| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| U.S. Navy to Lead International Force Battling Pirates |
| 2009-01-09 |
| Who is paying? Are they gonna actually "battle" them or take pictures of them while they sail away with another boat? Wouldn't it be cheaper for Bambi to offer the pirates a bailout? |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #22 U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Terence "Terry" McKnight has been named the commander of the new task force which will be fully operational by the middle of January. "Terry" and the Pirates. At least someone in USN still has a sense of humor or timing. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-01-09 22:05 |
| #21 Yes. Those targeted to be cleared also aren't necessarily pirates. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-09 21:24 |
| #20 FYI, Marines have been paying "Clear the Cargo Ship" video games for a few months now. |
| Posted by: KevlarKid 2009-01-09 20:54 |
| #19 Don't tease me, lotp. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-09 19:53 |
| #18 To all those who want a massive whack-a-pirate op off Somalia, consider that our naval assets may well need to be focused on the Persian Gulf instead, real soon now. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-01-09 19:45 |
| #17 There is not enough "loss" here to justify either the force that is already being deployed or any kind of ground force. While I would love to smoke some mother ships and eliminate a ground base or two, the reality is this is just not going to happen. This is going to be a low-level irritant for some time. If the irritant gets too, well, irritating, then harsher measures will be applied. Until then, it is mostly theater, and plenty expensive theater at that. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2009-01-09 17:21 |
| #16 Problem with 'cleaning out' the support/shore installation is that, as Pappy, notes, it's the ass-end of the earth. Which means as quickly as we clean an area out it'll pop right back up. The pirates don't have much but they don't need much. Which means we'd have to garrison Somalia proper and Puntland. That's not happening. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-01-09 16:45 |
| #15 problem #4 above is exactly why a kinetic soultion is required. when pirates are encountered, they are destroyed Sure! All we have to do is find the pirates. We just need to blanket the Gulf of Aden and the rest of the Somali coastline (maybe even down past Kenya) with warships. We have to figure out if they're really pirates or if they're just militia out for a nice boat ride, or heavily armed fishermen. Oh, we can wait for them to attack a ship? What a marvelous idea! We just have to have a warship or an armed helo in the vicinity. What if they're already on board? What if they toss their weapons overboard when they see a helo or a C-130 gunship or a frigate coming? Again, it's a no-win situation. The Americans are needed there as a unifying force, but mostly to take the heat. I don't have the warm-and-fuzzies that Obama will stand behind the Navy if something happens. the marines would be well suited to coming ashore, and removing the support and supply areas from the pirates. That's the more-likely option and one that seems to have more support. Again, there's going to have to be consensus and authority to do so. But the assets are there or will be. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-09 16:22 |
| #14 problem #4 above is exactly why a kinetic soultion is required. when pirates are encountered, they are destroyed. you cant cover the entire area, but you can remove pirates one by one until business conditions persuade the locasl that becomming shark chum is not the optimal way to look cool and pick up chicks. the marines would be well suited to coming ashore, and removing the support and supply areas from the pirates. you don't have to hold it, only deny its usability to the bad guys. scorched earth works for me. with no goats to relieve the tension of the long nights and weeks at sea, the pirates will self-deport to a more hospitable locale. rinse, repeat |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2009-01-09 15:28 |
| #13 OK, Pappy, I never claimed to be a genius, nor did anyone else. So obviously you're in a mood to not play nice. It's working wonders for your diplomatic skills in everyone's eyes. You're right. I'm not in the mood to play nice. This was (and sort of is) my bread-and-butter for years. There are times when the Holy Nine-Iron has to come out to get you all to pay attention. Whats so hard about just whacking these guys? Throughout history the world has been down the road with these kinds of folks more times than we can count. Yes, and we'll continue to have issues. Because there are long-standing laws in place that unfortunately place restrictions on just going in and whacking them. Think for a moment. There's a reason that 'territorial waters' exist, even for an Islamic dump like Somalia. It's because it also exists for every other nation on the planet with a coastline. If you can't wrap your mind around that. just think of it as an inter- national version of property-rights. I'm sure by know we could have some kind of procedures in place to take care of them whenever they start to act up. So why don't we? They are never that difficult for a government to take care of, or at least in this case they aren't. We don't have procedures in place for the same reason that everyone is bitching about the bailouts. Politics, international relations, everyone having a different concept of whatthe problem is or a different idea how it's to be approached, et cetera. Why do people have to lose their lives, either directly or through the funds these terrorists collect, before they are just blown to Kingdom Come as soon as they are spotted? In this instance, the loss of life has been low, either through non-deliberate shooting or health issues. The pirates have not systematically executed the crews. And they won't. That's bad for business, for one thing. That will also bring about the procedures that you're pressing for. Again, the owners don't want the navies involved. The navies, for the most part, don't want to be involved. The insurance companies aren't complaining (yet); many shipowners are self-insured and each ship is separately incorporated. It's the ass-end of Earth, and aside from the few 'interesting' cargoes, there's really nothing that threatens any nation's security or international security. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-09 15:22 |
| #12 This could get interesting... http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/01/observing-establishment-of-combined.html Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) will operate from the USS San Antonio (LPD 17) which will act as a command ship, and initially will be supported by two unnamed warships. It will be interesting to see what kind of helicopters we see flying off the USS San Antonio (LPD 17), we have recently seen AH-1s and UH-1s on the flight deck, and it will be interesting to see if it becomes Marine airmen who become the sharp end of the spear. And those are Cobras on deck. http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/081213-N-9134P-004.jpg |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-01-09 13:43 |
| #11 P2K, the convoy system is not appropriate here. That takes a significant amount of coordination even when every ship is under a single command. To have it done with a bunch of independent ship owners would be well nigh impossible. The reason it is impossible is because those ship owners do not have the incentive to do it. Their ships are being taken hostage in some cases (relatively few compared to the level of overall ship traffic). So they pay a ransom to get their ships and crew returned. The key here is that the ships (asset) are being returned and not sunk (as they were in WWII). Thus, minimized incentive. And how are you going to get say, an Iranian ship, to cooperate in sailing with a US-lead convoy? Herding cats. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2009-01-09 13:34 |
| #10 Pappy, It doesn't take much thought to grasp that the 'do nothing' approach can still include convoying groups of ships through areas. Assembly points and rules of conduct aren't that hard even if its something dug up from Navy or Admiralty archives. If the owners are stupid enough to go it alone without participating in convoys, fine, it is their problem, particularly when national governments start clamping down on monetary transfers as part of the WOT. Little hard to make the business as usual payoff when the funds can't transfer. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-01-09 12:10 |
| #9 I'll add problem #4 to Pappy's list -- 4. The area to patrol is LARGE. The Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off of Somalia combined is a lot of square miles to cover. There are multiple shipping lanes, and the pirates have been getting bigger, longer-range mother ships. So if you're going to cover the area properly you need a lot of naval assets. That means lots of frigates and helos. They can stay on station for a certain length of time and then need to rotate with other frigates. We're not going to put a carrier in the region, nor will the Euros. Our assets are busy in other places around the world, and a 300 ship Navy only goes so far. And a far number of our ships aren't right for this problem. The Euros have small navies and can't contribute more than a frigate or two each. Just trying to coordinate the naval ships from a dozen countries is daunting in and of itself. Trying to get the merchant fleet to cooperate (especially as Pappy notes, they may not particularly want to cooperate) is tougher. This isn't a job I'd want if I were a military genius, which I'm not. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-01-09 12:07 |
| #8 what ever happened to sending in the Marines? werent they created originally to deal with just this sort of problem (ie Barbary Pirates) |
| Posted by: Ceaser Augustus 2009-01-09 11:57 |
| #7 Put your resume into NAVPERS, gorb. I'll bet the Navy will make you an 3-star in a week. OK, Pappy, I never claimed to be a genius, nor did anyone else. So obviously you're in a mood to not play nice. It's working wonders for your diplomatic skills in everyone's eyes. So I'll just translate for you: Whats so hard about just whacking these guys? Throughout history the world has been down the road with these kinds of folks more times than we can count. I'm sure by know we could have some kind of procedures in place to take care of them whenever they start to act up. So why don't we? They are never that difficult for a government to take care of, or at least in this case they aren't. Why do people have to lose their lives, either directly or through the funds these terrorists collect, before they are just blown to Kingdom Come as soon as they are spotted? |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-01-09 11:42 |
| #6 Let the Russians and Chinese take the lead on this one... The Euros, the Malaysians, etc. won't let their forces go under the authority of those two nations. Look, it's a no-win situation. The warships from the various nations will show up, but thanks to their politicians, they won't do anything unless the Americans are there to Only took them a year to figure out that it was lopsided enough to be able to take it on safely. Anyone with a couple of 50-cals on a stable platform could take the lead on this one. Put your resume into NAVPERS, gorb. I'll bet the Navy will make you an 3-star in a week. i guess they will put our forces under control of someone like France just for good measure, and so we don't actually kill one of the pirates I didn't realize we had so many Yes, it's a clusterf*ck. It'll stay a clusterf*ck because: 1. The shipowners don't want the navies involved. So they pay ransom - it's part of the cost of doing business. As long as the pirates don't kill off the crews, the owners are gonna keep doing what they've been doing. 2. Much as you all don't like it, the navies like to follow laws and expect to know how much and authority they've been given. You aren't going to be the ones facing court-martial, especially with a new administration coming aboard. The days of Stephen Decatur are past, over, done with. 3. The nations that sent ships really don't want to be involved. They (wisely) aren't going to give the UN the authority. They aren't going to waste the time in meetings trying to come up with some set of legal procedures to deal with the pirates. So they'll patrol, escort some ships, send a helo or two over a couple of skiffs, and once in a while have to rescue some of their non-merchant nationals (like the French did). It looks like they're doing something without having to really do something. Lastly, this is not a war. This is not even a crisis. This is a problem. A problem on the ass-end of the world, with the merchants not really wanting to be rescued by some warship. That may change, But for now, it is what it is. Deal with it. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-09 11:29 |
| #5 i guess they will put our forces under control of someone like France just for good measure, and so we don't actually kill one of the pirates |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2009-01-09 09:05 |
| #4 UNCLAS NNS090108-01. New Counter-Piracy Task Force Established From Commander, Combined Maritime Forces Public Affairs MANAMA, Bahrain (NNS) -- The Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) established Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) Jan. 8 specifically for counter-piracy operations. Naval ships and assets from more than 20 nations comprise the Combined Maritime Forces. U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Terence "Terry" McKnight has been named the commander of the new task force which will be fully operational by the middle of January. The CMF created the Maritime Security Patrol Area (MSPA) in the Gulf of Aden in August of 2008 to support international efforts to combat piracy. Coalition efforts included CTF-150 assets patrolling the area with ships and aircraft. However, the charter for CTF-150, established at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom, was for the conduct of Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. Operations included the deterrence of destabilizing activities, such as drug smuggling and weapons trafficking. The establishment of CTF-151 will allow CTF-150 assets to remain focused on those activities, giving CTF-151 the ability to focus solely on the counter-piracy mission. "Some navies in our coalition did not have the authority to conduct counter-piracy missions," said Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, CMF commander. "The establishment of CTF-151 will allow those nations to operate under the auspices of CTF-150, while allowing other nations to join CTF-151 to support our goal of deterring, disrupting and eventually bringing to justice the maritime criminals involved in piracy events." Gortney highlighted the reduction in piracy events in the region due to merchant mariners' proactive measures. He also continued to caution that the efforts of coalition and international navies won't solve the problem of piracy. "The most effective measures we've seen to defeat piracy are non-kinetic and defensive in nature. The merchant ships have been doing a great job stepping up and utilizing these methods to defeat piracy attempts. That's a great first step. But the problem of piracy is and continues to be a problem that begins ashore and is an international problem that requires an international solution. We believe the establishment of CTF-151 is a significant step in the right direction." CTF 151 is a multinational task force that conducts counter-piracy operations in and around the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Red Sea and was established to create a lawful maritime order and develop security in the maritime environment. For more news from Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet, visit www.navy.mil/local/cusnc. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-01-09 08:12 |
| #3 |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-01-09 05:49 |
| #2 Only took them a year to figure out that it was lopsided enough to be able to take it on safely. Anyone with a couple of 50-cals on a stable platform could take the lead on this one. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-01-09 01:49 |
| #1 Let the Russians and Chinese take the lead on this one... |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-01-09 00:17 |