This is what we have come to. Unilateral action, even if it is as clear cut as defending US interests against pirates, must be avoided. Murderous Jihadist terrorists get civil rights and government lawyers while US taxpayers pick up the bill. Pirates, who board US shipping and threaten American seamen, get treated like simple criminals that do not warrant so much as a mention by the President. One would have thought it was a no-brainer for the Manchurian President, a populist win-win to paint Obama as a decisive leader, a chance to inspire confidence that he was up to the challenge. It was a chance to warn aggressors, pirates or otherwise, away from international shipping. It was also a chance, now squandered, to reassure friend and foe alike that America had not lost her nerve or reneged on her exceptional role as a world leader.
But no, it’s all just a distraction from the greater work of wealth redistribution, “social justice,” and remaking America into the utopian vision of a narcissistic socialist academic with a nice speaking voice. No pompous speeches and meandering lectures this time, the implications of piracy on trade and sovereignty are beyond Obama.
Treacher has similar thoughts:
1) Presidents of the United States don’t tend to go around apologizing for their own country on foreign soil.
2) Pirates don’t tend to attack American ships.
3) When both happen within a week of each other, each one for the first time anybody can remember, there might be loose talk.
Shootings happen more often than we’d like, but people like Oliver Willis and Markos Moulitsas have no problem pinning one on Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or whoever else they want to malign. Whereas pirates kidnapping Americans at sea happens once every 200 years. But I’m not supposed to wonder if President Obama running around the world with a “Kick Me” sign on his back — which almost flew off during his spine-bending bow to a king — has anything to do with America getting, um, kicked.
And President Obama makes a heart-warming outreach to the moderate pirate community:
For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.
The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
Some of us wonder if our current Overseas Contingency Operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label Pirates as “thieves,” “terrorists” and worse. Such swashbucklaphobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.
And I’ll have a scoop this weekend on the new administration’s long-overdue moves to heal the breach with the solar system.
One of the reasons that pirates haven’t been attacking American ships is because there are so few of them. There are around 450 US-flagged ship over 1,000 tons, which puts us 22nd in the world. (Panama has nearly 6,000 ships, Liberia over 2,000). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Merchant_Marine)
There are, by my count, 13 US ships off of the Somali coast. (See http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/5th-fleet-focus-order-of-battle.html)
The problem is that piracy is the maritime equivalent of guerrilla warfare. Since the ships don’t run around flying the Jolly Roger, the only way to tell a pirate from a legitimate fishing boat is see it attack.
There’s a very obvious difference between a pirate boat and a fishing boat. The latter has fishing gear, while the former has no fishing gear, and lot of weapons, including RPGs. Many such have been pulled over near Somalia. Their weapons are confiscated, and they’re sent on their way. Does this seem like smart anti-piracy policy to you?
There’s a very obvious difference between a pirate boat and a fishing boat…. and lot of weapons, including RPGs
Actually, Rand, you’re wrong. I’ve done search and seizure operations on the open ocean. (Five years in the US Navy on a frigate.) Unless somebody is idiotic enough to wave their guns around on deck, which very few boats are, you just can’t tell at a distance what they are up to. Considering that four (4) men with AK-47s took the Alabama, hiding that level of weapons is trivially easy.
Most of these Somali boats were originally doing long-line fishing. This involves stringing long lines with baited hooks over the side. It’s not like the shrimp boats you’ve seen on the Florida coast – there is very little “gear” to be seen.
Of course, even on a shrimp boat, visually determining if the boat’s gear is working from a distance is tough. You have to physically board and search, which could take hours. 27 navy ships, 1500 miles of coastline, hundreds of fishing boats from many nations. You do the math.
There are two solutions to piracy:
1) Create a lawful Somali state or states. That could easily take the same level of time and resources we’ve spent in Afghanistan.
2) Armed merchants and a convoy system. Considering 9 out of 10 merchants aren’t US flagged, that requires international cooperation.
I like the armed merchantman idea.
30mm bushmaster, remote controls linked into the bridge, thermal imagery units, and fly banners for each pirate vessel sunk.
I forgot to mention… HE should suffice. AP rounds are not gonna be helpful against thin-skinned targets.
First, these ‘pirates’ have been in that part of the world for a while. I would say that having them attack a US ship is directly related to the knowledge that our current Commander In Chief wants to avoid confrontation (with foreign folks, not those pesky ‘rich Americans’) at all costs.
Yes, Chris, it is easy to hide 4 AK 47s. It is not too easy to mask the fact that you are closing on/attempting to board a ship. You left out a third option. Having the US Navy/Merchant Marines escort ships sailing under the US flag. Orders are simple, any ship that approaches and does not identify when queried is assumed to be hostile and will be sunk. Problem solved.
Actually, Rand, you’re wrong. I’ve done search and seizure operations on the open ocean. (Five years in the US Navy on a frigate.) Unless somebody is idiotic enough to wave their guns around on deck, which very few boats are, you just can’t tell at a distance what they are up to. Considering that four (4) men with AK-47s took the Alabama, hiding that level of weapons is trivially easy.
I didn’t say they could tell from a distance. I said that many of them have been boarded and searched, and there is no problem distinguishing them from fishermen. They hang around a ship to see if it’s vulnerable. If there’s no one else around, they attack it. If there is, they pretend to be fishing vessels until the coast (so to speak) is clear.
The foolishness is that instead of being tossed to the sharks, as pirates properly used to be, their weapons are simply confiscated and they’re sent on their way.
They have little risk, and high potential for reward. We have to change the incentives.
You left out a third option. Having the US Navy/Merchant Marines escort ships sailing under the US flag. Orders are simple, any ship that approaches and does not identify when queried is assumed to be hostile and will be sunk. Problem solved.
Problem solved, but that could get quite expensive. Better to simply arm the ships themselves.
Having the US Navy/Merchant Marines escort ships sailing under the US flag is the definition of a “convoy system.”
BTW, the US Merchant Marines are the civilian sailors on the civilian ships.
It is not too easy to mask the fact that you are closing on/attempting to board a ship. By then it’s too late. More importantly, the actual boarding ops are done by small fiberglass / wooden speed boats. You can’t see them at any great distance and they don’t show well on radar. Once the small boats secure the target, the mother ship either closes or the boarding party takes the target to the coast.
The foolishness is that instead of being tossed to the sharks, as pirates properly used to be, their weapons are simply confiscated and they’re sent on their way.
If they are actually pirates, shooting them is fine by me. The problem is catching them. Also, how do you decide if they are armed for self-defense or piracy? This issue is why letters of marque and reprisal went away.
Also, how do you decide if they are armed for self-defense or piracy? This issue is why letters of marque and reprisal went away.
If there is nothing of value on the ship except the weaponry (and grappling hooks and rope ladders), from whom would they be defending themselves, and why would they need RPGs to do so? The basic rule is that if it quacks like a pirate ship, treat it like one.
This issue is why letters of marque and reprisal went away.
Apparently they need to come back.
Except they could be defending the ship itself. Most of the pirate motherships were stolen. I could buy into “anybody with an RPG is a pirate.”
Chris
Rand hasn’t been out on the sea, he hasn’t done law enforcement maritime work, and he is just wanting to
bash Obama for this.
Piracy off the Horn, The south china sea and the carribean have been omni-present, and the brilliant bushites never
came up for a cure for this.
The Somali pirates were boarding Supertankers 400 miles
offshore.
Now, if the crews were trained on how to operate
a M-60 or a automatic grenade launcher, they
could protect the ship.
Also US Merchant marine regulations require a much
larger crew then Liberian or Panamanian regulations,
so, we see the crew was able to retake their own
ship.
The real solution would be larger crews with weapons
skills, but, that might require regulation.
Piracy off the Horn, The south china sea and the carribean have been omni-present, and the brilliant bushites never
came up for a cure for this.
The “brilliant bushites” never had a ship hijacked on their watch, you “brilliant” moron.
jack: Machineguns and grenade launchers are great… if you see the pirates coming.
Merchant ships typically don’t have the crew to do a 24/7 360 degree watch for a boat too small and unmetallic to set off the RADAR.
Similarly, a USN escort for every ship would require more ships than we possess; the USN has only 102 armed surface ships that aren’t carriers, according to the numbers I found – and the frigates don’t have enough range to do worldwide escort of a giant freighter without a fueling ship or more fueling stops.
Now, they could be concentrated in high-piracy areas, but between rotation and maintenance and needing them for military use, we’re talking about building maybe 50 more R. Leigh Burkes just to escort ships – cheaper and just as effective to do punitive strikes or the like.
(And to cover the other part of what Rand said, the “Bushites” didn’t “do anything” about piracy because A) it’s still on an upward swing, and B) there’s not a lot they could do, as I’ve explained.
Short of direct military action against their home ports, with all the attendant flak [“Oh, the poor innocent brown fishermen killed by the evil imperialist Bush! No pirates were ever here, and this is just a show to distract from the war in Iraq!!!”] and possible lack of effect, there’s precious little the US can do about piracy in the immediate term.
And of course, during Bush’s tenure there were other very large priorities, and large contingents arguing against increased military spending… especially against military spending that wasn’t directly related to the two-front war already going on. Building dozens of frigates is expensive, you see.)
The folks over at http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/ have been all over this issue for a while, and I recommend stopping by. A few key longer-term points:
1) The new defense budget looks to increase the number of Navy ships vs. spending money building battleships. for example, the DD(X) program, a 14,000 ton ship at $5 billion/each, is cut to a single demonstrator, and the money saved is to be used to build DDG-51s. They are hardly cheap at $1.5 B each, but you can get 3 of them for one DD(X).
2) The Navy is building Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). Although I’m not fond of the present design, they are the type and price-point we need. This program is continuing in the new budget.
3) Punitive expeditions rely on the folks being punished having the ability to stop doing whatever it is that they are being punished for. I don’t know if whatever passes for local government in Somalia has the capability to control their criminal elements. If they don’t, you set up a “the bombings will continue until morale improves” situation.
4) A solution that could work is a “Sons of Somalia” program (see the blog cited above.) Basically, we pay local “fishermen” to run an anti-piracy patrol, much like we paid Iraqis to run local security patrols.
We don’t have many vessels but we have a lot of force multiplying technology. Our Aegis network allows for precise coordination among assets. Set up pickets and create sea lanes that are closely watched. More boats in the water would probably help at this point. However, Obama seems to be more keen on cutting defense spending so I don’t think this is likely.
Yes, the pirate’s small assault craft are hard to spot but they are not designed for extended open sea operation and their range is limited. You can spot the mother boat on the radar and in fact see when it is posturing in a threatening manner. Usually what holds search and seizure operations back is the ROE. Corridors within key areas that posses higher levels of threat need to have alternative engagement rules. We know how to do all this already. We are really good at protecting the Persian gulf coast of Iraq. Also, the Canadians would probably actually be a good ally to help with this operation.
I am all for recruiting the locals. The pirate vessels usually just drive right over the fisherman close by the ports. So they would likely volunteer a lot of information that would be helpful.
Josh – I’m not sure that your post actually makes sense, unless you’re playing buzz-word bingo.
I’ve stared at more then a few radar screens, and I have no idea how to tell from the screen if a vessel is “posturing in a threatening manner.”
The Canadians are involved – HMCS Winnipeg is on station with NATO’s Maritime Group 1. So are six RN (British) frigates and a bunch of other ships.
The Iraqi coast is at best 1/100 of the size of the Somali coast, not considering that pirates are operating several hundred miles out to sea.
Obama seems to be more keen on cutting defense spending Since when is a 4% increase a cut?
> The problem is that piracy is the maritime equivalent of guerrilla warfare. Since the ships don’t run around flying the Jolly Roger, the only way to tell a pirate from a legitimate fishing boat is see it attack.
I’ve long wondered what would happen if a daring yachtsman hoisted the Jolly Roger when a USN carrier battle group sailed by. Sounds like the ultimate frat boy prank. Would that make him a pirate, legally speaking? Would the Navy be allowed to shoot on sight? Not that I think they’d do that, but maybe they’d arrest him and conficate/sink his boat to teach him a lesson.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Martin – Well, I was temped to go to General Quarters when I saw a shrimp boat sailing past us flying a Confederate flag the size of a bedsheet.
The fact that the ship was pierside in Pascagoula, MS dissuaded me.
In your hypothetical, I’d probably call him a smart-ass and see how close I could get my ship to his without actually hitting him. (4,000 ton frigates make a nice wake at speed.)
I think I’d get the last laugh in that scenario.
“Now, if the crews were trained on how to operate
a M-60 or a automatic grenade launcher, they”
You think training is the issue?
I could have a crew at a basic level of profiencicy with an M-60, a PKM or an FN-MAG along with a MK-19 in one day.
Training isn’t stopping this. A lack of will and legal prohibitions are stopping this. Gun control idiocy writ large.
IIRC the problem is not that it is illegal for sailors on merchant ships to carry arms on the high seas. They are allowed to do so, but many nations will then not allow a ship to enter port. I doubt this is checked very rigourously, but I think it’s in shipping companies best interest to comply with local rules.
“…and the frigates don’t have enough range to do worldwide escort of a giant freighter without a fueling ship or more fueling stops.”
Which is why the Navy has been interested in the ‘Polywell’ nuclear power concept. To give small ships the kind of range and speed that nuclear power makes possible.
Not that it would solve the piracy problem by itself (though, if possible and practical, it would be a form of nuclear power that could be used aboard and confer those same advantages to merchant ships as well) but it would give us even more options for dealing with it…
“The ‘brilliant bushites’ never had a ship hijacked on their watch, you ‘brilliant’ moron.”
Or the Clintonites, or the previous Bushites, or the Reaganites, or even the Carterites… In fact, you have to go all the way back to the Jeffersonians. Well, this really is a Presidency of Firsts.
Or the Clintonites, or the previous Bushites, or the Reaganites, or even the Carterites… In fact, you have to go all the way back to the Jeffersonians.
That depends on whether you count the Mayaguez and the Pueblo, Jim. Ford and Johnson, respectively.
Yeah, I’m sure he wants his picture up next to those two.
What is wrong with what Ford did?
He did exactly what he should have with regards to the Mayaguez.
“The “brilliant bushites” never had a ship hijacked on their watch, you “brilliant” moron.”
Lots of americans have been killed by pirates in the
carribean. It just didn’t make CNN.
Washington Culture is nothing less than amazing to watch as political factionism takes over unnecessary and unrealistic prominence in the nation.
America has surely been taken over by gangs of terrorists who operate as if they were no different than pre-colonial, pre-Constitutional America – by virtue of the fact that TV programs and TV News is still making reference to Ronald Reagan and Reaganites, though it’s much less common to hear of Clintonites, Bushites I, Bushites II, Kennedyites, or Eisenhowerites. More common are FDRites, Jeffersonianites, and the ilk.
What should concern everyone is the degree to which the ilk should or should not be benchmarks that form a foundation for political terrorism that is meant to coalesce inhabitants for political purposes, and the degree to which any of the former Presidents can, or should, form the foundation as mascots/typecasts for such organization – as an excuse for the division into political partisanship – and why all are not given equal credence in being offered in that manner.
Presuming that all Presidents are equal in status, if not in success, the distinction of political partisanship means that one President’s success may well be another President’s failure from the view of political direction. This may not be sufficient or adequate to carry as the banner of political prominence, and mature people need more than mere attempts to besmirch, degrade, smear one typecast over another if political earnest and seriousness is the key to political substance.
Allowing America to fall victim to little more than political ganglands does little to produce American progress, or keep America moving in a direction that may be considered vital by most of its citizenry.
Do Americans deserve to have leadership and political compadres who seek higher goals than to push, shove, and muscle their way through the nation like the grammar school backyard playgrounds that define who may be allowed to play, and who may not?
The Constitution claims they do deserve more; but few really embrace the spirit or the technical aspects of that document, sealed as it is within the glass case in Washington – to be used as the reason/excuse if not the purpose of our democracy.
Americans really deserve more, and better methods of defining what the nation is all about and who gets to play.