So the victims of piracy are to blame for tempting the pirates to much? 

I've had some peripheral involvement with this issue at a number of level

 

1) my daughter has been involved with shipboard security for one of the worlds largest cruiseliner companies

2) I've been involved a few years back in sourcing people for shipboard security for some merchant shipping companies

3) have been involved with evaluating some of the non lethal equipment used for onboard protection

 

For whatever reason the blogger may have, I think they're oversimplifying the issue.

 

a) the cruiseliners that transit that loc are in the majority owned by american companies

b) there is an obligation by all navies to answer distress calls from any shipping in such circumstances - often it's prioritised on availability etc...  but it's also accepted that discretionary choice can't be made as it would set a precedent if one nation refused the call and then found that it's own vessels were at risk.  Cruiseliners = American majority.  Merchies = Chinese majority or (flags of comvenience if all added in as a single cohort)

 

the majority of smaller vessels will avoid that region like the plague as they can't outrun or they have low freeboard etc - so easy to board.

 

what will decide it in the end is a combination of insurance company attitude (as they are the ones who hav determined whether "specials" can be carried for cargo protection, or Governments who realise that indolence means tacit approval by absentia of intervention.

 

 no offence to western/euro/american sensitivities - but it will be interesting to see how benign the russians become, their prev behaviour when challenged seems to result in brutal response - and thats whats needed.

 

Either that, or someone needs to appreciate that hot pursuit and absolute destruction of the pirate infrastructure, and attacking them via the banking system, attacking the banking system of their sponsors etc.. will start to make change.

 

most of these pirate events are highly co-ordinated, eg they get the manifest details from ports of exit from "tame" port authorities or "tame" port personnel (a significant problem in the Malacca Straits).

 

so it's more than just an issue of "blowing up the bad guys".

 

target the finances

target the sponsors

allow hot pursuit

change the rules on insurance issues for carrying "specials" so that there is a coherent approach

co-operate between governments on a coherent approach

 

as much as the public spin might seem to indicate that the US is the only visible player ready to take on the "pirates" (thieves) - they're not

as I said before, this is a bit more complicated that portrayed in the usual sound bite responses...

 

I don't think that's the point.

 

I think the problem is that you have people who knew the risks involved and decided to disregard the warnings.  In that situation, they hardly have the moral authority to act like innocent lambs, especially if that attitude was motivated by greed or extreme incompetence.

To paraphrase former general and Secretary of State, "Everyone says the United States can't be the world's policemen, but who does everyone call whenever they need a cop?"  It's true that a lot of countries could be doing something about this piracy problem, but like usual.......why should they if the US Navy is in the area? 

 

Terry's "blame the victim" (somewhat) philosophy has some merit, much in the same way that many of us that don't live in New York can place a certain amount of blame on mugging victims who are in Times Square after ten p.m.  Pirates are criminals, and they have no legal right to board civilian ships to rape, murder, and steal in international waters.  Apparent attempts to treat this as a law enforcement matter have been a dismal failure.  On a couple of occasions navies in the Gulf of Aden have managed to arrest Somali pirates, only to be forced to release them because of the difficulties associated with prosecuting them in international courts.  Probably the best way to deal with captured pirates is to prosecute them under maritime law (i.e., hang them), but few Western countries have the stomach for this.  

 

An item on Strategy Page said that the Spanish were going to contribute to the campaign against piracy by sending a couple of P-3 Orions into the region (yawn).  If the Europeans were serious about fighting piracy in the Gulf of Aden they would announce that they were going to sink every pirate vessel it came in contact with, and then they would start doing it.  They could then follow that up by finding the pirates operating bases on the ground and attacking them as well (it's not like the Somali government can declare war on anyone).  As far as the Ukrainian vessel carrying all those tanks that was captured by Somali pirates, if I were Bush I would be halfway tempted to sink the damn thing and send it to the bottom of the gulf before the Russians get there and do it theirselves.  Hopefully it's insured. 

Thanks GF.

I heard about the one [American liner?], I think, that drove off pirates with a sonic gadget.  Is it widely in use?  Have there been any American Cruise liners that have been hijacked in recent years?

 

I understand it's obligation, and I the post seems to imply the same, but is it law?  If a Chinese merchant boat, for example, came under attack and an American Navy ship didn't respond, could the International Court send the Captain to jail?

 

I agree that this is an international concern, and that the US Navy isn't the only one involved.

 

However as to the "blogger", the post is from a forum thread that I linked to with the first reply, so I'm not sure if he has a blog.  In fact, it sounds like he's in the military (United States) because he's been talking about some war strategies in the first person.  He also doesn't think very highly of the "Europeans" and seems to include the British, the Canadians, the Danish, among others.

 

Is this a common view in the US Military?

Times Square is the safest place to be after 10PM.  I've got a friend who works for an accounting firm that's two blocks away.

As for the Russians, the "blogger" or whatever thinks that the Russians like the "Europeans" are sending a ship to do something without actually doing anything.  If that makes sense.  Me?  I have no idea.

The USN is the big dog though

 

 

 

Aust = Australian?

 

And did you mean "But, IMO, any line that just looks at military intervention as the principal opportunity solution would seem to me to indicate that it's [NOT] well thought out.

 

Yes, it does seem to be bad form to be bludgeoning another service but this is probably inevitable.  There are fanboys everywhere.  In regards to the "21 cent reincarnation of a modern day mongol warlord", I'm not sure if you mean the poster "BigStick" or "rykehaven" or both.  The former is arguing for military intervention, while the latter is arguing for leaving the situation alone.  Or something.  I kind of agree with rykehaven's take:

 

[blockquote]"Something" is already being done and the US Navy doesn't have to do anything further. The piracy "problem" is being "managed".

It is the sentiment to "eradicate" Somalian piracy that is misplaced.[/blockquote]

.....except he's the one who's being unprofessional and trashing the allies the most.  BigStick is an advocate for our allies, but he doesn't seem to have as much technical knowledge as rykehaven.  Unless rykehaven's tehcnical knowledge is wrong, of course.  I don't have alot of understanding in these affairs so I was wondering if the people here could give a few of his ramblings the smell test.  Even if you could give me a little background, it would help because, as I said, I'm a complete newb in military affairs:

 

 

 

He makes it sound like the US Army is the only one fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan when alot of the allies are fighting and dying.  As for the rest, is he making this up as he goes along?  On second blush he does sound like a 21st century Mongol Warlord.  If a Mongol wrote English.

 

 

Aust = Australian?

 

And did you mean "But, IMO, any line that just looks at military intervention as the principal opportunity solution would seem to me to indicate that it's [NOT] well thought out.

 

Yes, it does seem to be bad form to be bludgeoning another service but this is probably inevitable.  There are fanboys everywhere.  In regards to the "21 cent reincarnation of a modern day mongol warlord", I'm not sure if you mean the poster "BigStick" or "rykehaven" or both.  The former is arguing for military intervention, while the latter is arguing for leaving the situation alone.  Or something.  I kind of agree with rykehaven's take:

 

[blockquote]"Something" is already being done and the US Navy doesn't have to do anything further. The piracy "problem" is being "managed".

It is the sentiment to "eradicate" Somalian piracy that is misplaced.[/blockquote]

.....except he's the one who's being unprofessional and trashing the allies the most.  BigStick is an advocate for our allies, but he doesn't seem to have as much technical knowledge as rykehaven.  Unless rykehaven's tehcnical knowledge is wrong, of course.  I don't have alot of understanding in these affairs so I was wondering if the people here could give a few of his ramblings the smell test.  Even if you could give me a little background, it would help because, as I said, I'm a complete newb in military affairs:

 

 

 

He makes it sound like the US Army is the only one fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan when alot of the allies are fighting and dying.  As for the rest, is he making this up as he goes along?  On second blush he does sound like a 21st century Mongol Warlord.  If a Mongol wrote English.

aust = australian = true.

 

actually, I'd probably agree with 95% of what he's saying.  some of it is a bit "empirical" so wouldn't win friends etc... but there is a strong body of truth in it.

 

re VBSS, I'd concur that the US is the most experienced en masse at it, and in the open market, the preference is usually for ex USN or USCG with VBSS skills (as there are lots in ratio available compared to other countries).  Others do it, but they don't have the same saturated experience that the US has across various areas.  However, some of the major private martitime security companies prefer Royal Navy/Marines etc....  There is company operating that only employs ex Gurkhas.  Team Leaders are ex RM's.  That's because the clientele 1) see the ghurkas as "no-nonsense" and 2) have a cultural diplomatic "match" with UK Forces historically.  US operators are seen as comparatively culturally "insensitive" in comparison.  That may be a tad generalising and unfair, but the regional market dicates in the end. (not meant to generate a "barb" but just to show views differ on the other side)  Eg at a service level I'd argue that Aust army is generally operationally more sympathetic with the USMC than the US army etc....  It's "horses for courses"

 

5th Fleet is a functional area - so skimmers are assigned to the Fleet per se.  They can and do end up in other Fleets (although typically a TF) as the politics and op requirement decrees.

 

I/m not so sure I'd be hanging so much schitt on the poms and canucks.  Culturally they're different, ditto for Australians and Americans.  we might speak a familiar language - but there are cultural differences.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the cultural differences influence combat capability (certainly not wrt canadians and poms by a long shot)  Similarly hanging crap on the danes (who are a country with half the population of New York) is a bit rich.

 

Everyone brings to the party what their politicians say they can.