I agree with your points here. Pirates are making a business choice. We should look at use of military forces or private guards in a similar light, at least at this juncture. However, there is an upward trend in both the number of attacks and distance from coastline. At a certain point, the level of piracy may deter from trade in the region which would not be in our interests.

Midn James,
Good topic. Here are some additional thoughts in response to points you made:
1) Why private armed personnel? Perhaps because no known ship that has employed armed riders to date has been taken.
2) It’s true that there aren’t enough private armed guards to protect every ship that transits GOA, but you don’t need to. About 70% of ships that transit annually have a high enough freeboard and/or are fast enough that they normally don’t have to worry about pirates. Others sufficiently employ BMP. Others, however, can benefit from private armed personnel.
3) You’re right that there would be an uproar if a contractor killed a Somali fisherman; arguably there are similar uproars when civilians are accidentally killed by any country’s military.

Given the lack of civilized nations to invest in maintaining a constant presence on the ocean, having some private maritime security personnel hired by the shipping companies – subject, of course, to regulations – makes sense. It’s similar to having private security at a mall or an office lobby since police can’t be everywhere all the time.

I take exception to several (most) of the points.

1. “Second, this is the Wild West. No rules of engagement exist for when we can attack the pirates and who can attack them.”
Catagorically false. According to International Law, piracy is a national crime. The Flag state clearly has jurisdiction in cases of piracy. Hasn’t changed in hundreds of years. The rules are clear, the will to enforce them is not. Now attacking them when your own national law hasn’t been violated, that is a different matter. If a boat filled with armed Somalis is off the coast of Somalia and has not attacked anyone, are they pirates?

2. “Imagine the uproar if a private security contractor killed an innocent Somali fisherman whom he suspected of piracy.”
Already happened (at least a dead pirate was found on a small boat that attacked a merchant ship carrying a security detachment that engaged the pirates in self defense. Fishermen do not approach and attack ships in vessels not equipped for fishing) no big uproar. Again, national law applies. In most countries, you have the right to repond to lethal force with lethal force.

3. “And no one knows what to do with the pirates captured on the High Seas (technically, a U.S. Navy ship captain can hang the pirate from the yardarm, though that’s not going to happen).”
Uh, no. No US Navy Ship Captain can make summary executions, much as you want to sometimes. Again, USC specifies punishment for piracy in the US. The Flag state rules of piracy apply, again it is the will that is missing.

4. “Currently, we only react to piracy after the pirates have taken a ship- like the Maersk Alabama incident or the recent kidnapping of an American couple sailing around the world.”
Again, false. We patrol, board ships suspected of being pirates (catch, dump guns and ladders, and release), etc. But as previously stated, they are not pirates until they do something!

5. “The only long term solution to Somali piracy is to restore Somalia’s economy and ensure Somalia has a stable government.”
No, the only long term solution, the only solution period, is to remove the sanctuary the pirates have. Its the only way piracy has ever been suppressed. However, there are other ways. Like quit paying for release of the ship and military recapture of the ships held, retalitory raids, etc. For that matter the modern day Malacca pirates were supressed (OK, they were drowned) by a Tsunami.

6. “After the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, the U.S. gave up on restoring the country.”
Not true. The US has backed, or at least been accused of backing, the Ethiopian intervention and the current government. We just don’t have our forces there.

7. “Until a 2008 U.N. Resolution, the U.S. could not legally take the fight to the land.”
There are a variety of ways, without a UN Resolution, that we could attack pirates on land. Just right off the top we could land forces to rescue US citizens being held (except there weren’t any) and conduct reprisals (of which we did not have justification). That we have chosen not to is largely because we have not had any legal justification.

8. “By encouraging legal industries like farming and fishing, the U.S. could reduce the number of Somalis who steal ships to merely to survive.”
that’s like saying the drug trade could be eliminated by encouraging the farmers to grow something else. How many fish do they need to catch to make $10k in a day? The simple fact of the matter is the potential pay-off is so high, as long as the pirates have santuary, they will resort to piracy, even if they can fish. In other words, while some Somalis would rather fish or farm, there are enough excess that it won’t matter.

9. “The U.S. government does not list Somali pirates as terrorists; we should not fight them as such.”
This statement implies that we are currently treating them as trans-national terrorists, which could not be further from the truth. We treat them as criminals, pirates if you will, and that’s were most of the problem lies. If they were terrorist this would be easy! The US has strong laws against piracy, sufficient will to enforce its laws, and a willingness to be a Flag State in all regards. Sadly, the can’t be said for a large part of the rest of the world.

I agree with most of what USNVO and LCDR Claude Berubeabove says.

With regards to RoE it’s simple, If you are either being fired upon or being boarded by the crew of another vessel – fire back. In the first case, fire warning or disabling shots (or use flare type devices or the like) and the second case shoot to disable or to kill.

As to cost, ship owners that use crews based in countries where the likelihood of crew members filing lawsuits if captured have been able to find the wherewithal to provide protection.

Ship’s crews are typically 12-20 people. A four man crew can provide good protection. (crew takes the watch during the day, security on standby, security takes the watch at night) If the security is making five time more then crew, crew costs would double, but only in during the transit. This doesn’t strike me as an onerous burden. If all the ships which transit were required to have adequate security the costs could be passed onto the customer without putting owners who are taking steps to protect crews at a competitive disadvantage.

Yes, I was specifically refering to the AL MEEZAN incident. There have actually been at least three cases that I can remember when private (as in non-Flag state) provided security forces have responded to piracy attack. In all three cases the pirates left.
The AL-MEEZAN (Panamanian Flagged).
The MSC MELODY, an Italian cruise ship (Panamanian Flagged) in the Red sea returned fire against pirates. Actually happened before the AL-MEEZAN incident.
3. Most recently the Maersk Alabama

The AL MEEZAN was the only incident to my knowledge where anyone died. In all three cases, all of which happened in International Waters, no laws of the flag state were broken and that is the only thing that counts. Neither Panama or the US chose to press charges against the security personel nor was there any great public outcry to do so. I don’t believe the pirates requested that the security forces be prosecuted. I don’t think Panama, Liberia, Malta, or any of the other flag of concenience states will make a big deal about it one way or another as long as their checks from the ship owners clear.

The idea that armed security forces would somehow start mowing down “innocent fishermen” is just not believable. How many innocent fishermen decide to close with merchant ships just on a whim? How many merchants are going to go out of their way to attack a small boat that clearly poses no threat to them?

The thing with Piracy in international waters (or the high seas if you want) is that it is purely national crime for the flag state. The big difference between Somali and say the Barbary Pirates, is that in the latter case, the ships were US Flagged with US Crews. Today, piracy is against shipped flagged in Liberia, Panama, etc with no US crews, Let the Flag state deal with it, it is not our problem. The US has maintained the security of the US waters and our EEZ and prosecuted every case of piracy that was against US ships and citizens on the high seas, we have met our obligation under international law.

USNVO’s point 7 says it all:

“That we have chosen not to is largely because we have not had any legal justification.”

Some bright officer should ask the CIA why they weren’t able to prevent 9/11 beforehand and I would predict they would say the same line. So I guess we will just remain on cruise control until we suffer some major incident again. AND it is just SO hard to predict…just stupid and yes shameful considering the preference of the undeclared CYA policy instead of covering your fellow citizen’s a## policy which should receive the attention. Yea…but no big deal…just some poor little fellows trying to make a living…surely they are too small and puny to do anything mean…it’s not like they have a few thousand tons of steel, fuel and whatever cargo they get lucky enough to come across. Gee isn’t that how we used to look at airplane hijackings…yea they will never utilize a ship to ram anything…cause their just simple little people trying to make a buck…have pitty.

It is SO nice to be able to sleep at night knowing good Americans are following Internation Law regardless of the consequences. How brave.

One day I’ll be sailing around the world in a 56′ Motor Sailer. Tucked into a golf bag (purchased in some shady locale before transiting that particular region and dumped overboard after this particular transit) will be at least a shotgun and an AK-47 in good working order with ammunition. I’ll keep a good watch manned, and should anyone in a suspicious boat approach my vessel there will be exactly 1 (one) warning shot. After that it will be batteries release should they continue their approach. Odds are these thieves are interested in living to spend their payday, not get full of holes by someone who has sense enough to think ahead and protect himself.

USNVO, you make some interesting points.

Point 1 is that to my knowledge there has not been any response to the killing of the four Americans on the Quest…at least no response seen ashore…where the leaders are.

What I am advocating is placing a force in a protected but forward position forming a boundary. How about starting on the actual beach. Build fifteen FOBs spread out two miles apart and support with UAVs. Just having a Marine with a gun on the beach will probably have a large impact by itself. Not unlike our experience on our own southern border. Show up… observe …observe…when the first brave one tests the water drop him. Then when you understand the locals a little bit and where the problem is coming from move from the beach to whereever you can observe and protect yourself. UAVs should give you a pretty good idea of where the pirates are living, concentrating, launching skiffs and so on…bet they don’t do it too far from a town. So we really aren’t talking about FOBs the whole length of the shore…but if they moved to another part of the beach you should be able to observe them moving skiffs and relocate.

This is not that complicated…like the border you show up and show yourself and that you are very much interested in squashing their plans and they will stop their BS and move somewhere else or just stop if they realize you will move with them wherever they go. It does not take shooting Mexicans to stop them from crossing the border either…you simply have to show interest in even protecting the border by being there.

As far as the other pirate hot spots I don’t read or hear much about them at all so I wander just how they compare to Somalia in terms of ships taken and hostages in custody…and how many Amercans they have killed in the last 12 months. The Pirates changed their strategy after the Alabama and it resulted in the Quest. The Alabama incident should have had a response ashore and the Quest definately should have. When we are so unwilling to do the hard work we make an implied statement to them that their strategy is working and they are emboldened. Is the problem getting better or worse??? Who else on planet Earth is really going to do anything but us…so if we don’t they know they have an excellent, winning strategy.

And I did not mean to imply terrorists would use a ship against North American targets from Somalia…Mumbai and any targets in the Indian Ocean or Red Sea are very much possible. The thing about it is you cannot pretend to predict what they will do with their very own supertanker…the problem is these Pirates are even able to take such a massive weapon…just like airplanes. Just shouldn’t be allowed to go there…period.

Fighting piracy from 100 miles offshore is like defending the southern border with BS from Washington D.C. …it does not work. First and last point is you must be present to be in the fight. No magical fairy dust, million dollar missiles or billion dollar warships will do it. It takes people.

Maineiac:

Couple of nits…

Gurkhas come trained and experienced (British Army RIF’s), and work for less than a tenth of what you cite (less than half the crew wage for an AB.

6 is a bare bones minimum (IMO). Two 12 hour watch sections of 3, two rovers and a watch supervisor. This allows you to meet a two axis attack with concentrated firepower and have a small reserve once all guards are on station and other measures which gain tactical flexibility. The infantry squad leaders can explain in detail.

Your main point is sound. On board antiboarding deterrance is cheap and effective insurance, especially when you consider the ever escalating cost of the alternative. Not to mention it might save your butt one night.