I sent CDR Salamander's screed on the issue of piracy to my Representative, Nancy Boyda, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Why not? I told him that I had done so. He wrote back:
Neat-O. Thanks. Methinks that it will take Congressional WTFisms. I sat in on a brief where a 4-star's JAG sat there with a straight face and defended the "..it is ok if we bluff pirates and they call us on it and we let them go. They don't have the habit of killing any of their hostages. We shouldn't endanger ANYONE by acting rashly."Sigh.
I was too junior and way in the cheap seats to open my mouth (can't do it at work, have to do it here) on that line (I do know my place).
Honestly I get the feeling that we are encouraging piracy in a classic appeasement mindset; hoping that if we are nice enough the bad guys will become good or will go away (get bag of fairy dust now) - and we are too busy to do anything else.
Right now, no civilian at sea can expect anyone to come to their rescue. Blows my mind that is where we are right now. We would rather pirates and terrorist organizations be funded by ransoms than to remove their threat to international shipping.
Like a couple of yachtsmen now do - I wouldn't go to sea outside US territorial waters without a few long guns or shotguns well hidden in the hold for use if needed. They come in handy.
Let me know if you hear anything back. At least of the higher levels of the military that I have seen, there is a lot of resistance to taking on piracy. Make a show, fine. Do something about it? Just don't have the desire.
Heh. As I said, the shade of Decatur glowers in the darker corners of Pentagon, shaking his head. For that matter, so is Eagle1.
So, if the Navy, who's job it arguably *is* to do this sort of thing doesn't want to do it... then who?
My old buddy Kevin, a former Marine and now a merchant, piped up in my mailbox.
Piracy problem? K, agreed with the points regarding Nato/EU/whomevers forces aggressively policing international waters (Nato and EU kinda far from home and original missions aren't they?). However, if you are gonna assign these types of missions to your military, then let them be carried out. It's a foolish waste of assets otherwise. The current ROE as usual are BS!I would agree with the above policy and in addition, I would encourage the civies to take measures to actively protect themselves. Armed merchantmen etc.
I'm sure that after a few Q-ships (presumably crewed by Blackwater types) lit up the zodiacs, trawlers, dhows etc that these human vermin use..... that this sort of activity would come to an immediate halt.
Nothing says leave me alone like dropping the false superstructure of a Q-ship and deploying a few QF cannon and mini-guns. Don't tell me it can't be done.... The means are there, but is the will?
Hell, for what it will cost them in ransom payments, insurance premiums etc, not to mention the actual cost of the cargo and vessels themselves, the price for a squad/platoon whatever, of trained and armed merchant... marines would be minimal.
I just want to see the Youtube video of what happens when the mini-guns open up on the pirates. Preferably with a closeup of the exspressions on their faces when the sidings are dropped and the guns are run out....
I would also advocate these same tactics be employed in SE Asia as there is evidently a growing problem with pirates there as well.
As a side note, I wonder if the old laws regarding the penalties for piracy are still in effect? Wonder what the world media would make of an armed merchantman, much less a US Navy ship steaming into port with a few dozen corpses hanging from the yardarms?
They would no doubt holler to high heaven, but the message would have sent. And aren't our govt officials always talking about sending messages?
Oh well.
Perhaps we can look forward to a long forgotten phrase; "Stand by to repel boarders!" in the not so distance future. Hopefully followed up by the ripping sound of miniguns.........
Mmmmmm. Queen ships... better known as Q-ships (some good pictures here). Disguised as regular merchantmen, they were armed with camouflaged weapons, intended to lure in the commerce raiders and U-boats. In a purely military sense, they didn't work out as planned, because essentially the enemy response was to just sink everything from a distance, not close and seize the vessels. In other words, the Q-ship was of limited military utility because the intended target just needed to sink the vessel, not capture it.
Pirates, however - pirates are after the prize. Sinking the vessel is counter-productive.
There's lots of legal issues with the idea, but it's an idea that has merit - it's worth discussing, anyway. History shows - if you stand up to the pirates with sufficient force, they tend to go away to do other things, just like most criminals.
15 Comments