Outsourcing defense: The Indian Ocean case

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 1:30 PM Share

So I was idly reading the Copenhagen Post (Hans Christian Anderson's favorite newspaper!) and saw the Maesrk shipping company has hired a Tanzanian warship and some soldiers to  defend its merchant vessels in the area.

Does this mean the shipping companies have come to believe that the naval task force assembled by Western task forces isn't providing sufficient security and deterrence? If I were the CNO I'd be worried by this. 

(HT to HC the Sun King)

MARCEL MOCHET/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFRICA, PIRATES
 

STARBUCK

1:43 PM ET

January 7, 2010

And yet, no one would hire

And yet, no one would hire the Blackwater ship, the MV McArthur. I find this hilarous...

 

COW COOKIE

1:52 PM ET

January 7, 2010

Zone vs. man-to-man

I suspect it is more because the CJTF must maintain a zone defense that can't guarantee any one ship security even though it offers the best use of limited resources. A ship-to-ship or convoy approach offers better security for individual ships but in a much more limited area and without adequately reassuring participating nations that all flags have sufficient protection. I believe either Russia or China uses the latter approach but only protects those flying its own flag. Quite simply, Maesrk has the much more limited goal of protecting its own vessels while the CJTF must safeguard an area to the extent that it can. The two actions seem perfectly compatible - and even expected - to me.

 

JPWREL

2:58 PM ET

January 7, 2010

Your analysis I suspect is

Your analysis I suspect is correct about the ‘zone defense’ versus specific convoy escorts. I also suspect that the USN hates this mission and is reluctant to resource it adequately. It is a small potatoes mission and we are disinclined to deploy precious and wrong sized destroyers or the few remaining frigates (about 21 in number which about a third would be available) away from the Carrier Strike Groups. This mission would seem to be ideal for some quality European and mid-sized Navies that do not have a power projection mission yet also have the right sized vessels for an anti-piracy mission.

 

SULLY

6:38 PM ET

January 7, 2010

MAERSK FLAGS

Agree with COW COOKIE and JPWREL. Also, while Maersk has a fleet of US flagged ships, the majority of Maersk ships are not US flagged. While the USN would always come to the aid of any ship in distress, I don't think we should convoy every flag of convenience through East Africa waters or the Straights of Malacca. We are (arguably) not the world's policemen.

 

E-P1

6:21 AM ET

January 8, 2010

Destroyer Navies

Maybe this is where some outsourcing could be done and done well.

After all, the US is friendly with a number of nations who have what are effectively Destroyer and Frigate navies. Why not spend some money to have them sail their small ships around the Horn of Africa backed up by, perhaps, a USMC assault carrier?

Better yet, the Spanish have some small carriers that could probably do with some serious at-sea time. They're not the only ones.

 

JPWREL

9:22 AM ET

January 8, 2010

That makes a lot of sense but

That makes a lot of sense but likely would cost in money a hell of a lot more than just paying off the pirates. As a matter of fact that is the attitude of most shippers who would rather protect themselves by peeling off a few bucks than arming their ships.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More