Pirates yet again with an American ship

[bbchien]

The ironic aspect, of course, was that William Bainbridge was the captain of the last US Navy ship to be captured by pirates....

Ron Wanttaja

That's not a bit of trivia lost on a navy guy.

Most people don't know where the shores of Tripoli are, or that we have been fighting this same fight for >200 years.

Commodore Bainbridge in later service managed to capture a British frigate, despite being wounded twice, 1812, I believe.

 

[Henning]

..and, since China has veto power, they'll just constipate the system even more.

Now we're right back to "What's in the best interest of the US?". Republic or Empire? Protect our own shores and interests or be the international police?

Republic, mandate the shipping companies carry their burden and equip the ships to effectively repel boarders. I'm sorry if I seem short, but I keep hearing people talk "game" and ooorah and all that, but it comes from a perspective of living too long in a nanny state. The open sea bears absolutely no resemblance to a nanny state. Everything at sea is trying to kill me everyday. The government has no way to enforce it's will over nature, though they have definitely tried. The Corps of Engineers has bowed its head in submission to the mighty Mississippi, and it is nothing but a pin head when compared to the power the open sea can unleash on you. As seamen, we accept this and we accept that it is our responsibility and ours alone to make the decisions and take the actions that ensure the safety of what we are charged to protect and deliver. No Worries, complete and total self reliance is what we know. This is what is so damned frustrating about how this is being dealt with. Rather than giving the seamen the equipment which they need to protect themselves whether it be from nature or pirates. We now have very effective non lethal weapons which the UN cannot, and does not object to, fine. Is the freakin' UN calling for a mandate to equip ships with this? No, the UN sure as f- isn't looking out for my best interest there, why, it'll cost too much to implement and the cost of bribing UN officials is much lower. As long as the general public cries "oorah" when the Navy comes in and saves a hostage rather than question "Why were they able to be taken as hostage?" there is no reason for the Gov't to set a mandate either.

So forgive my crotchety old ass for not being f-ing enthused by that particular reaction.

 

[gkainz]

Pray tell, how shall the UN enforce fishing territory? What Naval contingent does the UN have? How many ships do they have sailing? Anything that the UN wants at sea, defacto goes to the US Navy as well as a few others, except they're all out protecting their own waters from the Japanese. The UN can't even manage to stop the Japanese whaling, Paul Watson is the only guy out there doing it right now, and he gets no UN funding for filling a UN mandate.

The UN is Worthless on it's own, it has no self enforceable power. It relies on member nations to cooperate, and many of the member nations may not agree and/or don't have the capabilities or budgets to do anything substantial, leaving the US as the only "superpower" to carry 90% of the burden.

The UN can't enforce a damned thing and is such a freaking mess at the leadership level it should just be disbanded. The politics within the UN is so corrupt it makes Illinois politicians look like Mother freakin' Theresa.

Just Nuke Africa finally and be done with it...

Hmmm, maybe the pirate contingent should be organized into a quasi Somali National Defense Force Navy, and put to work patrolling and enforcing fishing boundary limits. But wait, that would require coordination. And "who's gonna pay for this" and "who's in charge" and .... uh, never mind...

 

[wanttaja]

That's not a bit of trivia lost on a navy guy.

Most people don't know where the shores of Tripoli are, or that we have been fighting this same fight for >200 years.

Commodore Bainbridge in later service managed to capture a British frigate, despite being wounded twice, 1812, I believe.

Bainbridge was in command of USS Constitution and defeated HMS Java in December 1812.

A person on another list provided a bit more information about Bainbridge: he was the first, and (as far as I know) only US Navy officer to surrender TWO ships (he surrendered USS Retaliation during the Quasi-War with France).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Anthony]

Bainbridge was in command of USS Constitution and defeated HMS Java in December 1812.

A person on another list provided a bit more information about Bainbridge: he was the first, and (as far as I know) only US Navy officer to surrender TWO ships (he surrendered USS Retaliation during the Quasi-War with France).

Ron Wanttaja

He was cleared of any wrongdoing by a Naval court both times. Not that you're saying he did anything wrong, just wanted to make sure the record was straight. He was a true Naval hero. You can visit his grave in Philly.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Now the pirates have taken four new vessels and sixty new hostages; none are US flagged vessels.

Earlier in this thread there were discussions of statistics. This is the first I've read of actual numbers; they are higher than I imagined, especially considering we're only in April of this calendar year:

Pirates have attacked 78 ships this year, hijacking 19 of them, and 17 ships with over 300 crew still remain in pirates' hands, according to Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur.

Each boat carries the potential of a million-dollar ransom.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD97IBU800

 

[Henning]

Hmmm, maybe the pirate contingent should be organized into a quasi Somali National Defense Force Navy, and put to work patrolling and enforcing fishing boundary limits. But wait, that would require coordination. And "who's gonna pay for this" and "who's in charge" and .... uh, never mind...

There you go, you tapped right on the essential nail heads right there. Somalia is a nation of feudal warlords. There is no representative government there to speak out. When I hauled a couple of barges of resupply for the USMC there, they flew out security contingents with crew served weapons and man portable missiles. When I inquired of the Colonel (they sent a full bird out to my tug) why the large security force was still needed he said flat out "There is no such thing as "secured" here, this is as much to defend our stuff from our friends as enemies." We could funnel a billion dollars into setting up the system for the Somalis to police their waters, and all that would happen is that there would be a blood bath between the warlords in Somalia and none of that money would be spent defending Somalian fishing territory. On top of that it only addresses the Somalian pirates, and there are many more.

 

[Anthony]

^^^^^^^^^ Oy Vey, Henning. Maybe we should just encourage the few flag vessels we have to just stay out of those waters. Or you earlier suggestion, just nuke it.

 

[wanttaja]

He was cleared of any wrongdoing by a Naval court both times. Not that you're saying he did anything wrong, just wanted to make sure the record was straight. He was a true Naval hero. You can visit his grave in Philly.

Hay-el, Captain Mackenzie was cleared by a Naval court after the so-called Somers mutiny, so that don't mean much.:smile:

The court may have cleared Bainbridge, but they didn't give him another ship for about seven years. It took a war and another captain's family misfortune for him to get back to sea.

It is true, though, they had a different attitude towards surrender back then. It was perfectly proper for an Captain to strike his colors when he was in an untenable situation. All of the Captains of the British ships taken by the US during the War of 1812 were acquitted.

However, there are some questions as to whether Bainbridge surrendered too fast, when the Philadelphia went aground. See "The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805," by Richard Zacks.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Henning]

^^^^^^^^^ Oy Vey, Henning. Maybe we should just encourage the few flag vessels we have to just stay out of those waters. Or you earlier suggestion, just nuke it.

AAARRRRRRRrrrrrgh!!! WHY NOT GIVE THEM THE DAMNED EQUIPMENT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!?!?! Holy f-....

 

[Anthony]

AAARRRRRRRrrrrrgh!!! WHY NOT GIVE THEM THE DAMNED EQUIPMENT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!?!?! Holy f-....

I am all that, but as you said we are not in control of that option. How about your statement that many ports won't allow a ship with weapons. Are you saying carry they sureptitiously? I am all for that too. Eff those foreign ports.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

AAARRRRRRRrrrrrgh!!! WHY NOT GIVE THEM THE DAMNED EQUIPMENT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!?!?! Holy f-....

I'm all for that too... My concern is, though, that if that's all that's done, we'd still hear the exact same kind of headlines about pirates taking ships and hostages, just with "... after a brief exchange of gunfire" tacked on the end.

So yeah, allow the crew to arm themselves. That's great, and I'm sure they'd wind up turning back many (or perhaps even most) attacks. But something still needs to be done about the wider situation in Somalia and East Africa, for reasons that far outstrip piracy in the significance of their threat.

 

[Henning]

I am all that, but as you said we are not in control of that option. How about your statement that many ports won't allow a ship with weapons. Are you saying carry they sureptitiously? I am all for that too. Eff those foreign ports.

Wow!!! I have already brought out that there are non lethal energy weapons that are very effective (and expensive) and allowable everywhere. They are on most of the big cruise ships as we speak. The owners of cruise lines cannot afford a hostage situation, they would be out of business and bankrupt in 15 minutes. Commercial shipping ventures have no such concern. As long as it is cheaper for them to lose a few crew than to install these systems, that's what will continue to happen.

If you want to do something useful, write to your Congress critter as to why there is no mandate to have these systems installed on US flagged vessels. Enough of those letters may have an effect.

 

[Henning]

I'm all for that too... My concern is, though, that if that's all that's done, we'd still hear the exact same kind of headlines about pirates taking ships and hostages, just with "... after a brief exchange of gunfire" tacked on the end.

You're wrong though, the energy weapons completely incapacitate the people they are aimed at and then you run them down with the ship.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

You're wrong though, the energy weapons completely incapacitate the people they are aimed at and then you run them down with the ship.

That's a good point... But my view is still the same: Put all our hope to eliminate the problem in those devices, and they'll put all their efforts into finding a way around them -- which at some point they most assuredly will. And as I already mentioned, taking some real steps to improve the wider situation in Somalia and the region pays dividends well beyond ameliorating the piracy problem.

 

[Henning]

That's a good point... But my view is still the same: Put all our hope to eliminate the problem in those devices, and they'll put all their efforts into finding a way around them -- which at some point they most assuredly will. And as I already mentioned, taking some real steps to improve the wider situation in Somalia and the region pays dividends well beyond ameliorating the piracy problem.

There are no steps short of complete annihilation that will improve the situation in the Horn of Africa that we can take. Until the people put an end to the situation they are living under, there is nothing we can do to improve anything there. We have tried, others have tried, all have failed miserably and made the situation there even worse. We live under the false illusion that "All men were created equal", so what we believe will work here will work anywhere. The problem is that the full phrase is "All men are created equal in the eyes of God." Problem is, for all we know we may just be food for God. All French Fries are created equal as well, but they sure the hell don't come out of the fryer equal even from the same chain of restaurants.

 

[Henning]

Sorry, Henning, I don't hang on your every word and missed that. Are you p*ssed that the people that hire you don't value your life as much as the $$$ it would cost to install these systems? Guess it sucks to be you then. Pick another line of work instead of complaining on a webboard. Last time I checked nobody was forcing you or anybody to do this job.

You are correct, and I no longer run commercial vessels, I run yachts on holiday itineraries, and I am armed and equipped to my satisfaction while doing so. My owners have no qualms with spending money on security and defensive systems, since it is often their own lives they are securing. Plus I can work/live with a girlfriend, which is the greatest advantage over the commercial shipping industry. I do though concern myself with my brethren seafarers, some I know personally as friends and they still serve that sector. I spent many years in the industry fighting management for every dime to keep vessels seaworthy. There is very good money in shipping, very good. Aristotle Onasis started with a few surplus T-2 tankers after WWII. They can afford to do it. While I have pretty much removed myself from that situation, there is never any telling when I may have to return to it, plus I still have personal interests in the way of my friends. Most people ashore in the US have no right to say "Booo" about a seaman pressing for some expense in the line of their personal protection. Most y'all already have OSHA and a dozen other nanny organizations looking out and speaking for you. Seamen only really have each other.

Forced into the job? Nope, I enjoy the job. Am I ****ed because someone doesn't value my life? Oh you bet your ass. You have dozens of interests defending the value of your life right now. Sailor just has the insurance company and himself.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

There are no steps short of complete annihilation that will improve the situation in the Horn of Africa that we can take. Until the people put an end to the situation they are living under, there is nothing we can do to improve anything there. We have tried, others have tried, all have failed miserably and made the situation there even worse. We live under the false illusion that "All men were created equal", so what we believe will work here will work anywhere. The problem is that the full phrase is "All men are created equal in the eyes of God." Problem is, for all we know we may just be food for God. All French Fries are created equal as well, but they sure the hell don't come out of the fryer equal even from the same chain of restaurants.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree that nothing "short of complete annihilation" can be done. We've already proven we're capable of basically leveling a giant chunk of a continent and then rebuilding it all over again. Consequently, I don't think it's too much to believe that we're capable of affecting positive change in that region -- at least enough to keep this particular problem and many others to a minimum.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree that nothing "short of complete annihilation" can be done. We've already proven we're capable of basically leveling a giant chunk of a continent and then rebuilding it all over again. Consequently, I don't think it's too much to believe that we're capable of affecting positive change in that region -- at least enough to keep this particular problem and many others to a minimum.

I'm not sure a Marshall Plan would work in Africa.

The Marshall Plan - we didn't do that out of the goodness of our hearts, or even out of some perceived obligation to help our allies rebuild. We did it because it was the most effective way, in our planners' opinions, to counter the spread of Communism (and presumed Russian takeover) in areas devasted by war. The idea was that people with nowhere else to go would turn to Communism.

But, is Africa the same as Europe post-1945? Europe, although ravaged, was already industrialized. Our enemies were literally brought to their knees (total defeat), and all in all didn't think too badly of us.

In Africa, Western powers aren't necessarily liked (slavery, colonialism, etc. - not good aftertastes). There are a LOT more people. The continent as a whole isn't industrialized - meaning there is no infrastructure, nor any capability to indepently build/maintain it (no trained people, for starters).

So, I don't know if a Marshall-style plan would work in Africa. That's a stage they'll have to reach on their own - leaving us to deal with the consequences.

 

[Henning]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree that nothing "short of complete annihilation" can be done. We've already proven we're capable of basically leveling a giant chunk of a continent and then rebuilding it all over again. Consequently, I don't think it's too much to believe that we're capable of affecting positive change in that region -- at least enough to keep this particular problem and many others to a minimum.[/QUOTE]

Which change? Whose change will you implement? Choose either one and you open a mandate for genocide. Tell ya what there Rev, book a nice 2 week vacation to sunny Mogadishu, take a tour through the countryside on a motorcycle as well, then come back and tell me what epiphany you reach as to what we can do over there to square the situation away. The only way an outside interest can square that away is to clear the field and start from scratch. The problem in Somalia is there is no one to back there that won't go out and murder the opposition if an outside influence comes in and upsets the balance of power. These people are still fighting tribal wars. The same wars that existed hundreds of years ago in Africa and supplied the slaves for the slave trade are now being fought with AK-47s and RPGs. Have you been to these areas of Africa? The Congo and surrounds are not really much different, and the pirates there are shooting down the airplanes leaving from the mine camps carrying out the refined product (only way in and out to some very major mine sights. I have a buddy with a service over there. Had 2 707s and a fleet of Cheyennes, all sported bullet holes). All we can do is expediate genocide by supporting any side of the problem, and the fact is, neither side is any better than the other and will still be corrupt and cause us problems after we install their regime. This is nothing new, we installed the Taliban and trained Al Quiada , we installed Saddam Husein, we backed the Shah of Iran and Batista (both bloody dictators), not a single time that we go out and help does it not bite us in the ass. The best thing that we can do is leave it the f- alone and give our own that have to go there, the ability to take care of themselves. Or nuke the place, either works for me. "Wanna kill each other, fine, let me help and kill ya all real quick, lot less suffering."

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I'm not sure a Marshall Plan would work in Africa.

The Marshall Plan - we didn't do that out of the goodness of our hearts, or even out of some perceived obligation to help our allies rebuild. We did it because it was the most effective way, in our planners' opinions, to counter the spread of Communism (and presumed Russian takeover) in areas devasted by war. The idea was that people with nowhere else to go would turn to Communism.

But, is Africa the same as Europe post-1945? Europe, although ravaged, was already industrialized. Our enemies were literally brought to their knees (total defeat), and all in all didn't think too badly of us.

In Africa, Western powers aren't necessarily liked (slavery, colonialism, etc. - not good aftertastes). There are a LOT more people. The continent as a whole isn't industrialized - meaning there is no infrastructure, nor any capability to indepently build/maintain it (no trained people, for starters).

So, I don't know if a Marshall-style plan would work in Africa. That's a stage they'll have to reach on their own - leaving us to deal with the consequences.

Oh no, I don't think it's a direct one-to-one comparison; I only used it as an example to demonstrate that we've already demonstrated the capacity to affect such change on a much larger scale than Somalia -- although, as you appropriately noted, in much more advantageous circumstances. So while I agree that an approach directly akin to the Marshall Plan would likely not work, I do still think we have the capability (even alone, and certainly in concert with other nations) to successfully implement some plan that would improve things there, at least to the point that it's not the dangerous cesspool that it currently is.

I guess my biggest point is that to continue to demonstrate complete apathy towards the situation in East Africa is to invite threats much larger than piracy to gestate there.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Which change? Whose change will you implement? Choose either one and you open a mandate for genocide. Tell ya what there Rev, book a nice 2 week vacation to sunny Mogadishu, take a tour through the countryside on a motorcycle as well, then come back and tell me what epiphany you reach as to what we can do over there to square the situation away. The only way an outside interest can square that away is to clear the field and start from scratch. The problem in Somalia is there is no one to back there that won't go out and murder the opposition if an outside influence comes in and upsets the balance of power. These people are still fighting tribal wars. The same wars that existed hundreds of years ago in Africa and supplied the slaves for the slave trade are now being fought with AK-47s and RPGs. Have you been to these areas of Africa? The Congo and surrounds are not really much different, and the pirates there are shooting down the airplanes leaving from the mine camps carrying out the refined product (only way in and out to some very major mine sights. I have a buddy with a service over there. Had 2 707s and a fleet of Cheyennes, all sported bullet holes). All we can do is expediate genocide by supporting any side of the problem, and the fact is, neither side is any better than the other and will still be corrupt and cause us problems after we install their regime. This is nothing new, we installed the Taliban and trained Al Quiada , we installed Saddam Husein, we backed the Shah of Iran and Batista (both bloody dictators), not a single time that we go out and help does it not bite us in the ass. The best thing that we can do is leave it the f- alone and give our own that have to go there, the ability to take care of themselves.

I certainly don't sport rose colored glasses of strength significant enough to make me believe that it's feasible or even possible to turn Mogadishu into West Palm Beach.

What I am saying is that the region isn't going to get any less critical to our interests any time soon (unless somebody comes up with a better means than the Suez to get oil from the ME) and all a measure such as mandating protection for these ships does is move the problem around. And while I'd love to give you what I think the specifics would entail (I honestly can't), I'm still disinclined to view the notion that it's a lost cause and that nothing can be done to stabilize the region even somewhat as anything other than unrealistically defeatist.

 

[Henning]

I'm not sure a Marshall Plan would work in Africa.

The Marshall Plan - we didn't do that out of the goodness of our hearts, or even out of some perceived obligation to help our allies rebuild. We did it because it was the most effective way, in our planners' opinions, to counter the spread of Communism (and presumed Russian takeover) in areas devasted by war. The idea was that people with nowhere else to go would turn to Communism.

But, is Africa the same as Europe post-1945? Europe, although ravaged, was already industrialized. Our enemies were literally brought to their knees (total defeat), and all in all didn't think too badly of us.

In Africa, Western powers aren't necessarily liked (slavery, colonialism, etc. - not good aftertastes). There are a LOT more people. The continent as a whole isn't industrialized - meaning there is no infrastructure, nor any capability to indepently build/maintain it (no trained people, for starters).

So, I don't know if a Marshall-style plan would work in Africa. That's a stage they'll have to reach on their own - leaving us to deal with the consequences.

Exactly. Two issues, first, there isn't enough money in the world to "fix" Africa. Second, the Africans effected are really tired of the White Westerners telling them what's good for them and will divert a large part of whatever aid to fighting against those white westerner colonial/imperial bastards, and don't dream China won't be right there supplying them with all the weapons they need. Chinese harbor much the same attitude. Back in the days of Apartheid I was sailing with a South African guy whose attitude was such "Let the black bastards have the place, last white man out take the flag, let them get back to killing each other." While none of this attitude was politically correct even in the 80s, it has shown to be somewhat prophetic. The colonial period put to rest much of the tribal combat, but it did nothing to change tribal thinking and hatered, and without the small wars, and with everyone "Saving the Children", the population has blossomed beyond sustainable. Giving AIDS patients life extending medicine will do nothing but make the over all problem in Africa worse. It's such a mess that the only thing we can really do to get the situation stabilized is to completely withdraw from the continent and let them all duke it out and the diseases run their course and reach their own equilibrium, genocide and all. Until the blacks have worked out their Black Rule amongst themselves, there will be no semblance of peace there. The big mistake the west makes is it holds Western Standards applicable in Africa, when they don't apply. Black Rule means THEY set their standards, not the damned colonial powers they just got rid of. The long and the short of it is, "There is nothing we can do to help fix Africa."

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Exactly. Two issues, first, there isn't enough money in the world to "fix" Africa.

I don't want to beat it into the ground, but just to be clear: I'm not advocating trying to "fix Africa"... I agree that such a goal is ridiculous.

All I'm talking about is applying enough influence to help ensure that our interests are protected, and so long as we need the Suez, we will have interests there to protect. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that equipping commercial ships transiting the region with defensive systems is sufficient to do that; I simply disagree that it is in the long term.

 

[Henning]

I don't want to beat it into the ground, but just to be clear: I'm not advocating trying to "fix Africa"... I agree that such a goal is ridiculous.

All I'm talking about is applying enough influence to help ensure that our interests are protected, and so long as we need the Suez, we will have interests there to protect. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that equipping commercial ships transiting the region with defensive systems is sufficient to do that; I simply disagree that it is in the long term.

You aren't getting it, with Somalia and the region, it's an all or nothing game because there is no one proper to "exert influence" with. Plain and simple, that's the problem with your plan. You can't exert influence without causing a byproduct situation that isn't 200 times worse than the situation you are guarding against, and it will be bloody, the US has no friend in Somalia, that I can assure you of. At best we will be used as a tool that will allow for the slaughter of the opposition and the control over the constituency to be enslaved to their control of the food. Once that groups dominance is established, they will tun on US. Don't believe me, look at the 90s. The best thing the western world can do is walk away and let them fight it out, but that won't happen because the riches of natural resources in Africa is nearly unimaginable, and we will not let go of that, no way, no how. Money talks and governments take their marching orders from money. The only time we allow regulation of diamonds in Africa is when De veers loses control of the diamonds which threatens their world market price and monopoly.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I don't want to beat it into the ground, but just to be clear: I'm not advocating trying to "fix Africa"... I agree that such a goal is ridiculous.

All I'm talking about is applying enough influence to help ensure that our interests are protected, and so long as we need the Suez, we will have interests there to protect. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that equipping commercial ships transiting the region with defensive systems is sufficient to do that; I simply disagree that it is in the long term.

In reality, how much do WE (the U.S.) use the Suez? Does anyone know?

In terms of oil - where does most M.E. oil go? East Coast, or West Coast? Further, our biggest trade partner is China, right? That's all got to go West Coast, I would think.

So, in reality, is the Suez really that important to us (again, the U.S.)? I know strategically it's important to Europe, but even that value has been discounted because the Brits no longer control India.

So, it might be in the United States' best interests to just say "you deal with the pig [SuperTroopers]."

 

[ReverendSlappy]

You aren't getting it, with Somalia and the region, it's an all or nothing game because there is no one proper to "exert influence" with. Plain and simple, that's the problem with your plan. You can't exert influence without causing a byproduct situation that isn't 200 times worse than the situation you are guarding against, and it will be bloody, the US has no friend in Somalia, that I can assure you of. At best we will be used as a tool that will allow for the slaughter of the opposition and the control over the constituency to be enslaved to their control of the food. Once that groups dominance is established, they will tun on US. Don't believe me, look at the 90s. The best thing the western world can do is walk away and let them fight it out, but that won't happen because the riches of natural resources in Africa is nearly unimaginable, and we will not let go of that, no way, no how. Money talks and governments take their marching orders from money. The only time we allow regulation of diamonds in Africa is when De veers loses control of the diamonds which threatens their world market price and monopoly.

Fair enough... You've certainly more expertise with the region, and I'll defer to your knowledge. But all the same, I'm still unconvinced that there's nothing that can be done to at least mitigate the risk posed by the instability in Somalia and the region.

In reality, how much do WE (the U.S.) use the Suez? Does anyone know?

In terms of oil - where does most M.E. oil go? East Coast, or West Coast? Further, our biggest trade partner is China, right? That's all got to go West Coast, I would think.

So, in reality, is the Suez really that important to us (again, the U.S.)? I know strategically it's important to Europe, but even that value has been discounted because the Brits no longer control India.

So, it might be in the United States' best interests to just say "you deal with the pig [SuperTroopers]."

Good question. From what I'm able to find, it's about 3000 tankers per year, or about 3.9 million barrels per day. Presumably much of that also goes to Europe, however. Interestingly oil tankers only comprise about 25% of the canal's revenue... So I'd guess there's a lot more in the way of containers that transit it.

More stats from the Egyptian gov't here: http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/TRstat.aspx?reportId=1

 

[Henning]

Fair enough... You've certainly more expertise with the region, and I'll defer to your knowledge. But all the same, I'm still unconvinced that there's nothing that can be done to at least mitigate the risk posed by the instability in Somalia and the region.

You mitigate the risk by minimizing exposure. The only US interest that needs to be in the area are US maritime interests. The Navy can take care of themselves already, give the merchantmen the ability as well, and our interests are completely covered. The only place in Africa the US flag should have an interest are Egypt, Morocco and Ghana.

 

[Henning]

In reality, how much do WE (the U.S.) use the Suez? Does anyone know?

Oh hell, a lot, s-tloads even. Nearly every commercial vessel I have worked had a Suez Canal Measurement Certificate on it. I've been through it a dozen times. It's a big mileage savings as well as avoiding the Southern Ocean on the way here from the Persian Gulf. Suez is very vital to our interests, and luckily at this point, very secure.

 

[mikea]

NEW YORK -- Somali pirates attacked and damaged an American ship carrying humanitarian aid today, but the ship and crew were safe under Navy escort, the military and shipping company said.

The pirates fired rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at the Liberty Sun as it carried food for famine-wracked African nations,

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/batavia-man-on-ship-attacked-by-somali-pirates.html

That'll show us.

 

[tdager]

I'm not sure a Marshall Plan would work in Africa.

The Marshall Plan - we didn't do that out of the goodness of our hearts, or even out of some perceived obligation to help our allies rebuild. We did it because it was the most effective way, in our planners' opinions, to counter the spread of Communism (and presumed Russian takeover) in areas devasted by war. The idea was that people with nowhere else to go would turn to Communism.

But, is Africa the same as Europe post-1945? Europe, although ravaged, was already industrialized. Our enemies were literally brought to their knees (total defeat), and all in all didn't think too badly of us.

In Africa, Western powers aren't necessarily liked (slavery, colonialism, etc. - not good aftertastes). There are a LOT more people. The continent as a whole isn't industrialized - meaning there is no infrastructure, nor any capability to indepently build/maintain it (no trained people, for starters).

So, I don't know if a Marshall-style plan would work in Africa. That's a stage they'll have to reach on their own - leaving us to deal with the consequences.

Not too mention, as Henning has said, many seem to refuse to recognize that different cultures, mores, and beliefs exist in Africa than in Europe.

Sorry but what worked for Europe most likely will NOT work for Africa, for all of the reasons Henning, Obi, and others have said.

 

[Henning]

That'll show us.

Yep,there was nothing the naval escort could do to prevent them from taking fire. Luckily no one was killed this time.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Not too mention, as Henning has said, many seem to refuse to recognize that different cultures, mores, and beliefs exist in Africa than in Europe.

Sorry but what worked for Europe most likely will NOT work for Africa, for all of the reasons Henning, Obi, and others have said.

Once again, I wasn't suggesting that precisely the same plan that worked in Europe would work or should even be attempted in East Africa. I was simply noting that we've demonstrated the capacity to undertake significant infrastructure and humanitarian projects in the past, and I think that capability still exists -- regardless of whether it would be used in a facsimile of the Marshall Plan or something significantly different.

 

[Henning]

Once again, I wasn't suggesting that precisely the same plan that worked in Europe would work or should even be attempted in East Africa. I was simply noting that we've demonstrated the capacity to undertake significant infrastructure and humanitarian projects in the past, and I think that capability still exists -- regardless of whether it would be used in a facsimile of the Marshall Plan or something significantly different.

The difference really is in who is receiving the aid, not whether or not we can provide aid. Take for example food aid. US AID ships millions of tons of food stuffs they buy from American farmers all over the world including Somalia. In Somalia that food product (often a wheat/soy meal) is held captive in dockside warehouses and used by warlords as leverage on starving people. These people have to be allowed to work it out amongst themselves or the situation only gets worse. Nature/God, take your pick, has a dozen ways with which she's trying to cull the population of Africa, and we keep interfering. We have to stop that crap. Every human life is not worth saving.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Once again, I wasn't suggesting that precisely the same plan that worked in Europe would work or should even be attempted in East Africa. I was simply noting that we've demonstrated the capacity to undertake significant infrastructure and humanitarian projects in the past, and I think that capability still exists -- regardless of whether it would be used in a facsimile of the Marshall Plan or something significantly different.

I'm sure there are things we can go to *promote* stability in the region - for instance, look at what the British did along the Northwest Frontier Province (essentially what is now the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan). The Brits, in essence, bribed the border tribes on a recurring (either monthly or yearly) basis not to attack - while distasteful, it was less expensive than fighting a war that would have been unable to eliminate the problem.

It seems to me that the questions facing us are: 1) What is the direct cost to the United States of piracy; 2) How effective would military intervention be; 3) Presuming military intervention would be 100% effective, how much does it cost and is the cost of the problem eliminated more than the cost of military intervention; 4) Presuming military intervention would be either ineffective (likely) or not justified in the cost-benefit analysis (also likely), what alternatives do we have; and 5) Should the problem even be dealt with through various means of statecraft (which is a broad term encompassing war)?

 

[Henning]

I'm sure there are things we can go to *promote* stability in the region - for instance, look at what the British did along the Northwest Frontier Province (essentially what is now the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan). The Brits, in essence, bribed the border tribes on a recurring (either monthly or yearly) basis not to attack - while distasteful, it was less expensive than fighting a war that would have been unable to eliminate the problem.

It seems to me that the questions facing us are: 1) What is the direct cost to the United States of piracy; 2) How effective would military intervention be; 3) Presuming military intervention would be 100% effective, how much does it cost and is the cost of the problem eliminated more than the cost of military intervention; 4) Presuming military intervention would be either ineffective (likely) or not justified in the cost-benefit analysis (also likely), what alternatives do we have; and 5) Should the problem even be dealt with through various means of statecraft (which is a broad term encompassing war)?

1. Hard to calculate, many economic factors involved including insurance rates.

2. They just managed to damage another vessel that was under military escort....

3. Impossible to determine. How do you proportion that expense out of the rest of the expenses of having our vessels there or anywhere. Regardless, it'll be in the billions annually.

4. Get out. We have no need to be in Somalia, there is nothing there that benefits the people of the US. Provide for our ships to defend themselves while in transit, much much much cheaper than naval escorts.

5. Yes, use Amish statecraft and "shun" them. Treat them like we've treated Cuba for half a century.

 

[Skip Miller]

In reality, how much do WE (the U.S.) use the Suez? Does anyone know?

In terms of oil - where does most M.E. oil go? East Coast, or West Coast? Further, our biggest trade partner is China, right? That's all got to go West Coast, I would think.

So, in reality, is the Suez really that important to us (again, the U.S.)?

I can't answer your questions directly, but attached is a sources and uses graphic for US Energy use in 2007. Looks like 35% of our energy is imported from somewhere....

Source: Federal Annual Energy Review 2007.

-Skip

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

1. Hard to calculate, many economic factors involved including insurance rates.

2. They just managed to damage another vessel that was under military escort....

3. Impossible to determine. How do you proportion that expense out of the rest of the expenses of having our vessels there or anywhere. Regardless, it'll be in the billions annually.

4. Get out. We have no need to be in Somalia, there is nothing there that benefits the people of the US. Provide for our ships to defend themselves while in transit, much much much cheaper than naval escorts.

5. Yes, use Amish statecraft and "shun" them. Treat them like we've treated Cuba for half a century.

Fair 'nuff.

I just really have a tough time believing that the costs of piracy to the U.S. are significant enough to merit a response of more than "let's put some guns on our ships and require basic training on how to use them." Cheap, and effective.

 

[gkainz]

and it seems ships owners are debating the sheeple method "Don't defend yourself - it will only make them mad", in my own opinion

http://www.military.com/news/article/ship-owners-debate-arming-vessels.html?ESRC=navy.nl

 

[Henning]

Fair 'nuff.

I just really have a tough time believing that the costs of piracy to the U.S. are significant enough to merit a response of more than "let's put some guns on our ships and require basic training on how to use them." Cheap, and effective.

My point all along.