I posted something similar to this on my blog today, but after seeing the emotional responses, I have concluded what is needed is more thoughtful consideration than my original post allows for, and perhaps some investigative journalism towards finding the answers. Hopefully by framing the questions directly, the questions will be taken more seriously.
It is my understanding that the standard U.S. Navy practice in maritime kidnapping situations like the Maersk Alabama incident has been to stand aside while ransom negotiations take place between the pirates and the ship owner/operator. The pirates sometimes contact the Navy, but the Navy’s practice in such instances has been to provide them with the telephone number of the ship owner/operator, so that the pirates can negotiate directly with the firm.
I have a few questions. Why didn’t that happen in this case? Why did the Navy in this instance apparently engage in direct hostage (i.e., non-ransom) negotiations with the pirates, instead of letting Maersk negotiate with the pirates for a ransom? Was it because the ship originally hijacked was a US-flag ship? Because the kidnapped person was a US national? Because the situation was logistically different in terms of the kidnapped person being on a lifeboat and the hijacked ship no longer being in the possession of the pirates? Some combination of these factors?
If so, why should any of these things make a difference? If not, then what was the reason? I think it is important that the Obama administration and the Navy explains why this situation wasn’t handled like others, in which the Navy stands aside and the pirates and the ship owner/operator work out a ransom agreement. The response by the BAINBRIDGE represented a major policy shift, but no reason has been given why the shift occurred.
As acknowledged by Admiral Gortney toward the end of his telephone call with news reporters, the killing of the three pirates by the Navy SEAL snipers creates a risk of elevating the overall level of violence in future ship hijackings, which can increase the risks faced by the mariners on these cargo ships. If that’s the case, and if there aren’t enough naval ships from various countries to fully patrol the area, as the Navy repeatedly acknowledges, then was this operation an unalloyed success? Will people still be celebrating this operation if the pirates adapt by starting to make more use of more highly lethal forms of violence when attempting to seize control of ships?
The Navy states that it believed the ship master’s life was in imminent danger. I don’t doubt the Navy’s judgment on this, but it gets back to the first question: Would the situation have come to this if the Navy had treated this as a ransom negotiation situation to be worked out in talks between the pirates and Maersk?
I celebrate the rescue of Captain Phillips, but I think there are several important questions that have not been answered in this incident.
