Show of force is now a joke

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
Seriously, if you have all these navies out in Somali waters and they're doing nothing and the Pirates don't care, it's time all people involved realized that the idea of "show of force" needs to be re-thought.
If you don't back it up with a willingness to use them, it's basically meaningless.
 
Show of force needs to be turned into USE of force. Course, we did already kill 3 of the 4 pirates that took the United States ship. ;)
 
Well they are using destroyers and frigates etc. Maybe whats needed is a few amphib ships with helo's and rigid raider small boats to actually conduct boarding missions on unauthorized or unidentified boats.
 
Well they are using destroyers and frigates etc. Maybe whats needed is a few amphib ships with helo's and rigid raider small boats to actually conduct boarding missions on unauthorized or unidentified boats.

Sounds like a good idea.
 
As I have stated before, during the cold war when US, British and Soviet surface ships and submarines patrolled the world oceans, piracy was almost non existent, since the cold war ended and various fleets reduced their patrols, piracy has escalated. There's a message in there somewhere.

03USMC makes some good points regarding the use of destroyers, frigates and other smaller craft, even Dels suggestion of using carriers has some merit. However, the deciding factor is cost, which governments are going to pay billions of dollars a year to maintain part of a massive fleet on anti piracy operations that may not have a huge direct impact on world trade? Which is cheapest, allowing piracy to continue as is, or go all out to stop piracy? Its all about Dollars and cents, Pounds and pence or whatever, in the end its we, the consumers who pay.

My personal opinion and suggestion is directly out of WW2 but with modern equipment. Putting armed and trained men on board merchant shipping, perhaps using military trained personnel armed and equipped with perhaps 50 cal and or GPMG's along with rifles and other light arms with perhaps something like a LAW thrown in for good measure.

A buddy of my son is an engineering officer cadet for the South African Merchant Marine, their only form of defence is anti pirate watch, ships fire hoses, then if things get a bit dangerous, batten down the ship and send out an SOS.
 
You guys sound (with all due respect and, actually, just voicing *something* is a honorable act all by itself) like some teens or twens "knowing" how to "repair" what is wrong in the world...

Really, get your data right before voicing an opinion, if you do not base it on data, your just wildly guessing around and clotting the serious part of the discussion.

Whatever endeavour you might think up, the basics is always to define the mission (Think of this as an ops with an OPORD and adress all the points as a mental priority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_order#Format).

What is the mission over there? Guarantee free sea travel? Save the insurances money? Show force? Dry out a potentional money making machine for future or current terrorists? Etc. *First* answer this question.

Next step is to project a strat, *both* for entry and exit, define the entry and exit rules and conditions.

Project the reactions of your "enemy" to your actions, and then decide where you want to end up, when you are going to act, when not, and at what scale you want to get out, and how (Iraq lessons by now should have been learned, IMHO), what is the desired end result versus cost, necessary effort, logistics, etc. I have not read any true analysis of those factors and points in any of the pirate threads here yet, but I think that is just what we need.

Shouting "Gung Ho!" is rather easy, but would it really serve? Serious analysts are addressing the theme from various angles, and it seems the simple solutions wont work.

For starters, here is the law:

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
Overview and full text: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm (I know it is some stuff to digest, but how can you expect to be taken serious and find serious solutions if you haven´t got your bases covered?)...

You might want to read what BStephens has to say on it http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757123487054681.html:

- Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates.

- A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week.

- As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.
Then, check out why there is a serious discussion ongoing on arming crews:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?_r=1&ref=africa

Excerpt:

But many ship owners, including those with vessels that regularly ply the waters off East Africa, remain deeply reluctant to allow any weapons on their ships, said Matthew Flynn, a shipping consultant in Hong Kong who works closely with ship owners in Asia and East Africa.

“I’m not sure people are convinced at all it’s going to make ships or crews safer,” he said.

Arthur Bowring, the managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association, said that if ships carried weapons, they might draw attacks around the world from people seeking to steal the weapons.

Ship owners also do not want crews to be armed because few merchant sailors have combat training and because pirates with deep pockets from ransom payments will always be able to buy larger weapons than ship owners in any maritime arms race, said Mr. Bowring, who is also the chairman of the labor affairs committee of the International Shipping Federation, a trade group representing employers.

“If we arm our crews with light machine guns, they can probably buy heavy machine guns,” Mr. Bowring said. “And if we buy light rocket launchers, they can buy heavy ones.” The answer to piracy, he said, was better law enforcement ashore.

Most ports severely restrict vessels from having weapons on board, and changing those regulations in each country would be difficult, Mr. Flynn said. The United States Coast Guard has been especially wary, fearing that the weapons could be used for terrorist attacks.

Because a commercial vessel might stop in a dozen countries during a voyage, it would be hard for it to carry weapons if any port along the route forbade that, Mr. Flynn said.

As I said, the simple things are not always simple, and they wont just work because you (we) re-iterate them as proposals...

Mercenaries? Check out this in depth background discussion on the option:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4285201.html?page=4

Then, there are many quallified discussions on the various aspects (from threat definition/perception over strategical issues to options) out there:

- http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5621

A blog roundup for those really wanting to build an educated opinion, here: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7073

A good book on the issue: The Outlaw Sea: A World of Freedom, Chaos, and Crime by William Langewiesche.

In the end, maybe non-lethal is the way to go? : http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090413/pl_afp/somaliapiracyshippinguspoliticscongress_20090413202950

Kind regards,

Rattler
 
Last edited:
The pirates should be dealt with by an international force. If America took it on board and if a lot of civilians got killed then every one would blame America for being heavy handed and the worlds policeman. Lets get the Germans, French, Chinese and Indians to take on some of this burden.
 
The pirates should be dealt with by an international force. If America took it on board and if a lot of civilians got killed then every one would blame America for being heavy handed and the worlds policeman. Lets get the Germans, French, Chinese and Indians to take on some of this burden.

23 Nations *are* already out there, including the EU member states that are making a permanent operational contribution to the operation by providing ships, taking patrol duties and providing logistics (Operation ATALANTA http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/090325FactsheetEUNAVFOR%20Somalia-version4_EN.pdf):

- Greece
- France
- Spain
- Germany
- Italy
-
Sweden
- Belgium
- Netherlands
.

Contributions from third countries such as Norway are also expected. Also, a number of Cypriot, Maltese and Finnish military personnel supplement the team at the Northwood OHQ.

China, Russia, Iran, S. Corea, and India have vessels on patrol in Somali waters also.

Seems you have a good (if not really new, though) idea there... :pirate:

Rattler
 
Last edited:
In my opinion it´s not the type of ships that is the problem (you could launch boarding parties off of frigat helo decks).

However the ROE,s does not permit any use of force at all untill the piracy crime is in effect.
Thus change the ROE,s into exclusionzone mode and let the sailors do their jobs.


Now Rattler, I recognize you are the man with all the answers.
However calling people on this here site with actual real world experience in the area "know it all teens" is a step far out of line unless you mean it word by word.

Keep it realistic.
Your move.
 
Last edited:
You guys sound (with all due respect and, actually, just voicing *something* is a honorable act all by itself) like some teens or twens "knowing" how to "repair" what is wrong in the world...

Rattler


You can burp out the current UN mandate all you want.
Change the ROE,s and they will not mean s**t.
 
You guys sound (with all due respect and, actually, just voicing *something* is a honorable act all by itself) like some teens or twens "knowing" how to "repair" what is wrong in the world...

Really? Now see what I was reading seemed like a spitball session on possible tactics, being conducted by several people with military backgrounds.

Really, get your data right before voicing an opinion, if you do not base it on data, your just wildly guessing around and clotting the serious part of the discussion.

What data? The problem being discussed was piracy and possible tactical measures that might or might not work. It was a discussion on the benefits or lack there of in tactical changes in the type of vesels used and air assets being employed. Until you decided to grace it with your enlightened views.

Whatever endeavour you might think up, the basics is always to define the mission (Think of this as an ops with an OPORD and adress all the points as a mental priority:

Gee Op -Order? Really? I and 13th & KJ & BA & LeEnfield & Del need to brush up on what an Op-Order is? Tell what I'm almost certain at the 110% level that we know what an Op-Order is having given and received same.

What is the mission over there? Guarantee free sea travel? Save the insurances money? Show force? Dry out a potentional money making machine for future or current terrorists? Etc. *First* answer this question.

Uh I think at this point in time the mission would be to insure that the shipping lanes are safe for transit by merchant vessels regardless of what flag she flys. This means curtailing criminal hi-jack of unarmed merchant vessels by Pirates based in the failed state of Somalia.

Next step is to project a strat, *both* for entry and exit, define the entry and exit rules and conditions.

Again. When the shipping lanes are safe for transit by merchant vessels. Really a pretty simple concept if you ask me. Whether it means that the pirates are eliminated wholesale or find it becomes unprofitable matters not. What matters is that vessels are safe and allowed to conduct commerce within that region, and transit that region.

Project the reactions of your "enemy" to your actions, and then decide where you want to end up, when you are going to act, when not, and at what scale you want to get out, and how (Iraq lessons by now should have been learned, IMHO), what is the desired end result versus cost, necessary effort, logistics, etc. I have not read any true analysis of those factors and points in any of the pirate threads here yet, but I think that is just what we need.

Reactions. #1 You are not dealing with a standing military force, you are dealing with a loosely confederated criminal organization (s). Based on (if my expierance in Somalia in 92- 93 has any bearing) on clan loyalty the country has no central standing goverment
#2 Their response "militarly" will be based on their assets available. That is to say small vessels and small arms augmented by the RPG which in reality is a small arm. They have no combat vessels and no air assets.

So your comparison is moot.


Shouting "Gung Ho!" is rather easy, but would it really serve? Serious analysts are addressing the theme from various angles, and it seems the simple solutions wont work.

Ya know really "Gung Ho" means work in harmony together (or so I've been told). It was used by the 2nd Seperate Bn (Raider) USMC "Carlsons Raiders" in WWII (incidentally Carlson was suspected of being a closet communist).

However in the current times being Gung-ho, or Gungy is used as almost slander towards someone with a big mouth and no expierance to back it up. So should we take it like that?

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



A blog roundup for those really wanting to build an educated opinion, here:

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.

A good book on the issue: The Outlaw Sea: A World of Freedom, Chaos, and Crime by William Langewiesche.

In the end, maybe non-lethal is the way to go? : Kind regards,

It's been my expierance that Somalis tend to respect two things.

#1 Islam
#2 The fact that the opposition as no problem blowing them away.

Thats it in a nutshell. They respect Allah and deadly force.



Rattler

See I had a really short two word answer for this but it's not allowed here.

Like KJ said you can pipe up the UN all you care to but the UN's track record in Skinnyville is less than dismal. Unless they are serious about it and employ the ROE's to back it the results will be the same as Restore Hope I & II. Abstract failure followed by withdrawl.
 
Last edited:
-snip-... Now Rattler, I recognize you are the man with all the answers.
However calling people on this here site with actual real world experience in the area "know it all teens" is a step far out of line unless you mean it word by word...

Just came home, read this reply, and I am almost at the point of taking offense (NOTE I said "almost", i.e. finally, I did not...:bravo:.. that´s called self-discipline! :peace:).

My feelings does not stem from the first part of your post (though I strongly contradict: I have more questions than answers, I am an officer after all...:wink:), but with the second paragraph.

Allow me to clarify in case it was not sufficiently clear first time (as a non-English speaker I cannot even imagine what someone firm in this language might interpret into my words):

- I did not mean to call anyone posting in this thread (before my post, this won´t be set in stone for the whole thread) a "know it all teen"...

If I recall right, my wording was - and on purpose - :
Originally Posted by rattler
You guys sound (with all due respect and, actually, just voicing *something* is a honorable act all by itself) like some teens or twens "knowing" how to "repair" what is wrong in the world...
I added the emphasis now, "...you sound like..." in my book does not come out meaning "...you are...".

- Your other point:
...with actual real world experience in the area...
Well, at least I for sure *have been there*, if long ago, and more than once. Not as a soldier, but as a journalist.

I have not yet heard that "the_13th_redneck", "Del Boy", "03USMC" or "Rob Henderson" made that claim or were basing their opinion on *personal* experience (and nor have I in this thread).

OTOH I do not see why they (or myself) should? From your POV should we only be allowed to say something if we have been there? What is the difference of an educated opinion of someone who has never seen the spot, or someone just guessing, or someoene who has been there (but...)?

Opinion is opinion and worthwile as such. I re-iterate, I uttered a serious "You guys sound like..." accepting the opinion as such.

If those posters should claim that they know better than me just because they have travelled the spot recently, I will gladfully succumb, as my time there dates some 20 yrs back and they probably will have had more insight on the piracy setup.

Keep it realistic.
Your move.
I do not consider myself in a chess game here, just voicing what I think and looking forward to thoughts from you guys. So, this is not about moving...; Am keeping it realistic basically, I believe.

Kind regards,

Rattler
 
See once again you missed the point that it was a tactical discussion. So you want my entire resume? Or just that which is pertinant to this discussion?

Company F 2/9 USMC-Somalia 92-93 Operation Restore Hope. Happy?
 
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.
 
I had in mind extremely fast approaches without presenting large naval targets vulnerable, to take out all unauthorised vessels .
 
You guys sound (with all due respect and, actually, just voicing *something* is a honorable act all by itself) like some teens or twens "knowing" how to "repair" what is wrong in the world...

Really? Now see what I was reading seemed like a spitball session on possible tactics, being conducted by several people with military backgrounds.

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.

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

Really, get your data right before voicing an opinion, if you do not base it on data, your just wildly guessing around and clotting the serious part of the discussion.

What data? The problem being discussed was piracy and possible tactical measures that might or might not work. It was a discussion on the benefits or lack there of in tactical changes in the type of vesels used and air assets being employed.

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


...Think of this as an ops with an OPORD and adress all the points as a mental priority:

Gee Op -Order? I and 13th & KJ & BA & LeEnfield & Del need to brush up on what an Op-Order is? Tell what I'm almost certain at the 110% level that we know what an Op-Order is

Did I say I doubted that?

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?

What is the mission over there? -snip- *First* answer this question.

The mission would be to insure that the shipping lanes are safe for transit by merchant vessels regardless of what flag she flys. This means curtailing criminal hi-jack of unarmed merchant vessels by Pirates based in the failed state of Somalia.

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.

Next step is to project a strat, *both* for entry and exit, define the entry and exit rules and conditions.

Again. When the shipping lanes are safe for transit by merchant vessels. Really a pretty simple concept if you ask me. Whether it means that the pirates are eliminated wholesale or find it becomes unprofitable matters not. What matters is that vessels are safe and allowed to conduct commerce within that region, and transit that region.

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).

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.

Project the reactions of your "enemy" to your actions, and then decide where you want to end up, when you are going to act, when not, and at what scale you want to get out, and how (Iraq lessons by now should have been learned, IMHO), what is the desired end result versus cost, necessary effort, logistics, etc. I have not read any true analysis of those factors and points in any of the pirate threads here yet, but I think that is just what we need.

Reactions. #1 You are not dealing with a standing military force, you are dealing with a loosely confederated criminal organization (s). Based on (if my expierance in Somalia in 92- 93 has any bearing) on clan loyalty the country has no central standing goverment
#2 Their response "militarly" will be based on their assets available. That is to say small vessels and small arms augmented by the RPG which in reality is a small arm. They have no combat vessels and no air assets.

So your comparison is moot.

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:

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...

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

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

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...

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...

Shouting "Gung Ho!" is rather easy, but would it really serve? Serious analysts are addressing the theme from various angles, and it seems the simple solutions wont work.

Ya know really "Gung Ho" means work in harmony together (or so I've been told). It was used by the 2nd Seperate Bn (Raider) USMC "Carlsons Raiders" in WWII (incidentally Carlson was suspected of being a closet communist).

However in the current times being Gung-ho, or Gungy is used as almost slander towards someone with a big mouth and no expierance to back it up. So should we take it like that?

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

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

A blog roundup for those really wanting to build an educated opinion, here:

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.

*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:

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...

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?[/quote]

It's been my expierence that Somalis tend to respect two things.

-snip-
#2 The fact that the opposition as no problem blowing them away.

Thats it in a nutshell. They respect Allah and deadly force.

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.

Rattler
 
See once again you missed the point that it was a tactical discussion. So you want my entire resume? Or just that which is pertinant to this discussion?

Company F 2/9 USMC-Somalia 92-93 Operation Restore Hope. Happy?


You are too fast for me, see my reply two posts later... I adressed that.

Rattler
 
I had in mind extremely fast approaches without presenting large naval targets vulnerable, to take out all unauthorised vessels .

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
 
that silly. get intell on where they launch the attacks from and raid the bastards homeports. the UN is all nice and well but if a US ship is hit by pirates from a country that has no real law enforcment, i think its legitemet to step in and do it the hard way.

1) Find where they launch from.
2)Increase patrols where they luanch from.
3)If it is possible(And why not?) raid thier ports, sink thier boats, kill as many as you can, arrest the rest and confiscate their weapons.
 
Back
Top