Gleaning Intent of the Somali Pirates

27th

Gleaning Intent of the Somali Pirates

August 2009

During and after the dramatic Easter Sunday rescue of Captain Phillips (a heahty Vahmontah!) of Maersk Alabama, there was considerable discussion here and at other venues regarding whether or not the actions of the US Navy SEALs in popping the three pirates would do more harm than good. There was fear that this would somehow “escalate the violence”. That somehow, despite binding and gagging their prisoners and threatening them with the ubiquitous AK-47s, the pirates didn’t really have evil intent.

Now, this from the Associated Press:

*********************************************************

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Somali pirates holding a hijacked ship off the coast of Somalia fired at a U.S. Navy helicopter as it made a surveillance flight over the vessel, the first such attack by pirates on an American military aircraft, the Navy said Thursday.

The helicopter, which is based on the USS Chancellorsville, was not hit and there were no injuries, the Navy said.

The copter was flying on Wednesday over a Taiwanese-flagged fishing vessel, the Win Far, which pirates seized along with its 30-member crew in April and were holding south of the Somali port town of Hobyo.

The helicopter was about 3,000 yards away from the ship when the pirates opened fire with “a large caliber weapon,” the Navy said in a statement. The helicopter did not return fire, it said.

Since seizing the Win Far in the Gulf of Aden, the pirates have used the vessel as a base for attacking other commercial ships, including the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama. Four pirates seized the Maersk Alabama in April, taking its captain Richard Phillips hostage. He was held for five days in a sweltering lifeboat off the coast until U.S. Navy snipers shot three of his captors dead.

************************************************************

I wonder if the helicopter pilots would agree with the rather silly and naive assertions that the pirates really mean no harm, and are just trying to provide for their families. Let’s hope this is an argument-ender for such nonsense. Appeasement of bullies does nothing but make the problem worse, the bullies bolder.

We need to get it through our heads that sometimes, some people need to be killed. A pirate on the deck of a rogue ship banging away at a Navy helo with a heavy machine gun fits nicely into that category.

Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Foreign Policy, Maritime Security, Navy

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Grandpa Bluewater

Besides, I think a cutlass between the teeth frees both hands for swinging from mast (own) to mast (opponent’s) as well as adding a measure of panache and style. What say the rest of you sea dogs?
UltimaRatioReg

I plan to use “avast ye” and “stow the mizzen” in conversation tomorrow at work. Maybe at the staff meeting.
pk

urr

it won’t help.

years ago i took my stuff to a scheduling conference in a Star Trek notebook labeled something like “UPS 1700-1724 class warp speed engine specifications”

they didn’t even notice.

C
Byron

URR, you utter the words “avast ye” and “stow the mizzen”, and your Marine tongue will fall off. It’s in the OCS programing you don’t remember

Grampa, don’t forget the dirk in waistband!
Grandpa Bluewater

Byron

I was always one of the “dirk in one sea boot and pistol in the other” school of melee boarding theory (as a holdout, you know, in case the enemy has a fire arm or has superior skill with edged weapons)

URR: Avast means simply “stop”. “Avast heaving” means, for example, stop turning the windlass to bring in the anchor and chain, or stop turning the capstan. Interestingly, on the great lakes, the appropriate terminology for avast heaving is “hang on” (?!).

“Stow” means “store or put away properly” so the motion of the ocean (be it yaw, pitch, roll, heave, sway, or surge), or (in a submarine) the longitudinal angle of the ship with reference to the horizonal – aka the bubble, does not unstow the item at the least convenient time.

Mizzen refers to the after mast on a three masted ship (fore, main, mizzen) and more frequently is used as an adjective than a noun. The immediate response to “stow the mizzen” could be “what?”, absent ship unique considerations. “Secure the mizzen” would most likely be interpreted as “using associated running rigging, take action to ensure nothing on the mizzen mast can fall or change position unexpectedly, by taking appropriate slack out of all mizzen lines and securing them to the appropriate fixture (cleat, belaying pin etc.). More exact verbiage exists and would be the standard command, application may vary from ship to ship.

Nautical terminology in the english language is a sort of verbal short hand based on a lot of old english and old norse words. This is why an american shiphandler can understand much of what the Norwegian pilot is saying to the tug masters when mooring in Norway.

I just wanted to encourage your new found fascination with nautical terminology, by giving a few easy examples.
UltimaRatioReg

Grampa,

Thanks for the lesson I know what the words mean. And they may make no sense at all when I say them, but in a staff meeting comprised of public health folks, they will both sound cool (especially if I lead off with a hearty ‘Arrrrggh’) and nobody will know what the he** they mean.

I may get fired, I may get a laugh… I’ll let ya know!
Grandpa Bluewater

Tell em that the loblolly boy needs to lay up from the orlop and post the binnacle list in time for 12 oclock reports, then ask em what you just said.
REM

Obviously I’ve gotten increasingly frustrated in this thread, so I’m not going to carry on banging my head against the wall and addressing this point by point. To be fair, I think we’ve been largely talking past each other here.

It seemed to me that the argument you were making, URR, is that the pirates and Al Shabaab are essentially the same guys, therefore their primary interest/motivation is cutting off heads/establishing sharia/being generally bad guys in the name of Allah. My issue with that argument is that if we paint them all with the same broad brush just because they happen to be Muslims and therefore misidentify their motivation – e.g. say they’re interested in cutting off heads when really they’re just interested in cashing checks – our response risks being based on a false premise.

To be honest, I’m not even arguing that piracy shouldn’t be met with deadly force. Your original post and a few of the subsequent comments stuck in my craw a bit and we got sidelined. I’m definitely not arguing that AQ might be linked to Al Shabaab – a lot of serious people who would know suggest that might be true – or that nary a cent of pirate profits goes to Al Shabaab – as you mentioned, there’s always protection money.

Anyway, I’m afraid I’ve come off sounding a bit unreasonable in this thread as I demand to know what’s not to like about apples as you’re telling me how much you hate oranges. Maybe next time we can argue more constructively.
UltimaRatioReg

REM,

“It seemed to me that the argument you were making, URR, is that the pirates and Al Shabaab are essentially the same guys”

Nope. In fact, I have stated several times to the contrary. But the danger identified is that when Al Shabaab and AQ begin to exercise influence over operations, the pirates’ (and AQ’s) potential and capabilities increase exponentially. Hence the Ahab quote “be he agent or be he principle”. At that point, it doesn’t matter. You have a much bigger piracy problem, a much bigger smuggling problem, and an exponentially-bigger port security problem.

The pirates themselves may not care about global jihad. They might not even be literate. But those pulling the strings do. And if they are increasingly calling the shots and raking in a good portion of the ransom money, that is a very dangerous situation.

The original point of the post was that, despite the killings and kidnappings, many comments in the press and here have maintained that the pirates mean no real harm. And the US Navy has escalated the level of violence by defending American shipping. As if now the pirates have a ready-made excuse for more bloodshed. Such a viewpoint reeks of appeasing the bully in the hopes he will go away. If there is anything that has failed more consistently than collective security in the last century and a half, it is that very premise.
Aubrey

Frankly it doesn’t matter WHY someone engages in piracy, their own action should determine the result. The only response to piracy that has worked throughout recorded history is military action to both eradicate the pirates taking part in the actions and to deprive them of their base of operations. I’m not suggesting you need to copy Julius Casesar and destroy an entire pirate village, but as far as I know both tradition and maritime allow for the fact that if you come over the side of my ship as a pirate, you get shot. Quid pro quo.

Put another way – I don’t care if the guy robbing my house had a hard childhood, is an addict and just needs “some help to get him through”. He still gets to stare down the business end of a 9mm.
Aubrey

err, make that “maritime law” above
Derrick

I’m just concerned that whatever armament is provided the merchant vessels, the pirates will always have better.

That’s why I’d still prefer to have an US Navy carrier strike force nearby Somalia, running constant air patrols. That way if a merchant ship is attacked by pirates or if a patrol aircraft spots a pirate, the carrier can launch some helicopter gunships or jets that will have much more firepower than the pirates will ever be able to muster.

I’m just afraid that if civilian ships are armed, be it with a naval detachment or a civilian security force, it may incite the pirates to shoot first, as opposed to allowing them the opportunity to surrendur without loss of innocent life.
Grandpa Bluewater

Derrick

The armed guard dets outgun the pirates. Put your mind at ease.

It’s not the 6 pistols, two shotguns, three rifles always locked up, never practice, cluster that a shipping executive thinks of(OOoo, guns, icky, scary, mustn’t touch, might get hurt). The name of the rating is Master at Arms. There is a reason for that.

If hiring civilians, hire Ghurkas. Nice guys. Run about 5’4″, stocky, big smile, tough as an old boot. If I need a body guard, Sgt Garung will do nicely. Don’t take my word for it. Ask a Brit.

Escort of convoy combined with armed guard dets would be better. But every thing must be done on the cheap for the next few years, we all know why.

Not enough bird farms left to “run constant air patrols”. Ocean too big, planes too few, take too long to get there, what are they going to do when they do? Expensive beyond belief.
Pingback: Maritime Monday 177
Derrick

Here is a news story of a successful capture of 2 Somali pirates by European Union naval forces:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091004/world/somalia_piracy_shipping_spain

I see the point of having armed guards on merchant vessels as a cheap way to deter the pirates, but would like to know a 800 lb gorilla (ie carrier strike force) is nearby in case backup is required.
Grandpa Bluewater

Derrick:

Everybody wants a bird farm at their beck and call. Nobody wants to pay the taxes to have nearly enough of them for that to happen one time out of a hundred (thousand, pick a number…).

Would you like to pay the bill for a CVBG (aka carrier task force)to loiter within range on a heel and toe basis? Lousy mileage, huge overhead. The hotel service costs alone would break a Hilton heir.

This is work for frigates and corvettes, minimally adequate but competent small escort vessels. “Cheap” (comparatively, given good shipbuilding and repair ED’s, which is by no means a given, alas) little maids of all work. Not glamour girls. Much less one of the Queens of the Sea(s).

Unfortunately, we have something of a shortage. “Failure to plan is planning to fail” proved a better maxim than “we have reached the end of history”

“The Gods of the Copybook Headings” (Kipling)still rule.

So, yes we got no banana…or bird farm.
Derrick

So would positioning a small task force of corvettes, frigates, and maybe a destroyer or 2 be cheap enough, yet provide sufficient firepower to deter or destroy the Somali pirates?

What would be the number and type of ships that would be sufficient to patrol for pirates yet not break the American taxpayers wallet?
UltimaRatioReg

Kipling would have LOVED the way we throw around the word “transformational”…
Grandpa Bluewater

Derrick:

The last time folks went over this ground an answer was worked out for east africa in some detail. Check the back numbers for the discussion based around a force of (minimally) variant Bertholf class cutters and a small wing of Seahawk helos, to take advantage of economies of scale from piggybacking on an existing program, for the east african waters case. I think you’ll find food for thought that will hold your interest.

There is a fast combat craft (PTG’s etc.) school of thought, but I’m not a fan. Logistic considerations and blue water durability problems look to me like a tough nut to crack for the very small boys.

Remember cheaper than CVBG isn’t cheap. But cheaper than LCS should be attainable, if we use that program like the Marines used the Gallipoli landings (i.e., a detailed case study of how not to do it).

The taxpayers wallet is likely broken for 3 generations, regardless, but that’s a different topic.

Gleaning Intent of the Somali Pirates

Recent Posts

Pages

Guest Bloggers

Links

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

video title