Interesting article here about the piracy problem off the coast of Somalia. According to the article, some 61 ships have been attacked by these pirates, who operate basically a sea-based shakedown operation in which they hold the vessel and crew captive until the shipping company pays the ransom.
This has been a problem in other parts of the world, most notably in the Strait of Malacca. There, nations in the vicinity (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia) --with US help-- came together to police and patrol the waters, driving the piracy threat down considerably. Off of Somalia, the nearby nations can't field much a maritime effort, so there is a multi-national naval force operating to help deal with this threat.
We must however, keep a sense of perspective. While 61 ships were attacked in this area, some 21,900 were not. While we worked on the new US Maritime Strategy, it was a battle to resist those who would try to raise this threat to a level it did not deserve. This is a problem to be solved largely by attacking the shore-based profiteers from piracy AND through regional naval alliances that in most cases do NOT include US naval vessels. Putting too much emphasis on the interdiction of pirates leads some to the misplaced conclusion that we need to greatly step up the allocation of resources to combat this problem--often times with little or no thought to what the impact of such a shift in resources would mean to the world's most powerful power projection Navy.
Combating piracy must be placed in the context of providing what has come to be called "Maritime Security", which is an area in which our Navy must (and is) begin to devote additional resources. Good order at sea, the ability to police one's own waters, the provision of protection to key offshore industrial sites, reducing smuggling, interdicting narcotics, illegal weapons shipments and weapons of mass destruction....these ALL fall into under the heading of Maritime Security, an increasingly important mission in our closely interconnected world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese pirates are certainly nothing to ignore. However, I believe they are relatively small potatoes compared to what those who would seek to inderdict the flow of commerce (as the economic part of their strategic war against the west) are capable of doing. Keep in mind, CW, as I am sure you probably do, that nearly every major international strait, through which most commerce (natural resources, products, etc) traverse, is bordered by at least one country that is either tolerant, sympathetic or supportive of Al Quaida and their ilk. Back when Yemeni AQ loyalists attacked the French supertanker "Limburg" in 2002, I was convinced that the cost of insuring such vessels would skyrocket. Yet few attacks such as that have occurred since. Could it be that such strategic planning and direction from AQ has been put on hold while they were busy being introduced to American lead and steel on at least two major fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq? No, that would then lend credence to the Bush Administration's overarching strategy of which Iraq was but a part. Sorry for even suggesting it.
ReplyDeleteThe Russians appear to be in a pissy mood of late. Thirty something of their tanks (yes, Russia's tanks - the Ukraine is still Russia's according to President Boris Badanoff and his PM, Natashia)and tank parts, RPGs, ammo, etc. winding up in the hands of pirates was just what they needed to stretch their sealegs a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI just read where the pirates are demanding $35 million. Like I said, the Russians are in a pissy mood and have itchy trigger fingers as of late. I believe I read where the ex-Soviets are sending a cruiser/destroyer to the area. Me thinks they're going for a little pirate hunting.
ReplyDelete