Posted on 03/22/2006 8:43:33 AM PST by robowombat
U.S. Navy Ships Return Fire on Suspected Pirates
Navy NewsStand
Story Number: NNS060318-01 Release Date: 3/18/2006 12:18:00 PM
From U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
ABOARD USS CAPE ST. GEORGE, At sea (NNS) -- USS Cape St. George (CG 71) and USS Gonzalez (DDG 66) returned fire on a group of suspected pirates in the Indian Ocean, killing one and wounding five, approximately 25 nautical miles off the central eastern coast of Somalia in international waters at 5:40 a.m. local time, March 18.
Cape St. George, a guided-missile cruiser, and Gonzalez, a guided-missile destroyer, were conducting maritime security operations in the area as part of Combined Task Force 150, a maritime coalition task force currently led by Royal Netherlands Navy Commodore Hank Ort, when they spotted a suspect vessel towing two smaller skiffs heading west toward the coast. As Gonzalezs boarding teams prepared to conduct a routine boarding of the suspect vessel, the two Norfolk, Va.-based Navy ships noticed the group of suspected pirates were brandishing what appeared to be rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launchers.
The suspected pirates then opened fire on the Navy ships. Cape St. George and Gonzalez returned fire with small arms in self-defense.
One suspected pirate was killed and a fire ignited aboard the main suspect vessel. Boarding teams from Cape St. George and Gonzalez took twelve other suspects into custody, including the five injured. The Navy boarding teams also confiscated an RPG launcher and automatic weapons. No U.S. Sailors were injured in the engagement.
The Navy ships are providing medical treatment to the wounded suspects, continuing search and rescue efforts for any additional suspects and collecting further evidence from the vessel and skiffs. Royal Netherlands Navy medical personnel, including a medical doctor, are en route to assist from HNLMS Amsterdam.
Coalition forces conduct maritime security operations under international maritime conventions to ensure security and safety in international waters so that all commercial shipping can operate freely while transiting the region.
On March 15, the United Nations Security Council encouraged naval forces operating off the coast of Somalia to be vigilant and take action against piracy. Pirate attacks against aid ships have hindered UN efforts to provide relief to the victims of a severe drought in the area.
We'll just rename this area of the Indian ocean off Sudan to be the "Gulf of Tonkin".
I think if the pirate ship was large enough, I'd go for the torpedos (that would be real shock and awe!), but otherwise the 5" and the 25mm Bushmaster. (Same gun used on the Bradely fighting vehicles by the Army).
"Cape St. George, a guided-missile cruiser, and Gonzalez, a guided-missile destroyer, were conducting maritime security operations in the area as part of Combined Task Force 150, a maritime coalition task force currently led by Royal Netherlands Navy Commodore Hank Ort..."
Did anyone miss the fact that our United States Navy was operating under the command of a foreign government? Who authorized this?
Happens all the time in Colorado Springs. A Canadian general is in command of NORAD from time to time. In fact, I believe this was the case on 9-11.
The U.S. isn't always in charge in coalition arrangements.
It's a NATO task force, and it has a rotating command. Like all military task forces, our commanders have the treaty-bound right to refuse participation in any order or exercise that contravenes the will or laws of the United States. It's really not a big deal.
If it's not a big deal, why have people complained about US ground troops being assigned to a UN contingent in Europe during Clinton's term?
I just happen to think our Constitution states that our troops, ground, air or naval, should answer to our President and only our President, not some officer or leader of another country.
That's the difference between the UN and these NATO arrangements. In the UN deals, our soldiers are wearing blue helmets and are taking orders directly from foreign commanders. In these coalition deals, American soldiers are taking orders only from American commanders, and those commanders are participating with a group of other nations soldiers. It's not "under the command", it's "working alongside". Big difference.
The leader in charge of the task force is simply deciding the best course of action for the task force to take to accomplish its goals. If the US commanders don't want to participate in one of those actions, they can leave or bow out at any point they want. The coalition commander is basically saying "I think group x should go here, and group Y should go here". He's not giving orders, just direction to the group.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.