Under no circumstances should the U.S. taxpayer be paying for the defense of maritime shipping vessels owned by companies that adamantly refuse to register their ships under U.S. flags to avoid paying taxes in the U.S. and meeting our maritime regulations for shipping.
If Maersk wants to operate vessels in international waters that are registered in Panama and staffed by Indonesian crews, then let the company pay the Danish government to protect their ships.
There are two great ironies that have come out of this idiocy:
1. The U.S. has no legal or diplomatic justification for protecting foreign vessels in international waters, as we are one of the only nations in the world that has not ratified the current United Nations "open seas" treaty. That means our naval efforts in international water should only involve the protection of our own military and commercial interests.
2. It's comical to see so many of the Freepers who are praising the Trump tariffs on imports from foreign countries are the same ones clamoring for the U.S. taxpayer to pay the cost of protecting the foreign ships that are transporting all the cheap crap here to the U.S. I have a better idea. If the purpose of the tariffs is to protect U.S. industries, then instead of (or in addition to) imposing tariffs on foreign goods, why not just tell these foreign manufacturers that their cargo is only going to be protected by the U.S. Navy if it is being transported in U.S.-flagged ships?
You have a point, but the point also is that our ships DID come under attack.
And what of the 10 US flagged ships listed in post 62? Or the many US Navy ships that were fired on. Are those not reason enough to take decisive action against those who attack us?
Obviously, we should expect Europe to chip in on this effort, and the leaked Signal chat implied that we are seeking just that.