You guys sound (with all due respect and, actually, just voicing *something* is a honorable act all by itself) like some teens or twens "knowing" how to "repair" what is wrong in the world...
Really? Now see what I was reading seemed like a spitball session on possible tactics, being conducted by several people with military backgrounds.
Which sounds fine to me, just not taking into account the *strategical* implications. This is what made me call it "you
sound like teens" as I find it typical (and have lived it myself when young some decades ago) for this age group.
Mil bkgnd - while much appreciated in the discussion - does not necessarily immunify against such shortcuts...
Really, get your data right before voicing an opinion, if you do not base it on data, your just wildly guessing around and clotting the serious part of the discussion.
What data? The problem being discussed was piracy and possible tactical measures that might or might not work. It was a discussion on the benefits or lack there of in tactical changes in the type of vesels used and air assets being employed.
The data:
- Intl sea law
- Juridical definition of piracy
- Vessels (or CTF) advantages and disadvantages according to type/class
- Established tactical options
- Repercussions for all of the above
- Cost/Benefit calculation
- Projected ENY COA´s with a good billion of $ as voiced/written on the net by their analysts
...Think of this as an ops with an OPORD and adress all the points as a mental priority:
Gee Op -Order? I and 13th & KJ & BA & LeEnfield & Del need to brush up on what an Op-Order is? Tell what I'm almost certain at the 110% level that we know what an Op-Order is
Did I say I doubted that?
You want to talk tactics, so explain it to your subordinates in the terms maufactured for such endeavour. Anything wrong with the idea from your POV?
What is the mission over there? -snip- *First* answer this question.
The mission would be to insure that the shipping lanes are safe for transit by merchant vessels regardless of what flag she flys. This means curtailing criminal hi-jack of unarmed merchant vessels by Pirates based in the failed state of Somalia.
Well, at least you now have definded what you see as the mission. The "This means..." part would belong to "Commanders Intent" IMHO, but is also well received from this side of the discussion.
Next step is to project a strat, *both* for entry and exit, define the entry and exit rules and conditions.
Again. When the shipping lanes are safe for transit by merchant vessels. Really a pretty simple concept if you ask me. Whether it means that the pirates are eliminated wholesale or find it becomes unprofitable matters not. What matters is that vessels are safe and allowed to conduct commerce within that region, and transit that region.
Can you tell me why you see this as a *simple* concept? It is just exactly this point that makes it so complicated, IMO, and it is not a strategical view: Free Sea Lane Transit is a rather new concept, brought in by Woodrow Wilson, the treatys covering its execution hav beens signed by almost all nations (with the exception of the US, China and Russia).
E.g., I can fully agree that making it unprofitable might be a valid COA, but I have the feeling you are just saying this because of a hunch of yours (which I share) instead of basing it on a profound and data backed analysis.
Project the reactions of your "enemy" to your actions, and then decide where you want to end up, when you are going to act, when not, and at what scale you want to get out, and how (Iraq lessons by now should have been learned, IMHO), what is the desired end result versus cost, necessary effort, logistics, etc. I have not read any true analysis of those factors and points in any of the pirate threads here yet, but I think that is just what we need.
Reactions. #1 You are not dealing with a standing military force, you are dealing with a loosely confederated criminal organization (s). Based on (if my expierance in Somalia in 92- 93 has any bearing) on clan loyalty the country has no central standing goverment
#2 Their response "militarly" will be based on their assets available. That is to say small vessels and small arms augmented by the RPG which in reality is a small arm. They have no combat vessels and no air assets.
So your comparison is moot.
Look, one of my first lessons in learning tactics (and it will probably be my last as it still hasn´t yet made it firmly enough to the LL department of my brain after 50+yrs...:bang
was "Don´t Assume! ...Ever!"
You are doing that right now, and twofold:
1. With 900 millions of ransom just 2008 (no data yet on 2009, but there should be a substantial increase: Estimates now go 2.700 Million $ if the trend holds) they will soon be available to aquire assets that can cope with anything but a full scale CVBG, not necessarily combat vessels, but what about their own sat screening? their own "Air Force!"? Fast Boats, Missiles, Helos? Submarines? etc... Money will get you up to speed fast...
Not saying it will be so, but
*assuming* it wont be leads to disaster according to all tactical lessons I have learned.
2. You are asuuming I am comparing, I am not: As you are familiar with OPORDS: "Execution: Way In, Way Out".
Think up how we are going to deal with them actually starting to kill all those hostages (so far they only threatened - and even this is the first step of augmenting the pressure - to kill French and US guys), blowing up the ships to close passages, taking terrain hostage, actually lancing missiles, etc...
Not saying there is no answer to those questions, but have *you* thought them through, incl your responses, when you cry "A por ellos!"? The mil plöanners will have to do just that...
Shouting "Gung Ho!" is rather easy, but would it really serve? Serious analysts are addressing the theme from various angles, and it seems the simple solutions wont work.
Ya know really "Gung Ho" means work in harmony together (or so I've been told). It was used by the 2nd Seperate Bn (Raider) USMC "Carlsons Raiders" in WWII (incidentally Carlson was suspected of being a closet communist).
However in the current times being Gung-ho, or Gungy is used as almost slander towards someone with a big mouth and no expierance to back it up. So should we take it like that?
Again it was a spitball discussion on tactics. Guess you missed it.
? Do not see where you got that last bit from.
A blog roundup for those really wanting to build an educated opinion, here:
See your missing the point that the discussion was about tactics not the geo-political diplomatic side of it, we tend to leave that to politicians.
*You* obviously missed (or I wasnt able to transport) that
this was exactly the
point *I* wanted to make:
Tactics w/o strat base will fail the end result, demonstrated 50+ times in just the 2Oth century and claimed long times before as key...
Read your Clausewitz again ("The dialectical approach to military analysis", "The methods of "critical analysis"", "The nature of the balance-of-power mechanisms" and "The relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war" come to mind)...
If you have no strategical view that is clear and concise, have defined your end goal/result and exit conditions, all your tactics will just save your ass for a moment, might even win a battle, but surely will not win the war.
Politics *are*
one of the reasons and one of the means to fight wars (again Clausewitz - and I know I am abusing him here for rhetorical reasons - "War is merely a continuation of politics"):
Just one example in this case: Many of our western nation well paid recycling firms threw their (our!) chemical toxic waste into Somali waters for decades now, simply because they could:
Somalis had no government to oppose and enforce tha opposition, and anyway it was much cheaper than to dispose legally (and the profits better). Result: Somali (and ethiopian on the long run) fishermen lost thier income consecutively because all was dead or poisened, they turn pirates as a reaction...
Now,
me, you and we all other citizens that are involved in the struggle are
paying those firms profits with real tax money just to get it under control again... Tell me again: Politics has no strategical bearing? You are serious?[/quote]
It's been my expierence that Somalis tend to respect two things.
-snip-
#2 The fact that the opposition as no problem blowing them away.
Thats it in a nutshell. They respect Allah and deadly force.
Like me, like you, like everyone.
Still, we have developed more intelligent ways (which in my book wants to say "ways where everybody profits") to deal with conflicts, one would be to bring those toxic wasters to justice and make them pay the owed debits to the Somalis (which in turn wont need to go pirates, just an idea for starters and because I cited the problem above).
Include those COAs in your strat/tac plans.
Rattler
irate:
