Until then, the powers that be were apparently trying, with excruciating patience, to figure out what to do. The pirates, meanwhile, put on a good front.
Somalia's Islamist insurgent movement al Shabaab, on Washington's list of terrorist organizations, lambasted the international naval patrols aimed at keeping ships safe."You are the ones who are the pirates. Leave our waters. You will be defeated," said a spokesman. The group denies it has links with the pirates, most of whom used to be poor fishermen.
It should be noted that the Maersk Alabama was attacked some 350 miles off shore in the Indian Ocean, in what are presumably international rather than Somalian waters.
Soon after the unsuccessful hijacking attempt, the FBI started a criminal investigation. It was reported that
The FBI investigation is being run out of New York because the office there oversees cases involving U.S. citizens in Africa. Other field offices take the lead depending on where in the world the crime occurs.The FBI has a legal attache at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya and has agents elsewhere in Africa to assist the investigation.
Whether charges ever get filed depends on how the standoff plays out. If the pirates are captured at sea, it will be much easier for U.S. authorities to prosecute.
The pirates have summoned reinforcements and are trying to make it back, with the hostage, to lawless Somalia. That would make it harder for authorities to stage a rescue attempt and would make the FBI's case murkier because the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Somalia.
It had previously been reported that the crew of a U.S. destroyer on the scene was cooperating with the FBI in attempting to resolve the matter of the hijacking of the U.S. Flag vessel and the taking hostage of Captain Phillips.
Meanwhile, the United States appeared puzzled and undecided about how to deal with al Shabaab, one of the principal terrorist organizations in Somalia whose spokesman referred to above claimed that the folks trying to limit piracy are themselves pirates and should go away. The possibility of strikes on Somalian soil generated rather heated discussions.
Some in the Defense Department have been frustrated by what they see as a failure to act. Many other national security officials say an ill-considered strike would have negative diplomatic and political consequences far beyond the Horn of Africa. Other options under consideration are increased financial pressure and diplomatic activity, including stepped-up efforts to resolve the larger political turmoil in Somalia.
Neither increased financial pressure nor increased diplomatic activity seems likely to do any good at all, however: There is no viable government in Somalia with which to engage in "increased diplomatic activity," and since piracy has become a major revenue source for the people of Somalia, it is far from obvious where the "increased financial pressure" might be applied.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
When I was a grunt in 'Nam, I used to marvel at the ease with which the VC and NVA could (most of the time) kick American ass and then slip off into the jungle, only to come back another day and do the same thing -- over and over again.
I marveled, because even to my untutored eyes, the Viet tactics were remarkably similar to those employed by the Americans during our Revolutionary War, and it was inconceivable to me that our command structure could not see the obvious parallel and adjust our tactics accordingly.
Now, with the Somali pirates, history once more repeats itself. Will the Americans remember their own history with the Barbary pirates and plan their tactical response to the current threat accordingly?
I'm not optimistic.
2 - Ruvy
I'm not optimistic.
Don't be. The fools in the Pentagon are too enamored of their toys to remember even who they are....
3 - STM
Latest news is that the American captain of the Maersk Alabama was freed after US special forces snipers shot the pirates.
And before anyone makes a judgment and says this is bad, let's remember: the US has been trying to negotiate a peaceful end to this stand-off for the best part of a week.
At least they gave 'em a chance first.
4 - STM
So yes, Dan, is probably right that they were waiting for permission after the captain jumped overboard the first time.
5 - Ruvy
before anyone makes a judgment and says this is bad
Bad? What's bad about sending a pirate to a watery grave? Are these also "poor palestinians" that we have to "look at their perspective?"
6 - Dan(Miller)
I think it is damn good, and long overdue. However, a possible downside is that the pirates seem to resent it, and may become more nasty.
This view has been echoed by Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, who said that the action "could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it."These things may happen, and the situation may escalate further, unless adequate steps are taken to prevent the "buccaneers" from capturing ships. Adequately armed and trained security personnel on board ships transiting the area still seems, to me at least, to be the only viable option. The part of the ocean where the pirates operate is very big, and the available naval vessels are very few and insufficient to prevent piracy. Adequately armed and trained security personnel on board the ships could do just that.
Dan(Miller)
7 - Christopher Rose
A better solution would be to resolve the challenge of Somalia once and for all. The US would be the prime candidate to lead such a mission if it hadn't already blown most of its international credibility and goodwill in Iraq and Afghanistan.
8 - M ark
The US would be the prime candidate to lead such a mission...
...in coalition with Iran.
9 - Christopher Rose
I don't see why the USA and Iran couldn't work together again, in theory at least... :-)
10 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher, why do you think the U.S. should lead a mission to pacify Somalia and rid the world of pirates? There are precious few U.S. flag carriers now plying the high seas, and even fewer transiting the area where the pirates operate. There lots of ships from other nations doing so.
Piracy is a direct U.S. problem only when a U.S. flag carrier is attacked, and posting well armed and trained security forces on board those vessels would be relatively inexpensive. Even piracy against vessels of other nations appears to have little impact on the U.S. To take the lead as you suggest would smack of imperialism, wouldn't it? Surely, you don't mean to suggest that the U.S. should revert to its wicked imperialist ways, do you?
How about Egypt? Turkey? Even (formerly) Great Britain, perhaps. Britannia once ruled the waves; remember? How about the EU?
Dan(Miller)
11 - Dave Nalle
The US and Iran are natural allies if we could just put aside a few temporary differences.
Dave
12 - Dr Dreadful
A better solution would be to resolve the challenge of Somalia once and for all. The US would be the prime candidate to lead such a mission
And how did that work out the last time?
13 - Dan(Miller)
Doc, And how did that work out the last time? Actually, it worked out very well -- from the standpoint of the warlords and (now) the pirates. It did not turn out at all well for the U.S. or for others.
A friend who was flying into Somalia for one of the CIA's pet airlines told me that he saw people burying their weapons and making no note of where to find them later. They well knew that they would have no need for them, since the weapons brought in for the peacekeeping mission were far superior and would soon be available. They were quite prescient.
There is no basis for the speculation that the White House has ordered the Marine Hymn to be changed to delete the bit about the Halls of Montezuma and the Shores of Tripoli. However, it's time for the EU to deal with these problems. Then, the U.S. can complain about their imperialistic tendencies.
Dan(Miller)
Oh [redacted]!
14 - Christopher Rose
Dan, because the US likes to think of itself as the global policeman? Wasn't that the reasoning for these two operations? There are (and were) far worse states than Iraq and Afghanistan...
The US is a global player and, as such, has never stopped being imperialist.
Dave - indeed they are. Unfortunately, both of them seem to have forgotten that fact due to the fog of religion, not war.
Doc, it didn't work out well before cos it was a half-assed plan, just like Gulf Wars 1 and 2. The US doesn't seem very good at planning, which is ironic for such a heavily governed and legalistic society.
15 - Dan(Miller)
Christopher, the US likes to think of itself as the global policeman. . . Could it be that you missed the recent U.S. election? Or are you thinking of the constables in Pirates of Penzance?
Where is Lord Palmerston when he is needed? Ah, for Good Queen Bess' Glorious Days.
Dan(Miller)
16 - Dr Dreadful
There are (and were) far worse states than Iraq and Afghanistan...
Iraq, possibly. However, Afghanistan under the Taliban made Saudi Arabia look like a hippy paradise.
17 - Christopher Rose
Burma, Somalia, Zimbabwe, North Korea to name but four.
Saudi Arabia would be another candidate too, however all of them are tougher problems than the two countries that did get attacked and, SA the Moslem equivalent of the Vatican apart, there is no oil or heroin to exploit in those countries. Funny that...
18 - Dan(Miller)
Hey, guys -- why are we thinking up a bunch of unfortunate countries to invade? Do you perhaps mean for the UK or the UN or the EU to do it? The U.S. is closed for that sort of business.
The U.S. will, however, be willing to do her share by teaching the military bands of the invading forces how to play Kumbaya and I'd like to teach the world to sing. No problem there; wouldn't be even a teeny little bit imperialistic.
Dan(Miller)
Covers ears at the mere thought.
19 - Baronius
There are outrageous restrictions against having armed personnel on a ship. Having even a handgun on board is illegal.
Obama did the right thing in okaying the strike. I doubt that anything is going to come out of Kery's hearings though. What we need to do is put a couple of submarines off the coast, and blow up the first thing we see that's bigger than a fish.
20 - Cindy
I've been reconsidering the idea that women should take over the world.
21 - Patriot
Where the hell is Rambo when you need him? It is time for the worlds shippers to get together and wipe out the #&*@# pirates. We have the technology and the special forces to do it.
22 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius, I keep hearing about those restrictions. Yet, the Alabama made port with a team of well armed and trained Navy snipers.
As I understand the situation, nearly all of the (very few) U.S. flag vessels operating in the area infested by pirates are delivering relief supplies. Fortunately or otherwise, the U.S. merchant fleet is very small, since operation of U.S. flag vessels is significantly more costly than, say, Panamanian or Greek flag vessels.
I do not suggest that untrained crew members on board U.S. flag vessels be trained and armed. There are sufficient ex-special forces, ex-Marine, ex-Navy Seal, etc. folks to do the job and to do it well.
To the extent that U.S. Government regulations forbid arming merchant vessels, the regulations should be changed. To the extent that the receiving countries decline to permit armed merchant vessels, perhaps they should reconsider their positions and decide how badly they want the relief supplies. To the extent that insurance company regulations exclude coverage when ships defend against pirates, perhaps the U.S. should offer supplementary coverage for U.S. flag vessels in such circumstances. There are doubtless other possibilities.
I agree that President Obama finally did the right thing. However, if the Alabama had had a team of well trained and well armed security forces on board at the time of the attempted hijacking, and had they adequately defended the ship against the relatively small (four, as I recall) force of pirates, there would have been no need for him, or the U.S. Navy, to act.
To put a couple of submarines off the coast, and blow up the first thing we see that's bigger than a fish strikes me as rather off the wall. It would more than likely require operation within the territorial waters of Somalia. Somalia has a very long coast, and monitoring surface movements adequately to distinguish the bad guys from "innocent fishermen" would be quite difficult.
Dan(Miller)
23 - Clavos
There are sufficient ex-special forces, ex-Marine, ex-Navy Seal, etc. folks to do the job and to do it well.
I'm a bit long in the tooth, but I do have combat experience and would gladly ride shotgun on a ship for the welcome opportunity of blowing some of those bastards to hell.
24 - STM
Dan: "To take the lead as you suggest would smack of imperialism, wouldn't it? Surely, you don't mean to suggest that the U.S. should revert to its wicked imperialist ways, do you?"
See, from this naughty side of the anglosphere fence, Dan, that's our problem ... deep down, we still think imperialism = OK. I'm not sure the sons of Brittania are ever in any position to lecture Americans about imperialism, either (although they will).
Mind you, I say: let the cannoballs fly, and hang 'em high. The Royal Navy are already leading the EU's anti-piracy task force in the region. Perhaps everyone could join forces.
They're just fucking pirates and they need some more lessons because if every bastard keeps payng them off instead of standing up to them, they're never going to go away.
The problem is, it's now on such a massive scale, it's impossible to provide a naval screen that can cover every ship. Perhaps they need to set up some kind of system where merchant vessels can go in convoys from now on, protected.
25 - STM
Clav: "gladly ride shotgun on a ship for the welcome opportunity of blowing some of those bastards to hell."
Lol. Good to see you haven't lost the will, Clav. If you go, I'm coming too.