I disagree. The Houthi are a piracy operation. They are not a state actor. They seize or destroy civilian shipping. Every weapon they use either keeps their opponents at bay are are used to continue their campaign against shipping. Military efforts to counter them are, by nature, anti-piracy. Therefor, this is a anti-piracy mission. I choose my words carefully and for a very specific reason. The Houthi are nothing but Red Sea pirates, and should be seen and treated as such.
Have to jump in here, because this is a common western misperception
Note: I'm not defending Islam - the true translation of the Koran is much WORSE.
The Koran (sura 56:35–38) promises that those who die in Jihad will receive 72 HOURI'S, not virgins. The 'Virgin's' translation was simply Medieval European effort to comprehend something that was utterly foreign in concept from a religious perspective.
Houri's, per the Hadith and Koran, are 'celestial virgins'. As described in many of the Hadith, they are what we might call 'angelic creatures', possessed of unlimited libido and sexual prowess.
To put it in modern terms, they are eternally horny, Victoria Secret Angels. And there is a common undercurrent throughout Islamic and Arab literature that values the 'deflowering' of virgins, and so these Houris are perpetual virgins.
That's the crap their 'god' promised them. Ergo, Islam is NOT an Abrahamic religion because no angel of The Lord brought that teaching to Mohammed. If he had ANY supernatural inspiration, it was demonic in nature.
In the end, a terrorist is just a certain kind of pirate. Under law, there is not much difference to be found in them. And pirates are not mere thieves. They are commonly terrorists. It is what they have in common that matters from a legal standpoint. The essence of that is that they are habitual offenders who commit acts regarded as criminal under THE LAW OF NATIONS. This is what gives to the duly constituted powers of every civil society, the right to act against them where found in their jurisdiction, and sometimes elsewhere, as on the High Seas. Thus Navies have warrant to act against Pirates and Terrorists alike and in like fashion.
.....The important implication in so far as the United States government is concerned, is that it has laws related to Pirates and Piracy. including case law, and precedents for action, and these can and should be used for guidance and where appropriate, followed when dealing with the specie of Pirates known as Terrorists.
VTY. Tom Tugmutton. Ordinary Sailor Pressed to Serve.
The Houthis are a scourge to the sea lanes and would eschew any label except "martyr". Let's decisively provide them that opportunity. They are both pirates and terrorists due to their actions, other motivations being subordinate to our concerns. Destroy them. Sink any Iranian flagged vessel. Render every airfield useless. Torch their oil transshipment points. Threaten Iran's leadership personally. Tell our recalcitrant "allies" to piss off when we take unilateral action...if they want a say then they best have a patrolling vessel in the Red Sea willing to take action. The US/UK should keep their own counsel on this.
You can be a holy man and a pirate, or an academician and a pirate. It doesn’t matter. If you are a pirate, doing piracy, there is a set of rules that mariners follow. Julius Caesar would recognize the doctrine the USN applies to piracy, it has served us well over the life of this nation. There’s no need to change our approach.
If you're suggesting swatting down flying lawnmowers with $9 million missiles is a sustainable policy, I disagree. There is no deterrent in this and we will remain on station until we deplete the magazines; they will remain and continue their attacks. If you are suggesting the course of action endorsed by CDR Sal, full speed ahead. An effective response would entail the destruction of the Houthis AND those who enable them.
My recollection is that Julius Caesar went back after he was ransomed and exterminated ( Yes the e word!) the pirates who had captured him. I endorse that policy--skip the ransom stage.
Here's the part I like most about that story, Caesar told the pirates exactly what he would do to them if he was ever ransomed. A man to be reckoned with.
The burden of empire is the relentless suppression of piracy. Julius Caesar was fortunate in the story told by Plutarch. Declaration of Roman citizenship by a captive was as likely as not a good way to be fed to the fishes. The other side of the coin is Ostia 68 BCE and the destruction of a consular fleet at the hands of pirates.
If Germany in spring 1940 had funded and supplied their client state in German Namibia to engage in commerce raiding and attacks against US shipping to the UK, would we have considered those as acts of piracy, or as acts of war by Germany?
I think part of the problem is that we've allowed the 'fiction' of client states and proxies to become real. We pretend this isn't Iranian strikes against the US, because the spineless fools at Foggy Bottom and on Wall St. don't ever want to admit that someone is at war with us (whether or not we chose to be at war with them) until there is no choice.
In this case, while I would view attacks by Somali and other African based groups as legitimate piracy, I think that it would be rational and more in keeping with 'realpolitik' to view the acts of the Houthis as what they are: Iranian attacks against the US, Israel and western governments.
Also worth pointing out that Pirates typically board and seize vessels, and that this represents only 2 or 3 of the attacks by the Houthis, as opposed to dozens of attacks with drones and missiles intended to damage or destroy.
Sinking civilian merchant vessels - without warning - is not piracy. That's unrestricted Naval warfare.
I guess I'm making the case for something between 'anti-piracy operations', which by definition will never be prosecuted with the strength needed to resolve this issue, and full scale war of conquest or occupation.
I think acknowledging that these acts are explicitly acts of war by Iran, and at the same time making clear we will never put troops on the ground in Iran, opens the path to options between those extremes.
1) There should be no Iranian military vessel afloat anywhere in the world that is not tied to a pier on Iranian soil. Any and all Iranian civilian vessels will be seized and interred until such time as Iran ceases hostile operations (to include funding of proxies) for a period of not-less-than 3 years.
2) There should be no functional airstrips, runways, hangers or aircraft other than explicitly marked medevac aircraft anywhere in Houthi territory
3) The airspace over Houthi territory should be declared as 'interdicted' and we should put some AWACS birds in the area, and anything, (missile, drone, aircraft) exceeding 100 ft above surface (unless declared on an open channel as humanitarian/medical with transponder on and following declared flight plan) will be shot down without question.
There is no easy answer to the discussion between Sal and William. What do you do about other nations who are supporting your enemy but not actually in the fight?
Germany's decleration of unrestricted submarine warfare is an example of what not to do.
JFK's blackade of Cuba worked, but it might not have.
I would like to turn Iran into a parking lot, but there is no justification for doing so - yet.
That's why war is an art not a science. Clausewitz, I think.
As strongly worded as a green-haired vegan Byrn Mawr English major practicing the Bahá’í faith in a Che T-shirt and yoga pants can parse with her cats walking across the keyboard.
Why make easy things hard? A naval blockade of South Yemen combined with strikes to destroy land transportation routes should starve the Houthis of the necessary material to threaten shipping.
Exterminate the Houthis, see Iranian proxies reevaluate their alliances.
"If Germany in spring 1940 had funded and supplied their client state in German Namibia "
????
Namibia was a German colony, German South-West Africa, until WWI, after which it was a League of Nations mandate of South Africa (the other USA). Namibia was "south-West Africa" until 1968. In 1940 South Africa, and presumably was at war with Germany
so, the Germans in Namibia and in Germany never accepted the mandate, and of all her African colonies, Germans provided the most support during the inter-war years to those in the former-Namibia. South Africa pretty much blatantly ignored the LoN mandate purpose, seeing it as a defacto annexation whereas the LoN purpose was explicitly to prepare the territory for self-rule.
In short, it wasn't that peaceful and there were plenty of Germans in Namibia who were not fans of the British/South African rule.
Ego, my example of German - aligned people, who were not in 'German territory' engaging in 'piracy' against British aligned shipping.
Was it a likely scenario? Of course not. I was simply trying to draw a corollary to how we would not have viewed actions as 'mere piracy'.
So your distinction is technically correct, but there were no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of Germans in the territory in 1940 who still preferred German rule.
I respect the heck out of Sal, but I do not think treating the Houthi's as a 'pirate problem' is the correct course. I respect that many may feel differently, but in the 25+ years we've been dealing with piracy in the Red Sea (nearly all from the Horn), has there ever been a wave of attacks designed to sink commercial shipping?
Piracy, by definition, is a criminal act, whose purpose is nearly always to seize property for theft or ransom.
Pirates don't fire missiles at ships just to sink them.
The Houthi's are using modern military equipment to sink or interdict the shipping of multiple nations, with global consequences. The one ship they seized was not seized for monetary ransom, but for geo-political leverage against Israel.
The Houthi's have made themselves an instrument of Iranian foreign policy towards both Israel and the US.
That makes them state-actors. Not pirates.
Calling them pirates gives the administration cover for taking 'modest' or 'proportional' acts against them.
Keep in mind, this all started with the Houthi's firing missiles and drones at ISRAEL, and with US ships interdicting those missiles, which prompted the Houthi's to threaten shipping in reprisal again.
So no. With respect to those who feel differently, I wholeheartedly feel the Houthi problem is NOT a piracy problem, and calling it such is a mistake.
I get Sal's concern, but I think in some ways it echo's many arguments I would describe as simplistic (which NOT a hallmark of Sal's thinking) that presumes 'War' means boots on the ground.
Everybody is falling into extremist camps on every issue.
I personally reject simplistic, straw-man arguments designed to appeal to peoples base instincts and fears.
I define myself as a realist first. Some principles I believe the history of human conflict have shown to be true:
1) We can use military force against known enemies without having to invade them and put 'boots on the ground'
2) Appeasement ALWAYS produces more and greater aggression from the aggressor. Bullies have no respect for peace.
3) Escalation short of invasion carries risk, but less risk than appeasement.
and finally, although it makes many uncomfortable to hear it...
4) The West has NEVER been at peace with Islam, and NEVER WILL, because no matter how many academics, politicians, diplomats and priests try to tell us otherwise, ISLAM is at War with EVERYONE who is not a Muslim, and will ALWAYS be so.
I distinguish Islam from Muslims since most people are decent and want peace, but ISLAM as a system is INCOMPATIBLE with Western liberal democracy.
To separate Jihad from Islam (and of all the uses of 'Jihad' in the Koran and the Hadith, over 90% refer explicitly to violent conquest, struggle and destruction against non-believers) would be like trying to separate the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ from Christianity.
Islam will never 'outgrow' the violent 'extremists' because they are the ones actually practicing Islam as it was written, conceived, handed down and spread around the world.
The sooner we wake up to that fact and stop pussy-footing around with Nations that are founts of Islamic radicalism, the sooner we can focus on big problems.
We spend a lot of time talking about China, and rightly so.
Most hear support Ukraine, as a bulwark (hate that word now) against Russian aggression in Europe.
But while we focus on the major wounds and hemorrhaging that are Russia and China...
...we have ignored the CANCER spreading throughout the world, and especially in Europe and now even at home, that is Islam.
Anyone who thinks that is a radical or racist idea, should simply point out to me a country in the world that is 51%+ Muslim population and also is A) a functioning democracy B) respects other religions C) respects women's rights etc etc.
Non-Muslim Islamic apologist like to point to Turkey, but I would argue that the carcass of the Ottoman empire does NOT meet the threshold in any of those areas, and only offers a patina of western civ.
So now, while we focus on China, what happens when European immigration policies results, in just a few decades or less, in majority Muslim populations in many European countries? You think NATO will stand?
Islam seeks nothing less than the total submission of every soul on earth.
The word 'Islam' in Arabic means 'submission', and the word 'Muslim' means 'one who submits'.
And… we are executing our sworn and primary duty, keeping the sea lanes open. Just like those precious 6 frigates were charged with when we were a true republic.
Really? I only took an Army oath, so I don't know about the Navy oath., but I thought the "primary duty" of all the services was the defence of the US and its Constitution.
The Navy is specifically funded in the Constitution. The Army, not so much. Sorry, but true. No surprise you’re not knowledgeable in that aspect of the Constitution. My post isn’t about our “sacred oath.” It’s a “duty”. Reread what I posted as I never said anything about the oath. You’re army, but I know you can do it.
p.s. I recommend some research on the 6 frigates. Do the Google.
Disagree respectfully. They may be that but they are both more and less. The Houthi are a PEOPLE. They are an old Arab tribe from the mountainous north of Yemen. They are one faction in a long running civil war. By reason of steadily growing Iranian support in recent years, they have gained the upper hand against other factions that have had the support of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In time the Saudis and UAE entered this conflict directly by conducting air strokes against Houthi controlled cities and towns. In so doing they had the help of the Obama administration in the form of aircraft, bombs, and targeting intelligence. This support continued under the Trump administration and came to include a naval blockade.
As a consequence of this, having acquired the means, the Houthi forces began to launch missile and drones attacks against Saudi targets, principally oil refineries. With no doubt encouragement from Iran, and help, they also started taking shots at US Navy destroyers.. These came to include merchant vessels. Or visa versa.
These attacks began long ago. In time, the Saudis and UAE lost their ambition for doing anything about Yemen, lacking a ground force capable of intervention, and finding their bombing campaign ineffective. For these reasons, and due to rising criticism at home and abroad, the US under both Trump and Biden steadily backed away from its military support for this failed endeavor. But by then, the Houthi faction had gained control of most of Yemen, and cemented a partnership with Iran under which it became strongly motivated to serve as an agent for the achievement of Iranian policy objectives. These are inimical to those of the US under any President and thus this naval blockade, with UN resolutions to back it up, has continued.. And Houthi attacks on shipping have intensified to suit Iranian purposes.
This is not a Piracy problem. The activity in which the USN is engaged in in the Gulf of Aden.is no mere Law of the Seas operation. This is a problem we have with Iran. And it is agreed that these sailors did not die by misadventure during the course of a police operation. This dhow was carrying Iranian war material destined somewhere in Somalia or Yemen. And these sailors were the first American casualties of the war that is currently unfolding in the Middle East.
I don't quite understand this, could you explain your very specific reason?
From what I'm reading, the SEALs were killed boarding non-Houthi ship cargo ship. Very likely, it was carrying weapons to arm the Houthis, but that doesn't make them a pirate themselves.
If you seize Red Beard and his ship, that's stopping a pirate.
If you seize some third party's cargo ship because you believe it is carrying a shipment of cannons that end up in Red Beard's hands, that's maybe interdiction or stopping illegal arms trafficking, but I don't see how it's piracy.
Second, I have no idea if Iran or other Islamic countries have anything like the concept of a Letter of Marque, but they certainly operate as if they do. How do the Houthis get their weapons? Well, Iran gives them the weapons. How do the Houthis target ships? Well, Iran provides the intelligence for them to conduct attacks.
Once a pirate is giving legal sanction and backing, he's no longer a pirate. He's a privateer. As such, the appropriate response is retaliation against the state.
“Along with the rising trouble with France and Great Britain, Barbary corsairs continued to sweep the Mediterranean and capture American merchant vessels, holding the ships, the crews, and the cargoes for ransom. The corsairs were privateers working for the North African states of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco. U.S. attempts at stemming the Barbary depredations on its fleet and their crews included both diplomacy and tribute, with little success. Seeing threats to its merchant fleet on several maritime fronts, U.S. lawmakers debated the issue of funding a new American navy.”
Thank you for updating this information. As a civilian I am always left somewhat off balance by the idea that the US military doesn't take a day off because the conditions aren't perfect, and as a Texan on the Gulf of Mexico I feel compelled to make sure that we recall that the USCG is out there every day as well. I am saddened that the families of these young men have started off the New Year with this news.
Good point re: the Coast Guard who was actually had MSRT members embedded with this ST at the time of the mishap and were on the combined SEAL-MSRT boarding element.
I assume a lot of the discussion regarding piracy vs terrorism is Law of the Sea, International Law, Diplomatic speak, and U.S. political spin related to war powers and the goring of various oxes depending on the party being gored. All of which are important variables / factors in who drives what viewpoint in the discussion domestically and internationally.
It's a mess.
Pirates of the Caribbean were in it for fun and profit, letters of Marque notwithstanding. IIRC once the letters were no longer in effect, some of the perpetrators continued their activities and sometimes ended up preying on their former employers until captured and hung. Old, romantic viewpoint mostly not applicable to this current disaster, IMHO.
Profit was a big part of the motivation. It appears the profit in this case for the Houthis is being paid and equipped to conduct interdiction of commerce (selectively to the point they are able). Is that piracy, terrorism, or an act of war? Do the Houthis have a "letter or Marque" from...the former Persian Empire? Such letters were usually part of conflict activities, were they not? Is this a distinction without a difference?
"Piracy" directed towards specific shipping and not an indiscriminate "for profit" targeting of any vessel in the area seems to be tipping the scales here, and not in a favorable direction with regards to keeping the conflict confined.
I'd welcome any clarification to the facts here to improve my understanding.
You missed the point entirely. Perfidious Albion sold us slaves. On the moral scale, I see Edward Colston as far worse than some poor slob trying to scratch out a living outside of Marianna with 100 acres and three slaves. I don't need to hear BS about southerners owning slaves from some Boston family who got rich selling slaves and took that dirty money and moved into banking.
Yes, I do. You have to examine the moral decisions of folks who lived in the past based on the times in which they lived.
Let's examine a situation less loaded than slaves. Consider thieves. The law punishes a fence harder than a thief, and for good reason. The trafficker in stolen goods is far worse than the thief because he creates a market for thieves. The chop-shop owner is creating a demand for car thefts.
While I am not defending the institution of slavery the problem was more complex than modern folks let on. Remember this was an agricultural society where if you had two bad crops you faced the real possibility of starvation. The fact of the matter is that the law recognised slaves as property, and in a free society you have to respect property rights. Southerns had Capital tied up in slaves - slaves the northerners sold them; and subject to a chattel mortgage in favor of the Bank of Boston.
So, yes, the folks who captured the Africans, transported them to America, then sold them to a population the slave traders had established as a slave-owning colony are worse than the folks who bought them.
And it was mostly Arabs who ran the slave trade from when the slaves were sold to them by other Africans up to point where the slaves were loaded on ships.
The Cdr. posted a graphic showing Britain in a strong second place to Portugal in total numbers of slaves sold. But that data, and your observations about Arabians and Africans, does not change the fact the the slavery system in the United States was created by England, and that the English Crown grew fat off the slave trade. P
Sounds like a Centcom press operation, based on a request from the Pentagon, after a call from the White House. Who here remembers something about Secretary Austin being indisposed?
Meanwhile, the guys at the dirty end did their duty and may have paid with their lives. Or not.
The news broke across all the MSM and wolfpack of online "news sources" at exactly the same time, featuring lots of Madison Avenue photos of trainining operations and juicy little factoids, such as the size of the swells, the typical protocol for what happens if one boarder falls off a ladder (the next guy goes after him); and the objectives of this particular boarding operation. We also got a nice photo of "seized parts," nicely arranged on the deck of a ship.
As for bomb damage assessments from all the recent air raids and cruise missile strikes in Yemen, well, that's confidential information, except for what must of have been thousands of Yemenites with mobile phones and at least a few westerners or journalists who surely saw the fireworks.
How were the SEALs delivered to the boat? Why was the delivery vehicle unable to assist the SEALs? Why were there only two of them? I have a few questions.
Sounds like the two SEALs drowned given the equipment load. What about making some kind of emergency flotation device part of the load? A small gas canister powering an inflatable balloon could take them to the surface.
If you want an inflatable vest that will provide positive buoyancy for a 200 lb SEAL who's toting 50 lbs of gear, you'll need enough compressed air to displace ~4 cubic feet of water.
How are you supposed to wear an inflated vest that's the size of a compost bin?
If you look at a piece of equipment like a surfing rescue vest that uses 4 of the 33g CO2 cartridges (about a half cubic ft per cartridge), you are about halfway there for the mass penalty of an additional kilogram of equipment. You couldn't add on a rescue vest to the SEAL kit so it would have to be a mod to their existing tactical vest to have any value. Not an easy solution to be sure.
You should be running one of the several types of vests that have a single point release. There are also tactical float vests that have significant buoyancy.
Playing defense is a losing strategy, long term. If they're targeting US ships, stealing US flagged merchant ships, retribution is not optional. So, if Iran is the source, (which it is) why not forcefully warn them ONCE, diplomatically, in private. If their actions persist (which they are) they lose something important to them (not the Houthi's): Oil infrastructure, Intelligence ship that's doing targeting e.g., and step up sanctions. The US' (and our Allies) job is to keep the sea lanes open and safe. We can't do that by merely hitting the proxies. Long term, the Iranian people need to feel the pain their leadership is causing and do something themselves.
That’s the thing about the navy. The ocean can kill you just as dead as an enemy. There is risk and danger in every evolution; in peace or at war. A tiny mistake can cost a sailor his life. The sea is a cruel mistress; the bitch can kill you at any moment.
I hope the names are being withheld for the sake of the families.
Otherwise, it’s a reminder the ocean is a very dangerous place to work. We have, thank god, made it less dangerous, but the ocean can kill you dead. Keep that in mind for the future.
There is chatter that this accident, is merely a cover story for a direct action mission in which two of our finest were killed.
While a dhow is not a small craft, in the world of cargo shipping it's a small vessel. Openly coming out that our military was directly involved in a shoot-out, to enforce a blockade...could possibly inflame the ignorant and naive, to which there's quite a bit in that part of the world. There should've been no story at all...
Any chance of finding them alive? I have no, none, zero military knowledge but based on pure emotion think it could have waited for less lethal sea conditions. Again based on no direct knowledge but by considering publicly displayed actions and attitudes, it seems this Administration views soldiers as disposable playing cards to be spent to secure the next election.
As it turns out, not a piracy mission, but a VBSS against an Iranian shipment of cruise missiles to Houthis in Yeman.
I disagree. The Houthi are a piracy operation. They are not a state actor. They seize or destroy civilian shipping. Every weapon they use either keeps their opponents at bay are are used to continue their campaign against shipping. Military efforts to counter them are, by nature, anti-piracy. Therefor, this is a anti-piracy mission. I choose my words carefully and for a very specific reason. The Houthi are nothing but Red Sea pirates, and should be seen and treated as such.
It is possible to both a terrorist and a pirate at the same time.
Nothing like killing people in the name of some higher cause and turning a profit at the same time.
Destroy them and let God sort out the difference.
Agree. Help them out their way to Allah.
And 72 virgins.
Isn't that "Virginians"
Have to jump in here, because this is a common western misperception
Note: I'm not defending Islam - the true translation of the Koran is much WORSE.
The Koran (sura 56:35–38) promises that those who die in Jihad will receive 72 HOURI'S, not virgins. The 'Virgin's' translation was simply Medieval European effort to comprehend something that was utterly foreign in concept from a religious perspective.
Houri's, per the Hadith and Koran, are 'celestial virgins'. As described in many of the Hadith, they are what we might call 'angelic creatures', possessed of unlimited libido and sexual prowess.
To put it in modern terms, they are eternally horny, Victoria Secret Angels. And there is a common undercurrent throughout Islamic and Arab literature that values the 'deflowering' of virgins, and so these Houris are perpetual virgins.
That's the crap their 'god' promised them. Ergo, Islam is NOT an Abrahamic religion because no angel of The Lord brought that teaching to Mohammed. If he had ANY supernatural inspiration, it was demonic in nature.
Wow.
So they are not "virgins", they are "celestial virgins"? And I should care about this difference because....?
In the end, a terrorist is just a certain kind of pirate. Under law, there is not much difference to be found in them. And pirates are not mere thieves. They are commonly terrorists. It is what they have in common that matters from a legal standpoint. The essence of that is that they are habitual offenders who commit acts regarded as criminal under THE LAW OF NATIONS. This is what gives to the duly constituted powers of every civil society, the right to act against them where found in their jurisdiction, and sometimes elsewhere, as on the High Seas. Thus Navies have warrant to act against Pirates and Terrorists alike and in like fashion.
.....The important implication in so far as the United States government is concerned, is that it has laws related to Pirates and Piracy. including case law, and precedents for action, and these can and should be used for guidance and where appropriate, followed when dealing with the specie of Pirates known as Terrorists.
VTY. Tom Tugmutton. Ordinary Sailor Pressed to Serve.
The Houthis are a scourge to the sea lanes and would eschew any label except "martyr". Let's decisively provide them that opportunity. They are both pirates and terrorists due to their actions, other motivations being subordinate to our concerns. Destroy them. Sink any Iranian flagged vessel. Render every airfield useless. Torch their oil transshipment points. Threaten Iran's leadership personally. Tell our recalcitrant "allies" to piss off when we take unilateral action...if they want a say then they best have a patrolling vessel in the Red Sea willing to take action. The US/UK should keep their own counsel on this.
You can be a holy man and a pirate, or an academician and a pirate. It doesn’t matter. If you are a pirate, doing piracy, there is a set of rules that mariners follow. Julius Caesar would recognize the doctrine the USN applies to piracy, it has served us well over the life of this nation. There’s no need to change our approach.
If you're suggesting swatting down flying lawnmowers with $9 million missiles is a sustainable policy, I disagree. There is no deterrent in this and we will remain on station until we deplete the magazines; they will remain and continue their attacks. If you are suggesting the course of action endorsed by CDR Sal, full speed ahead. An effective response would entail the destruction of the Houthis AND those who enable them.
My recollection is that Julius Caesar went back after he was ransomed and exterminated ( Yes the e word!) the pirates who had captured him. I endorse that policy--skip the ransom stage.
He had mercy. He slit their throats before crucifying them.
Here's the part I like most about that story, Caesar told the pirates exactly what he would do to them if he was ever ransomed. A man to be reckoned with.
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
The burden of empire is the relentless suppression of piracy. Julius Caesar was fortunate in the story told by Plutarch. Declaration of Roman citizenship by a captive was as likely as not a good way to be fed to the fishes. The other side of the coin is Ostia 68 BCE and the destruction of a consular fleet at the hands of pirates.
Henry A. Ormerod - Piracy in the Ancient World (He also happened to be an artillery Lt. in WW1, OKG and RFA.) Online version here: https://archive.org/details/piracyinancientw00orme/page/230/mode/2up
...or a nice hardback in eBay for $8 and free shipping. https://www.ebay.com/itm/305294638210
Sal, honest question.
If Germany in spring 1940 had funded and supplied their client state in German Namibia to engage in commerce raiding and attacks against US shipping to the UK, would we have considered those as acts of piracy, or as acts of war by Germany?
I think part of the problem is that we've allowed the 'fiction' of client states and proxies to become real. We pretend this isn't Iranian strikes against the US, because the spineless fools at Foggy Bottom and on Wall St. don't ever want to admit that someone is at war with us (whether or not we chose to be at war with them) until there is no choice.
In this case, while I would view attacks by Somali and other African based groups as legitimate piracy, I think that it would be rational and more in keeping with 'realpolitik' to view the acts of the Houthis as what they are: Iranian attacks against the US, Israel and western governments.
Without Iran, there is no Houthi rebellion.
Also worth pointing out that Pirates typically board and seize vessels, and that this represents only 2 or 3 of the attacks by the Houthis, as opposed to dozens of attacks with drones and missiles intended to damage or destroy.
Sinking civilian merchant vessels - without warning - is not piracy. That's unrestricted Naval warfare.
We could have if we wanted to, and probably would have. We would not have sent the Atlantic Fleet against Kiel in 1940.
In 2023 - or anytime really - we do not want to go feet dry against Iran. We don't want, or need, that war.
totally agree regarding feet dry.
I guess I'm making the case for something between 'anti-piracy operations', which by definition will never be prosecuted with the strength needed to resolve this issue, and full scale war of conquest or occupation.
I think acknowledging that these acts are explicitly acts of war by Iran, and at the same time making clear we will never put troops on the ground in Iran, opens the path to options between those extremes.
1) There should be no Iranian military vessel afloat anywhere in the world that is not tied to a pier on Iranian soil. Any and all Iranian civilian vessels will be seized and interred until such time as Iran ceases hostile operations (to include funding of proxies) for a period of not-less-than 3 years.
2) There should be no functional airstrips, runways, hangers or aircraft other than explicitly marked medevac aircraft anywhere in Houthi territory
3) The airspace over Houthi territory should be declared as 'interdicted' and we should put some AWACS birds in the area, and anything, (missile, drone, aircraft) exceeding 100 ft above surface (unless declared on an open channel as humanitarian/medical with transponder on and following declared flight plan) will be shot down without question.
William: Your recommendations are level headed and make complete sense, which is why none of them will be pursued.
There is no easy answer to the discussion between Sal and William. What do you do about other nations who are supporting your enemy but not actually in the fight?
Germany's decleration of unrestricted submarine warfare is an example of what not to do.
JFK's blackade of Cuba worked, but it might not have.
I would like to turn Iran into a parking lot, but there is no justification for doing so - yet.
That's why war is an art not a science. Clausewitz, I think.
Biden has sent Iran a private message "asking" them to tell the Houthis to stop their attacks on vessels. Strongly worded I am sure.
As strongly worded as a green-haired vegan Byrn Mawr English major practicing the Bahá’í faith in a Che T-shirt and yoga pants can parse with her cats walking across the keyboard.
I also think he said Please.
Which the IRGC replied to with ballistic missiles.
But it would be a shame if Kharg Island had a really bad day.
Why make easy things hard? A naval blockade of South Yemen combined with strikes to destroy land transportation routes should starve the Houthis of the necessary material to threaten shipping.
Exterminate the Houthis, see Iranian proxies reevaluate their alliances.
"If Germany in spring 1940 had funded and supplied their client state in German Namibia "
????
Namibia was a German colony, German South-West Africa, until WWI, after which it was a League of Nations mandate of South Africa (the other USA). Namibia was "south-West Africa" until 1968. In 1940 South Africa, and presumably was at war with Germany
so, the Germans in Namibia and in Germany never accepted the mandate, and of all her African colonies, Germans provided the most support during the inter-war years to those in the former-Namibia. South Africa pretty much blatantly ignored the LoN mandate purpose, seeing it as a defacto annexation whereas the LoN purpose was explicitly to prepare the territory for self-rule.
In short, it wasn't that peaceful and there were plenty of Germans in Namibia who were not fans of the British/South African rule.
Ego, my example of German - aligned people, who were not in 'German territory' engaging in 'piracy' against British aligned shipping.
Was it a likely scenario? Of course not. I was simply trying to draw a corollary to how we would not have viewed actions as 'mere piracy'.
So your distinction is technically correct, but there were no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of Germans in the territory in 1940 who still preferred German rule.
I respect the heck out of Sal, but I do not think treating the Houthi's as a 'pirate problem' is the correct course. I respect that many may feel differently, but in the 25+ years we've been dealing with piracy in the Red Sea (nearly all from the Horn), has there ever been a wave of attacks designed to sink commercial shipping?
Piracy, by definition, is a criminal act, whose purpose is nearly always to seize property for theft or ransom.
Pirates don't fire missiles at ships just to sink them.
The Houthi's are using modern military equipment to sink or interdict the shipping of multiple nations, with global consequences. The one ship they seized was not seized for monetary ransom, but for geo-political leverage against Israel.
The Houthi's have made themselves an instrument of Iranian foreign policy towards both Israel and the US.
That makes them state-actors. Not pirates.
Calling them pirates gives the administration cover for taking 'modest' or 'proportional' acts against them.
Keep in mind, this all started with the Houthi's firing missiles and drones at ISRAEL, and with US ships interdicting those missiles, which prompted the Houthi's to threaten shipping in reprisal again.
So no. With respect to those who feel differently, I wholeheartedly feel the Houthi problem is NOT a piracy problem, and calling it such is a mistake.
I get Sal's concern, but I think in some ways it echo's many arguments I would describe as simplistic (which NOT a hallmark of Sal's thinking) that presumes 'War' means boots on the ground.
Everybody is falling into extremist camps on every issue.
I personally reject simplistic, straw-man arguments designed to appeal to peoples base instincts and fears.
I define myself as a realist first. Some principles I believe the history of human conflict have shown to be true:
1) We can use military force against known enemies without having to invade them and put 'boots on the ground'
2) Appeasement ALWAYS produces more and greater aggression from the aggressor. Bullies have no respect for peace.
3) Escalation short of invasion carries risk, but less risk than appeasement.
and finally, although it makes many uncomfortable to hear it...
4) The West has NEVER been at peace with Islam, and NEVER WILL, because no matter how many academics, politicians, diplomats and priests try to tell us otherwise, ISLAM is at War with EVERYONE who is not a Muslim, and will ALWAYS be so.
I distinguish Islam from Muslims since most people are decent and want peace, but ISLAM as a system is INCOMPATIBLE with Western liberal democracy.
To separate Jihad from Islam (and of all the uses of 'Jihad' in the Koran and the Hadith, over 90% refer explicitly to violent conquest, struggle and destruction against non-believers) would be like trying to separate the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ from Christianity.
Islam will never 'outgrow' the violent 'extremists' because they are the ones actually practicing Islam as it was written, conceived, handed down and spread around the world.
The sooner we wake up to that fact and stop pussy-footing around with Nations that are founts of Islamic radicalism, the sooner we can focus on big problems.
We spend a lot of time talking about China, and rightly so.
Most hear support Ukraine, as a bulwark (hate that word now) against Russian aggression in Europe.
But while we focus on the major wounds and hemorrhaging that are Russia and China...
...we have ignored the CANCER spreading throughout the world, and especially in Europe and now even at home, that is Islam.
Anyone who thinks that is a radical or racist idea, should simply point out to me a country in the world that is 51%+ Muslim population and also is A) a functioning democracy B) respects other religions C) respects women's rights etc etc.
Non-Muslim Islamic apologist like to point to Turkey, but I would argue that the carcass of the Ottoman empire does NOT meet the threshold in any of those areas, and only offers a patina of western civ.
So now, while we focus on China, what happens when European immigration policies results, in just a few decades or less, in majority Muslim populations in many European countries? You think NATO will stand?
Islam seeks nothing less than the total submission of every soul on earth.
The word 'Islam' in Arabic means 'submission', and the word 'Muslim' means 'one who submits'.
And… we are executing our sworn and primary duty, keeping the sea lanes open. Just like those precious 6 frigates were charged with when we were a true republic.
"our sworn and primary duty,"
Really? I only took an Army oath, so I don't know about the Navy oath., but I thought the "primary duty" of all the services was the defence of the US and its Constitution.
The Navy is specifically funded in the Constitution. The Army, not so much. Sorry, but true. No surprise you’re not knowledgeable in that aspect of the Constitution. My post isn’t about our “sacred oath.” It’s a “duty”. Reread what I posted as I never said anything about the oath. You’re army, but I know you can do it.
p.s. I recommend some research on the 6 frigates. Do the Google.
"It’s a “duty”. "
According to you it is a "SWORN and primary duty".
Show me.
I forgot;
" our SWORN and primary duty, Keeping The Sea Lanes Open."
I don’t do other people’s homework. Sorry.
One of many.
https://www.dfas.mil/Portals/98/Documents/Onboarding/Navy_CustomerFAQ_Onboarding.pdf
Oh look another one.
https://www.navy.mil/About/Mission/#:~:text=Mission%20Statement,Navy%20protects%20America%20at%20sea.
Disagree respectfully. They may be that but they are both more and less. The Houthi are a PEOPLE. They are an old Arab tribe from the mountainous north of Yemen. They are one faction in a long running civil war. By reason of steadily growing Iranian support in recent years, they have gained the upper hand against other factions that have had the support of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In time the Saudis and UAE entered this conflict directly by conducting air strokes against Houthi controlled cities and towns. In so doing they had the help of the Obama administration in the form of aircraft, bombs, and targeting intelligence. This support continued under the Trump administration and came to include a naval blockade.
As a consequence of this, having acquired the means, the Houthi forces began to launch missile and drones attacks against Saudi targets, principally oil refineries. With no doubt encouragement from Iran, and help, they also started taking shots at US Navy destroyers.. These came to include merchant vessels. Or visa versa.
These attacks began long ago. In time, the Saudis and UAE lost their ambition for doing anything about Yemen, lacking a ground force capable of intervention, and finding their bombing campaign ineffective. For these reasons, and due to rising criticism at home and abroad, the US under both Trump and Biden steadily backed away from its military support for this failed endeavor. But by then, the Houthi faction had gained control of most of Yemen, and cemented a partnership with Iran under which it became strongly motivated to serve as an agent for the achievement of Iranian policy objectives. These are inimical to those of the US under any President and thus this naval blockade, with UN resolutions to back it up, has continued.. And Houthi attacks on shipping have intensified to suit Iranian purposes.
This is not a Piracy problem. The activity in which the USN is engaged in in the Gulf of Aden.is no mere Law of the Seas operation. This is a problem we have with Iran. And it is agreed that these sailors did not die by misadventure during the course of a police operation. This dhow was carrying Iranian war material destined somewhere in Somalia or Yemen. And these sailors were the first American casualties of the war that is currently unfolding in the Middle East.
.. This problem needs fixing.
"finding their bombing campaign ineffective."
Funny how often that happens.
I don't quite understand this, could you explain your very specific reason?
From what I'm reading, the SEALs were killed boarding non-Houthi ship cargo ship. Very likely, it was carrying weapons to arm the Houthis, but that doesn't make them a pirate themselves.
If you seize Red Beard and his ship, that's stopping a pirate.
If you seize some third party's cargo ship because you believe it is carrying a shipment of cannons that end up in Red Beard's hands, that's maybe interdiction or stopping illegal arms trafficking, but I don't see how it's piracy.
Second, I have no idea if Iran or other Islamic countries have anything like the concept of a Letter of Marque, but they certainly operate as if they do. How do the Houthis get their weapons? Well, Iran gives them the weapons. How do the Houthis target ships? Well, Iran provides the intelligence for them to conduct attacks.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iranian-spy-ship-helps-houthis-direct-attacks-on-red-sea-vessels-d6f7fd40
Once a pirate is giving legal sanction and backing, he's no longer a pirate. He's a privateer. As such, the appropriate response is retaliation against the state.
Stephen Decatur does not concur sir.
“Along with the rising trouble with France and Great Britain, Barbary corsairs continued to sweep the Mediterranean and capture American merchant vessels, holding the ships, the crews, and the cargoes for ransom. The corsairs were privateers working for the North African states of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco. U.S. attempts at stemming the Barbary depredations on its fleet and their crews included both diplomacy and tribute, with little success. Seeing threats to its merchant fleet on several maritime fronts, U.S. lawmakers debated the issue of funding a new American navy.”
Which will be used to shoot at commercial shipping in order to interdict it, which when done by a NGO of jihadist terrorists is PIRACY.
Thank you for updating this information. As a civilian I am always left somewhat off balance by the idea that the US military doesn't take a day off because the conditions aren't perfect, and as a Texan on the Gulf of Mexico I feel compelled to make sure that we recall that the USCG is out there every day as well. I am saddened that the families of these young men have started off the New Year with this news.
Good point re: the Coast Guard who was actually had MSRT members embedded with this ST at the time of the mishap and were on the combined SEAL-MSRT boarding element.
I guess I'm stating the obvious, but:
I assume a lot of the discussion regarding piracy vs terrorism is Law of the Sea, International Law, Diplomatic speak, and U.S. political spin related to war powers and the goring of various oxes depending on the party being gored. All of which are important variables / factors in who drives what viewpoint in the discussion domestically and internationally.
It's a mess.
Pirates of the Caribbean were in it for fun and profit, letters of Marque notwithstanding. IIRC once the letters were no longer in effect, some of the perpetrators continued their activities and sometimes ended up preying on their former employers until captured and hung. Old, romantic viewpoint mostly not applicable to this current disaster, IMHO.
Profit was a big part of the motivation. It appears the profit in this case for the Houthis is being paid and equipped to conduct interdiction of commerce (selectively to the point they are able). Is that piracy, terrorism, or an act of war? Do the Houthis have a "letter or Marque" from...the former Persian Empire? Such letters were usually part of conflict activities, were they not? Is this a distinction without a difference?
"Piracy" directed towards specific shipping and not an indiscriminate "for profit" targeting of any vessel in the area seems to be tipping the scales here, and not in a favorable direction with regards to keeping the conflict confined.
I'd welcome any clarification to the facts here to improve my understanding.
I’m waiting for Yardley to write that we had it coming because America once allowed slavery.
You missed the point entirely. Perfidious Albion sold us slaves. On the moral scale, I see Edward Colston as far worse than some poor slob trying to scratch out a living outside of Marianna with 100 acres and three slaves. I don't need to hear BS about southerners owning slaves from some Boston family who got rich selling slaves and took that dirty money and moved into banking.
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/22057.jpeg
So it’s a moral hazard. You think it’s far worse to traffic slaves than it was to only own 3 or so…” you know trying to scratch out a living… “
Yes, I do. You have to examine the moral decisions of folks who lived in the past based on the times in which they lived.
Let's examine a situation less loaded than slaves. Consider thieves. The law punishes a fence harder than a thief, and for good reason. The trafficker in stolen goods is far worse than the thief because he creates a market for thieves. The chop-shop owner is creating a demand for car thefts.
While I am not defending the institution of slavery the problem was more complex than modern folks let on. Remember this was an agricultural society where if you had two bad crops you faced the real possibility of starvation. The fact of the matter is that the law recognised slaves as property, and in a free society you have to respect property rights. Southerns had Capital tied up in slaves - slaves the northerners sold them; and subject to a chattel mortgage in favor of the Bank of Boston.
So, yes, the folks who captured the Africans, transported them to America, then sold them to a population the slave traders had established as a slave-owning colony are worse than the folks who bought them.
The "folks who captured the slaves", were overwhelmingly fellow Africans.
"slaves the northerners sold them"
After the abolition of the foreign slave trade, it was Southerners who sold slaves to other Southerners...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/slavery-trail-of-tears-180956968/
And it was mostly Arabs who ran the slave trade from when the slaves were sold to them by other Africans up to point where the slaves were loaded on ships.
The Cdr. posted a graphic showing Britain in a strong second place to Portugal in total numbers of slaves sold. But that data, and your observations about Arabians and Africans, does not change the fact the the slavery system in the United States was created by England, and that the English Crown grew fat off the slave trade. P
"After the abolition of the foreign slave trade,"
Which occurred in 1808.
I am a son of the south. Your comments are full on retarded. Never go full retard.
Be proud of your Southern heritage.
Who said I wasn’t?
"this was an agricultural society where if you had two bad crops you faced the real possibility of starvation."
This also applied to northern farmers.
Sounds like a Centcom press operation, based on a request from the Pentagon, after a call from the White House. Who here remembers something about Secretary Austin being indisposed?
Meanwhile, the guys at the dirty end did their duty and may have paid with their lives. Or not.
The news broke across all the MSM and wolfpack of online "news sources" at exactly the same time, featuring lots of Madison Avenue photos of trainining operations and juicy little factoids, such as the size of the swells, the typical protocol for what happens if one boarder falls off a ladder (the next guy goes after him); and the objectives of this particular boarding operation. We also got a nice photo of "seized parts," nicely arranged on the deck of a ship.
As for bomb damage assessments from all the recent air raids and cruise missile strikes in Yemen, well, that's confidential information, except for what must of have been thousands of Yemenites with mobile phones and at least a few westerners or journalists who surely saw the fireworks.
How were the SEALs delivered to the boat? Why was the delivery vehicle unable to assist the SEALs? Why were there only two of them? I have a few questions.
Sounds like the two SEALs drowned given the equipment load. What about making some kind of emergency flotation device part of the load? A small gas canister powering an inflatable balloon could take them to the surface.
If you want an inflatable vest that will provide positive buoyancy for a 200 lb SEAL who's toting 50 lbs of gear, you'll need enough compressed air to displace ~4 cubic feet of water.
How are you supposed to wear an inflated vest that's the size of a compost bin?
If you look at a piece of equipment like a surfing rescue vest that uses 4 of the 33g CO2 cartridges (about a half cubic ft per cartridge), you are about halfway there for the mass penalty of an additional kilogram of equipment. You couldn't add on a rescue vest to the SEAL kit so it would have to be a mod to their existing tactical vest to have any value. Not an easy solution to be sure.
You should be running one of the several types of vests that have a single point release. There are also tactical float vests that have significant buoyancy.
Playing defense is a losing strategy, long term. If they're targeting US ships, stealing US flagged merchant ships, retribution is not optional. So, if Iran is the source, (which it is) why not forcefully warn them ONCE, diplomatically, in private. If their actions persist (which they are) they lose something important to them (not the Houthi's): Oil infrastructure, Intelligence ship that's doing targeting e.g., and step up sanctions. The US' (and our Allies) job is to keep the sea lanes open and safe. We can't do that by merely hitting the proxies. Long term, the Iranian people need to feel the pain their leadership is causing and do something themselves.
We could als end every mullah and ayatollah a picture of their homes with the exact latitude and longitude and the license plate of their cars.
Do we release names of Special Operations casualties?
I guess we are in violent agreement
Fair enough.
My condolences (which are without value, but all I can offer) to their families and shipmates
And I would pray that we get a commander in chief that knows how to deal with annoying little shits like Yemen
Too many questions. Which there will probably be few honest answers for some time to come.
I'm not even sure we're hearing the truth.
That’s the thing about the navy. The ocean can kill you just as dead as an enemy. There is risk and danger in every evolution; in peace or at war. A tiny mistake can cost a sailor his life. The sea is a cruel mistress; the bitch can kill you at any moment.
"I'm not even sure we're hearing the truth."
What is "the truth?" Are you saying they are lying about why the team was dispatched or how the poor guys died?
Yes.
It wouldn't be the first time SEALs, or other US troops, were misused.
I'm suspecting it was more appeasement/political. Let's wait and see how it shakes out.
Sailor. Fixed it for you.
Fair winds and Following Seas to the mighty warriors still on patrol. You will be missed.
I hope the names are being withheld for the sake of the families.
Otherwise, it’s a reminder the ocean is a very dangerous place to work. We have, thank god, made it less dangerous, but the ocean can kill you dead. Keep that in mind for the future.
There is chatter that this accident, is merely a cover story for a direct action mission in which two of our finest were killed.
While a dhow is not a small craft, in the world of cargo shipping it's a small vessel. Openly coming out that our military was directly involved in a shoot-out, to enforce a blockade...could possibly inflame the ignorant and naive, to which there's quite a bit in that part of the world. There should've been no story at all...
Is it too much to ask Congress to do its job and issue a letter of reprisal?
Secret Wars Are Stupid...
The only ones caught unaware are those who end up paying for them with blood and treasure.
Any chance of finding them alive? I have no, none, zero military knowledge but based on pure emotion think it could have waited for less lethal sea conditions. Again based on no direct knowledge but by considering publicly displayed actions and attitudes, it seems this Administration views soldiers as disposable playing cards to be spent to secure the next election.