I have watched with growing interest the evolution of the debate about the threat to international commerce presented by the Somali Pirates off the coast of Somali. The Gulf of Aden, which connects the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, is the shortest route from Asia to Europe and is used by more than 20,000 ships a year to transport oil and other commodities. The alternative route around the southern tip of Africa adds two weeks and enormous expense to the trip. Less than half a percent of the ships that pass through this area are attacked by pirates and half of those attacked manage to avoid being taken by the pirates. For this reason, those who advocate training and arming the merchant seamen are viewed as overreacting to the threat. The US Pentagon seems to agree and currently is taking the position that fighting off pirates should be left to the professionals. To this end, the US has deployed a number of battleships in the area and is endeavoring to provide more than a mere deterrent to the pirate threat. However, the area of the gulf of Aden patrolled by Somali pirates covers over two million square miles and a recent US Government assessment of the situation concluded that it would take at least a thousand battleships to effectively secure the area. This is never going to happen and the global community is deluding itself if it believes we can deal with this threat without enough battleships.

Am I missing something here? Where is our common sense? This seems like a definite ‘no-brainer’ situation to me. As a former US Merchant Marine and firearms instructor who has trained US Navy personnel to combat pirates and terrorists on the high seas I am of the opinion that THE ONLY OPTION IS TO TRAIN AND ARM THE CREWS OF ALL MERCHANT SHIPS. It may be just me, but it seems pretty obvious that if someone points a gun in your face you have a right to point a gun at them to protect your life.

Another option is to provide armed security crews for each ship. That would be far more expensive than simply training and arming the crews themselves but one thing is certain, doing nothing at all is definitely a very expensive and risky option. Paying the ransoms (some of which amount to millions of dollars) is a burden on the ship owners and insurance rates have skyrocketed recently.

Some try to point out that the pirates are active because Somalia is a failed state and we should be dealing with the situation by working to salvage Somalia by dragging it back from the pit of self-imposed total anarchy. The fact is, resurrecting Somalia could take years if not decades, even if the Somalis were interested in cooperating with the international community in such a program, which they are obviously not. You can lead a camel to water, but you cannot force it to drink the water. For all intents and purposes, Somalia is a lost cause and the immediate threat of Somali piracy in the Gulf of Aden should and must be addressed quickly and efficiently.

The argument that training and arming seamen produces some sort of “liability” concern for ship owners or that it “could create an arms race or result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates"  is ludicrous. The pirates are acquiring more sophisticated weapons and getting bolder all the time anyhow with every successful attack. What about the liability incurred by failing to provide seamen with the tools they need to protect themselves? Why isn’t THAT liability being taken seriously?

Apparently, the crew of the Maersk line US Merchant ship Alabama that was rescued from pirates by the US Navy Seals recently agrees because one of them, Richard E. Hicks, has filed a lawsuit in Houston, Texas alleging that their shipping company employer failed to provide them with the training and weapons to protect themselves. It will be very interesting to see how this lawsuit transpires. If the ruling is in favor of the plaintiff I predict you will see a rush to train and arm US Merchant Seamen.

This will not be the first time US Merchant Seamen have been armed. During WWII the US Merchant Marines was considered a part of the armed services and all crews had to graduate from boot camp where they were provided the skills needed to survive in a combat environment. Considering the current threat of global terrorism and piracy it is reasonable to expect that such survival tools and skills should be a part of the US Merchant Marine tool chest today as well.

The entire world is watching to see how the shipping industry responds to this situation. If it fails to react appropriately to the threat it is likely that other thugs around the globe will be motivated to begin using the tactics currently being employed successfully by the Somali Pirates. I therefore urge the US Government to get off the fence on this important issue and do the right thing by passing legislation that authorizes the US Merchant Marine industry to train and arm their seamen or requires the shipping companies to provide armed security. Once that is done, the threat posed by the illiterate, ill-prepared and ill-equipped thugs on the coast of Somalia will evaporate.

Michael James Jaquish- A Vigilant American

==========================================================================================

A RESPONSE FROM A US CONGRESSMAN (Who was sent a copy of this blog)

June 17, 2009

Dear Mr. Jaquish:

 Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on piracy off the coast of Somalia and ensuring that U.S. and world interests are protected from piracy on the high-seas.  I value the opportunity to hear the concerns of all my constituents. 

Piracy has been a scourge to the safety of American mariners and a problematic international security issue literally since our Nation's birth.  While the location and context of piracy changes periodically, the threat itself is enduring.  There were no 'simple' solutions to piracy then and this remains true today.  Dealing effectively with piracy requires not only coordinated action from the maritime nations of the world, but also resolution of the underlying conditions that support it.  It is a long term effort requiring patient diplomacy and economic ingenuity as well as military capability and capacity.

The problem we face with piracy in East African waters is a complex one.  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared a report entitled Piracy off the Horn of Africa in April of 2009, stating:

The risk of pirate attacks in the waters off the Horn of Africa is unlikely to disappear in the near term . . Like terrorism, acts of piracy in African waters pose a transnational security threat that emanates from areas plagued by conflict, weak governance, and economic insecurity. Regional security forces currently have limited maritime capability, and many governments have prioritized the development of their armies at the expense of navies or coast guards.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are fully engaged with our international partners in developing a coordinated policy for dealing with piracy near the Horn of Africa.   The State Department has taken four immediate steps: it sent an envoy to work with other nations on improving Somalia's ability to police its own sovereign territory; it is working through the International Contact Group on Piracy to establish a multi-national response to ongoing acts of piracy and to gain the release of currently held ships; it is engaging the Somali Government to encourage them to act against pirate bases on their coastlines; and it is engaging the shipping industry to seek ways to enhance its ability for self-defense.  In addition to the immediate activities, the State Department is also in the process of developing a long term strategy for countering piracy.  Both are essential to improving the security of US merchant mariners and ensuring our national commercial interests long term.

Eliminating piracy requires the coherent and persistent application of diplomatic and economic effort as well as military capability.  I will remain informed of the Administration's efforts as we continue to work against the threat of piracy off the Horn of Africa and around the world.  As I continue my efforts here on your behalf, I will keep your comments in mind.  I look forward to learning your views on any matter of concern to you.

US Congressman Norm Dicks (WA-D)

wa06ima.pub@mail.house.gov

FROM MIKE JAQUISH

While I do indeed greatly appreciate US Congressman Dicks taking the time from his busy schedule to respond to my blog entry, I could be wrong here but I get the impression his reply is a rather typical political "beating around the bush" response to a difficult subject that contains excellent vocabulary but in the end, offers no indication that anything significant will be done by his office to alter our current official government stand on this issue. In other words, this response is yet one more example of how trying to generate change government in government is like giving birth to an elephant. (An enormous and painful experience.)

-Mike Jaquish

==========================================================================================

Maersk Alabama crew member sues over safety issues

By HOWARD ALTMAN | The Tampa Tribune

Published: April 27, 2009

Updated: 04/27/2009 10:05 pm

HOUSTON - Ken Quinn is rooting for Richard E. Hicks, his fellow Maersk Alabama shipmate who is suing two shipping companies for failing to heed crew safety warnings.

Though he is not sure Hicks will win, Quinn said that at the very least, decision makers might side with Hicks.

"It might force companies to put on a Blackwater security team or mercenaries or armed guards," said Quinn, who recently returned to his home in Bradenton after spending about a dozen harrowing hours on a ship boarded by armed pirates.

Quinn said he first heard about a potential lawsuit on the ship.

"I heard some talk," said Quinn. "He said it when we were down below, waiting down in the room with pirates aboard, when we were sitting in the hot, sweltering room suffering from heat exhaustion. There are always guys on the crew who might sue. There might be more as time goes by."

Quinn said he will not sue.

Hicks, the chief cook on board the Maersk Alabama, alleges in his lawsuit that Maersk Line Limited, which owns the ship, and Waterman Steamship Corp., which provided the crew, ignored requests from sailors to improve safety measures for ships traveling through pirate-infested waters off the Somali coast.

Hicks asked the two companies improve safety for ships by providing armed security or allowing crew members to carry weapons. He also asked that they send ships through safer routes and place safety measures on ships like barbed wire that would prevent pirates from being able to board vessels.

"We've had safety meetings every month for the last three years and made suggestions of what should be done and they have been ignored," Hicks said. "I'm just trying to make sure this is a lot better for other seamen."

Hicks also asked the two companies pay at least $75,000 in damages, saying he doesn't know if he will ever work on a ship again.

"My family is not looking forward to me going back out to sea. But I'm not sure if I'm going back. I'm still nervous, leery. I might find something else to do,'' said Hicks, who has worked for 32 years as a merchant seaman.

Officials for Norfolk, Va. based-Maersk Line and Mobile, Ala.-based Waterman both said their companies don't comment on pending litigation.

"We think (the companies) should be more concerned about the personnel on their ships than the profits the companies make," said Terry Bryant, Hicks' attorney. Both companies do business in Texas, which is why the suit was filed in Houston, he said.

Quinn said that while he is not sure Hicks has a case, he agrees that merchant marines should be armed when traveling through pirate-infested water.

He said he would like to see a situation similar to the Maritime Administration, a federal seafaring transportation system for which he also sails. Crews on those ships have armed security details, weapons lockers and sailors trained to use small arms.

One rationale for not allowing sailors to be armed is that many nations do not allow crews to have weapons. Quinn has a solution.

"If we have to shoot, then the Navy can pick up that sailor before we get into port," he said.

For his own part, Quinn said he has been certified to use weapons for seven years and is prepared to use them.

Mike Perry, the ship's chief engineer from Riverview, said in an interview last week that he, too, is prepared to use weapons, is willing to continue his training and that ships should have armed crews.

Quinn doesn't agree with everything about the lawsuit.

Barbed wire, for one, has the potential to be more dangerous to the crew than pirates, he said. And the suit might mean the end of American-flagged shipping in that part of the world.

The suit comes at an interesting time.

Quinn is going to make the case for arms aboard ships himself Tuesday night in Washington at the International Propeller Club dinner. In addition to members of the crew, maybe even including captain Richard Phillips, the dinner will be attended by lawmakers, military personnel, shippers and a representative from the executive branch.

He said he will tell guests the same thing he is telling his friends on ships now cruising through pirate infested waters who are calling him asking for advice.

Arm the ships, he said.

"If I can speak at this dinner," he said, "there are a lot of people who will listen."

============================================================

With piracy odds in their favor, ships shun armed guards

The small number of successful pirate attacks, an increase in military patrols, and legal concerns have kept many firms from hiring security.

from the May 5, 2009 edition

Washington - Less than half a percent of the ships that transit the Gulf of Aden are attacked by pirates, and of those attacks, less than half are successful.

That statistic, reported during a Senate panel Tuesday in Washington, offers one reason why shipping firms have been unenthusiastic about using armed guards to thwart pirate attacks, leaving the problem to be solved by the US and other militaries.

"Many in the merchant shipping industry continue to assume, unrealistically, that military forces will always be present to intervene if pirates attack. As a result, many have so far been unwilling to invest adequately in basic security measures that would render their ships far less vulnerable," said Michele Flournoy, the Pentagon's chief of policy, at the hearing.

As with the "asymmetrical threat" posed by insurgents on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, experts have been taken aback by how quickly a small band of pirates can successfully attack large vessels with millions of dollars worth of cargo aboard. One answer is for shippers to provide for their own security, employing armed security crews to man each ship.

But those crews can be expensive and the shippers don't necessarily want to spend the money to hire them. And despite the recent high-profile pirate attacks, shippers recognize the odds are in their own favor and essentially see any ransom they may have to pay as the cost of doing business.

About 33,000 ships sail through the Gulf of Aden each year, and there were just 122 attacks in 2008, according to Pentagon officials at Tuesday's congressional hearing. Of those attacks, only 42 were successful.

Shipping officials also say that arming the ships could create an arms race. "Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win," said John Clancey, chairman of Maersk, Inc., which owns the Alabama, during another recent Washington hearing.

Shipping firms are also constrained by legal rules pertaining to port entries for armed private security, as well as insurance issues. Using private security firms is "the most controversial issue that we have right now," said James Caponiti, top official at the US Maritime Administration, at the hearing.

Still, some private security firms have offered their services. XE, the firm formerly known as Blackwater USA, is reportedly in negotiations to contract with shippers to provide a "security escort service" in the Gulf of Aden with their own 183-foot ship called the MacArthur.

In the meantime, Aegis, the British security firm, is offering a land-based sensor system that could help monitor pirate ship movements. Many experts believe the key lies in targeting the "mother ships" that are used as a base of operations, sometimes more than 400 miles out at sea.

The Pentagon is looking at what role the US should play. Last month, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged a group of officers to look at options for not only for the US military but also other government agencies, including the Departments of State and Transportation. On Monday, the group presented an initial set of findings that included offense- and defense-related solutions for ships at sea, says a military official, as well as solutions that could be effective on shore.

That includes the possibility of a combat action – one of the least desirable alternatives – as well as diplomatic and economic measures.

Military solutions have partly worked. The presence of some 28 nations patrolling the region has pushed some pirates out from the Gulf of Aden back to the Indian Ocean, says Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence for SRATFOR, an intelligence firm.

But most experts agree that military solutions alone won't do it. The root causes of piracy stem from poverty, lack of opportunity and lawlessness, things the military simply can't address on its own.

"Piracy, although generally considered a scourge of the world's oceans, has its origins on land and has usually been defeated on land as a result of political and economic changes that have evolved over time," said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, who chaired Tuesday's Senate panel hearing on piracy in Washington. "Ultimately, the solution resides ashore, not just through action on the open seas."

In the meantime, American officials are urging shippers to take their own precautions to keep the pirates at bay. They run the gamut from rolling up ship ladders, to keeping the perimeter of ships well-lit, to installing barbed wire fences around the sides of the deck.

Nearly 80 percent of thwarted attacks were the result of ships employing some kind of defensive measure, including armed guards, according to Pentagon officials.

"They need to do some things on their own," says one military official. "Just like ... when you drive through a bad neighborhood, you roll up the windows and lock the doors."

Perhaps you have seen the disturbing short U-Tube video documentary showing the rapidly shifting demographics as Islam spreads across the globe. If not, you need to see it and you can do so by cutting and pasting this link into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

The message of the presentation is this; population growth in non-Muslim areas of the world is or has already dropped below replacement levels while Muslim population growth is expanding exponentially. This is because Muslims often have as many as 2-5 wives and produce 15-25 children, most of whom are going on to do the same. The flood of Muslims is already overwhelming Christian and secular countries across Europe and it is now apparent that most of Europe will be Islamic within another 30-50 years. Mohammar Qaddafi, the dictator leader of Libya stated recently that Muslims will take over the world soon without ever firing another shot or detonating another suicide bomber.

Ironically, America would be in the same predicament if it not for the current flood of Christian Mexicans crossing our Southern border legally and illegally. Most Americans are very upset about this Mexican invasion but the fact is it may be the single biggest thing that will delay the takeover of America by Islam. But even with the influx of Christians from Mexico the odds are against America in the struggle to prevent Islam from becoming the religion and culture of the entire world.

The question is, what should or can we do about it. Well for one thing, we should plan for the worst as we hope for the best. The problem is very serious regardless of which statistical data base you use and we cannot count on Islam being moderated or "diluted" as it confronts Christianity. If anything, history shows us that such confrontations result in violence and polarization of faiths, not dilution. Christian Europe managed to force the Muslims out of Europe in the past but Islam is a much larger, more serious force now that it ever was before at a time when Christianity is declining in many parts of the civilized world.

Even moderate Islam is terrified of radical Islam. The majority of moderate Muslims remain silent in the face of radical Islamic terrorism because they are very aware that they could be targeted and killed if they speak out against radical Islam. What we are talking about here is tribalism, turf and survival of the fittest. Keep an eye on what is happening in Pakistan. The moderates there are confronting the radicals as we speak and it doesn't look very good for the moderates.  

The most disturbing aspect of this video is that it ends with the statement: "this is a call to action" but it fails to suggest what the appropriate action might be. I can think of some pretty scary "actions" that could propel the global community into the end times and I do not believe anyone really wants to do that. Planning for the worst means developing an effective strategy that will address the problem of radical Islam without destroying our own culture in the process. That means fighting the battle on several fronts at the same time: (1) on the battlefield, (2) in our communities by being vigilant and pro-active by passing laws that allow us to remove radical elements from our society immediately, (3) by joining action groups such as ACT for America that work to expose fundamentalist Islamic groups within our borders and  (4) by engaging Muslims in  constructive dialogue that encourage the moderates to clearly and loudly reject radical interpretations of their Koran.

The most unsettling thing about this particular issue is that our own country is providing the enemy with their biggest boost by continuing to grant immigration visas to Muslims all the time! The liberals are bending over backwards to insure that nothing bad is ever said about Islam while radical Muslims are free to call us infidels and pray for the downfall of America every day in their Mosques right here in America. Our government is building Islamic prayer rooms in airports and public facilities while refusing to allow a monument honoring The Ten Commandments to remain on a federal facility. Our government is allowing banks to offer Islamic Sharia law loans at zero interest to Muslims and we look the other way as they accumulate several wives at a time. All of these things add up to a gradual but steady progress of the Islamic agenda that is very similar to the Arabic story about the camel who sticks his nose under the tent during a sand storm, gradually inching more and more of his face, then his neck into the tent until eventually his entire body is inside the tent. This is the way Arabs think and this is what Islam is doing.

WILL NON-VIOLENCE WORK?

Many American liberals believe that a non-violent, compassionate and sensitive approach to the cultural and militant threat of radical Islam is the best approach. Such idealism is very dangerous because if it fails to work, we will be left with no other options. It is clear that winning this battle will take more than non-violent action. Those early pacifist Christians went willingly to the lion dens to die in the name of Jesus because they believed their kingdom was not on this earth and that Jesus was returning soon to set up his kingdom on earth and would resurrect them. Eventually the pagans who were killing them tired of the slaughter and switched sides when Constantine decided Christians were not a threat to Rome. But those Pagans were different than our Islamic enemies because they do not have an agenda from God to kill or convert every other person on the planet to Islam. In order for non-violent tactics to work your enemy has to have a soul capable of responding to compassion with compassion. Radical Muslims give no quarter and take advantage of every weakness their enemy displays. These are their established tactics and it is dangerous to expect (or hope) they will do anything else. Radical Muslims will stab us in the back or behead us if we try to hug them, plain and simple.

As a species, we need to wake up and smell the roses if we desire to survive. Religion is not the solution to our problem here, religion IS the problem. As long as we have groups of humans who insist upon attaching themselves to beliefs that teach that THEY are special and that THEY are chosen by God and that THEIR religion is the ONLY right religion, we will continue to kill one another in the name of God.

Michael Jaquish

A Vigilant American