Hostage captain rescued

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The Europeans aren't going to help the President in Afghanistan and they won't do anything meaningful in Somalia either (though they will undoubtedly insist on having a voice in what others do).

Operation ATLANTA:

Quote:

EU Launching Anti-Piracy Naval Campaign

December 8, 2008 2:18 a.m. EST

The European Union is launching its first anti-piracy naval operation on Monday to prevent sea vessels being hijacked near the coasts of Somalia. The EU is sending six warships and three reconnaissance planes to the Horn of Africa on Monday to what has become the world's most dangerous stretch of water. The ambitious operation aims to cover an area of a million square kilometers, where more than 100 vessels have been attacked by pirates since the beginning of the year.

[...]

The joint naval patrol will include vessels from Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Spain and Sweden. The force will be taking over from four NATO vessels in the area but it will probably not be fully operational until the end of the month. EU foreign ministers will endorse rules of engagement on Monday.

The German Bundeswehr is participating with one frigate, two helicopters and boarding team and is committing up to 1,400 soldiers to the operation.

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/pirate_03_16/p15_18176731.jpg

Quote:

Picture released by the German Bundeswehr on March 4, 2009 shows Bundeswehr soldiers approaching pirates in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia on March 3, 2009, after frigate Rheinland-Pfalz (background) had received a distress call from a German-owned container ship saying she was under fire from pirates armed with bazookas and machine guns. The frigate then dispatched a helicopter which together with another chopper from the US naval ship Monterey stopped the attempted attack by firing warning shots. German soldiers boarded the pirate vessel and took the nine into custody, the German military said.

Link to official website of EU NAVFOR Somalia.

1 Reply

@old europe,

I'm well aware of this effort; of the very limited resources committed to it ; and the restrictive rules of engagement that have been specified for it.

If it makes any real difference in the situation, I will applaud. The likelihood of that happening is very dim at best.

It appears, however, to be enough of a gesture to satisfy European illusions.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Well, you've also argued that apart from the French, no other European nation has made much of an effort to deal with the situation when, in fact, at least the UK, Greece, Germany and Spain are committing at least comparable resources.

I have to admit that I don't know how these efforts compare to what the United States are currently doing or the number of ships and troops they have committed.

2 Replies

@old europe,

This is what I've found so far:

Quote:

On January 8, 2009, at the United States Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, Vice Admiral William E. Gortney ,USN, announced the formation of CTF-151 to combat the piracy threat off Somalia, with Rear Admiral Terence E. McKnight in command. The USS San Antonio (LPD-17) was designated as the first flagship of Combined Task Force 151, serving as an afloat forward staging base (AFSB) for the following force elements:

* 14-member U.S. Navy visit, board, search and seizure (VBSS) team.
* 8-member United States Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) 405.
* Scout Sniper Platoon, 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (26 MEU) cross-decked from the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7).
* 3rd platoon of the 26 MEU 'Golf' Infantry Company, a military police detachment, and intelligence personnel.
* Fleet Surgical Team 8 with level-two surgical capability to deal with trauma, surgical, critical care and medical evacuation needs.
* Approximately 75 Marines with six AH-1W Super Cobra and two UH-1N Huey helicopters from the Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 264 (HMM-264) of the 26th MEU cross-decked from the USS Iwo Jima.
* Three HH-60H helicopters from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 3 (HS-3) cross-decked from the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71).

Initially, CTF-151 consisted of the San Antonio, USS Mahan (DDG-72), and HMS Portland (F79), with additional warships expected to join this force.

I'm also aware that prior to that, CTF-150 was involved in anti-piracy operations, but I don't know what additional forces the United States have currently committed to the operations off the coast of Somalia. You'd probably know that better, anyways!

0 Replies

@old europe,

The French have a fairly large naval and logistics base in Djiubouti, and have for a long time maintained a substantial naval presence in the Northern Indian Ocean. Though none of it was reported in the press the U.S. Navy has conducted very effective joint operations with them there for over 25 years now. Their capabilities are substantial and in most cases (at least in their unilateral actions) they take a practical approach to the establishment of rules of engagement.

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case with the EU force. The lack of any logistical base means that a substantial fraction of the new resources dedicated to the problem will be dedicated to support functions. In addition so far the "police" mentality being applied to the rules of engagement promise an operation no more effective than the NATO contribution in Afghanistan.

I certainly wish you well, but strongly believe the United States should focus on its own interests, and leave the rest to you.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I certainly wish you well, but strongly believe the United States should focus on its own interests, and leave the rest to you.

Sounds like the approach European countries have favoured when it comes to demands for committing more troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. I guess I can agree with that.

1 Reply

Perhaps I have created a tone that is more abrasive and critical than I intend. Let me restate my proposition.

Firstly, Europe, and now the new American Administration, have embraced the (historically) novel principle that pirates and international guerilla/bandit movements must be treated either as domestic criminals or uniformed combatants subject to the rules of war. I don't intend to argue the merits of this principle, only to note that it is a departure from the historical norms that have applied until very recently.

With this in mind, a police action - even if conducted by uniformed navys - to be effective across the 1,800 mile Somali coastline, situated as it is adjacent to a major sea lane, and given the lack of any effective (or sympathetic) government there ; would require a naval force orders of magnitude larger than what the EU proposes or even than what the United States has in the region.

In these conditions, I believe the U.S. is correct to stay out of any such effort, national or international. Instead, we should focus on actively protecting our own ships, using appropriate rules of engagement (shoot at us or attempt to board and you will be killed, and any vessels found to be supporting you will be sunk).

The notion of a police action, given the extent of the coast line and the situation there, cannot possibly succeed. It is therefore not something to be taken seriously.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Sounds like the approach European countries have favoured when it comes to demands for committing more troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. I guess I can agree with that.

And much more, besides.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think the notion of this being a police action is pretty much a function of the character of international conventions that are being enforced - at least in theory. I would probably argue that that's not an entirely new concept. The US Constitution already contains language that grants Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." Of course in that regard, treating piracy in international waters (or even based in a state without any kind of government - which is also not really unprecedented) as some kind of law enforcement issue seems to be far easier than doing so when it comes to terrorist groups operating out of a third country.

In practical terms, it would indeed be difficult to handle this as a law enforcement issue or treat pirates as domestic criminals or uniformed combatants. However, I'm not sure that this is what's currently happening. I would argue that it's telling that European countries have, in the context of the current anti-piracy efforts, changed the rules of engagement that were in place for quite a while.

Whether or not the participation of European countries will have much of an impact at all remains to be seen, of course. Nevertheless, I absolutely agree with your assessment that the focus should be on an active protection of ships in the area rather than on trying to enforce some kind of law or regulations for the entire area.

1 Reply

Only one person has actually recognized what I wrote, and that person wouldnt post on here.
Instead, that "left leaning" person sent me an e-mail.
I am surprised that none of you recognized the arguments I made.
They are all the same arguments (with some slight variation) that the left made against Bush using the military after 9/11, especially regarding Iraq.

I will admit that sarcasm is difficult to do on a forum like this, but why didnt any of you recognize your own arguments?

Personally, I would support a full scale attack on the pirates shore support, the instant execution of all captured pirates, and the immediate sinking of all pirate vessels.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

In practical terms, it would indeed be difficult to handle this as a law enforcement issue or treat pirates as domestic criminals or uniformed combatants. However, I'm not sure that this is what's currently happening. I would argue that it's telling that European countries have, in the context of the current anti-piracy efforts, changed the rules of engagement that were in place for quite a while.

Whether or not the participation of European countries will have much of an impact at all remains to be seen, of course. Nevertheless, I absolutely agree with your assessment that the focus should be on an active protection of ships in the area rather than on trying to enforce some kind of law or regulations for the entire area.

I'm not aware of any meaningful change in the rules of engagement that the European Powers (apart from France) have applied here. My impression is that they have asserted that this will of legal necessity be a police action subject to associated rules. That would likely mean (for example) the imposition of some burden of proof and legal magistrate review before (say) going after a mother ship suspected of supporting small boats observed in piracy or boarding attempts. While that may give those involved some sense of purpose and importance, it is not likely to significantly disrupt the piracy business. In short it is not indicative of a serious effort to suppress the piracy.

Evidently we agree that some international effort at escorting convoys might prove effective, however.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Personally, I would support a full scale attack on the pirates shore support, the instant execution of all captured pirates, and the immediate sinking of all pirate vessels.

Sounds a bit like Aesop's fable about the mice belling the cat. How, praytell, would you go about the "full scale attack.."; "instant execution.."; and "immediate sinking.." bit?? Easy to say... hard to do. How would you deal with the consequences?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

well georgeob, we could follow ron pauls' advice and have congress hire privateers, on the other hand we could (internationally) establish escorted sea lanes and blow out of the water any non-authorized craft.
just my opinion.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

How, praytell, would you go about the "full scale attack.."; "instant execution.."; and "immediate sinking.." bit?? Easy to say... hard to do. How would you deal with the consequences?

We know where the pirates are based out of.
"Full scale attack" means that we use naval gunfire, naval aircraft, and if needed a landing force to totally destroy any support facilities that are on shore and assisting the pirates.

"Instant execution" means exactly what it sounds like.
If any pirates are captured at sea then they are immediately executed by either a firing squad or hanging.

"immediate sinking" also means exactly what it says.
ANY pirate vessel captured, anything from a speedboat to a mother ship, would be immediately sunk by naval gunfire, and the crew of those vessels would be left to fend for themselves.
If they drown, so what.

Consequences?
The pirates will learn that the world isnt going to screw with them, we are just going to destroy them.

Of course, since most of the world doesnt have the balls to actually carry out this plan, it will never happen.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm not aware of any meaningful change in the rules of engagement that the European Powers (apart from France) have applied here. My impression is that they have asserted that this will of legal necessity be a police action subject to associated rules. That would likely mean (for example) the imposition of some burden of proof and legal magistrate review before (say) going after a mother ship suspected of supporting small boats observed in piracy or boarding attempts. While that may give those involved some sense of purpose and importance, it is not likely to significantly disrupt the piracy business. In short it is not indicative of a serious effort to suppress the piracy.

Evidently we agree that some international effort at escorting convoys might prove effective, however.

In December '08, the German Bundestag changed the mandate for the participation of the Bundeswehr from a defensive mandate (under which German troops deployed for previous missions in the region operated) to an offensive mandate. Whereas the previous mandate only called for the protection of an attacked ship and firing at an attacking pirate vessel was only allowed when shot at, the current mandate not only allows the Bundeswehr to fire at pirates who are about to attack a ship, it also allows the pursuit of pirate vessels, engagement of 'mother ships' and sinking of pirate vessels.

The Bundestag decision is based on the EU's mandate for Operation Atalanta and the mission's rules of engagement, which allow EU ships operating off the coast of Somalia to ward off or capture pirates and also sink their ships.

In regard to captured pirates, Germany has so far chosen to extradite them to Kenya -which is, I believe, the same thing the United States are doing. Again, you might know more in regard to that than I do.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

well georgeob, we could follow ron pauls' advice and have congress hire privateers, on the other hand we could (internationally) establish escorted sea lanes and blow out of the water any non-authorized craft.
just my opinion.

Well Congress wasn't very happy with our hired security forces in Iraq - at least after they fell into some disrepute in the media.

Patrolling 2000 nm. of sea lanes would be a formidable chore. It might work if we required convoys, but even there some considerable effort is required to organize such an undertaking with ships from numerous countries. I would estimate that 2- 3 convoys/day in each direction would tie up about 40 modern destroyers, each with helo capability. This would in addition require at least three large replenishment vessels to keep them fuelled and fed. My impression is that the major nations have not yet considered anything near that kind of effort.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

"Full scale attack" means that we use naval gunfire, naval aircraft, and if needed a landing force to totally destroy any support facilities that are on shore and assisting the pirates.

"Instant execution" means exactly what it sounds like.
If any pirates are captured at sea then they are immediately executed by either a firing squad or hanging.

"immediate sinking" also means exactly what it says.
ANY pirate vessel captured, anything from a speedboat to a mother ship, would be immediately sunk by naval gunfire, and the crew of those vessels would be left to fend for themselves.
If they drown, so what.

Consequences?
The pirates will learn that the world isnt going to screw with them, we are just going to destroy them.

Of course, since most of the world doesnt have the balls to actually carry out this plan, it will never happen.

That kind of talk is rather cheap.

Do you believe we can reliably locate and target "pirate support facilities" in the urban areas of Somalia and selectively destroy them without widespread destruction? Do you really think the tradeoffs are favorable for putting a U.S. force ashore there?

Would you want your son to be in the "firing squad"?

As for destroying ships caught in the act of attempted piracy - that appears to be in the offing. However, the ocean is wide and the ships are few.

My recipe would be to blockade Somali ports; cut off international aid; and deal aggressively with pirates vessels caught in the act.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think the shipping lane/convoy idea is the best we can accomplish without an entirely new way of deployment. We had private contractors around our oil rigs in the Gof Mexico. Mother ships can be targeted at the outset and keep dogging them or putting them out of commission in non lethal means (lethal force if attacked).

Remember george-the pirates are suffering from the same limitations we would be and we can make that our point of strength. Also, we arent looking to protect the entire geography, we are only seeking to protect our ships in lines of travel. The insurance companies, once given the offer of convoy protection, will, like in WWII, set policy requirements on recoveries. ALso, the ships AND the cargos are insured separately.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm all for the use of preemptive lethal force (= sinking) known mother ships supporting the pirates. However, I don't assume that alone will stop the piracy any time soon. We have to make the prospects of success look pretty slim to a poorly informed Somali young man of 18 or so who has little to lose.

Convoy operations are hard to organize and the escort requirements would greatly exceed the forces so far committed by the major nations. The Europeans are so ill accustomed to fending for themselves that they appear to think the handful of ships they have assigned will make a difference. I wish them well, but don't expect much.

I doubt the international community and the EU in particular has the stomach for what suppressing the piracy will require. Old Europe's posts about recent actions by the German government do sound encouraging, but the reports of the systematic shirking by German forces in Afghanistan don't encourage me to take this at face value. One interesting test might be the willingness of the International community to suspend aid shipments to Somalia and force the various NGOs to comply. I suspect that might have very quick and beneficial effects on the problem. However, if we don't have the stomach for that, we won't do the rest either.

The Somali coastline is very long and the sea lanes to & from Suez and between the Persian Gulf and the Cape of Good Hope all pass by it. If you haven't spent a summer monsoon in the Northern Arabian Sea, then you have missed a truly miserable experience.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you believe we can reliably locate and target "pirate support facilities" in the urban areas of Somalia and selectively destroy them without widespread destruction? Do you really think the tradeoffs are favorable for putting a U.S. force ashore there?

I seriously doubt that the pirates have support facilities (ship repair, food, fuel, weapons, ammunition, etc) very far from their staging areas, so I dont think that would be a serious problem.

Also, why would it have to be a US force?
Since the piracy is affecting many nations, it should be a multinational force.
Your suggestion of a "US force" suggests that the rest of the world (or maybe just you) dont take the threat seriously, or you could be admitting that the rest of the world cant handle the problem.

Quote:

Would you want your son to be in the "firing squad"?

I dont have any kids, but if I did the answer is a most emphatic YES!!!!!
I would serve on the firing squad myself.

Quote:

My recipe would be to blockade Somali ports; cut off international aid; and deal aggressively with pirates vessels caught in the act.

If you blockade the ports and cut off international aid, you are punishing those Somali's that are not involved with piracy.
You would be starving innocent women and children to punish a relative few.
I thought you were opposed to that.

1 Reply

Hostage captain rescued

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know