Update: CNN reports that Captain Phillips jumped overboard from the lifeboat where he was being held (see Update 2 note below), and US Navy SEALs shot and killed three of his four captors, according to a senior US official with knowledge of the situation. The fourth pirate was aboard the USS Bainbridge negotiating with officials and was taken into custody.
Update 2: a second overboard adventure is not a part of the current final rescue story, not to be confused with his brief dip earlier in the saga. Safe home, Capt Phillips. Nice shooting, USN. Let's all stay tuned to see what kind of a game changer this becomes in GoA piracy.
Comments
Ken: Wise to disagree. I thought of lots of other things and we could go round and round but everybody else would get bored.
I think the piracy may get big league though, sooner rather than later.
But there is another point I think it important to raise. That is-the pirates are criminals, crooks, hoods etc first and foremost. This seems an obvious point but I think people need to think about it when they try to figure out how to deal with these guys. Crooks want what they want and they want it now. They get mad at you if you don't give it to them now. They don't care for the opinion of their neighbors or they wouldn't be crooks. They won't be motivated by public opinion.
The only thing that motivates them is fear of superior force. You frighten them into submission or you physically force them into submission. Very primitive but that is the only thing that works.
That is why I am so skeptical of anything less than extremely stern against the Somali pirates. They aren't going to stop unless they are forced to or frightened into stopping, and being Somalis, that will take some doing. It is sort of like having a mugger who frequents the park. The cops have to go in and get him or he will never stop.
A complicating factor in this case may be that you are dealing with criminal communities, whole towns. That is just a guess on my part. The principle would still apply.
No prob Carl, no insult to me -- I just get defensive about the kids who are more than willing to do more than their share. Obviously, you and I share opinions about the suits...
I can counter your counter...
Not least by pointing out that you're correct about the theft of other boats -- which will in turn anger the real owner and eventually, the neighbors will get hacked off at their boats being destroyed and will tell the young men to chill. That is the only way you're going to stop it.
Assaults even if you could keep them all at sea (which I doubt -- the counter to that is get them near shore ASAP) will just escalate and there are going to be a lot of bodies, not least the more or less innocent merchant crews. Violence against people begets violence; violence against things just hacks people off and that's the idea -- get the elders angry and they'll put a halt to it because the damage being done to them is not compensated for by the money coming to them.
In any event, we can disagree on boats as targets.
I'd also suggest that particular Piracy is not yet big league, not as bad as that in the Straits of Malacca so far -- it appears big because it fills slow news days but the ship and cargo owners are not complaining too terribly loudly --yet. Yeah, we have an interest in the cessation of the problem but it is not vital and there are many other nations who have far greater interests at stake.
Ken: I apologize profusely for the clumsy use of the phrase "Oprah generation" and any insult it may have caused. Of course anybody who has chosen to serve would be "up to it." What I should have said is the suits inside the beltway and in European capitols may not be up to it.
Still must disagree about bombing the boats. The pirates are criminals and if they lost their boat, they would steal one from their honest neighbor (if there is one to be found) and so on. Boats can always be had. One counter measure I would use against your course of action would be to always have one of the kids staying on board.
My idea would be to re-take the ships before they got close to the coast and possibly transferred the hostage crew ashore. Once the crews are transferred ashore it getting them back becomes more complicated. The ship can't be transferred ashore however and if the hostage crew isn't aboard re-taking it gets easier. If they are still aboard, the problem hasn't changed.
I think if you concentrated what ships you had near towns the pirates have used or are likely to use, it would be very difficult for them to get there without being intercepted first.
In any event I don't see the need for any kind of land campaign.
The tragedy of this problem is there is no bloodless way out of it. The only cost of doing business a Somali criminal is likely to pay attention to is the certainty of his demise. And no matter how much developmental aid we promised that would still involve the criminal having to work at a job that wouldn't be nearly as much fun or pay as well as being a pirate.
Added information.
Check this <a href=http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=101065261274254…; LINK</a>
A weeks work for a carrier and perhaps 40 plus sorties; several weeks -- months? years? -- for a troop commitment.
Thanks to Tim Blair for the link.
A bunch is not too many and all would not need to be destroyed. in fact, to keep the visual trail clear for the world opinion process, you'd need to be be very sure not to target those that were not a perfect match for attack photos and targeting photos. So all should not even be considered, just some from former attacks and, after implementation, say hopefully half of those involved.
One of their counters would be decoys / false naming to get an unwarranted hit but we should be able to preclude too many of those.
Yes, they are also fishing and other commerce boats but that would be part of the cost to them.
Speaking of costs, Carl says "<i>Our forces know how to retake ships. The SEALS, Special Boat Service, Marines, Coast Guard etc practice that all the time. There are no material obstacles."</i> but does not mention the costs to the US from the fact that practice is great, been there and done that -- also found out when the bad guys shoot back with real bullets as opposed to blanks, people get killed. Most of the ships attacked are not ours. There is no great US interest at stake so I doubt the Congress will go along with it (though I've often been wrong on how dumb they might be...) but even if they do, will most Americans sign up for it. I suspect many that are this ignorant might <a href=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-12/the-pirates-a…; (LINK)</a> but I don't think most would. Those ships generally will get to shore and tie up or anchor -- so you're not taking on the ship, you're going to get sucked into a land fight in a place you do not want to do that unless you have no alternative -- and we have many alternatives. Playing to their strength as you advocate is not a good alternative IMO. It's okay to do that when necessary -- but this isn't necessary...
That said, this:<blockquote>"These are Somalis we are dealing with. As Tom Odom mentioned in one of his books, they require rules of engagement of a sterner nature. I wonder of the Oprah generation is up to it."</blockquote>The answer is the generation is up to it -- they are proving that around the world on a daily basis. The Baby Boomers in charge, however, are the ones not up to it -- and they're all around the world.
I belong to neither of those generations but having a Oprah gen kid with three deployments for valid reasons if poor strategery, I prefer not to see him deploy on one that would be an exercise in even poorer strategery. He really doesn't need another Purple Heart -- if that's okay...
As for this:<blockquote>"Was the piracy a coincidence, or an attempt to forestall a US coup in Kenya? "</blockquote>I doubt it was successful in the forestalling, the "cargo" in those containers got through. Former VP Cheney loves it when a plan comes together...
<I>"Over the weekend... the USS Halyburton, a guided-missile frigate, joined the Bainbridge in the vicinity of the lifeboat."</I> - via <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123953580718311447.html">WSJ</a>
Is Dick Cheney in on it, too? The plot thickens!
The Maersk shipping line has a lot of US Defense Department contracts; Is that why the cargo was on the more-expensive US-flagged ship? Or was it US foreign aid?
The cargo was going to Kenya, where the US is "intervening" to institute reforms. The current Prime Minister claims to be Obama's cousin. Well, Obama's family is from Kenya and they are from the same tribe as the Prime Minister.
Was the piracy a coincidence, or an attempt to forestall a US coup in Kenya?
And <b>What Was on the Ship?</b>
See <a href="http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1144011271&cid=4&ttl=Obama%…;
and <a href="http://www.afriquejet.com/news/africa-news/us-to-intercede-in-kenyan-re…, too.</a>
I don't think tageting the boats will work. There are too many of them, of indistict character and they are fishing boats one day, pirate ships the second and back to fishing boats on the third.
What would work I think is a policy to retake hi-jacked ships. They would be easy to find. They announce themselves in order to ask for ransom or by heading for the Somali coast. It would be economical of forces, you would just concentrate on a handful of ships. Our forces know how to retake ships. The SEALS, Special Boat Service, Marines, Coast Guard etc practice that all the time. There are no material obstacles.
The policy could be announced and it would be stressed that if the merhant crews were harmed, the pirates would feel the full force of the law. They would die. Previous posts have mentioned that laws now exist that would enable us to do this. If not, Congress could pass one.
After 2-3 ships were retaken, the Somalis would get the idea that we mean what we say. The hard part is accepting the risk this course of action would pose to the merchant crews. There is no way around this, if we are serious about ending the piracy. This is somewhat akin to dealing with kidnapping. If you want to end kidnapping in the future, you refuse to pay ransom now.
These are Somalis we are dealing with. As Tom Odom mentioned in one of his books, they require rules of engagement of a sterner nature. I wonder of the Oprah generation is up to it.
Boats. Destroy the boats and ships used in attacks. They can be identified by satellite or other photography and destroyed <i>when not occupied</i> by gunfire, with small missiles -- even the JASSM is cheaper than the ransoms -- or JDAM. Hitting them when unoccupied will not arouse the peaceniks of the world.
Unless their cost of doing their business is raised, they will not stop. Firearms on Merchant ships would not be a good way to proceed even if all nations agreed to do so -- which they will not. A land campaign will be costly against people who are even less 'civilized' than the Afghans are supposed to be; they are not going to be bribed and we've just hacked them off by killing three; the Navies of the world cannot do this forever and are only about 40% effective in any event.
The area is without resources (thus far -- there may be some but it's been too lawless for much exploration) and offers little incentive to any nation to try to 'fix.' It is NOT up to us to fix it -- but we can lead an effort to do so and a publicized, weeks in advance of the first strike, boat destruction rampage aimed at a large number of those craft identified in earlier attacks followed by a rapid attack of those in later attacks as they occur.
They will of course, write that off as a cost of doing business and develop a counter, not least one time boats -- but that would be unsustainable and we should be able to counter their other counters...
Realizing in all that anything is going to be only a 90% (hopefully) solution; that area is too prolific and too poor to 'fix.'
However, something needs to done and we should play to our strengths; ISR and precision attack capability and not theirs -- scuffles on the periphery, no holds barred.
Clobber the boats and ships positively identified as engaging in attacks, publicize the before and after pictures widely to include leaflet drops. It will take a few months for the non-pirates to convince the young men there's a better way so promise developmental aid after six months or a year of no attacks with cessation of that aid if they resume.
One should never forget that "warfare" is part of IW. Population engagement is necessary, but you also need to be prepared (and willing) to pull that trigger when it's needed. And this certainly seemed to be the time for it, no matter what the naval construction policy wrangling might be.
Now we'll see if risk aversion and political correctness will take hold in light of the "threats" made by the pirates, not to mention the inevitable legalese brought on by the involvement of the FBI.