"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"
Maybe some of that Windy City rough and tumble will pay off for us, afterall.
President Barack Obama issued a standing order to use force against pirates holding an American captain hostage — including giving a Navy commander the authority to act if he believed the captain’s life was in danger, two senior defense officials said Sunday night.
Navy snipers aboard the USS Bainbridge on Sunday shot and killed three of the pirates after the Bainbridge’s commander gave the order, when a pirate was spotted aboard the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 rifle at Capt. Richard Phillips, one defense official said.
“The clear belief by the captain of the ship was that he was in imminent danger,” this official said.
Three shots, three bullets, three dead pirates.
Good on the CinC, the Navy, the SEALS and especially Capt. Richard Phillips and the crew of the MAERSK ALABAMA.
As far as a positive outcome and sending a message, we don’t see how this could have turned out any better.
Posts
9 comments:
So why aren't these ships armed? At least put a rotation of Marines at watch. Seems it would clear up the problem in hasty fashion.
Show me the money, baby.
There are far too many merchant ships (even U.S. flagged ones) to outfit with a security detachment.
Arm the crew? That costs money also. Besides, for a crew of 20, which is standard for a containership like the ALABAMA, you are either on watch, working or sleeping. No time to stand a security watch as well.
Also, the IMO (International Maritime Organization - the governing body for maritime rules and regs to which this country is a signatory) is pretty restrictive with respect to rules of engagement when it comes to hostile intent.
Our MSC ships (Military Sealift Command - the cargo carrying civilian branch of the Navy) does require crew members to go through small arms training. Some do also have a Marine det onboard depending on the criticality/importance of the mission/cargo. We've even hired some Gurkhas (famed Indian warriors) to provide security aboard MSC ships. Again, it ain't cheap
You're kidding me right? The cost of an entire cargo ship or the million dollar ransom thereof vs 4 soldiers who are already on salary.
Or... the cost of four vs the deployment of the Bainbridge?
What am I missing, is the cargo not worth 2-4 more security?
And rules of engagement? If they throw grappling hooks on the ass end of your ship, armed with AK's they aren't there for afternoon tea. Hey...and here's a rule, don't engange my ship and I won't engage your ass.
Time to draft some new rules
'Dawg, there is nothing to prevent the carrier (MAERSK) from providing a security detachment but it is awfully expensive. MAERSK is a huge company that has a lot of ships. Besides, that cargo is insured.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing that perhaps the rules need to be written differently, but the fact remains that given the opportunity for a bad PR moment with a ship full of armed 60 yr. olds and the cost of arming your ship or hiring a security det, the whole idea of actively defending your ship remains a prohibitive concept.
My two cents on the cost-prohibitive nature of arming from what I heard on the news the other day:
Apparently, unarmed merchant ships can go from port to port and are basically free at sea to do so -- the key idea being that they will not be slowed down by inspection every time they enter port, as is mandatory if they are armed.
Time is money. Over the long haul, multiply the amount of ship dockings the world over by the amount of time spent at each port getting inspected due to carrying arms.
That's why it is cost-prohibitive.
Again, according to the news report I heard.
I suppose to lessen the cost you can do as the air marshals do -- putting an armed guy on every 8th flight (or boat) to give these guys pause for thought.
- Mongo Needing Another Sea Sickness Patch
Time is money is a lot more plausible. I guess the underwriters have to weigh the costs of both payments. Methinks they will be reconsidering security as 4 ships were hijacked in the last 24 hours.
There are still 230 merchant mariners being held hostage as we speak. And this has been going on a long time because the ransoms are being met.
Until something catastrophic happens, I suspect that the world's carriers may just view the piracy threat as "the cost of doing business".
Well the cost of buisness just went up as brutal American forces murdered 3 Somali teenagers who were practicing "customary business practices".
OK Dean, the business model has been set...pay the ransom. Leave it to the savage, cruel & inhuman imperialists to change the rules in the middle of the game. I, for one, am outraged at the audacity of the mandate* by our CIC.
If this was the SOP, how dare he so barbarously disregard and cut down the lives of ones so youg?
Gettin' on the Mr. Lloyd side of the issue, 'Dawg
*(not a social engagment between Dean & Mr. Lloyd)
Having too much fun with this, just stop me!
Post a Comment