{"contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

Successful Pirates vs Unsuccessful Policy

This week, much of our attention has been riveted by the spectacle of hijacking on the high seas. All the drama of a Hollywood swashbuckler was brought to us every ten minutes or so, and we have been transfixed by the anachronism of piracy in the 21st Century.

At this very moment, the lifeboat containing several pirates and their hostage, Captain Phillips of the Maersk Alabama, is bobbing like a cork several hundred miles off the coast of Somalia. The small vessel is under the constant surveillance of the US Navy---including a plethora of aircraft and the USS Bainbridge, a nuclear-powered guided missile destroyer---while the cargo ship that was the object of the hijacking is en route to Mombasa, its original destination, with the remainder of the crew and an armed party of American sailors.

Piracy has become more than an annoyance, as shipping companies have forked over millions of dollars in ransom. Maritime insurance rates are skyrocketing, and countries like the United States, China and Russia have had to divert naval power to escort commercial vessels and respond, however inadequately, to hijacking.

Although some of the pirates are well organized and have links to terrorist organizations, many others are merely pick-up squads of fishermen looking for an easy way to make a very large amount of money. It doesn't matter who they are, however; they are successful almost all the time. It is not surprising, therefore, that piracy has become more frequent and widespread. Currently, pirates have under their control more than a dozen ships and are in negotiations that will net them many millions of dollars.

In this regard, there are two issues that come to mind.

Pirates often come to the area in mother ships, which then disgorge smaller vessels that speed to the target ship. The pirates are usually armed with small arms, automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but these are not weapons that can physically threaten the much larger vessels that are the their targets. Furthermore, the decks of the merchant vessels are dozens of feet above the waterline, requiring the pirates to board using grappling hooks and ladders. So, how can the pirates board and overwhelm a much larger vessel? It would appear that the crew permits them to do it, and it seems that the shipping companies' policy is that the crew is to acquiesce to demands to relinquish their ships.

Second, why do nations permit pirates to ravage their merchant fleets? One answer is that countries have not been acting in concert to thwart piracy and are insufficiently aggressive in patrolling the region and boarding suspect vessels. With international agreement, shipping lanes should be designated as exclusion zones such that any unregistered vessel in the zone would be subject to capture or destruction.

How the current situation will end is difficult to say, but it can't last forever. There is water and food aboard the lifeboat, and there are reportedly negotiations underway, aimed at getting the pirates to release Captain Phillips. But the pirates have the upper hand, and others will continue to threaten shipping lanes until maritime nations band together and collectively become more vigilant---and perhaps more ruthless---than they are now.

{"contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
{"commentId":6405975,"authorDomain":"kimmy123"}

Could these pirates be paid by insurance companies to increase their bottom lines?

{"commentId":6405975,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"kimmy123"}
    Reply#1 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 7:27 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6413244,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

    Well, amusing or not, that's actually what happens. At the moment, pirates hold 16 ships and are in varying stages of negotiation for ransom. In the end, the shipping companies pay twice: once for the ransome and again in much higher maritime insurance rates.

    {"commentId":6413244,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
    • 1 vote
    #1.1 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:05 AM EDT
    {"commentId":6414901,"authorDomain":"kpr37"}
    In the end, the shipping companies pay twice: once for the ransome and again in much higher maritime insurance rates.

    it is a shame they dont teach history any more.

    "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.
    We fight our country’s battles in the air, on land and sea.
    First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean;
    We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine"

    On the one hand were those who took the “no blood for trade” approach. They had legitimate concerns about the cost and political impact of maintaining a standing military. They favored negotiations and payments rather than fighting. For a long time, their side was winning the argument. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams even went to London to negotiate directly with the envoy from Tripoli.

    Several historians and writers have reminded us recently of the ambassador’s nearly forgotten answer. Fortunately, Jefferson prepared a written report for the government and left other records of the incident. Here’s a description from The Atlantic Monthly in 1872:

    Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
    This answer may have helped sway the debate to the side of those who favored military response over further attempts at diplomacy. Some believe it had a personal impact on Jefferson himself, though higher and higher ransoms probably helped too. Congress finally acted, creating the U.S. Navy in 1794. This included approval for the construction and manning of six frigate warships, including the USS Constitution — which is afloat and commissioned to this day.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWMxOGU3YWM1ZjIyMzMxNGFhMmUzMzJmYTViYjk4Y2U=

    {"commentId":6414901,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"kpr37"}
    • 2 votes
    #1.2 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:45 AM EDT
    {"commentId":6420606,"authorDomain":"nigeriawhatisnew"}

    why do nations permit pirates to ravage their merchant fleets? is a good question Col Jack Jacobs. However, there is a better one. Who imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? Johann Hari´s portrait of Somali pirates is an excellent education on who the true pirates are. Who is dumping nuclear material in the so called international waters? Who is looting Somali seas with giant trawlers? Ships of more than two dozen nations, from the US to China - are in Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. Enjoy the story.

    {"commentId":6420606,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"nigeriawhatisnew"}
    • 2 votes
    #1.3 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":6408629,"authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}

    I hope that Col. Jack doesn't get worn out with my promotion of an extremely large seaplane design I call the SE4BWB, but a huge seaplane powered by four of the largest GE commercial jet engines currently available would be able to take off from Little Creek, VA and transit to the Horn of Africa in 12 hrs, more quickly than ships 450 miles away could respond. Once reaching the site of a highjacking the huge seaplane can put common SEAL team surface transporters into the water or launch Marine gunship helicopters from an intrinsic, roll-out flight deck. It can also launch several of the Marine's current beach assault tracked amphibious troop carriers, because a million-pound payload brings a lot of stuff to the scene of the action, baby.

    Those GE jet engines are 120,000 hp each. Rolls Royce engines of similar size get better fuel economy but are so fine-tuned they tend to gag on things like flocks of geese. Just swallow the fuel economy penalty and take the SE4BWB to the next surprise party--you will win top prize for the costumes nobody dares vote against.

    {"commentId":6408629,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#2 - Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:40 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6413187,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

    Airlift is an interesting and timely topic. The SecDef said in his most recent announcement that we needed more lift---but that the C-17 program wasn't being extended. Go figure.

    {"commentId":6413187,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
    • 2 votes
    #2.1 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:01 AM EDT
    {"commentId":6417285,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

    Airlift is useful for the mass evacuation of populations in the event of a foreseeable crisis, such as a major natural disaster.

    {"commentId":6417285,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
    • 1 vote
    #2.2 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:48 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6418247,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}

    The real problem as I see it is the preponderance of Flags of Convenience in the merchant carrier fleet. In this case we have one of the rare vessels traveling under US flag, and so a United States response is appropriate, but I say let the mighty Liberian or Bahamanian fleets deal with the piracy problem. Those are the flags that cargo ships travel under these days, and if the shipping companies are looking for succor, those are the governments that should provide it.

    If on the other hand, they want the USN to bail out their chestnuts, pony up and register the vessels under US flags with all of the restrictions and additional costs that entails.

    {"commentId":6418247,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
    • 2 votes
    #2.3 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6443436,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

    Nations have always been ambivalent about the system of flags of convenience. Among other things, security and safety have always been problems. But given the solution is an enforceable international compact that establishes exclusion zones in international waters, and this would require the agreement of, among others, the US, Russia and China.

    {"commentId":6443436,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
      #2.4 - Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:19 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":6412128,"authorDomain":"rhwengr"}

      I've wondered if the ships owners aren't allowing this myself.

      Split the insurance money 60/40 with the pirates and their sponsors, keep the ship and the supplies, making 3 times the money they normally would.

      {"commentId":6412128,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"rhwengr"}
        Reply#3 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:56 AM EDT
        {"commentId":6413275,"authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

        Excellent business model---though tried before, unsuccessfully, by a variety of people who are now serving hard time.

        {"commentId":6413275,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
        • 2 votes
        #3.1 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:07 AM EDT
        Reply
        {"commentId":6415710,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

        "While sailing to Greece for further study, [Julius] Caesar was kidnaped by Cilician pirates and held for ransom. When informed that they intended to ask for 20 talents, he is supposed to have insisted that he was worth at least 50. He maintained a friendly, joking relationship with the pirates while the money was being raised, but warned them that he would track them down and have them crucified after he was released. He did just that, with the help of volunteers, as a warning to other pirates, but he first cut their throats to lessen their suffering because they had treated him well."

        http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/caesar.html

        {"commentId":6415710,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
        • 3 votes
        Reply#4 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
        {"commentId":6420689,"authorDomain":"nigeriawhatisnew"}
        The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?

        This brings on memories of another story of Alex and the dog.

        {"commentId":6420689,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"nigeriawhatisnew"}
        • 1 vote
        #4.1 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
        Reply
        {"commentId":6421999,"authorDomain":"jbraatvedt"}

        Again - You need to understand the political and social makeup of Somalia before you can destroy the pirates. Who does the U.S. ask permission from to bomb the Pirate ports? Who has to build those towns back up once we have bombed them?

        The insurance agencies, the pirates and the shipping lines don't have their fingers in the pot. Remember the simple economics of supply and demand. There is not only one Maritime Insurance company out there and in the spirit of supply and demand, someone will offer lower rates than another. Companies that ship goods will not use those ships that are caught regularly. Just think this one through rationally before making conspiracy theories.

        One more thing - There are a few solutions here. Register every boat in the region and stop the manufacturer from supplying the Pirates. Stop the stores from supplying the Pirates with goods and stop the import of gas and oil into the region. You cannot stop arms from getting to these guys, but we can stop them from getting everything else they need to get out to sea.

        {"commentId":6421999,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"jbraatvedt"}
          Reply#5 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
          {"commentId":6423326,"authorDomain":"txtj1"}

          time to bring the torpedos back .,enough of pirates.,blow them out of the water

          {"commentId":6423326,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"txtj1"}
            Reply#6 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:53 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6426979,"authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}

            Tomorrow is going to be a day that shines a defining light into the soul of the Obama administration. The drive-by Obama-friendly media are being careful to portray the "pirates" not as terrorists of the seas, but as products of the unfortunate socio-economic oppression of Somalia by richer nations, thus forcing these abused and neglected peoples into desperate measures. Piracy is absolutely the only industry open to their young men, don't you understand!

            So, we will have on scene about $3 billion worth of U.S. warships in order to stand by and negotiate a $2 million ransom for one American sailor. The pirate navy is racing to give support to their drifting comerads holding the hostage in the lifeboat without fuel.

            Does anyone remember the Nord-Ost siege in a theater near Moscow on October 23rd, 2002? In this case there were maybe 40 Chechen terrorists, many of them women, and as many as 850 Russians held hostage, including a general in the KGB (or whatever they call it now.) Nord-Ost is not the name of the theatre, but of the performance given that night.

            The Kremlin chose to let Spetznaz forces end the seige with a gas attack that disabled the terrorists and killed 129 of the hostages. All of the terrorists died, most of them getting a bullet in the back of the head just to make sure. Russia does not need the equivalent of a Guantanimo prison facility because captured terrorists, well, there rarely are such people.

            In Chechnya today a regime very friendly to Russia still holds power with very little resistance to their rule. In fact, Chechen rebel leaders who are running around the world trying to build support for their cause tend to get bumped off and nobody, not the UN, not the Obama administration, well, just nobody, says anything about it.

            I remember back in 1996 my wife and I were on a cruise off the coast of Cuba when boom, boom, two airplanes carrying two men in each one were shot down by Castro's air force for daring to drop pro-democracy leaflets on Havana. Now that was a serious crime! I am surprised only that the Clintons did not order our air force to shoot down the unarmed Cessnas. The New York Times tied itself in filthy knots defending Castro's murderous act, so it is going to be interesting to see how far they (the Times) go to defend and apologize for the pirate navy tomorrow when the Somalis do whatever they have to do to get their hostage safely to shore so that the Americans can get on with coughing up the ransom.

            The administration may be trying to arrange a sweeping hostage deal so that several other ships and groups of hostages can all be freed simultaneously for one big payment. This will give The New York Times some leeway to spin this whole thing as an Obama triumph because it allows him to get back to the really serious business of saving the planet and of saving America from failed capitalism, etc.

            {"commentId":6426979,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}
            • 1 vote
            Reply#7 - Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:08 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":6427607,"authorDomain":"bernhardmeck"}

            It would seem that the time is ripe for a derivation of 'Troyan Horses' politics. Much like any ancient prized war-booty, some ships might have determined teams from the various international anti-terror military branches on board, hidden from sight. Well-equipped with all available technology, they would accompany regular merchant ships after the throw of dice... and the lucky ship that becomes virtual bait goes about business as usual. Well maybe the ship would be encouraged to be recklessly oblivious and approach the Somali coast rather than avoid it.

            More pirates need to never return as wealthy heroes, after having ignored repeated warnings of 'do not to approach'. May they rest in eternal peace in the depth of their honorable graves! May their silent departure encourage others not to follow their footsteps!

            {"commentId":6427607,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"bernhardmeck"}
            • 2 votes
            Reply#8 - Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:12 AM EDT
            {"commentId":6429190,"authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}

            I talk big when I am not the one having to make the decision. Perhaps this is not the time for a "Pedicaris alive or Razuli dead" type of presidential grandstanding. Teddy Roosevelt may have ended up paying the ransom in that case but the Hollywood version sure pleased me more what with the column of Marines and sailors double-timing in cadence up the narrow streets and with the lead officer having sabre drawn in the attack on the local potentate who actually didn't even have the hostage himself!

            The USA has even been in the role of hostage-taker in the Mason and Slidel incident during our own Civil War. The Lincoln administration narrowly missed triggering a British intervention on the side of the Confederacy, escaping that diplomatic disaster only by surrendering the hostages. Queen Victoria's husband the Prince actually saved our bacon in that one, a week before he died. . .

            {"commentId":6429190,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}
              Reply#9 - Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:39 AM EDT
              {"commentId":6443540,"authorDomain":"merchantcoastie"}

              Col. Jacobs...I appreciate your comments but, like most in the media (and apparently in the administration as well) I believe that you missed the mark on this one. This is a maritime law enforcement issue. DoD (Navy) has NO JURISDICTION in this situation. This is a Coast Guard issue...they are the ONLY AGENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY / JURISDICTION over these pirates! (Ref. 14 USC 89). If DoD takes action, they are in sense attacking our own soil...which it can not do...and the Navy has no business being a law enforcement agency.

              The administration is clearly using DoD as the "easy answer". But what it has done is put our international standing in question. The Navy is already violating international law (and also creating an "act of war")by taking action inside 20 miles (which is clearly territorial waters). However, the Coast Guard could....

              Where was the Coast Guard in all of this...Where was the Maritime Administration when this was going on (they charter the vessels)...where is the unions in supporting their bretheren? So many questions that need to be asked...and no one in the administration seems to be able to answer them.

              {"commentId":6443540,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"merchantcoastie"}
                Reply#10 - Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:35 AM EDT
                {"commentId":6446380,"authorDomain":"RFRubio"}

                Mute point Merchant, the Seals got the job done! Checkmate!

                {"commentId":6446380,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"RFRubio"}
                  #10.1 - Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:13 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":6455230,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
                  The Navy is already violating international law (and also creating an "act of war")by taking action inside 20 miles (which is clearly territorial waters

                  Where there is no government, there is no territorial waters. Again, I think this won't be solved until Somalia is put under international receivership and reorganized. The real question is what nation is willing to expend the blood and treasure to accomplish that?

                  {"commentId":6455230,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
                  • 1 vote
                  #10.2 - Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:14 AM EDT
                  {"commentId":6593391,"authorDomain":"cosnerm"}

                  International law only respects national sovreignty out to 12 nautical miles (13 statute miles)

                  {"commentId":6593391,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"cosnerm"}
                    #10.3 - Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:56 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    {"commentId":6456941,"authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}

                    Still 300 hostages moldering away in anchored ships, alas, including the newly-seized Italian ocean-going tugboat. I can't avoid giving the Obama administration some credit on the rescue of the captain. I didn't expect even that much fortitude.

                    I still would like to see an active missile defense system protecting Alaska from the No Dong missile. Well, if you protect Japan first, then nothing gets to Alaska, and actually as long as North Korea depends on liquid fueled rockets we can see the threat coming days in advance. I would also assume that N. Korea's warhead still weighs a ton or more, so if one goes somewhere to do mischief it will probably be in an anonymous shipping container.

                    Did you see Ahmadinejad dancing the little jig in his spiffy new nuclear facility? Well, maybe Brit intelligence hasn't fixed him up yet to dance the little jig the way they did Hitler. . .

                    {"commentId":6456941,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}
                      Reply#11 - Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:24 AM EDT
                      {"commentId":6593343,"authorDomain":"cosnerm"}

                      The USS Bainbridge is not a nuclear powered destroyer. 

                      The Navy has never had a nuclear powered surface vessel smaller than a cruiser -- and in fact hasn't had those since the late-90s. 

                      The only nuclear powered ships the Navy currently posseses are aircraft carriers (CVN) and submarines (SSN)

                      {"commentId":6593343,"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372","authorDomain":"cosnerm"}
                        Reply#12 - Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:53 PM EDT
                        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"550439","isPrivate":false}
                        Leave a Comment:
                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                        {"threadId":"550439","contentId":"2660372"}
                        Start TrackingStart Tracking
                        Stop TrackingStop Tracking
                        Col. Jack Jacobs's Latest Comments
                        Comments & Feedback
                        – Show More