the greater public.
I think this reveals a lack of focus on the piracy issue in the Gulf of Aden, and a lack of commitment to overcoming the problem there. I am keen to not want to be the Monday morning quarterback, and I don't think the Navy has written off protecting Merchant Mariners, but I think the large cumbering organization that is the Navy, is simply to big to see around itself. Navy leadership needs to be able to quickly re-focus the Navy's current hotbed issue, unfortunately I think they are still focused on large scale naval battles and wars, and not piracy.
I visited the Navy website today http://www.navy.mil, and its interesting to note that you will find very little mention of the current crisis. In fact, I don't see anything about the Maersk Alabama. The Navy also publishes numerous photos each day for the media, and if you look at the roll of current photos, with absolutely zero concerning the Maersk Alabama. I don't understand this. This event is THE event for the Navy right now. Instead, their focus seems to be on promoting visits and tours by Admirals, readiness drills, and award ceremonies that ultimately have little interest to the greater public.
I think this reveals a lack of focus on the piracy issue in the Gulf of Aden, and a lack of commitment to overcoming the problem there. I am keen to not want to be the Monday morning quarterback, and I don't think the Navy has written off protecting Merchant Mariners, but I think the large cumbering organization that is the Navy, is simply to big to see around itself. Navy leadership needs to be able to quickly re-focus the Navy's current hotbed issue, unfortunately I think they are still focused on large scale naval battles and wars, and not piracy.
themaritime,
I was thinking the same thing earlier. Generally, they are pretty good about updating the site with current event photos and their own news releases, but their is absolutely no mention of this situation.
themaritime,
I was thinking the same thing earlier. Generally, they are pretty good about updating the site with current event photos and their own news releases, but their is absolutely no mention of this situation.
Maybe they figured out the old line; "better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it." Honestly, for all the history, the Navy has their hands tied. Between the international rule of the sea's unwieldy tests' and the west socities new found belief in the sanctity of human life, I would be a little hesitant to pull the trigger. Take the long way around.
Maybe they figured out the old line; "better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it." Honestly, for all the history, the Navy has their hands tied. Between the international rule of the sea's unwieldy tests' and the west socities new found belief in the sanctity of human life, I would be a little hesitant to pull the trigger. Take the long way around.
If you are ever at sea, it is not US fishing interests that over fish the Indian Oceans. If you want to look at world-wide fishing fleets, look to developed Asian Countries which isn't the "west."
"it is not US fishing interests"
We are the good the others are evil i love a simple world view…
The EU for ex is at the west coast of Africa.In these area i know what i am talking about… and you may know that its easy to hide your flag and play the blame game…
"These unarmed ships are mostly food aid and/or container ships. "
Are you that naive or are you just trying to make a joke?This is the most important waterway for the supplies of the troops in that area everything friedly and aid…
Its nice to be a cynic isnt it…
If you are ever at sea, it is not US fishing interests that over fish the Indian Oceans. If you want to look at world-wide fishing fleets, look to developed Asian Countries which isn't the "west."
"it is not US fishing interests"
We are the good the others are evil i love a simple world view…
The EU for ex is at the west coast of Africa.In these area i know what i am talking about… and you may know that its easy to hide your flag and play the blame game…
"These unarmed ships are mostly food aid and/or container ships. "
Are you that naive or are you just trying to make a joke?This is the most important waterway for the supplies of the troops in that area everything friedly and aid…
Its nice to be a cynic isnt it…
This is a simply an unbelievable set of comments. Apparently there is only one or two of you that even have a clue
This is a simply an unbelievable set of comments. Apparently there is only one or two of you that even have a clue
The Navy, like most of the USA Armed Forces is still fighting yesterdays battles, and is focused on yesterday's wars. But this thinking and strategy do not change overnight due to bureaucracy and mis-management. My hope is that a SEAL team is in place or enroute to the area as we speak, and they will end this situation quickly and without any harm to the Captain. I also agree with the comment made earlier to turn them over to Saudi Arabia for trial in an Islamic court. Of course if they were to all be taken out, it may be a good detrrent to never try this again with a US or US allied flagged vessel.
The Navy, like most of the USA Armed Forces is still fighting yesterdays battles, and is focused on yesterday's wars. But this thinking and strategy do not change overnight due to bureaucracy and mis-management. My hope is that a SEAL team is in place or enroute to the area as we speak, and they will end this situation quickly and without any harm to the Captain. I also agree with the comment made earlier to turn them over to Saudi Arabia for trial in an Islamic court. Of course if they were to all be taken out, it may be a good detrrent to never try this again with a US or US allied flagged vessel.
The EU is most definately on the WEST coast of Africa, but I doubt they have much presence on the EAST coast of Africa, which is what we are talking about here; and having sailed all over the oceans of the world, I see mostly local and ASIAN fishing fleets. US Fishing fleets are mostly confined to within 200 miles on the US coast and in some areas of the Pacific as the US fishing industry isn't that robust.
You miss my distinction Nanuk. I said non-MSC ships. Please look up the MV GLOBAL PATRIOT. This is a ship under US Navy charter (aka MSC charter). They are most definately armed. The rest of the US Flagged vessels, such as the Alabama, are NOT carrying any supplies for US troops and are unarmed, as we learned.
I am not naive enough to believe that the food aid that these ships carry, and I've crewed two of them, is not being stolen through the corruption that is rampant throughout Africa. This food is meant for the people, but I know that much of it ends up in the hands of the local army and/or militia groups.
My question to you Nanuk is how do you propose to end this piracy in Somalia?
The EU is most definately on the WEST coast of Africa, but I doubt they have much presence on the EAST coast of Africa, which is what we are talking about here; and having sailed all over the oceans of the world, I see mostly local and ASIAN fishing fleets. US Fishing fleets are mostly confined to within 200 miles on the US coast and in some areas of the Pacific as the US fishing industry isn't that robust.
You miss my distinction Nanuk. I said non-MSC ships. Please look up the MV GLOBAL PATRIOT. This is a ship under US Navy charter (aka MSC charter). They are most definately armed. The rest of the US Flagged vessels, such as the Alabama, are NOT carrying any supplies for US troops and are unarmed, as we learned.
I am not naive enough to believe that the food aid that these ships carry, and I've crewed two of them, is not being stolen through the corruption that is rampant throughout Africa. This food is meant for the people, but I know that much of it ends up in the hands of the local army and/or militia groups.
My question to you Nanuk is how do you propose to end this piracy in Somalia?
This is a simply an unbelievable set of comments. Apparently there is only one or two of you that even have a clue; the rest of you, your world view and vision stop at the end of your evening news. I looked toady on CNN and MSNBC web pages and the situation is difficult to find and nothing more than a re-print of yesterdays news. Here is the real deal, if the U.S. Navy spent the kind of money people are asking here, to escort ships, you tax payers would go absolutely nuts, the cost would be in the billions! And then when no pirates are seen it would be considered money wasted and the DoD would be further criticized and the fact that you demanded it would be…conveniently forgotten! If you haven't been to the area or you haven't served you have no privilege to comment on what should be done and whether the Navy failed, turn your attention to the banks and credit companies, that is more understood by citizens then the dealings of service members! And don’t forget, these men and women serve so you have the RIGHT to say these things, but right and privilege is different.
The Southern area where the Alabama was attacked, is more than a million square miles of open sea with almost no viable land mass. How can you expect any nation, to include ours, to be able to patrol that?. Or perhaps you would feel better if we pulled our coast defensive network away from our own shores, exposing our soft underbellies to any nation waiting for such an opportunity, maybe a terrorist or state sponsored terrorist organization could then more easily slip a boat with a chemical or nuclear weapon into a major port. Then you would say yet again…the Navy failed.
These young men and women are the pride of our nation and work more hours and far harder, asking for nothing in return, than anyone who has not served can ever comprehend, they deserve our pride, support and absolute respect!
If you want to blame someone, blame the media, for piecing together a half story and sending it across the wire. It’s amazing how the fact that a U.S. vessel and crew were attacked and captured and the Navy wasn't there, BUT, what about the hundreds of attacks that have been prevented or pirates captured because of the actions of our "failing" Navy, did you read about that? Was that flashed across the news as a breaking story? No. Don't forget, the only real news is bad news, and that is YOUR fault, because YOU ask for it.
Lastly, the tree hugging bunny lovers. What would happen if our big mean Navy, killed these criminals? Lets look at something here, they attacked a ship in international water, illegally took control of property not belonging to them, and used automatic weapons to do it, and now have kid napped a U.S. citizen. My comment, KILL THEM! Let the specialist, the Special Forces or Navy SEALs do their job and kill these criminals, these terrorist. Send a message, I promise, a few dead pirates floating up on shore or being dropped of in a base camp or mother ship will quickly end the problem. They are willing to kill for their ransom, why shouldn’t we be ready to do the same to the thugs perpetrating the crime? If that was your family on board, or you were the wife of the Captain, what would you say then, would you care of the Navy killed the hostage takers? But oh no we can’t do that, these are under privileged people resorting to crime as a mean to make money, and to go after them would further impoverish them. The ACLU would have an absolute field day with it. Can you imagine the headline: The big bad U.S. Navy killed 4 pirates that were obviously under gunned and holding only 1 hostage, they should have negotiated. Perfect! Now we negotiate with terrorists. The reason we are in this situation is because we became soft as a nation and the world knows, we either won’t strike back or we will be slow and unimpressive in our reaction.
Just my two cents as a 22+ year veteran and a proud citizen, not a sniveling one!
This is a simply an unbelievable set of comments. Apparently there is only one or two of you that even have a clue; the rest of you, your world view and vision stop at the end of your evening news. I looked toady on CNN and MSNBC web pages and the situation is difficult to find and nothing more than a re-print of yesterdays news. Here is the real deal, if the U.S. Navy spent the kind of money people are asking here, to escort ships, you tax payers would go absolutely nuts, the cost would be in the billions! And then when no pirates are seen it would be considered money wasted and the DoD would be further criticized and the fact that you demanded it would be…conveniently forgotten! If you haven't been to the area or you haven't served you have no privilege to comment on what should be done and whether the Navy failed, turn your attention to the banks and credit companies, that is more understood by citizens then the dealings of service members! And don’t forget, these men and women serve so you have the RIGHT to say these things, but right and privilege is different.
The Southern area where the Alabama was attacked, is more than a million square miles of open sea with almost no viable land mass. How can you expect any nation, to include ours, to be able to patrol that?. Or perhaps you would feel better if we pulled our coast defensive network away from our own shores, exposing our soft underbellies to any nation waiting for such an opportunity, maybe a terrorist or state sponsored terrorist organization could then more easily slip a boat with a chemical or nuclear weapon into a major port. Then you would say yet again…the Navy failed.
These young men and women are the pride of our nation and work more hours and far harder, asking for nothing in return, than anyone who has not served can ever comprehend, they deserve our pride, support and absolute respect!
If you want to blame someone, blame the media, for piecing together a half story and sending it across the wire. It’s amazing how the fact that a U.S. vessel and crew were attacked and captured and the Navy wasn't there, BUT, what about the hundreds of attacks that have been prevented or pirates captured because of the actions of our "failing" Navy, did you read about that? Was that flashed across the news as a breaking story? No. Don't forget, the only real news is bad news, and that is YOUR fault, because YOU ask for it.
Lastly, the tree hugging bunny lovers. What would happen if our big mean Navy, killed these criminals? Lets look at something here, they attacked a ship in international water, illegally took control of property not belonging to them, and used automatic weapons to do it, and now have kid napped a U.S. citizen. My comment, KILL THEM! Let the specialist, the Special Forces or Navy SEALs do their job and kill these criminals, these terrorist. Send a message, I promise, a few dead pirates floating up on shore or being dropped of in a base camp or mother ship will quickly end the problem. They are willing to kill for their ransom, why shouldn’t we be ready to do the same to the thugs perpetrating the crime? If that was your family on board, or you were the wife of the Captain, what would you say then, would you care of the Navy killed the hostage takers? But oh no we can’t do that, these are under privileged people resorting to crime as a mean to make money, and to go after them would further impoverish them. The ACLU would have an absolute field day with it. Can you imagine the headline: The big bad U.S. Navy killed 4 pirates that were obviously under gunned and holding only 1 hostage, they should have negotiated. Perfect! Now we negotiate with terrorists. The reason we are in this situation is because we became soft as a nation and the world knows, we either won’t strike back or we will be slow and unimpressive in our reaction.
Just my two cents as a 22+ year veteran and a proud citizen, not a sniveling one!
U.S. Flag? Long list of negatives? What would those be?
U.S. Flag? Long list of negatives? What would those be?
This comment was submitted by John G. Denham
Pirates 1 Yankees 0
It is too irritating not to comment ! I have commented earlier in "Pirates Be Damned and "Piracy, it is location, location, location." discussing responsibility, precedence and law. Needless to say, rhetoric appears ineffective. The bad guys are getting bolder, not smarter, while the good guys are only reacting. That seems to be a poor choice. Let’s try a historical scenario. The allies were unable to defeat the German U-Boat threat that picked their targets, time and place; they appeared to be in control of the seas. Some crafty independent merchant men slipped by, some repeatedly but most of the ships proceeded in convoys with military escorts. That was a strategy learned in WW1, and it was effective in WW11. But the brains de facto went one step further, they went after the U-Boats. Anti-Submarine Warfare was developed and perfected and the U-Boats were dealt unacceptable losses.
Substitute pirate for U-Boat; concentrate on the culprit not the victim i.e., if it is not positively identified as a non-threat, it is stopped and investigated. The rest is academic The area of operations is large and but so was the Atlantic Ocean. Today the victims are easily located by the culprits. The pirates are not submerged or sophisticated; they openly chase their targets and attack the defenseless with a minimum force. Dodging bullets, rifle propelled grenades and who know what they will acquire next is not "the ordinary practice of seamen." The government’s duty as provided by law, appears lacking in effectiveness. Whatever the strategy, it does not seem to be working.
With today’s modern technology and some "modern" tactics invested in seeking the enemy one can have immediate effect. As stated earlier:
"Scattering the flock is providing the wolves easy prey, Further, counter piracy forces should provide prominent and frequent displays of legal warnings by all available means declaring that any person, groups or vessels detected in the protection area will be stopped, searched detained and unlawful weapons and vessels confiscated and destroyed and, suspected or identified pirates or persons acting unlawfully in the protected zone should be incarcerated and returned to their country of residence and, any identified pirate, person, group or vessel responding aggressively should be neutralized."JGD
This comment was submitted by John G. Denham
Pirates 1 Yankees 0
It is too irritating not to comment ! I have commented earlier in "Pirates Be Damned and "Piracy, it is location, location, location." discussing responsibility, precedence and law. Needless to say, rhetoric appears ineffective. The bad guys are getting bolder, not smarter, while the good guys are only reacting. That seems to be a poor choice. Let’s try a historical scenario. The allies were unable to defeat the German U-Boat threat that picked their targets, time and place; they appeared to be in control of the seas. Some crafty independent merchant men slipped by, some repeatedly but most of the ships proceeded in convoys with military escorts. That was a strategy learned in WW1, and it was effective in WW11. But the brains de facto went one step further, they went after the U-Boats. Anti-Submarine Warfare was developed and perfected and the U-Boats were dealt unacceptable losses.
Substitute pirate for U-Boat; concentrate on the culprit not the victim i.e., if it is not positively identified as a non-threat, it is stopped and investigated. The rest is academic The area of operations is large and but so was the Atlantic Ocean. Today the victims are easily located by the culprits. The pirates are not submerged or sophisticated; they openly chase their targets and attack the defenseless with a minimum force. Dodging bullets, rifle propelled grenades and who know what they will acquire next is not "the ordinary practice of seamen." The government’s duty as provided by law, appears lacking in effectiveness. Whatever the strategy, it does not seem to be working.
With today’s modern technology and some "modern" tactics invested in seeking the enemy one can have immediate effect. As stated earlier:
"Scattering the flock is providing the wolves easy prey, Further, counter piracy forces should provide prominent and frequent displays of legal warnings by all available means declaring that any person, groups or vessels detected in the protection area will be stopped, searched detained and unlawful weapons and vessels confiscated and destroyed and, suspected or identified pirates or persons acting unlawfully in the protected zone should be incarcerated and returned to their country of residence and, any identified pirate, person, group or vessel responding aggressively should be neutralized."JGD
A few facts to help put this all in context – as of the end of last year no ship traveling above 15 knots had been successfully hijacked.
Maersk's standards for their ships traveling through the region were that no ship slower than 18 knots or with less than 10 M of freeboard would travel except in a convoy. The Alabama was faster than 18 knots and had a freeboard, as loaded, greater than 10 M. It was reasonable to believe based on recent experience that the Alabama would not be a target of pirates. It turned out to be the wrong decision but it was not made lightly or rashly.
Rick
http://www.oldsaltblog.com
A few facts to help put this all in context – as of the end of last year no ship traveling above 15 knots had been successfully hijacked.
Maersk's standards for their ships traveling through the region were that no ship slower than 18 knots or with less than 10 M of freeboard would travel except in a convoy. The Alabama was faster than 18 knots and had a freeboard, as loaded, greater than 10 M. It was reasonable to believe based on recent experience that the Alabama would not be a target of pirates. It turned out to be the wrong decision but it was not made lightly or rashly.
Rick
http://www.oldsaltblog.com
The US Navy does not have the capabilities to patrol the million square mile area in which the Somali pirates now operate. Also most ship owners do not wish to incur the cost or delay involved in forming up convoys to travel through the region. Blaming the US Navy for the attempted hijacking of the Alabama is simply wrong. Their current inaction regarding assisting Captain Phillips is another matter.
Finally, the focus on flag is misplaced. The US relies on ships flying the flags all nations to move natural resources and manufactured goods to and from our shores. All that can reasonably done to protect US flag ships should be done. The same applies to shipping in general in pirate infested waters. This will require cooperation across national navies. A good place to start is with the revision of the UN's unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement.
Rick
http://www.oldsaltblog.com
The US Navy does not have the capabilities to patrol the million square mile area in which the Somali pirates now operate. Also most ship owners do not wish to incur the cost or delay involved in forming up convoys to travel through the region. Blaming the US Navy for the attempted hijacking of the Alabama is simply wrong. Their current inaction regarding assisting Captain Phillips is another matter.
Finally, the focus on flag is misplaced. The US relies on ships flying the flags all nations to move natural resources and manufactured goods to and from our shores. All that can reasonably done to protect US flag ships should be done. The same applies to shipping in general in pirate infested waters. This will require cooperation across national navies. A good place to start is with the revision of the UN's unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement.
Rick
http://www.oldsaltblog.com
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…
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…
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.
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.
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..
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..
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?
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?
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.
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.