Last time pirates hijacked the Maersk Alabama, it took a biilion-dollar AEGIS destroyer and a SEAL team to resolve the situation.
Well, the American-flagged Maersk Alabama was out sailing again, and attacked by pirates again. This time, the pirates encountered a hired on-board security team that shot back, and decided that this wasn't their leaf of qat. Apparently, that boat of pirates is currently missing.
The rest of the KDAF-33 article is mostly interesting for the whining coming from Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at London's Chatham House think tank...
Apparently, the international maritime community remains "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but American ships have taken a different approach." He adds:
"Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."
Well, bucko, the flaccidity of that same so-called community is the main reason pirates remain a problem - and the way the brahmins have structured the problem, there isn't an affordable or effective naval response. So American firms (and others) can spend "millions for defense, bit not one cent for tribute," and their counterparts can spend millions for tribute, and not one cent for defense. Competitive advantage and natural selection can take care of the rest.
I give you Massachusetts Maritime Academy professor Capt. Joseph Murphy, who is also the father of a sailor who was on the Maersk Alabama during the first pirate attack in April. He says that about 20% of the ships off East Africa are currently armed, adding:
"Somali pirates understand one thing and only one thing, and that's force... They analyze risk very carefully, and when the risk is too high they are going to step back. They are not going to jeopardize themselves."
When perverse international law and irresponsible governance make defense difficult, it goes private. People will protect themselves. That's happening here, and it's a long term trend to watch, because the utter incompetence of international bodies like the UN, and persistent refusal to adapt to the modern age, are not going away any time soon.
"Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."
They don't get any better than this.
I laughed hysterically for a few minutes after reading it
There are times when taking a step backward is the wise thing to do.
Only idiots try to ride dead horses. And, well, perverts.
The step backwards starts with Pirates, being successful, and states refusing to accept the burden of their responsibility.
He is actually correct that it's a step backwards, starting with failed state/ failed UN -- failure to act responsibly.
When the state fails, individuals should be encouraged to act responsibly themselves.