Please Freepmail me to be added to the Ollie North ping list.
Posted on 11/28/2008 8:24:28 AM PST by jazusamo
WASHINGTON -- Piracy has long been the consequence of disorder. America's first foreign war -- undeclared but authorized by Congress -- was waged by President Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. It is instructive history for those who believe that the problem of Somali piracy can be solved the same way.
By the late 1700s, the European powers were incapable of maintaining maritime law and order, and Islamic piracy became a flourishing enterprise in the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast of North Africa. Despite "tribute" payments to the "governments" in Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco by the British, French and new American governments, merchant mariners were at risk of being taken hostage for ransom and having their ships and cargoes sunk or stolen.
By the time of Jefferson's inauguration, in 1801, American ransoms and "tributes" amounted to more than $1 million per year -- nearly one-fifth of the U.S. budget. Jefferson pledged to end the payments and dispatched -- with congressional approval -- the nascent U.S. Navy to protect American-flagged merchant vessels and prosecute a naval campaign against the pasha of Tripoli. It almost worked.
In February 1804, U.S. Navy Lt. Stephen Decatur succeeded in boarding and destroying a captured U.S. combatant -- the USS Philadelphia -- and liberating surviving members of the ship's imprisoned crew. A year later, a small party of U.S. Marines and mercenaries led by U.S. Marine Lt. Presley O'Bannon conducted an intrepid overland expedition to assault Derna and force the surrender of the Tripolitan leader, Yussif Karamanli. The Mameluke sword he surrendered to O'Bannon is memorialized to this day in the dress swords worn by Marine officers and by the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the "Marines' Hymn." It seemed like a glorious victory for American arms. But it wasn't.
Though Jefferson had pledged "not 1 cent for tribute," the treaty ending what came to be called the "First Barbary War" provided $60,000 in ransom for the 300 or so American citizens being held by the defeated government. Jefferson and Congress acquiesced because of the value they placed on American lives. It was a precedent that I came to know well.
By 1984, Beirut, Lebanon, was the most lawless place on the planet. Organized terror cells and "freelance" criminal gangs routinely took Westerners hostage and held them for ransom. Those they couldn't "sell" were often killed. Then Hezbollah -- the radical Islamic terror group organized and operated by the theocratic government in Tehran, Iran -- began snatching Americans. There were no military options, and more than a dozen diplomatic initiatives failed to win the release of any of those being held.
Then in 1985, President Ronald Reagan -- at the behest of his chief of staff, Don Regan -- met personally with the families of Americans taken hostage in Beirut. After hearing directly from the anguished wives, children and other loved ones of those being held, we were ordered to "do what's necessary" to obtain their release. That meant paying ransom. And that's what we did, not directly to the hostage holders but to those who controlled Hezbollah: the Iranians.
Though the initiative resulted in the release of three of the hostages, it also reinforced the idea, begun in the 1700s, that Westerners in general -- and Americans in particular -- will pay ransom for their citizens. That lesson has been learned well by pirates armed with AK-47s and RPGs sailing from lawless, chaotic Somalia.
Thus far this year, there have been more than 300 attacks against merchant ships and commercial fishing vessels off the Somali coast. Sixty-five craft have been hijacked, and more than 300 crewmen have been taken hostage. Shipping companies and insurers are estimated to have paid out more than $40 million in ransoms for the release of ships' crews and cargoes, and insurance rates have reached more than $30,000 per day. NATO, the Indian navy, the Persian Gulf powers, Russia and the U.S. all have deployed combatants to the area. It hasn't worked. In fact, the piracy is getting worse. On Nov. 18, the same day an Indian naval frigate sank a pirate "mother ship," three other vessels were hijacked.
The U.N. Security Council has resolved to impose new sanctions on "those who support piracy." The European Union promises to dispatch a naval task force in December to the Gulf of Aden. Unless shippers and commercial fishermen agree to convoy their vessels, these measures are all but meaningless. Everyone knows that the only reasonable long-term solution to the piracy problem is re-establishing the rule of law in Somalia. And everyone -- including the pirates -- knows that's unlikely to happen for years. Advocates of using military force to "clean out the pirates' nests ashore" apparently have forgotten global media opprobrium over collateral damage and civilian casualties. Posting a battleship offshore might send the right message, but we don't have them anymore.
The only reasonable short-term solution is having well-armed security personnel on merchant ships plying these dangerous waters. Because there are insufficient numbers of these men in the armed forces of the nations involved, it will have to be "privatized." Insurers and shippers may not like it, and the global disarmament lobby may find the concept of armed "security contractors" offensive, but until pirates have to pay a terrible price for trying to seize a vessel at sea, they are unlikely to stop.
Please Freepmail me to be added to the Ollie North ping list.
The piracy case in Somalia is a perfect example of victim disarmament at sea. Most merchant ships are forbidden by their countries’ laws from having weapons on board (a ban which is enforced by rigorous inspections), which leaves a 20.000tn ship worth hundreds of million of dollars vulnerable to a pirate dinghy with a crew of five armed with AKs and RPGs worth a few hundred bucks. So do we allow owners to spend a few thousand dollars on weapons and private security on board? God forbid! No, much better to send a carrier group, or just nuke the high seas.
At present the war navies of India, Russia, Britain, the US, Malasya and a NATO taskforce are in the Gulf of Aden playing cat-and-mouse with a few Somali pirates. An EU fleet is on its way.
Spot on. We’ve been saying this here on FR since day one.
Correct and those countries had better rethink the policies on arming the merchant vessels, it’s not only an inexpensive solution but an effective one.
Q-ships: heavily armed merchant ships [used during WW I ] with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks. This gave Q-ships the chance to open fire and sink them. The basic ethos of every Q-ship was to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
bump
Playing cat and mouse at sea is an utter waste of time. The correct solution is very simple and time-tested:
[1] Attack and destroy every identified pirate vessel encountered at sea.
[2] Execute any captured individual convicted by trial of the crime of piracy.
[3] Attack and destroy without compunction all ports, maintenance facilities, residences, refuges, defenses, towns, villages, huts, lean-tos which are identified as containing or harboring pirates.
[4] The East India Company armed it merchant ships 250 years ago. There is no reason why a similar plan cannot be implemented today. Permit merchant carriers to carry means of effective self-defense - and I’m not talking about pepper spray. Blackwater Security style maritime security teams aboard merchant ships, armed with 20mm or 40mm auto-cannon sounds useful.
This is just as much a part of the war on terror as chasing Taleban in Afghanistan or Al Qaeda in Iraq.
NO QUARTER.
I believe that would stop piracy in it's tracks.
Thanks for the ping jaz. Oliver North is correct IMO. Most importantly is the necessity to NOT allow the Pirates to get alongside period. They have to be taken out prior to any boarding action to reduce potential crew, and security personnel casualties.
This means appropriately trained (preferably experienced) personnel with appropriate weaponry on board to cover the distance effectively.
I recall reading in the past that the contour of a vessels hull is of benefit to those boarding the vessel should they be allowed to get that close as from the deck one cannot target those closest to the waterline due that contour. Any determined Pirates could have craft posted off a distance to target those on deck attempting to repel the boarders accessing the vessel, thus the Pirates have to be taken out before reaching within that area alongside that is impossible to target.
Comments?
A few Claymore mines placed along the perimeter of the boat, able to be remotely detonated from the bridge, would solve that.
And for ships that are barred from going into port with weapons on board? Have a supply ship offshore. Buy stuff at sea after you leave port, and dump them in the ocean before you arrive at your next port.
I don’t know much about that, RQSR. It seems to me though that a trained team with 50 cal or 20 to 40mm cannon could blow pirates in small craft out of the water before the pirates could get close enough for their RPG’s and small cal weapons to be effective.
It seems I recall there was a contracted US Navy oiler attacked by pirates and the ship had a Navy security team with 50 cal, the pirate attack was repelled.
bttt
the problem of Somali piracy can be solved the same way
All the steps that you mention. But also, it is unconscionable that merchant ships cannot carry arms to defend themselves. Many crew could probably be tought to defend themselves, which would save a lot of money on paying for Blackwater type professionals to go along on every ship.
It was generally the case in the old days that pistols and cutlasses would be kept in an arms locker, to be taken out and distributed to the crew when needed. The captain or his delegate held the key to the locker. The idea was to prevent incidents if the crew got drunk or rowdy.
Speedboats are liable to come up without much warning, so trusted crew could carry arms near the danger areas, and they could be locked away whenever the ship went into a friendly harbor. Simple enough, sensible enough, and time tested. We are heading into hard economic times, and there’s no way that most shippers will be able to afford half a dozen extra highly paid guards on every ship. They could be added, maybe, in the danger areas if the owners chose to do so or the insurance companies insisted.
I fear as well that some of this apparent insanity concerning weapons on board vessels for self defense is caused by Insurance Company policy. I have read in the past that Insurers opinion is that an armed crew could cause the loss of a vessel during a conflict more readily than surrendering said vessel, thus it is less costly to pay a ransom in their opinion than to pay for the loss of the vessel and cargo.
Seems to be one of those cases where the crew is expendable versus the costs of a vessel and cargo, but then too if there were trained combatants on board successfully preventing Piracy attempts, the short term the Pirates would be inclined to find other occupations.
I would believe in the long term that would be a good thing.
Good Idea. I was in the Navy, as a sailor I am of the opinion that these pirates are not desperate people trying to make a living or some other such nonsense I have heard lately ( I now work for an English Dept at a state university)They are murderous animals and need to be treated as such. BTW first post on FR, been reading the boards for months now.
Some things are very basic, trouble starts when the lilly livered overedumated idjits start soapboxin'.
“It seems I recall there was a contracted US Navy oiler attacked by pirates and the ship had a Navy security team with 50 cal, the pirate attack was repelled.”
Yes I recall such an incident however the details aren’t in my recollection. Certainly must have been quality trained personnel appropriately armed.
As you describe appropriate training and arms are essential, and as I am saying appropriate priorities are essential as well. Get ‘em before they get into that safe zone alongside the hull. It would prevent them from mining the vessel hull as well. Seems to me these sorts of persons aren’t beyond destruction of the vessels, ransom or not as a means of attaining a goal.
Get ‘em before they can approach their target.
Uber-high-pressure radar-ranging remote controlled water cannons, etc., installed as "fire-fighting" safety equipment easily skirts regulations and effectively provides creative fun to use deterrents.
What captain could resist the thrill of simultaneously blasting all boarders at the right moment with many synchronized prefocused rockets of water.
Plus have a few focused on their little dingys.
All at one button computer control with no danger of i>"You'll shoot your eye out, kid"
Sounds like fun, but my interests would be in the line of eliminating the Pirates from the face of the Earth. Seems to me the vast number of opinions as to right and what is wrong lean towards leniency in various forms towards the rights of the perpetrators rather than to society whether that be Sovereign or International. Seems to me the more people on this Earth, the more opinions. More opinions lead to gridlock and indecision.
Facts are of purpose to be faced, not shunted or ignored, so with that in mind I believe in shoot first, ask questions later with these people. I don’t mean shoot with water cannon as that has the potential of making the targets future targets instead of eliminating them.
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.