Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Somali pirates capture Americans/Update: Let's roll

First, to set the scene:
Pirates on a spree
Now this, which will demand some pretty forceful American response; maybe the first serious foreign policy challenge for the new president (and the incident will also put pressure on NATO to be more effective in the area):
Somali pirates on Wednesday hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship with 20 American crew members onboard, hundreds of miles from the nearest American military vessel in some of the most dangerous waters in the world.

The 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama was carrying emergency relief to Mombasa, Kenya, when it was hijacked, said Peter Beck-Bang, spokesman for the Copenhagen-based container shipping group A.P. Moller-Maersk. It was the sixth ship seized within a week, a rise that analysts attribute to a new strategy by Somali pirates who are operating far from the warships patrolling the Gulf of Aden.

The company confirmed that the U.S.-flagged vessel has 20 U.S. nationals onboard.

Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet [more on its anti-piracy operations here], said that it was the first pirate attack ''involving U.S. nationals and a U.S.-flagged vessel in recent memory.'' She did not give an exact timeframe.

When asked how the U.S. Navy plans to deal with the hijacking, Campbell said: ''It's fair to say we are closely monitoring the situation, but we will not discuss nor speculate on current and future military operations.''

It was not clear whether the pirates knew they were hijacking a ship with American crew.

''It's a very significant foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration,'' said Graeme Gibbon Brooks, managing director of the British company Dryad Maritime Intelligence Service Ltd. ''Their citizens are in the hands of criminals and people are waiting to see what happens.''

Brooks and other analysts interviewed by the AP declined to speculate on whether American military forces might attempt a rescue operation. A senior Navy official in Washington said the Obama administration was talking to the shipping company to learn ''the who, what, why, where and when'' of the hijacking.

The U.S. Navy confirmed that the ship was hijacked early Wednesday about 280 miles (450 kilometers) southeast of Eyl, a town in the northern Puntland region of Somalia.

U.S. Navy spokesman Lt. Nathan Christensen said the closest U.S. ship at the time of the hijacking was 345 miles (555 kilometers)away.

''The area, the ship was taken in, is not where the focus of our ships has been,'' Christensen told The Associated Press by phone from the 5th Fleet's Mideast headquarters in Bahrain. ''The area we're patrolling is more than a million miles in size. Our ships cannot be everywhere at every time.''..

A NATO official said from Brussels that the alliance's five warships were patrolling the Gulf of Aden at the time of attack [piracy info webpage here].

''That's where most of the shipping goes through and we can provide most of the protection in that vital trade route,'' said the official who asked not to be identified under standing rules...

NATO has five warships that patrol the region alongside three frigates from the European Union [more here and here]. The U.S. Navy normally keeps between five to 10 ships on station off the Somali coast. The navies of India, China, Japan, Russia and other nations also cooperate in the international patrols.

NATO sees piracy as a long-term problem and is planning to deploy a permanent flotilla to the region this summer.

On March 29, a NATO supply ship [German] itself came under attack by Somali pirates who appear to have mistaken it for a merchant ship. The crew quickly overcame the attackers, boarded their boat and captured seven...

A Canadian Navy frigate, HMCS Winnipeg is part of the NATO force--and has recently been in action against pirates (video at link).

Photo:
This undated image shows the 17,000-ton container ship Maersk ...
AP
This undated image shows the 17,000-ton container ship Maersk Alabama, when it was operating under the name Maersk Alva, which has been hijacked by Somalia pirates with 20 crew members aboard, Wednesday April 8, 2009, while sailing from Salalah in Oman to the Kenyan port of Mombassa via Djibouti. (AP Photo/Polfoto, file)
Video of the attack on the German vessel:

Update: Looks like President Obama has dodged a bullet:
The American crew of a hijacked U.S.-flagged ship retook control of the vessel from Somali pirates Wednesday but a crew member was still being held hostage, according to the ship's operator and another member of the crew. U.S. officials said American warships were heading to the hijack scene. A crew member aboard the vessel told The Associated Press that his shipmates were trying to rescue a crew member who was still being held.

Colin Wright, who identified himself as a third mate aboard the ship, said, "Somalian pirates have one of our crew members in our lifeboat and we are trying to recover that crew member."

Asked whether that crew member was the ship's captain, Collin told the AP he couldn't say anything else. Earlier, a person aboard the ship told the AP by phone that it was the captain who was being held by the pirates.

At one point, the pirates had held the boat and the entire crew of Americans. Wright said: "We're really busy right now, but you can call back in an hour or two."

President Barack Obama was following the situation closely, foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said.

"We are able to confirm that the crew of the Maersk Alabama has is now in control of the ship," said Kevin Speers, a spokesman for Maersk Lines Limited. "The armed hijackers who boarded this ship earlier today have departed, however they are currently holding one member of the ship's crew as a hostage. The other members of the crew are safe and no injuries have been reported."..

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wonder if it was 3:00am when the phone rang in the White House ?

11:07 a.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

Yeah, Fred...

There's a Bush-McCain-type of response ... and an Obama-type response.

I confidently, a very sadly, predict no US military response to this piracy of a US-flagged vessel on the high seas.

That being the case, we may as well bring back the Navy to their home ports and save the fuel and wear and tear expense. That'll also help reduce the Defense budget, an important part of the cherished Obama goal of reducing American military capabilities.

11:15 a.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger holdfast said...

"hich will demand some pretty forceful American response; maybe the first serious foreign policy challenge for the new president "

I'm you appear to have forgotten who is not the President (a/k/a the Teleprompter in Chief). I think a stiff note is all that he can do.

1:20 p.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Anyone else think the SEALs would like another shot at that beach?

Give the job to the guys who want to erase the memory of last time.

1:28 p.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger holdfast said...

Babbling - God that was awful to watch, though my recollection was that most of the guys on TV were Force Recon Marines.

2:09 p.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

Holdfast and Babbling, don't forget the last US Somali endeavors were under the Democrat Clinton Administration, and the serious constraints put on that military effort. (e.g. then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Illuminative excerpt from his Wiki bio: "...Aspin ran as a peace candidate in 1970, opposing the Vietnam War.")

The US commander in Somalia PLEADED for a small detachment of tanks, to give the same force and deterrant value that Canadian Forces find so useful in Af-stan. Aspin personally turned down the request, as it would be "provocative"!!! (We had C-5s in service then and could have flown over a platoon-couple of platoons-company-sized unit of M-1s in very short order. I personally don't think the "Blackhawk Down" disaster would have happened if the US military had had a couple of platoons of Abrams to back up the infantry and choppers. Thanks, Mr. Aspin.)

Going back farther, look at the Democrat Carter's embassy hostage rescue cluster-f*ck. The joint military plan called for an approx. 600 man task force, with more helicopters and air cover. Carter personally overrulled that, on the grounds of too-likely civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in Tehran!!! Carter mandated the 90 troop force, with much-reduced helicopter and other aircraft support.

(I should add about that mission, that I later got to know a friend, a former US Navy helicopter tech, who was one of the carrier sailors who helped prep the helicopters for that mission. What he said to me about the aircrews' response, including that of the officers, to receiving Carter's force cutback order is unprintable. Carter's squeamishness basically pared out all the mission plan's margin for error and losses, almost guaranteeing failure.)

By contrast, if we want to go back even farther, do we remember the 1975 Mayaguez incident? The Khymer Rouge had just taken over Cambodia and had taken over a US-flagged, American-owned freighter off the coast of Cambodia. Then-Republican President Gerald Ford sent in the Marines to rescue the crew and recover the ship. Plus, he unleashed the USAF on the Cambodian-Khymer Rouge Armed Forces.

(I was in the USAF then, stationed Stateside. A close friend had been recently transferred to one of the three F-4 fighter bases we still had in Thailand. On my friend's return stateside the following year, he told me much about that. Just at his base, the 3 squadron F-4 wing literally emptied a mile-long munitions train in it's bombing of Cambodian military targets. As my friend -who I'll leave it at, was in a position to know- put it, "When we were done, they didn't have a navy or air force anymore." A significant side benefit to Cambodia's neighbors of that destruction was that the Khymer Rouge atrocities were limited to their own people, not having the military force to attack their neighbors.)

Going back to my above comment, we need a Ford-Bush-McCain-type robust response to this piracy, not an impotent liberal-Democrat Obama verbal flatulence.
I don't think it's painting with an overly broad brush to say that Western liberals are generally too squeamish and hesitant to use military force when appropriate, whereas conservatives are generally not. And for good or ill, actions -and inactions- have consequences.

3:08 p.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger Mabus said...

An interesting turn (don't mess with the yanks):

Hijacked US crew retake vessel

3:40 p.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger Unknown said...

Perhaps the crew needs to take care of the problem -- Slit the pirates throats and toss the bodies overboard.

5:49 p.m., April 08, 2009  
Blogger vmijpp said...

"Now this, which will demand some pretty forceful American response; maybe the first serious foreign policy challenge for the new president (and the incident will also put pressure on NATO to be more effective in the area..."

You are right on all counts. Just don't hold your breath!

I wish the crew had thrown the pirates overboard-- them folk don't swim, and the sharks grow thick in those waters.

Also, two trained men with quality rifles would have put a stop to this nonsense before it started. Too bad our authorities are wedded to gun control.

There's an easy solution for the NATO naval forces: Every pirate caught in the act gets executed. Call me bloody-minded if you like, but there it is. :-)

9:16 p.m., April 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home