Show of force is now a joke

[rattler]

See once again you missed the point that it was a tactical discussion... -snip-

Again it was a spitball discussion on tactics. Guess you missed it.

See your missing the point that the discussion was about tactics not the geo-political diplomatic side of it, we tend to leave that to politicians.

Look, I do not get your point, i.e. indeed missed that one:

If I read it right, this is the "Political Discussions" part of the overall forum, and I read and respond under that basic assumption. did not start the thread and am responding to the political aspects you guys brought up (and be they generation politics).

On the same forum under "Military Discussion" you will find another thread, where I (and AFAIK you and others) respond strictly to the mil aspects: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/how-we-deal-pirate-attacks-t73990.html I would imagine a tactical discussion should be continued over there.

Asking me to exclude politics from a political discussion is from my POV slightly hilarious and like asking the pope to become agnostic...

My 2c, and outta here for now,

Rattler

 

[03USMC]

Which sounds fine to me, just not taking into account the *strategical* implications. This is what made me call it "you sound like teens" as I find it typical (and have lived it myself when young some decades ago) for this age group.

Sooooo. I'm a teen??? Because of a tactics discussion. Thats what I'm getting out that ^^^^^^ The Strategic implications of what?

The Vessels?
The length of time on station?
The loss of said vessels to their respective navies?
The possibilty of collateral casualties to fisherman.?
The possibilty of collateral casualties if action is taken on the land bases?


Mil bkgnd - while much appreciated in the discussion - does not necessarily immunify against such shortcuts...

WTF K. What part of it was a discussion of possible tactics are you having a difficulty grasping? You turned this into a geo-political/Diplomatic / debate and called it a teen gab fest.



The data:

- Intl sea law
- Juridical definition of piracy
- Vessels (or CTF) advantages and disadvantages according to type/class
- Established tactical options
- Repercussions for all of the above
- Cost/Benefit calculation
- Projected ENY COA´s with a good billion of $ as voiced/written on the net by their analysts

There ain't no General or Flag officers here Skippy. They handle that end. The discussion was between us Grunts on a smaller scale than you are hoping for.




Did I say I doubted that?

Yes you did. By your accusations and suggestions.

You want to talk tactics, so explain it to your subordinates in the terms maufactured for such endeavour. Anything wrong with the idea from your POV?

We were talking tactical options. Until you waltzed in with your journo all knowing attitude. What subordinates?



Well, at least you now have definded what you see as the mission. The "This means..." part would belong to "Commanders Intent" IMHO, but is also well received from this side of the discussion.

I don't think that the "Mission Statement" (thats what your looking for) was ever in question by anyone but you.



Can you tell me why you see this as a *simple* concept? It is just exactly this point that makes it so complicated, IMO, and it is not a strategical view: Free Sea Lane Transit is a rather new concept, brought in by Woodrow Wilson, the treatys covering its execution hav beens signed by almost all nations (with the exception of the US, China and Russia).

Piracy has been illegal for longer than that. That piracy is illegal and the harboring of pirates suspect is what makes it simple. Sounds to me like "strategically" you believe that the pirates have some sort of sovereriegn right to their actions.

E.g., I can fully agree that making it unprofitable might be a valid COA, but I have the feeling you are just saying this because of a hunch of yours (which I share) instead of basing it on a profound and data backed analysis.

I think you over think the motives of the pirates. Take away the profit it becomes less and less attractive. If it becomes less attracive then they find something else to do.


Look, one of my first lessons in learning tactics (and it will probably be my last as it still hasn´t yet made it firmly enough to the LL department of my brain after 50+yrs...:bang was "Don´t Assume! ...Ever!"

You are doing that right now, and twofold:

I'm not assuming anything. You show me where the Somali's have combat vessels, combat aircraft or any type of modern military hardware.

1. With 900 millions of ransom just 2008 (no data yet on 2009, but there should be a substantial increase: Estimates now go 2.700 Million $ if the trend holds) they will soon be available to aquire assets that can cope with anything but a full scale CVBG, not necessarily combat vessels, but what about their own sat screening? their own "Air Force!"? Fast Boats, Missiles, Helos? Submarines? etc... Money will get you up to speed fast...

They don't have them!!!!!!If they did have them they don't have the infrastructure or tech support to maintain them. Somalia is a failed state. There are no reports to the contrary and until you provide them then your just whistling in the dark with this line of thought.

What birds had machine Guns?



Not saying it will be so, but *assuming* it wont be leads to disaster according to all tactical lessons I have learned.

Your the only one here thats assuming any damned thing. You've taken this discussion and blown it all out of proportion.

2. You are asuuming I am comparing, I am not: As you are familiar with OPORDS: "Execution: Way In, Way Out".

Actually you don't want an OPORD you want an OPLAN (Operations Plan) go wiki that one.


Think up how we are going to deal with them actually starting to kill all those hostages (so far they only threatened - and even this is the first step of augmenting the pressure - to kill French and US guys), blowing up the ships to close passages, taking terrain hostage, actually lancing missiles, etc...

The killing of hostages has always been a threat, been discussed.
The sinking of vessels? Actually that would be contrary to their goals. We aren't talking about a nation wanting to block the Straits of Hormuz here, they capture ships for profit.

What terrian. They already hold their bases of operation. What else are they going to "take".

What missiles? Missiles they might someday, maybe, possibly have?

Not saying there is no answer to those questions, but have *you* thought them through, incl your responses, when you cry "A por ellos!"? The mil plöanners will have to do just that...

So enlighten us poor dumb grunts there oh master strategist with all the answers.



? Do not see where you got that last bit from.



*You* obviously missed (or I wasnt able to transport) that this was exactly the point *I* wanted to make:

Tactics w/o strat base will fail the end result, demonstrated 50+ times in just the 2Oth century and claimed long times before as key...

Read your Clausewitz again ("The dialectical approach to military analysis", "The methods of "critical analysis"", "The nature of the balance-of-power mechanisms" and "The relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war" come to mind)...

If you have no strategical view that is clear and concise, have defined your end goal/result and exit conditions, all your tactics will just save your ass for a moment, might even win a battle, but surely will not win the war.

Politics *are* one of the reasons and one of the means to fight wars (again Clausewitz - and I know I am abusing him here for rhetorical reasons - "War is merely a continuation of politics"):

Just one example in this case: Many of our western nation well paid recycling firms threw their (our!) chemical toxic waste into Somali waters for decades now, simply because they could:

Politics have no bearing in regards to Somalia. There is no body politic to deal with. No goverment. No infrastructure.

Somalis had no government to oppose and enforce tha opposition, and anyway it was much cheaper than to dispose legally (and the profits better). Result: Somali (and ethiopian on the long run) fishermen lost thier income consecutively because all was dead or poisened, they turn pirates as a reaction...

Cry me a River. I don't care. They are pirates now. I don't care if mommy didn't hug em .


Now, me, you and we all other citizens that are involved in the struggle are paying those firms profits with real tax money just to get it under control again... Tell me again: Politics has no strategical bearing? You are serious?

Huh no currently the ransoms are being paid by the vessels companies and insurance.

Again who do have political discourse with in skinnyland.



Like me, like you, like everyone.

Still, we have developed more intelligent ways (which in my book wants to say "ways where everybody profits") to deal with conflicts, one would be to bring those toxic wasters to justice and make them pay the owed debits to the Somalis (which in turn wont need to go pirates, just an idea for starters and because I cited the problem above).

Include those COAs in your strat/tac plans.

Welcome to Lala land. If I remember correctly somalias sewage system was the ocean, so of course they hold no blame. Don't recall them ever being overly concerned about the enviroment ethier. So I guess this is another case of blame the west.

Your talking about paying tribute ala the Barbary Pirates to stop this piracy. I am not at all surprised.

Rattler[/quote]


Yeah your right you have all the answers :roll:

 

[03USMC]

Look, I do not get your point, i.e. indeed missed that one:

If I read it right, this is the "Political Discussions" part of the overall forum, and I read and respond under that basic assumption. did not start the thread and am responding to the political aspects you guys brought up (and be they generation politics).

On the same forum under "Military Discussion" you will find another thread, where I (and AFAIK you and others) respond strictly to the mil aspects: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/how-we-deal-pirate-attacks-t73990.html I would imagine a tactical discussion should be continued over there.

Asking me to exclude politics from a political discussion is from my POV slightly hilarious and like asking the pope to become agnostic...

My 2c, and outta here for now,

Rattler

No you turned a debate on use of force into a furball of BS. We weren't going there until the great a mighty rattler decided to educate us ignorant wretches.

Good for us that you don't decide where threads go oh fount of knowledge.

 

[KJ]

Oh ok, we were on a too low level for ya there skippy..
Fair enough I´ll take it up to one of the highest levels around.

If I were Putin I´d tell my boys to turn skinnyland into glass with a few nukes and then put a hammer to it..

How many here doubt that he would? Show of hands.



Simple fact remains.
If the sailors are allowed to do their job they will fix this rather quickly.
If some officer sits on his thumbs for a few years thinking how he can withdraw afterwards they will be put in harms way for nothing...Again.

Here is a plan, get in, DO the job and THEN leave..How about that?

 

[03USMC]

Oh ok, we were on a too low level for ya there skippy..
Fair enough I´ll take it up to one of the highest levels around.

If I were Putin I´d tell my boys to turn skinnyland into glass with a few nukes and then put a hammer to it..

How many here doubt that he would? Show of hands.



Simple fact remains.
If the sailors are allowed to do their job they will fix this rather quickly.
If some officer sits on his thumbs for a few years thinking how he can withdraw afterwards they will be put in harms way for nothing...Again.

Here is a plan, get in, DO the job and THEN leave..How about that?

KJ way to simple. You didn't address the strategic ramifications.

 

[rattler]

-snip- you turned a debate on use of force into a furball of BS. -snip-

Sorry if I mentioned politics in a thread in the political discussion section, I have understood and will stuff it, LL.

After all, mods are gods :bravo:.

Rattler

 

[senojekips]

This whole problem blew up in our face, the instant several of the earlier ransoms were paid. Now every group of idiots with a few clapped out AKs and a RPG or two have gone into the ransom business.

Our first move should be to blackball the shipping companies that encouraged this happening.

So long as there is even the very slightest chance of a ransom being paid, we will be chasing our tails. Once this is resolved we can then start to look at ridding the seas of those who are slow on the uptake.

Somalia has about 2000 miles of coastline so any Naval force is going to need Air surveillance to locate likely targets. It would be a huge job to do properly.

Once armed persons are detected at sea, they are fair game. A squirt or two of 30mm and once a few of these easy money men stopped coming home, other would be pirates might start to think about the wisdom of it all.

 

[A Can of Man]

It's almost too bad that the old Roman tactic can't be used anymore. Otherwise, if they kill one of our guys then we wipe out a coastal village. That will turn people against the pirates in a hurry.

RoKMC did something like that back in Vietnam. The VC stayed out of RoKMC AOs.

 

[BritinBritain]

Somalia has about 2000 miles of coastline so any Naval force is going to need Air surveillance to locate likely targets. It would be a huge job to do properly.

Once armed persons are detected at sea, they are fair game. A squirt or two of 30mm and once a few of these easy money men stopped coming home, other would be pirates might start to think about the wisdom of it all.

Absolutely.

My idea of putting armed men on merchant ships as in my previous post, would prevent the need of naval forces looking for the pirates, the pirates come looking for the ships. As for armed merchant ships becoming targets for their weapons, a burst from a 50 cal would soon change their minds.

As far as I am aware, a private company is offering an armed escort service through the Straits of Malacca, for a price.

As for the effectiveness of the UN, one only has to look at Rwanda and the genocide carried out under the noses of UN troops.

Pirates are criminals nothing more nothing less, and typically criminals love their victims to be defenceless. World governments are encouraging piracy with their inane, "Merchant ships must be unarmed." Which would a mugger prefer as his victim, an armed cop or a unarmed and defenceless little old lady?

My two cents worth

 

[A Can of Man]

An exclusion zone would probably be best.
If not, an attachment of about six armed men operating in pairs in a scare crow's nest on a ship would do the job. Just how hard could that be? That would be three groups of two working in shifts.

 

[Del Boy]

The first problem: What does qualify as "unauthorized"? By whom? Under which definition?

Do you want *free* sea travel (Wilson doctrine) outside the 12/200 miles? Then you have to let them go as long as they do not commit a crime, if you decide that you decide who is free to travel the seas... well, than it is not "free" naymore, right?

2nd problem: We are talking 1.1 millions of square miles here...

Make a rough calculation how many ships you would need present and well coordinated/distributed to just guarantee a reaction time of lets say 6 hours to a distress call? I have not done it, but currently the average response time is 3 days...

Rattler

All of that is precisely why I had timidly asked whether airstrikes on exclusion zones might be an answer.

I did suggest it might eliminate the need for vulnerable large naval targets being in close proximity. That and speed of arrival.

I accept that, as none of the guys has picked up on that suggestion it is considered not to be an option. I bow to superior knowledge therefore.

 

[rattler]

All of that is precisely why I had timidly asked whether airstrikes on exclusion zones might be an answer.

I did suggest it might eliminate the need for vulnerable large naval targets being in close proximity. That and speed of arrival.

I accept that, as none of the guys has picked up on that suggestion it is considered not to be an option. I bow to superior knowledge therefore.

I think the concept of exlusion zones has merit in general, but there are also some associated problems to solve first, at least from my POV:

The obvious questions:

- Which legal body is going to define the EZ and mandate validation and enforcement?
- As I assume this would probably have to be UNSC, is it feasible this wont be vetoed?
- Can communication of - once established and validation/enforcement legally mandated - the new setup to the non pirate traffic like e.g. the simple fishermen (still the majority if I understand things right) be guaranteed?
- How would the legitimate vessel owners be compensated (and by whom) for losing their income?

The not so obvious but also important questions:

- Would an EZ set a precedent that would be binding under intl law and allow other nations to ask/mandate the same under similar pretexts - even if those were hard to prove? (especially if an EZ would have been set up without UN mandate)

- What would such an EZ mean for the - legally binding right - of free transit and sea travel that especially the US have always made thier top priority? What consequenced would this legally have for e.g. sea mining consortiums like the Indian, Chinese or US ones? To see what I am talking about, check http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=young_kim

The controversy on the legal regime of transit passage through straits used for international navigation seems to have been worn out. Without any due scrutiny, this transit passage regime seems to have been passed as having created some new rights of free passage, including submerged passage, through, over and under the territorial sea of the state bordering the straits.

The argument that, except for Part XI of the deep-sea mining provisions, the Convention codifies customary law or reflects existing international practice, was asserted by some members of U.S. delegation right after the adoption of the Convention. They even affirmed that those important navigation and over-flight rights of transit passage through straits were universally recognized under customary international law and the U.S. is entitled to such rights no matter whether the U.S. is opposing the whole Convention and is not a party to it. Such pick-and-choose attitude of the U.S. has been bitterly criticized by most nations.

Definitely a good idea, but it will take time to implement, and those questions at least will have to be summarily addressed before we can chose this COA.

Just sking, any ideas?

Rattler

 

[A Can of Man]

Looks like the riches are waiting for us in failed states.

 

[Del Boy]

Well, I always say that necessity is the mother of invention.:idea:

 

[KJ]

The decision on a EZ could be taken by a varitey of bodies.

UNSC, AU, NATO or EU.
Doesn´t really matter who is the official father, as long as something is done about the situation.
You will not have to compensate any fishermen.
The EZ will be put far enough out from the coastline that fishermen can still do their work.

Any and all shipping that doesn´t want to be protected inside the EZ and willingly travel closer to the coastline will be concidered a writeoff.

Anything breaching the EZ however will be sunk after fair warning has been given.
No if´s or but´s about it.
The deterant factor needs to be there. IMO.

As far as Del boys suggestion of air capability/strikes.
I think air capability in the form of Helos are to be prefered in this case.
They can stay over a presumed hostile long enough to do a serious ID of the "skiff" and/or it´s intentions.
But some sort of air capability should IMHO be available, especially for surveilance.

 

[A Can of Man]

Looks like another job for UAVs

 

[Wallabies]

I don't see why the military needs to be used to protect private enterprise. These companies make enough money to employ a section of gunslingers on these boats rather than waste millions of dollars deploying navies and aviation against illiterate 3rd world monkeys.

 

[senojekips]

I don't see why the military needs to be used to protect private enterprise. These companies make enough money to employ a section of gunslingers on these boats rather than waste millions of dollars deploying navies and aviation against illiterate 3rd world monkeys.

The laws regarding seafarers, and arms on merchant vessels is a minefield and would be almost impossible to implement.

The military is the only group who is at present allowed and able to do the job without years of debate to reshape the current laws to fit.

Five years ago, my son was on the payroll of a group based in Johannesburg who were trying to get recognition from the UN to form an anti piracy division using several old patrol craft. As far as I know, nothing has ever got off the ground.

 

[A Can of Man]

Because we all know that violence never solved anything.
Never stopped the Nazis.
Never stopped the Imperial Japanese.
Never stopped the North Koreans.
Never got Noriega.
Never liberated Kuwait.
Never beat the Argentinians.
Never got Hong Kong off the Chinese.
Never liberated any South American country from the Spanish.
No, it never achieved anything.
All these were made possible by talking with reason.
</sarcasm>

 

[Del Boy]

Bravo. And apt enough not to require the 'sarcasm' label.