What the US Navy wants is irrelevant. The US Navy goes where and does what it's told. It is not self-directing.

No one in the Department of the Navy has operational control of any Navy combat assets - they belong to the Unified Commanders and the chain of command that runs above that level through SecDef to the Commander in Chief. Along the way, mission priorities and their operational manifestations are the province of the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well, and they compete with the whole range of other missions levied on the fleet. Perhaps a greater US Navy role in anti-piracy matters could bring about miraculous improvement, but there's a loaves-and-fishes miracle will have to happen first to free up the assets.

And while our courageous blowhard asserts that "The U.S. Navy wants nothing to with fighting thugs in the littorals," it also takes lumps from within and without for paying too much attention to the littorals, the new class of Littoral Control Ships (Anon: note the name) receiving great criticism from those who think we should return to the dreadnought and the littoral-capable SSGN conversions costing big bucks.

I think I'd like to see a plot of piracy's dollar-costs to direct US interests over - say - the past 25 years before I could conclude that it's even a problem worth solving. Very few lives at risk, the losses are all insured, few merchant ships are US-flagged, and it's not happening anywhere near our waters. Yes, the US Navy could be the solution - what's the problem?

There is no shortage of right sized ships for fighting pirates in the Indian Ocean area. Since most commercial vessels transiting the IO through the Red Sea are bound for Europe it seems sensible that highly trained, extremely capable NATO ‘frigate’ navies should be the prime force dealing with this issue. Commerce protection is an ideal mission for these surface forces and one they are likely better equipped and trained for than our own. The USN has rightly contributed P-3 Orion's for broad ocean reconnaissance which is crucial in order to make surface vessels operations more efficient and it could also lend more technical assistance. However, the USN does not need to lead every effort on this planet when there are other capable and technically proficient forces available for such a mission. If NATO, China, India and Russia are sufficiently disturbed by piracy then they have the resources and skills necessary to cooperatively combat the problem with USN assistance.

We have a history fighting piracy (Barbary Pirates come to mind) and a central US Navy mission is to keep the sea lanes open for commerce. The navy is prepared to fight pirates and is good at it; however, why should we (national policy CENTCOM, NAVCENT) devote fleet assets to protect merchant ships flying Liberian, Panamanian, or North Korean flags?

Merchant ships flying flags of convenience do so for purposes of reducing operating costs and/or avoiding government regulations. It costs much more to fly a US flag (or an EU flag) partly because the Liberian nor Panamanian navy will not be stationing ships off the Horn to protect sea lanes any time soon.

The US Navy came to the rescue of the Maersk Alabama flying a US flag. Have there been any further attacks on US flagged ships since? I haven't heard of any. Are US ships being escorted thru the East African waters? Are they being monitored? Are they staying away from East Africa? I don't know, but I'll bet there's now a procedure available to them if they desire protection. Maybe not a convoy, but something.

If the US Navy comes across any merchant ship being attacked, it will assist and has an obligation to assist. However, we are not obliged to execute plans and policies that keep the shores of East Africa free of piracy. If Greek and Saudi companies want to reflag their vessels with US flags, we should protect their ships. Until then, we can't afford it.

Let us keep this issue in perspective blog shipmates. No doubt piracy has risen in the Indian Ocean and seen an "up tick" from the Gulf of Aden to off the coast of Somalia. However, in the grand scheme of using the descriptive adjective "up tick " the threat just isn't that great - even less so during the monsoon season.

Figure it this way: roughly 20,000 ships transit the Gulf of Aden
each year, and when sifting through what actually happened, as opposed to paying protection money by shippers which goes on, there were only about 100 piracy incidents last year in this region - about 10 or 11 attacks (not all successful) per month, which only equates to about 7 percent of the total shipping. And if you further figure, regardless of whose national ensign is being flown off the stern of any vessel, sure bet is the majority of ownership is not U.S.

So, with all the other tasks our U.S. Navy has to accomplish on the high seas, I say to the international community, "suck it up buck-o," it's primarily your responsibility.

Since my previous life, before blogging, was that of kind of a pirate myself, most reliable and professional pirates will tell you that with the Indian Ocean as vast as it is, it makes direct naval protection of shipping almost impossible, and therefore it stands to reason the emphasis should to a large degree, shift to self-defense and evasive maneuvering by merchant vessels (which some are doing).

Frankly, merchant ship owners and shipping insurers don't want to absorb the cost, so they hype the threat as if world shipping is being disrupted, thereby bringing pressure on governments to pick-up the slack with national assets. And the amusing thing is, few of them pay their fair share of taxes to those governments to fund those national assets, like navies. In addition, certain individuals in uniform like to do the same thing - because they want a military land involvement in Somalia.

In addition, most of these pirates apprehended are later let loose because of the legal minefield involved, and that of who has jurisdiction on the high seas. With the life expectancy of the average Somali male at 42 and dropping, with no hope of retraining - what occupation do you think they are going back to?

Sidebar note for you polywogs: the coastline of Somalia is longer than America's Atlantic coast. and is all frontier -

maybe the Navy is not as relevant. Look for most of the Navy leadership being at the right end of a sophisticated weapons system launch, leading an armada against the vaporous jihad, being a recovery force leader post apocalypse, guest speaker at Washington power lunch or pictured on the DoD web site. That is what makes the wardroom stand and cheer.

But being with the grey suits and seizing the moneyed loot in Geneva, or keel hauling the insurance underwriters, go to enablers and lawyers, well, that is something beyond their pay grade. Feet dry....no officer's mess....no spotted uniforms...no flags of the tea party on the bow...they would be like beached whales but with more tonnage.

Remember our past discussions upon leadership selection processes...

We have plenty of marines, who could provide 10-man detachments to US flagged ships in the region. However, the marines have become soldiers since their Generals want to fight division size wars, and dedicate 17,000 marines to "occupy" Okinawa forever.

Such a mission is a complete waste of expensively trained Marines! Read TYRTAIOS insightful comment above to fully appreciate what a less than compelling issue piracy is for the USA. Incidentally, these shipping companies have sufficient resources to acquired hired guns for such duty.

Thought it holds out now as "America's Navy...a force for good".

It is not as easy as it might sound to stop the flow of money that pays piracy. For one thing I suggest that you try to suggest that hostages should be left to stay with pirates. Have fun getting lynched. Then there's the people who pay the ransoms. Are you going to tell them (and the public) that the hostages shouldn't be paid for? Then there's the problem of attempting to take the ports or something of that sort. No militant movement is stronger than when it has nationalism to back it. And of course we should go after the negotiators. The only people who can keep other people from getting killed. Makes perfect sense to me.