Somali pirates vow retaliation after captain freed

[VetSkinsFan]

That's the assumption that I'm questioning, Vet, so I don't see it as a "safe assumption."

Why is it automatically a government jurisdiction? What is so repugnant about these commercial lines taking care of their own security concerns? Obviously many African nations along the coast will not be able to handle security. But how it follows that the US military should get involved is beyond me.

Again, whatever country I'm walking around in may have terrible police protection. Does this mean that me and my business partners can demand a U.S. military escort?

Becuase in the absence of anyone else's help, I believe we have a duty to help our own. I understand that you don't believe that the government should get involved in anything that the government doesn't own. The "big brother" connotation could have a positive spin here for once.

My brother took care of himself 99% of the time. I let him do that. Once he had issues that he couldn't handle himself, here comes big brother to help him out.

This is how I see this pirate situation. If it was one isolated incident (and not taking hostages at gun point, which is the tipping point for me), then I would whoilly agree, but it's not. They attack and take whatever they want from U.S. private companies (I still believe that the private part is irrelavent, but I do not wish to further argue this point).

These private U.S. companies are U.S. interests and I believe that the Fed Gov't should protect U.S interests from foriegn aggressors. Hell, if we can send the military to help other countries (that have U.S. interests), then why can we not send the military to help protect U.S. interests?

[langleyparkjoe]

That's the assumption that I'm questioning, Vet, so I don't see it as a "safe assumption."

Why is it automatically a government jurisdiction? What is so repugnant about these commercial lines taking care of their own security concerns? Obviously many African nations along the coast will not be able to handle security. But how it follows that the US military should get involved is beyond me.

Again, whatever country I'm walking around in may have terrible police protection. Does this mean that me and my business partners can demand a U.S. military escort?

Becuase in the absence of anyone else's help, I believe we have a duty to help our own. I understand that you don't believe that the government should get involved in anything that the government doesn't own. The "big brother" connotation could have a positive spin here for once.

My brother took care of himself 99% of the time. I let him do that. Once he had issues that he couldn't handle himself, here comes big brother to help him out.

This is how I see this pirate situation. If it was one isolated incident (and not taking hostages at gun point, which is the tipping point for me), then I would whoilly agree, but it's not. They attack and take whatever they want from U.S. private companies (I still believe that the private part is irrelavent, but I do not wish to further argue this point).

These private U.S. companies are U.S. interests and I believe that the Fed Gov't should protect U.S interests from foriegn aggressors. Hell, if we can send the military to help other countries (that have U.S. interests), then why can we not send the military to help protect U.S. interests?

[tcwest10]

Because in the absence of anyone else's help, I believe we have a duty to help our own. I understand that you don't believe that the government should get involved in anything that the government doesn't own. The "big brother" connotation could have a positive spin here for once.

They attack and take whatever they want from U.S. private companies (I still believe that the private part is irrelavent, but I do not wish to further argue this point).

These private U.S. companies are U.S. interests and I believe that the Fed Gov't should protect U.S interests from foriegn aggressors. Hell, if we can send the military to help other countries (that have U.S. interests), then why can we not send the military to help protect U.S. interests?

Vetskins, if you take away the part where the victim is a privately-owned company, you take away the most compelling part of the argument. I want to say again: I was proud of our snipers for their efficiency and intervention, but I don't think it's our responsibility to keep them there to babysit these ships. We are not the only nation with a vested interest in the cargo of the Maersk Alabama, but we were the nation that ultimately responded to the crisis. In that case, we did take care of one of our own.
The last thing we need to do is launch an airstrike or an armed assault on yet another foreign shore, and give our known enemies some more allies.

[Irn-Bru]

Becuase in the absence of anyone else's help, I believe we have a duty to help our own.

If companies knows they can get military protection for free, some of them aren't going to take on the risk for themselves. Your analogy might work where people are vulnerable, but are you saying that these firms can't afford some deck guns and security guards?

Actually, IIRC there are laws preventing them from taking care of their own security. So the law creates the problems and then applies the most inefficient solution to it. And this is what I'm criticizing.

[VetSkinsFan]

Because in the absence of anyone else's help, I believe we have a duty to help our own. I understand that you don't believe that the government should get involved in anything that the government doesn't own. The "big brother" connotation could have a positive spin here for once.

They attack and take whatever they want from U.S. private companies (I still believe that the private part is irrelavent, but I do not wish to further argue this point).

These private U.S. companies are U.S. interests and I believe that the Fed Gov't should protect U.S interests from foriegn aggressors. Hell, if we can send the military to help other countries (that have U.S. interests), then why can we not send the military to help protect U.S. interests?

Vetskins, if you take away the part where the victim is a privately-owned company, you take away the most compelling part of the argument. I want to say again: I was proud of our snipers for their efficiency and intervention, but I don't think it's our responsibility to keep them there to babysit these ships. We are not the only nation with a vested interest in the cargo of the Maersk Alabama, but we were the nation that ultimately responded to the crisis. In that case, we did take care of one of our own.
The last thing we need to do is launch an airstrike or an armed assault on yet another foreign shore, and give our known enemies some more allies.

I understand the argument, and I can understand the opposing logic, but I just don't agree with it.

I believe that U.S. interests should be protected by U.S. military. It doesn't matter who ELSE has a similar interest, ultimately we have to take care of our own. I'm not saying we protect every vessel out there, but if the vessel in question is flagged U.S., then it should have the possibility of having U.S. support against these pirates.

If foreign nations reap the benefits of it, then I'm ecstatic, but that's not what I'm proposing.

I'm proposing we take care of our own interests. Halting U.S. citizens being taken at gunpoint by pirates is a U.S. interest IMO.

[tcwest10]

It's hard for me to build an argument without coming across as uncaring about US citizens abroad, in perilous conditions.
The main thing that's in my head that isn't coming through my fingers to the keyboard in an articulate manner is that the captain of that ship made a career choice. Here's the weak analogy 'trey was looking for. If the shoe was on the other foot, would the Maersk Alabama have intervened in a military operation?

[Countertrey]

It's hard for me to build an argument without coming across as uncaring about US citizens abroad, in perilous conditions.
The main thing that's in my head that isn't coming through my fingers to the keyboard in an articulate manner is that the captain of that ship made a career choice. Here's the weak analogy 'try was looking for. If the shoe was on the other foot, would the Maersk Alabama have intervened in a military operation?

History says "Yes"... if the Navy needed their transport capability, Maersk would be there... See the "Battle of the North Atlantic".

[tcwest10]

History says "Yes"... if the Navy needed their transport capability, Maersk would be there... See the "Battle of the North Atlantic".

That would make the already-ticked-at-the-Danes Muslim community happy, wouldn't it? Maybe they could even follow it up with a humorous cartoon!
Were the Danish ships used in Churchill's action (and later, to defend our own East Coast after Pearl Harbor)commandeered or voluntary?
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/1941.htm
"03/30 Sun. Unites States takes possession of German, Italian, and Danish ships in United States Ports "
Sweden was an ally of neither side. Instead, they were a little two-faced about the whole thing, except where it came to Danish Jews..who were mostly escorted to freedom. Maersk, of course, is...well, you know.

...or did you mean commerce ships, in general, would intervene? I just learned that 2/3 of the Americans on board the Alabama were navy vets. This puts the whole sniper thing in a new light. They were, indeed (apologies to VetSkins) 'taking care of their own' .

(BTW, 'trey...no offense, but I'm loving this. I'm learning from every post made in this topic, my mind is abuzz...and I'm all McDonald's about it. I'm not smart enough to keep up with most of your stuff, but I'm trying like hell!)

[Countertrey]

History says "Yes"... if the Navy needed their transport capability, Maersk would be there... See the "Battle of the North Atlantic".

That would make the already-ticked-at-the-Danes Muslim community happy, wouldn't it? Maybe they could even follow it up with a humorous cartoon!
Were the Danish ships used in Churchill's action (and later, to defend our own East Coast after Pearl Harbor)commandeered or voluntary?
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/1941.htm
"03/30 Sun. Unites States takes possession of German, Italian, and Danish ships in United States Ports "
Sweden was an ally of neither side. Instead, they were a little two-faced about the whole thing, except where it came to Danish Jews..who were mostly escorted to freedom. Maersk, of course, is...well, you know.

...or did you mean commerce ships, in general, would intervene? I just learned that 2/3 of the Americans on board the Alabama were navy vets. This puts the whole sniper thing in a new light. They were, indeed (apologies to VetSkins) 'taking care of their own' .

(BTW, 'trey...no offense, but I'm loving this. I'm learning from every post made in this topic, my mind is abuzz...and I'm all McDonald's about it. I'm not smart enough to keep up with most of your stuff, but I'm trying like hell!)

No offense, at all. Here's the deal... during WW2, none of the Axis owned vessels were US Flagged. They were legitimate prizes of war.

Concur about the two faced nature of Sweden during War 2. Both sides used large caliber automatic weapons from Bofors. The US Navy considered them vital components of close in air defense in the Pacific.

There are many implications of Registering a ship under the US Flag. Among those, I believe, is some tit for tat. The US provides a measure of protection... the ship line provides access to their resources in event of a national emergency. I think that suggests that the protection the shippers get is not free. Add to that the huge investment (and profits) made by Maersk into the seaport infrastructure and logistical operations of American seaports, and...

[Kilmer72]

I do not have any answers only questions. Like, in one of the previous links I posted above: Why aren't we trying to help their government help their people? I am not talking about aid. I am talking about making money and people not starving. This should stop or at least not give the pirates a good reason for doing what they are. I know this could take years if not decades. So, my next question would be: In the meantime...Why not train our ships to barricade them selves in engines rooms or what ever like they have been doing and give a positive ID to the US Navy? I think this might be the only good solution. We could flatten them or we could arm our ships or do a lot of things. Please explain my questions though.

[tcwest10]

I do not have any answers only questions. Like, in one of the previous links I posted above: Why aren't we trying to help their government help their people? I am not talking about aid. I am talking about making money and people not starving. This should stop or at least not give the pirates a good reason for doing what they are. I know this could take years if not decades. So, my next question would be: In the meantime...Why not train our ships to barricade them selves in engines rooms or what ever like they have been doing and give a positive ID to the US Navy? I think this might be the only good solution. We could flatten them or we could arm our ships or do a lot of things. Please explain my questions though.

1.) 'We do not negotiate with terrorists', unless we share a common enemy.
2.) If our response to priacy is to provide food and medical care to their people, the pirates will be seen as the saviors of their country, and will resort to these tactics again to get what they want. In the final analysis, the pirates are not a modern-day "Robin Hood". They are interested only in lining their own pockets, not making a statement about social or economic issues. Maybe when they started out, there was an ideal there that this would somehow translate as a "We can't get what we need from our government, so let's go take it" type of deal, but those days are gone.
3.) We cannot 'flatten' them. They are pirates now. After we make our first attempt at "flattening", they will become insurgents...and will likely have support from our current areas of concern. You'll see minefields, more RPG's and other advanced weaponry somehow delievered to them.

[Countertrey]

We cannot 'flatten' them. They are pirates now. After we make our first attempt at "flattening", they will become insurgents...

Interesting thought... how can they be insurgents within the context of a country with no functioning government? It is already a lawless land.

Flattening them does not require the expenditure of a single boot on the ground. J-DAM's and TLAM's are remotely deployed... all they need is a GPS fix, easily obtained from a satellite, or from any number of offshore reconaissance assets.

and will likely have support from our current areas of concern. You'll see minefields, more RPG's and other advanced weaponry somehow delievered to them.

Minefields. This requires certain behaviors to be demonstrated, behaviors that can be tracked and monitored.

RPG's. While they are inexpensive and remarkably effective weapons, they are also severely limited in range. You have to be very close to use them... well within the maximum effective range of even the most rudimentary assault rifle, and easily in range of most other types of direct fire weapons. Beyond that, they are so ubiquitous, what's a few hundred more???

Other advanced weaponry. Part of the advantage the pirates currently have is their use of native fishing vessels. They are everywhere. Which are pirate vessels? Which are legitimate fishing vessels?? Which are trading vessels?? Their advantage is that, currently, they can hide in plain sight, until they decide to make a move.

These boats, however, have a very limited ability to accept the mountings for weapons that would improve the capabilities that they currently have. A .50 Cal Machine gun, or a 20 MM chain gun would shake one of those boats to tatters in no time. The structural reinforcement needed would so increase the weight of the vessel that it's speed and range would probably be seriously effected, and may even make it unstable. Use of more appropriate weapons platforms, such as light patrol boats, built to mount such weapons, would make them instant targets, and much more easily tracked and destroyed.

[/quote]

[tcwest10]

Well, they have the RPG's now. If they were to make a serious stand against us, they'd have instant (and covert) access to technology.
Funny. The way I'm picturing it, there are several nations that will rush to their aid should they mount an offensive against the US...but none to simply feed them.
As far as insurgency, maybe it's got a different definition than the one I'm using. I took it to mean less obvious and more organized than simply approaching a vessel in a raft. I think Somali regulars, with no interest in piracy at all, will come to the aid of their brothers...and that this picture will cause us more grief down the road. Kinda like the mouse giving the finger to the swooping eagle. Doesn't matter what the mouse did...there's an empathy for the little guy.
I suppose that IED's would have been anticipated and tracked through behavior if that were possible, 'trey. What is a minefield if it isn't an IED in the water?Bottom line: desperation drives people to desperate manuevers.

[Countertrey]

Well, they have the RPG's now. If they were to make a serious stand against us, they'd have instant (and covert) access to technology.

I think you missed my point about RPG's. It is that these weapons, while excellent, have a very limited range, which, with visibility to the horizon, is a disadvantage. It's one thing to step out from a corner behind a house and fire an RPG at a truck that is 50 yards away, quite another to try to sneak up in open waters on a freighter that is armed with 20mm cannon or a 50 Cal Machine Gun... both of which have ranges that are several thousand yards greater than the RPG. If these vessels were so armed, the RPG would be pretty useless.

Funny. The way I'm picturing it, there are several nations that will rush to their aid should they mount an offensive against the US...but none to simply feed them.

Especially ironic, considering that the 2 most recently attacked US vessels were delivering food aid, portions of which were intended for Somalia...

As far as insurgency, maybe it's got a different definition than the one I'm using. I took it to mean less obvious and more organized than simply approaching a vessel in a raft. I think Somali regulars,

I don't believe there is such a thing at this time...

with no interest in piracy at all, will come to the aid of their brothers...and that this picture will cause us more grief down the road. Kinda like the mouse giving the finger to the swooping eagle. Doesn't matter what the mouse did...there's an empathy for the little guy.
I suppose that IED's would have been anticipated and tracked through behavior if that were possible, 'trey. What is a minefield if it isn't an IED in the water?Bottom line: desperation drives people to desperate manuevers.

A boat, laying mines, behaves in a manner that is peculiar to that activity. Remember, there are no buildings to hide behind. Consider a few things... it's one thing to jury rig an explosive device with a throw away cell phone for a detonator that you are going to stuff under a tire on dry land... it's quite another to create such a device that will 1: Float from an anchorage just below the surface of the water 2: Work when wet 3:Explode when you want it to, and 4: be large enough to do what you want it to. Now, think through all of the implications of doing so... How large will these devices be? How heavy? How do we move them from the boat into the water? How much time do we need to spend making sure they float at just the right distance below the surface? How big does the anchor need to be?

If they attempt to add mines to their repertoire, I think they will just complicate their lives, and actually make it easier to track and deal with them.

[welch]

1. It seems to me that Jefferson and Madison demonstrated the proper way to handle pirates, and that experience also shows how tricky this one can get.

- Blockade the pirate bases. Ships from the various navies close in to shore

- Destroy the pirates on shore. That's the "General" Eaton and Tripoli example. The Barbary Pirates were finished, ultimately, when the French conquered and colonized North Africa. Colonizing Somalia does not appeal to me. That's the tricky part.

And US Navy armed guard detachments sailed on the cargo ships going to Great Britain. In this case, 20 mm cannon fore and aft might be plenty good enough to protect any merchant ship from the Somali pirates.

If that seems too much, why not form convoys?

2. On the "should we on principle do this" question, it seems to international law that pirates are to be suppressed. Sunk, captured, hanged. Call it "international common law" followed for the last 300 years or more. It is not a matter of whether the US Navy has a particular responsibility to protect any individual's private property; it is the law.

3. Several news reports say that the Somali pirates originally were fishermen who lost their coastal fishing grounds to "poaching" industrialized fishing boats. OK, the same force that blockades the pirate ports can drive off illegal fishers. Offhand, I doubt that this will solve the problem any more than paying Colombian peasants a fair price for their coffee will persuade coca growers to get out of the drug trade. Still, if foreigners are illegally fishing Somali waters, let them be arrested. Confiscate the illegal fishing boat.

(...and I thought it was perfect that the recuing warship was USS Bainbridge.)

[tcwest10]

I still think I'm in way over my head. If I were a Detroit or Philly fan, I'd be the genius.
Of course, this topic would never come up there.
Anyway, I think that the initial confrontation required military intervention. I think that subsequent confrontations are now to be expected, and that the companies who use that route should at least make an effort to secure their cargo and ensure the safety of their crew through private security. I feel it in my gut that now that the US has flexed some military muscle, the Somalis will organize...much the same way that we enabled the people of Afghanistan to stave off and ultimately drive out the Soviet occupation of their lands.
(BTW, 'trey...another faux pas on my part. I keep forgetting i'm not addressing my peers in the highway maintenance field. When i wrote about Somali 'regulars', I meant regular Somalis...not trained troops.)
If this is really still about basic issues such as poaching and feeding, then there are more diplomatic ways of dealing with that. I don't think we're there anymore. I think that we've moved well beyond anything that can be dealt with over coffee. It isn't our job to feed the world, but these people are clearly in need of some type of intervention. The thing I don't understand is, if you're drowning, and someone throws you a life preserver...why grab hold of it and follow it back in and then make unreasonble demands at gunpoint?
While we're feeding them, we ought to educate them. For once, I'd like to see us follow through on a food-for-guns program, and not bail out when it doesn't make the front page anymore.

[Kilmer72]

If this is really still about basic issues such as poaching and feeding, then there are more diplomatic ways of dealing with that. I don't think we're there anymore. I think that we've moved well beyond anything that can be dealt with over coffee. It isn't our job to feed the world, but these people are clearly in need of some type of intervention. The thing I don't understand is, if you're drowning, and someone throws you a life preserver...why grab hold of it and follow it back in and then make unreasonble demands at gunpoint?
While we're feeding them, we ought to educate them. For once, I'd like to see us follow through on a food-for-guns program, and not bail out when it doesn't make the front page anymore.

This was my whole point last time I posted here. I don't have the words but you just put it as best as I could describe it.

[tcwest10]

I poached your idea. Will you be sending a small party to receive me when my ship comes in?

[Kilmer72]

I poached your idea. Will you be sending a small party to receive me when my ship comes in?

Ha ha ha.. It does make sense to tackle it like you described. It might be the only way.

[Kilmer72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090428/ap_on_re_af/piracy

What were the pirates thinking on this one? They were way out numbered. You have to figure that there would have been a lot of people that wouldn't have put up with this even if the pirates had guns.

[langleyparkjoe]

Saw this today, way to go Navy!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100401/pl_afp/uspiracyshippingseychelles

So being that I'm not in the Navy can someone shed some light for me. Back in the days we know cannons were used and they'd tear a hole in ship causing it to sink. Now, with the technology we have and major fire power, how does the USS Nicholas disable a ship as opposed to sinking it? I'm curious because I would think if the USS Nicholas fired on the pirate ship (I'm assuming that pirate ship could never stand up to our fighter ship) it would be destroyed by our fire power but the article said the pirate ship just stopped moving. Like, one precise shot to disable it, is that possible?

[Countertrey]

Not all weapons on such a vessel are large caliber naval guns. She is armed with a number of .50 cal machine guns as well. Boarding parties are armed with infantry weapons.

A couple of .50 cal rounds through the engine block will pretty much ruin your day, but not sink the craft.

I suspect that, frankly, once they decided to fire on the craft, they did not care whether they disabled or sank it... They shot it up... and it stopped. Had it not stopped using the smaller weapons, they would have used larger ones...until the craft... stopped.

It's not that precise. Bang, bang, bang.

Had they put a 76mm round or two into the craft, the end would have been a bit messier.

[langleyparkjoe]

Not all weapons on such a vessel are large caliber naval guns. She is armed with a number of .50 cal machine guns as well. Boarding parties are armed with infantry weapons.

A couple of .50 cal rounds through the engine block will pretty much ruin your day, but not sink the craft.

I suspect that, frankly, once they decided to fire on the craft, they did not care whether they disabled or sank it... They shot it up... and it stopped. Had it not stopped using the smaller weapons, they would have used larger ones...until the craft... stopped.

It's not that precise. Bang, bang, bang.

Had they put a 76mm round or two into the craft, the end would have been a bit messier.

Oh ok thanks bro. I honestly thought that our fighter ships ONLY had the big booming guns, I never realized they had smaller ones. Really that's my ignorance because it makes sense to have different variations. So basically if the pirate ship didn't stop they'd have that boat's remains in the water.. I get it now. Well I'm glad they were able to capture them alive to grind out information from them. Again, great job Navy!

[Countertrey]

No prob, LP!

[Redskin in Canada]

Among several other jobs, I am a lecturer on all maritime spaces under national jurisdiction, including national security, at the World Maritime University sponsored by the World Maritime Organization.

You guys have no idea how interesting is to witness this discussion from a purely USA perspective. I will only point out a few facts:

1) Piracy takes place these days in several parts of the oceans around the world, e.g., Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, even the Baltic Sea !!!

2) The World Maritime Organization has developed a large number of mechanisms to protect and keep track of merchant ships.

3) the main problem to deal with piracy is NOT logistic or even military, the main problem is posed by the lack of INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION (not national or even American only) with this issue.

Those seriously interested to pursue this topic should follow the development of the SOLAS Convention (google it) and the work at the UN:

* International Maritime Organization (IMO) -- Twelve proposals to improve maritime safety and security have been developed by an IMO working group on maritime security, aimed at decreasing the likelihood of maritime terrorism and improving the ability of seafarers and others to respond to any crises that do arise. The proposals, drafted at a February meeting, include acceleration of the timetable for installing mandatory automatic identification systems on all ships over 500 tonnes working international waters and changed regulations that would require such ships to have ship security plans and ship security officers. Development of guidelines and criteria for port vulnerability assessments have also been proposed, as has urgent action on an up-to-date seafarer identification document, and new arrangements for cooperation with customs authorities and the prospect of secret anti-terrorist alarm systems on ships were raised. These proposals will be fleshed out by the IMO Maritime Safety Committee in March, and then presented to member States for approval. Review of the key international treaties targetting terror on the high seas continues, with the IMO Legal Committee seeking ways they could be strengthened. The key instruments are the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and its Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (both in part inspired by the 'Archille Lauro' terrorism incident in 1983). The Convention entered into force on 1 March 1992 and it ensures that action is taken against people who seize ships by force, commit violence against people on ships, or place explosive on ships. It obliges Contracting Governments to either extradite or prosecute offenders. Decisions on the Legal Committee's proposals, and those put forward by the IMO secretary-general in November 2001, are expected at a special conference on maritime safety scheduled for December 2002. More information on security at sea can be found on the IMO's website (www.imo.org). The IMO formally came into being in 1958. It is the UN organization responsible for helping Governments cooperate on regulations and practices affecting shipping engaged in international trade, including on maritime safety, navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships.

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/un-agencies.shtml

And no, the USA cannot solve this problem alone, even if it wanted to waste all kinds of money on it ... 2cents