5th Fleet Focus: Opportunities, Pirates, and Putland

Update: Ransom Paid. Coverage here.


When I saw this article this morning, I decided to wait until Eagle1 had weighed in before posting. Ironically he ends up asking the same question I would have asked him. The issue: What to make of this.

A Cabinet minister in Somalia's Puntland State government has called on the United States government to withdraw its naval forces from Somali shores or help in the campaign against local pirates.

Said Ahmed O'Nur, Puntland's Fisheries and Ports Minister, told Voice of America' s Somali-language program that U.S. Navy warships have been watching a hijacked ship for nearly two months without taking any military action against the pirates on board.

He indicated that there is "no communication" between the U.S. Navy and the government of Puntland.

According to the minister, the U.S. naval warships "allow" the pirates to go to and from the ship - Russian-registered Svitzer Korsakov, which pirates hijacked on Feb. 5.

My question is the same as Eagle1's, Putland is a "breakaway" province of greater Somalia and not a sovereign government, but the sovereign government of Somalia has only superficial jurisdiction over Putland. Our desire for legal purposes to tie ourselves to Westphalian principles even in places where they simply don't exist is just another indication how the west doesn't really have a political strategy for dealing with rogue and ungoverned nations during the long war. It is unclear that the US would help, even if the offer was official.

There are currently three US Navy warships off the coast of Somalia: USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41), USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81), and USS Carney (DDG 64). Other coalition warships in the area would include HMCS Charlottetown (FFH 339), HMS Argyll (F 231), and FS Guepratte (F 714).

It is very unlikely the US will actually engage the pirates, while the Navy would smack pirates across the waves if they caught them outside the coastal areas, there does not appear to be any political will in Washington to seek any "final conclusions" with hard power to the piracy problems off Somalia. I don't believe that will always be the case...

Patience may be supporting a soft power effort though. Note the Putland folks aren't happy they can't fish (the local economy), even to the point they are angry at the Americans for fishing in Somalia waters according to the press report. Piracy in this particular region of Putland has apparently led to a domestic political problem due to economic losses. It is unclear if they are willing to talk about the problem with the Americans yet, but it is a good sign if they do.

Because in my book, fixing a maritime security issue that is creating havoc with a local economy is what I would call a maritime security business opportunity for the US Navy, and what the Navy also calls the definition of Global Fleet Stations. In effect, this episode is the entire spectrum of what I think a visionary sea basing concept should include all bundled up in one tidy unfolding scenario.

I think it would be a tragedy of strategic vision if the Navy or Marines are talking about building billions of dollars worth of ships for "Sea Basing" and this exact scenario is somehow missing from the primary mission profile of the Sea Basing concept and the ships being built. A successful Sea Basing scenario, from what is an afloat forward staging base today and could be a Global Fleet Station tomorrow, should be the reason Sea Basing is developed in the first place under the Maritime Strategy. This is peacemaking at sea at the top tier, there may be a big opportunity for success here, and it may not require Marines kicking down the door.