Poll - What Does the US do to rescue the Maersk-Alabama Captain

[Burp]

Quote from a crewmember:

"We had one of their hostages; we had a pirate," Ken Quinn, the secondmate told CNN by phone from the ship. "We took him for 12 hours. We tied him up. We returned him. But they didn't return the captain."

Remember the rancher in Texas who was sued by illegals for holding them after they illegally entered the country and trespassed on his land? He was found guilty of "inflicting emotional distress" and has to pay over $77,000.00 in damages.

I can just see the Somalian who was "held" suing the crew.

And our courts will probably allow the suit.

 

[Gunny]

I'm pleased to see that many of us are actaully thinking about this event, rather that spouting off a load of military nonsense about how we need to nuke people or get hostages killed to prove how bad-ass the USA is.

This is obviously an INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM that has been getting worse for quite some time.

And if the solution were as easy as blowing places up, I'm reasonly certain that the USA or some other nation would have done that already.

Those of you thinking with you balls instead of your brains need to grow up.

Ya'll sound like a bunch of childish chickenhawks.

There are, we're informed HUNDREDS OF HOSTAGES in Ely and surrounding communities that we cannot locate or save easily. That is the nature of hostages held in foreign lands, folks.

That alone makes this event ever so much more complex than something a SEAL TEAM can solve.

You people watch too many movies and think that military wetwork is something easily done.

IF it was THAT easy I'm sure THAT would ALREADY have been done.

The military is not STUPID, and neither was BUSH II (who did nothing about this) or neither is OBAMA, who is now facing this most recent event.

Back off and let the EXPERTS do their thing.

This isn't an AMERICAN political issue this is way more complex than that.

Who are the experts ?

The military and diplomatic people ON THE GROUND who actually know the DETAILS of the moment by moment events as they unfold.

Certainly not we digital generals here saying we ought to bomb everything because they think that makes them sound tough.

If these people are so bellicose why don't THEY join the SEALS and show US how it's done?

Chickenhawks!

This Viet Nam era vet already served his time. Besides at my age I no longer qualify.

I'd do it and I'm trained to do it. Plan on sending flowers to the hostage's funeral though. There is no way to assault that boat without getting the hostage killed. If we want him alive, then we pay. THEN we kill the pirates.

Those pirates put themselves in a Catch-22, for damned-sure. Pay or the hostage dies. If the hostage dies, so do they.

 

[American Horse]

Paying the ransom is out of the question. That will only encourage this type of behavior. The last thing we should be doing is giving these pirates what they want.

And why is this still an issue anyway? Why isnt there a snipper on the deck of one of the Navy ships out there picking these bastards off?

On FNC I saw a picture of the pirate's "life-boat" and it is totally enclosed with no way to see from the outside what is going on inside it. There are no individual targets. We don't know much - like is it a powered craft? It seems like it would be but I for one don't know for sure about that. (edit: its motor could be knocked out by rifle fire?) That aspect can either simplify or complicate strategies.

What fascinates me about this whole affair is the strategies needed to bring about it's successful conclusion by either side. The "pirates" were initially able to call for help from other pirates, asking them to bring out other pirated vessels to give them cover, probably to allow them to get off the life boat, removing them from their isolation. That would've allowed them to create a diversion to further enable them to collect a ransom and get away safely in some "second" blind arrangement.

If they can be kept isolated then at some point they will have to give themselves and the captain up. Will they be able to make a deal, his life for their freedom? That seems to me to be completely about bluff. Can they pull something off with bluff and bluster? Here we have our best minds against theirs. It seems ours have to win out, unless there is some contradictory force that comes into play. A presidential decision?

And the long term solution: doing something about Somalia, If we can't instill a lasting fear in future pirates from taking US ships and crews as hostages. Is there any will in the international community to do that, like the US has in Iraq? Isn't this a case in which Obama can demostrate youthful idealism and good international intentions being put to the best use?

 

[Gunny]

Another possibility would be 4 synchronized sharpshooters.

Why do people keep saying this? The best sniper in the world wouldn't risk that shot on an open sea. One thing you landlubbers seem to have no concept of is that sea NEVER stops moving. Ever. It can drive you nuts if you think about it for too long.

That means the shooter's platform is moving and so is the target's.

 

[Gunny]

Clinton prevented the Armor from being avaible to the commander in the field in the first place. You need to go read the history of the event. Clinton tried to do with just having a few choppers and light infantry type units in the field. The CO wanted armor back up just in case Clinton said no.

First things first: the mission into Mogadishu was a success. The RANGERS successfully captured the personnel they intended to get; Mohammed Farrah Aidid was an unconfirmed target of opportunity, but the rest of his lieutenants were confirmed.

Secondly: this was a special operations mission. You don't go into a snatch-and-grab with tanks. They don't have the speed necessary for these types of missions.

Thirdly: where things went wrong was when the second Blackhawk was shot down. Until then, the mission was pretty much going as planned. The RANGERS already had a contingency in case one helicopter was shot down; having a second shot down, while not an impossible contingency, redirected their mission focus. It happens in combat.

Fourthly: not taking anything away from the courage of the RANGERS, there were many small unit leadership level things that went unchecked. RANGERS were accustomed to the quick turnaround times on these missions and a number of them failed to stick to their basic load plan such as water, body armor, night vision goggles, etc. Commanders had established a predictable pattern for the Somalis to exploit.

Lastly (and there are still many more points to be made): no one underestimated the Somalis. The RANGERS, above all, greatly appreciated the warfighting experience the Somalis had, and knew they were facing a formidable adversary. It was the Somalis who underestimated the RANGERS. Strictly speaking, the RANGERS should have been slaughtered to the last man. With a clear and distinct advantage of outnumbering and having more guns than the RANGERS, the thousands of Somalis gathered in that combat zone should have easily wiped out the 100 or so RANGERS they had under siege. However, the RANGERS inflicted more casualties, estimated to be in the hundreds, than the Somalis did, and they left that zone alive. This speaks volumes about the fighting prowess of Army RANGERS, a number of whom, keep in mind, had foolishly left behind things like night vision goggles that would have given them a much more decisive advantage.

It's too bad the politics of the time distorted this as a failed mission and too bad the Army buried the valuable lessons-learned. Could have made a difference when our troops went into Iraq.

Two points:

The mission went awry when transportation convoys got blocked and knocked off schedule.

Two, Aidid's capabilities WERE underestimated. Whether or not your opinion that the troops respected Somali fighters is correct, it is irrelevant if the commanders drawing up the plans underestimate the enemy's capabilities.

The political fingerpointing is bullshit, plain and simple. The plan didn't carry out as it was drawn on paper. Simple as that. Once the plan was put into operation, the commander in the field calls the shots, not the President of the US.

 

[WorldAHope]

Let the SeaBees get them.

Longer term have an international flotilla invade the Somali coast.

All the Seebees have to do is drive a couple bulldozers out to the lifeboat, and plow out a deep moat all around the boat. Piece of cake. Slam Dunk. Easy as 1-2-3.
That is as practical a suggestion as some that have been offered in this thread.

 

[Toome]

Clinton prevented the Armor from being avaible to the commander in the field in the first place. You need to go read the history of the event. Clinton tried to do with just having a few choppers and light infantry type units in the field. The CO wanted armor back up just in case Clinton said no.

First things first: the mission into Mogadishu was a success. The RANGERS successfully captured the personnel they intended to get; Mohammed Farrah Aidid was an unconfirmed target of opportunity, but the rest of his lieutenants were confirmed.

Secondly: this was a special operations mission. You don't go into a snatch-and-grab with tanks. They don't have the speed necessary for these types of missions.

Thirdly: where things went wrong was when the second Blackhawk was shot down. Until then, the mission was pretty much going as planned. The RANGERS already had a contingency in case one helicopter was shot down; having a second shot down, while not an impossible contingency, redirected their mission focus. It happens in combat.

Fourthly: not taking anything away from the courage of the RANGERS, there were many small unit leadership level things that went unchecked. RANGERS were accustomed to the quick turnaround times on these missions and a number of them failed to stick to their basic load plan such as water, body armor, night vision goggles, etc. Commanders had established a predictable pattern for the Somalis to exploit.

Lastly (and there are still many more points to be made): no one underestimated the Somalis. The RANGERS, above all, greatly appreciated the warfighting experience the Somalis had, and knew they were facing a formidable adversary. It was the Somalis who underestimated the RANGERS. Strictly speaking, the RANGERS should have been slaughtered to the last man. With a clear and distinct advantage of outnumbering and having more guns than the RANGERS, the thousands of Somalis gathered in that combat zone should have easily wiped out the 100 or so RANGERS they had under siege. However, the RANGERS inflicted more casualties, estimated to be in the hundreds, than the Somalis did, and they left that zone alive. This speaks volumes about the fighting prowess of Army RANGERS, a number of whom, keep in mind, had foolishly left behind things like night vision goggles that would have given them a much more decisive advantage.

It's too bad the politics of the time distorted this as a failed mission and too bad the Army buried the valuable lessons-learned. Could have made a difference when our troops went into Iraq.

Two points:

The mission went awry when transportation convoys got blocked and knocked off schedule.

Two, Aidid's capabilities WERE underestimated. Whether or not your opinion that the troops respected Somali fighters is correct, it is irrelevant if the commanders drawing up the plans underestimate the enemy's capabilities.

The political fingerpointing is bullshit, plain and simple. The plan didn't carry out as it was drawn on paper. Simple as that. Once the plan was put into operation, the commander in the field calls the shots, not the President of the US.

I don't think we disagree that much, Gunny. I responded to the notion that the RANGERS underestimated the Somalis. That's pure nonsense. However, where I agree with you is that the command underestimated the Somalis' ability to piece together intelligence (e.g. the patterns established on previous missions), analyze and develop countermeasures (which is exactly what happened during the Mogadishu raid). From a purely objective point of view, the Somalis tactics were impressive.

I won't quibble over whether the mission went awry with the shootdown of the second Blackhawk or the delay of the convoy. We're probably both right. The point is that the RANGERS didn't go into this thing with a cakewalk mentality. However, they clearly underestimated Murphy.

And as I'm sure you will agree, Murphy is just as ugly and just as nasty whether he decides to show up in the Fulda Gap or in the middle of some third world shithole.

Where I strongly agree with you is that blaming Clinton is just political BS. The commanders on the ground were calling the shots, and General Garrison has accepted responsibility for the firefight that ensued following the successful capture and detention of the targeted individuals.

 

[dilloduck]

I have no moral objection to using force when force works. I've probably personally used force more times to put down some idiotic bully than the rest of this board combined. I'm not remotely a pacifist.

What I object to is calling for force when it won't solve the problem

I especially object to idiots calling for the DEATH OF THE HOSTAGE just to prove to the world how bad assed America is.

Force WILL stop sociopaths. Whether or not it proves anything about America looking "tough" is a whole different question. Why do we use force to stop sociopaths ? Because it's the only thing that works and it prevents ONE sociopath from harming MORE people.
Unfortunately too many believe there is any hope for a sociopath to rehabilitate.

Now, I've actually worked with documented sociopathic killers in closed unit psychiatric facilities.

So if you're under the impression that I don't understand that violence is necessary sometimes, you have sincerely misjudged who I am.

However, this situation is NOT about ego-gratifying chickenhawks.

It's about getting that hostage (and eventually all those hostages) back alive.

Ego gratifying chickhawks-----whatever. Some one needs to be the Daddy here. Who do you suggest ?

 

[WorldAHope]

Paying the ransom is out of the question. That will only encourage this type of behavior. The last thing we should be doing is giving these pirates what they want.

And why is this still an issue anyway? Why isnt there a snipper on the deck of one of the Navy ships out there picking these bastards off?

Snippers are only good for small gauge metal cutting. Assuming you mean sniper.
1)The lifeboat is a covered craft. Designed to protect people who have abandoned ship from heavy seas and sun. Here's a little look see.
More pirates searching for lifeboat, official says - CNN.com
Can't get a clear shot/
2) Firing with any accuracy from the deck of a narrow beam ship, like a navy frigate /destroyer, that is on the open ocean is extremely difficult. Even expert "snippers" would miss with most shots, and the hostage would likely die.
There are other possible ways to overwhelm the pirates.
Like, wait a little longer until they are so sick of bobbing on the ocean in that very very uncomfortable, extremely overheated enclosed craft, eating lifeboat rations which are about the worst food imaginable, and tasting those metallicy blicky stagnant freshwater rations, smelling their own vomit and feces as they slosh around in that airtight violently bouncing litel vessel,
sweaty, hungry, sore all over, thirsty, seasick, very hot and stuffy, stressed out, and exhausted.

Being in custody aboard that US Navy destroyer will seem like a pretty darn good alternative, soon.
Time and deteriorating conditions inside the fortress are a besieger's (and hostage negotitator's) best weapons.

This current event has one very interesting outcome: It has allowed people to display their ability to form and share opinions that are based upon a serious lack of facts and thoughtful comprehension.

This ignorant blabbing is even more remarkable given that an enormous amount of information has been provided by many media sources on this event and on the topic of Somali pirates in general.
Information and facts are everywhere.
Yet ---- people choose to talk on and on, without putting even a minimal effort into gatherring factual information, that is easily and readily available.

I'm not picking on you; yours was a simple question. I am talking about the rampant ignorant opinionating and the unworkable, valueless unfounded suggestions, and the anxious spear rattling by belligerent armchair experts that have been posting about this particular event and situation.

Some people have revealed their total lack of ability to use facts to form opinions or to create suggestions. Their postings have revealed the extent of their mental capabilities, very very clearly.

 

[WorldAHope]

Another possibility would be 4 synchronized sharpshooters.

Is that an Olympic sport ? Bathing beauties doing synchronized acrobatics while picking off targets.

Can't get a good shot into the lifeboat. It is enclosed, covered, no clear line of sight.

 

[dilloduck]

Another possibility would be 4 synchronized sharpshooters.

Is that an Olympic sport ? Bathing beauties doing synchronized acrobatics while picking off targets.

Can't get a good shot into the lifeboat. It is enclosed, covered, no clear line of sight.

Didn't you already tell us that ?

 

[WorldAHope]

Paying the ransom is out of the question. That will only encourage this type of behavior. The last thing we should be doing is giving these pirates what they want.

And why is this still an issue anyway? Why isnt there a snipper on the deck of one of the Navy ships out there picking these bastards off?

On FNC I saw a picture of the pirate's "life-boat" and it is totally enclosed with no way to see from the outside what is going on inside it. There are no individual targets. We don't know much - like is it a powered craft? It seems like it would be but I for one don't know for sure about that. (edit: its motor could be knocked out by rifle fire?) That aspect can either simplify or complicate strategies.

What fascinates me about this whole affair is the strategies needed to bring about it's successful conclusion by either side. The "pirates" were initially able to call for help from other pirates, asking them to bring out other pirated vessels to give them cover, probably to allow them to get off the life boat, removing them from their isolation. That would've allowed them to create a diversion to further enable them to collect a ransom and get away safely in some "second" blind arrangement.

If they can be kept isolated then at some point they will have to give themselves and the captain up. Will they be able to make a deal, his life for their freedom? That seems to me to be completely about bluff. Can they pull something off with bluff and bluster? Here we have our best minds against theirs. It seems ours have to win out, unless there is some contradictory force that comes into play. A presidential decision?

And the long term solution: doing something about Somalia, If we can't instill a lasting fear in future pirates from taking US ships and crews as hostages. Is there any will in the international community to do that, like the US has in Iraq? Isn't this a case in which Obama can demostrate youthful idealism and good international intentions being put to the best use?

The navy and the FBI are monitorring every communictaion to/from the pirates in the lifeboat. They can shut their comm links down, at any time. They are watching and tracking many suspected pirate vessels and bases in the area. They cargo ships that have been hijacked and are held by pirates are being closely observed. Lengthy discussions have been ongoing among international Special Ops units.
Sightings of military helos flying in pairs making recon flights over coastal Somali villages known to be pirate bases has been reported by villagers.
I haven't heard anything about Obama or anyone asking for the UN to spit out an authorizing resolution. It looks to me that they are getting prepared to take some offensive action, jump as soon as this standoff is over.

 

[Peejay]

............. It looks to me that they are getting prepared to take some offensive action, jump as soon as this standoff is over.

I think you're right. Regardless of the outcome of the hostage situation, there are going to be some fireworks.

 

[WorldAHope]

The Somali coast might be a good place to have an LCAC race.

 

[dilloduck]

............. It looks to me that they are getting prepared to take some offensive action, jump as soon as this standoff is over.

I think you're right. Regardless of the outcome of the hostage situation, there are going to be some fireworks.

but doesn't that just make them madder and able to recruit more pirates easier---let's not get too hasty here

 

[Peejay]

............. It looks to me that they are getting prepared to take some offensive action, jump as soon as this standoff is over.

I think you're right. Regardless of the outcome of the hostage situation, there are going to be some fireworks.

but doesn't that just make them madder and able to recruit more pirates easier---let's not get too hasty here

Well, if we bombed Johnny Depp, becuase of what some Somalians did......

 

[dilloduck]

I think you're right. Regardless of the outcome of the hostage situation, there are going to be some fireworks.

but doesn't that just make them madder and able to recruit more pirates easier---let's not get too hasty here

Well, if we bombed Johnny Depp, becuase of what some Somalians did......

We're OK then-----nothing to fear from the Hollywood types.

 

[InrXeyelArkvst]

Maersk A-Class
The cargo ship Maersk Alabama was attacked by pirates early on the morning of April 8, 2009 and presumed hijacked. The vessel was en route to Mombasa, Kenya, when it was assaulted about 300 miles off Somalia’s coast. The Maersk Alabama is home-ported in Norfolk, Va., and has a crew of about 20 U.S. nationals.

There is some confusion in media coverage as to exactly what ship was hijacked. In the US Navy, as in most navies, once a ship is named it retains that ship throughout its' life, which is typically about three decades. While illustrious names may be reused, normally there is a decent interval between the time the elder ship is decommissioned and the time the new ship is named [the Indian Navy is rather annoying in the rapidity with which it recycles names, waiting only a few years]. Commercial shipping companies, on the other hand, may rename a ship many time over the ships life, and ships are certainly renamed when they are bought and sold, which may happen every few years.

The Alva Maersk was placed in service in 1976, and renamed several times thereafter, most recently Maersk Balboa in the year 2003. It plays no part in this story, apart from the fact that another dis-similar and unrelated vessel was subsequently named Alva Maersk, and was put under the American flag as part of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) under the name Masersk Alabama. It is this rather smaller vessel that was hijacked in early 2009.

Maersk Line, Limited is based in Norfolk, Virginia, and is one of the Department of Defense's primary shipping contractors. It has been a reliable partner for the government in peacetime and war for almost 30 years. The company operates vessels registered in the United States in full compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. It manages a fleet of nearly 50 ships in commercial and government service, including vessels requiring Top Secret security clearances. Maersk Line, Limited, a subsidiary of Denmark's A.P. Moller/Maersk A.S., is independently controlled by a board of directors comprised entirely of U.S. citizens.

A.P. Moller Singapore was established 08 March 1978 as "The Maersk Company Singapore" and started out with two container feeder vessels "Maersk Mango" and "Maersk Tempo". In 1988-1989 nine vessels were purchased - three container vessels (Alva Maersk / Arild Maersk / Brigit Maersk), three product/crude carriers (Maersk Virtue / Maersk Nautilus / Maersk Neptune) and three pure car carriers (Maersk Crest / Maersk Cloud / Maersk Sky).

On October 1, 2004 Maersk Line, Limited (MLL) announced that it had signed agreements with the Maritime Administration that will transfer six Maritime Security Program (MSP) operating agreements to modern containerships that will replace six existing MSP vessels built in the 1980s and managed by U.S. Ship Management, Inc. (USSM). The new replacement vessels are: Sealand Intrepid, Sealand Lightning, Sealand Charger, Sealand Comet, Sealand Meteor and Alva Maersk.

Seafarers are sailing aboard five containerships operated by Maersk Line, Limited (MLL) that have transferred into the U.S. Maritime Security Program, replacing older tonnage. Agreements were signed Oct. 1, 2004 between MLL and the U.S. Maritime Administration to transfer the Maritime Security Program contracts on six existing SIU-crewed MSP vessels built in the 1980s and managed by U.S. Ship Management, Inc. (USSM) to six newer containerships.

Seafarers crewed up MLL's Sealand Charger Oct. 28 in Los Angeles; the Sealand Meteor Nov. 9 in Dubai; the Alva Maersk - since renamed the Maersk Alabama - Nov. 10 in Dubai; and both the Sealand Intrepid and Sealand Comet Nov. 16 in Los Angeles. The Sealand Lightning was due to join the fleet in Southern California. A sixth MLL vessel was scheduled to enter the fleet in late November or early December 2004.

MSP age limits require that older vessels be replaced in the current program before reaching 25 years of age. The replacements were approved by the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Transportation Command and represent a significant improvement in the ability of MLL's U.S.-flag fleet to serve its military and commercial customers. All vessels will be integrated into MLL's existing U.S.-flag fleet operations, streamlining operations and creating efficiencies in MLL's global network of intermodal assets, including terminals, cranes, logistical platforms, computerized management systems, containers and chassis. The transfers will strengthen the MSP for military purposes and enhance the U.S.-flag presence in international shipping.

Audacious fraudsters repeatedly scammed AP Moller-Maersk out of millions of dollars in a series of bogus shipping contracts, says the Danish liner giant. In May 2005 Maersk was now in US courts chasing $24.95m in treble damages. A federal court has ordered up to that amount attached as it wires its way through New York banks to the defendants in the case, including Arwen Singh Sahni and his family members and associates. Those behind the scheme, many of them described as Kuwait-based Indian nationals, are also said to have pulled a separate, simultaneous con of a similar scale on unnamed other lines. The complex scheme involved shipping low-value goods on fraudulent, high-value bills of lading and then suing Maersk for the apparent loss of merchandise that never existed, according to papers filed with the Southern District of New York federal court. The alleged con artists even succeeded in getting a Maersk containership, the geared, 1,100-teu Alva Maersk (now the US-flag Maersk Alabama , built 1998), arrested in Kuwait to satisfy their claims. Maersk had to put up a $1.86m bank guarantee in April 2004 to get the ship released....

Maersk A-Class

​

 

[American Horse]

And the long term solution: doing something about Somalia, If we can't instill a lasting fear in future pirates from taking US ships and crews as hostages. Is there any will in the international community to do that, like the US has in Iraq? Isn't this a case in which Obama can demostrate youthful idealism and good international intentions being put to the best use?

The navy and the FBI are monitorring every communictaion to/from the pirates in the lifeboat. They can shut their comm links down, at any time. They are watching and tracking many suspected pirate vessels and bases in the area. They cargo ships that have been hijacked and are held by pirates are being closely observed. Lengthy discussions have been ongoing among international Special Ops units.
Sightings of military helos flying in pairs making recon flights over coastal Somali villages known to be pirate bases has been reported by villagers.
I haven't heard anything about Obama or anyone asking for the UN to spit out an authorizing resolution. It looks to me that they are getting prepared to take some offensive action, jump as soon as this standoff is over.

That will be interesting and will give Obama some needed credibility for decisive action. Still the long-range issue of piracy and its source(s) needs attending to.
On this I wish him good luck.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Strong or not, the Ethiopian army is not in our league. This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's a lifeboat with pirates and a hostage. Pay them, get thet hostage back, then kill them REGARDLESS where they make landfall.

And let someone's rooty-poot Navy come out and challenge the U S Navy. I'd love to have all 30 seconds of THAT on video.

wait.....let me get the jiffy pop......