Is civilian recklessness partially to blame for Somali Piracy?

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Is civilian recklessness partially to blame for Somali Piracy?
Terry 10/3/2008 3:21:11 PM

The Somali government, along with some foreigners, have been a little up in arms about what the "powers-that-be" should do to fight piracy in places like Africa. They were complaining about the "failure" to fight piracy. There isn't alot of ambiguity to whom they were trying to pointing their fingers at. Part of it me got to thinking: "What should we do?" at first. Then I found this post while searching for news on Somali piracy in forums and blogs. Now I think: "Who are these snotty characters to demand that we fix their backyards"? http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112673&start=80 [quote]When I say "track every square mile", I'm referring to a technical matter of DTE (detect-to-engage) or in the most appropos scenario, detect to prosecute. I am NOT referring to ROE's if that's what you mean by "aggressive patrolling". While the US Navy (by US CUSTOM, more than some self-proclaimed UN statute of "international law") aids wayward seafarers, it is under NO obligation to abandon its primary missions to help foreign-flagged vessels under duress. In many cases, it can just pass along the distress call and call it even. Whether it does so or not is up to the Captain. Period. To think otherwise is presumtuous grandstanding. As far as shipping lanes go, the US Navy, believe it or not, is under NO obligations to keep every other foreign country's shipping safe, ESPECIALLY when they take unnecessary risks. Perhaps I should repeat that: The ships getting caught by Somali pirates are KNOWINGLY taking UNNECESSARY risks and expecting others (like the US Navy and ransom payments and insurance) to bail them out of situations brought on by their own stupidity! Let me explain: The busiest artery for merchant mariners from the Gluf of Aden, heading EAST, runs to the Straits of Hormuz and the Palk Strait. That "lane" is fairly well patrolled because the US Navy typically uses it whenever there is turnover in the Persian Gulf, the Mediteranean or the Western Pacific and SE Asian deployments. Fifth Fleet EXISTS to watch this particular lane. The other major artery from the Gulf of Aden, however, runs SOUTH towards the Mozambique channel. The most DIRECT route to the channel traverses the Somali coastline and, for this reason, the US Navy has WARNED merchant vessels and other civilians to circumvent the coastline outside the supposed Somali EEZ. It may take an extra 18-30 hours of steaming, extra operating expenditures like crew pay and gas, but you'll get to your destination more safely. Do they listen?! That depends on who you're talking to. Some civilians and yachters are clueless and don't know how to read maritime warnings. Some merchant masters are greedy and don't want to spend the extra dough. Some merchant sailors are impatient and want to go ashore and find some women. And SOME people are just plain STUPID. It would alleviate some frustration for people like me if they didn't ENABLE this behaviour by forcing the US Navy to have to spend precious time on IDIOTS who are better left alone to collect their Darwin awards! We're like the world's version of the US Coast Guard that has to save thrill-seekers every time they get their asses in trouble by wind-surfing during a tropical storm![/quote] There are some "task forces" apparently to fight piracy, but he describes them as, I guess, side-shows outside the "primary mission" for ships within a "geographic region". I don't really understand the concept of "Fifth Fleet" as a "geographic region". Is this true? Any explainations?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Terry 10/5/2008 4:25:33 AM

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.

Most professionals I deal with are not inclined to publicly wail upon other Navies, not matter what their private views might be. Personal opinion is a dangerous cudgel as it invites a whole pile of other bits and pieces into the mix. In fact, I'd contend that if you got any sailor from any navy drunk and loud they'd hook into the professionalism of of other navies - incl the USN. I guess I tend to turn off when people slag off at other navies as I regard it as poor form in the first place, and bad manners to boot. :)

On the issue of first person stories, theres a good example in here of a poster who seem to periodically think that they're a 21st Cent reincarnation of a modern day mongol warlord. I'd say that the overall judgement on the legitimacy of their personal claim to fame is probably a bit different.

Is this a common view in the US Military?

NFI. Am not american. But, for an IMHO, see above Para1. The USN are the big dog, and when you're the big dog
you will cop it from others anyway. But, IMO, any line that just looks at
military intervention as the principal opportunity solution would seem to me to indicate that
it's well thought out. Again, all my exposure to USN operators are
that they are big picture people - and they understand that visiting
violence on an enemy is but an element of an overall solution.

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:

Question: Do you know what the operational meaning of a "task force" actually looks like?

Answer: it's just like the term "Fifth Fleet". Fifth Fleet actually doesn't comprise any specific ships. It comprises a PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHIC REGION. For example, the USS Howard is CURRENTLY a part of the 5th Fleet. However, the minute

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/5/2008 4:55:11 AM

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.

Quote Reply

1 2