Feral Jundi

Monday, August 16, 2010

Maritime Security: Attack On Tanker In Strait Of Hormuz Shows Why Armed Security On Ships Is Essential

Filed under: Al Qaeda,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:13 AM

The lesson learned from the terrorist attack on the USS Cole – the bombing in Yemen’s Aden port in 2000 killed 17 sailors on the U.S. Navy destroyer – applied equally to supertankers, cargo vessels or cruise ships, he said: allowing small vessels alongside carries significant risks.

 Murray said companies were for various reasons reluctant to consider employing armed personnel, apparently believing security should be left to navies.

 “We believe that national navies should be reinforced by a protective presence on privately-owned ships for the same reason that banks and other firms that deal with money and money transfer use armed protective personnel who can react immediately during an event and before the local police can intervene,” he said.  

*****

     I don’t know how many other ways I can communicate the urgency here.  Today’s navies cannot be everywhere at once.  They were not able to stop this attack on a Japanese Tanker in the Strait of Hormuz (SoH), and it was pure luck that these booger eaters were not successful.  Look at the photo below?

     Let’s discuss what is at stake here. If 40 percent of the world’s oil transits through the SoH , then why are we not doing everything that is necessary to insure the SoH is not endangered by an attack on shipping like this again? If these guys destroy, or even capture a boat and purposely sink it in the SoH, that would have immense repercussions on the global economy.  A global economy already on edge and in trouble with recession. Because an attack in the SoH, would be an attack that would drive up oil prices and thus drive fuel prices through the roof.

     Now going back to the most effective strategy, and for that matter the most cost effective strategy to deal with this.  A real push by private and public leadership needs to be focused on getting the shipping industry up to speed on protecting itself.  Every boat going through the SoH should be required to have armed security that can adequately defend itself from not just one attack, but from a ‘swarming‘ attack.  Because knowing how Al Qaeda and company operate, they will more than likely attempt this type of attack again in the future and modify the attack for a better chance of success. They are learning and they will apply those lessons.

     As for the cost effectiveness? That comes from standing down Navies and limiting them to a quick reaction capacity for ships that are in trouble, as well as having them continue anti-piracy operations. Keep them on the offense. But in terms of trying to protect all ships everywhere via escort is an impossibility, and far too costly.(although I would still recommend escorting through choke points if possible, much like with the SoH)  Have the shipping industry protect it’s own assets, much like banks or jewelry stores hire security to protect their assets. A super tanker is a costly thing, with an equally valuable payload, yet companies try to go cheap when protecting these two things?  That dynamic needs to change, and having the Navies of the world allow that change to happen takes telling the shipping industry that they need to absorb this cost and take their fair share of the load in this endeavor. Besides, how does a destroyer or aircraft carrier meet the demands of the ‘many and small‘ with today’s enemies? We are talking about guys in small boats, armed with AK’s or explosive cargo?

     The other angle that I keep thinking about is the concept of Qursaans or Jihadist Privateers.  Al Shabab obviously has contacts with some of the best pirates in the world operating off the coast of Somalia.  To tap into this industry and use it for other means would not be a stretch.  A Somali pirate captain, who was the best in his industry, could take down one of these commercial ships in the SoH and then hand it, along with the hostages over to Al Qaeda.  That’s probably if Al Qaeda offered a significant bounty for such a thing. The point being is that Al Qaeda could potentially take control of a ship and either ram it into another ship, sink it in place by blowing it and it’s hostages up, or using it as a weapon against a port (one that deals in oil). The imagination is the only limit.

     Time is also not on our side.  Jihadists know that economic problems throughout the west makes this the most opportune time to attack.  That is why I declare that this is of utmost importance for armed security to be a top priority for today’s shipping, and especially those that are running through the SoH. There should be no more debate about it, no more conflicting expert analysis, no more talk about cost, or legal debates about the right of self defense on the high seas. Because at the end of the day, all of that will be shadowed by the massive economic destruction caused by such an attack or attacks.  How long will ‘wishing’ and ‘hoping’ away reality last?-Matt

Tanker Damage Caused by Attack, Inquiry Finds

Act Now on Terror Threat to Key Oil Routes, Say Experts

—————————————————————–

In this photo released by the Emirates News Agency (WAM), damage is seen on the side of the M. Star supertanker as it arrived at Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday, July 28, 2010. (AP Photo/Emirates News Agency)

*****

Tanker Damage Caused by Attack, Inquiry Finds

By ROBERT F. WORTH

August 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — Investigators in the United Arab Emirates said Friday that a terrorist attack caused the mysterious damage a Japanese oil tanker suffered last week as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, raising fears of future attacks in the narrow channel that serves as a passageway for shipping crude oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

The damage to the tanker — which an Emirati official said was caused by “homemade explosives” aboard a dinghy — was not considered serious, and there was little immediate impact on oil markets on Friday.

But the news instantly fanned worries about shipping security. If confirmed, the attack would be the first of its kind in the volatile strait, which has long been a focal point for tensions with Iran, just across the water from the Arabian Peninsula.

About 17 million barrels of oil a day pass through the strait, close to 40 percent of the oil shipped by tankers worldwide.

The account of the attack came in a report published Friday by the state-run Emirates news agency WAM, from an Emirati coast guard official.

Earlier this week, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a militant group with ties to Al Qaeda, claimed it had carried out a suicide attack against the tanker, the M. Star.

American officials on Friday would not confirm that the episode was a terror attack, but one intelligence official said that the damage to the tanker — a large square dent on the hull’s port side — was “from an external explosion.” The official said it remained unclear whether the group taking credit for bombing the tanker was indeed involved.

Lt. John Fage, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, said that a team of Navy divers had recently traveled to Fujairah to assess the ship’s damage.

The Japanese government was conducting its own investigation. Japan’s transportation minister, Seiji Maehara, said at a news conference in Tokyo that the government had obtained samples taken from the damaged portion of the tanker and would “conduct analyses for all possible causes, without prejudice.”

The ship, loaded with two million barrels of oil, was heading toward Japan on July 28 when a sudden force shattered windows, ripped off deck railings and blew off a lifeboat, in addition to punching the dent into its black-and-red hull. One crew member was slightly hurt.

(more…)

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Industry Talk: A Critique Of Professor Allison Stanger’s CWC Testimony On What Is ‘Inherently Governmental’

Filed under: Industry Talk,Letter Of Marque,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:54 PM

     Interesting testimony from Professor Stanger.  Finally we are starting to see some movement towards acknowledging the existence of the LoM in DC, and it is fun to see where it goes. Although in the case with this testimony, Stanger forgot some key historical points to add to the inherently governmental debate.  She sure did use the privateer analogy, but made no mention of their contribution or size of industry during the Revolutionary War or War of 1812.

    Matter of fact, her entire testimony and point of view is lacking historical reference–as if contractors have no place in the history of this country.  Of course that is totally wrong, and I think I have made a good case on this blog about that history.  It is just troubling to me that a person of her stature and intellect would choose to ignore that stuff in such a key intellectual debate. I thought she was under oath? lol

    I also wanted to post this, because much of her testimony is being quoted and used by the various critics and reporters out there covering this industry.  So if everyone is rallying around her testimony, it is kind of important to read what she has to say, and give an alternative point of view to provide some balance.

   What I will do is go through some of the key points and give the Feral Jundi point of view or POV.  Maybe the professor can come up in the comments section and care to provide further input or explanation? Anyhoo, lets get started shall we?

Stanger Testimony: Contracting for moving security is largely a post-Cold War development, and our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan today are wholly dependent on it.

Feral Jundi POV: Actually, the history of privateers hauling colonists to the new world was the first use of armed contractors for a ‘moving security’ example.  We also depended on contractors moving supplies during all of our early wars in the form of camp followers. The Pinkertons were used to protect Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. During the Indian Wars and expansion into the West, armed security contractors were vital to the security of wagon trains, stage coaches, ranch/cattle protection, law enforcement, and scouts.  “Eight civilians have received Medals of Honor including Dr. Mary Edwards Walker (the only woman to ever receive the award), one civilian scout and two civilian Naval pilots during the Civil War, and 4 civilian scouts during the Indian Campaigns (including William Cody…”Buffalo Bill”).” America has a rich history of contracting with armed security for protection or combat operations that certainly required ‘moving security’.

Stanger Testimony: Using Friedman’s minimalist definition, the use of contractors in the realms of security and justice demand the strictest scrutiny.  Even under this leanest of definitions, moving security contractors are performing inherently governmental functions, since they are actively involved in defending the nation against foreign enemies. 

Feral Jundi POV: Allison forgets that defending a nation against foreign enemies is the first point mentioned by Friedman, in his minimalist list, and the most important.  To me, a nation’s first goal above all else is survival.  To use all and any means necessary and available to defend a nation.  That means using a standing army and private industry if necessary.  Yet again, the historical context for this argument is the existence of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11.  It’s existence symbolizes our nation’s desire to uphold the right to use private industry during times of war, and the clause for granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal is right there next to the authority to Declare War.  That is significant.

     And from a strategist’s point of view, I want every available tool in my hands to conduct war and defeat an enemy.  It is why George Washington relied upon his standing  armies, his volunteer militias, as well as his privateers, and it is why we are using private industry in such a way now. It answers a need for manpower.

   You could also make an argument that the Second Amendment is an essential tool for the defense of a nation. ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’  So would Milton Friedman or Allison Stanger argue that the Second Amendment conflicts with what their definition of inherently governmental is or what the state should allow for the defense of a country?

Stanger Testimony: There are additional grounds for concern about the use of armed security contractors that have yet to receive appropriate attention.  From a constitutional perspective, Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, yet armed privateers have been deployed in both Iraq and 

Afghanistan without such explicit authorization. 

Feral Jundi POV: This is the key point of this whole testimony that I wanted the reader to focus in on.  Allison brought it up, but it is interesting to me that she would make no recommendations for congress to actually use it? Nor did she care to elaborate on the significance of this law. That it does symbolize America’s relationship with armed security and private industry during times of war.  By not bringing that history into the discussion, the commission has nothing to really build off of for an opinion on the law itself.  If I were to advise congress, I would just tell them that they have had the power and right to do anything they want (and for a long time) in regards to controlling and licensing private industry during times of war.  They are law makers, they have the law to do such a thing in their war fighting tool kit, and they could have actually set up the kind of legal conditions and checks and balances with private industry that this whole commission is concerned with trying to understand.

(more…)

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Letter Of Marque: Reconsidering The Letter Of Marque–Utilizing Private Security Providers Against Piracy

Filed under: Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:59 AM

   A big thanks to Cannoneer #4 for posting this in the comments of yesterday’s post on piracy. Other folks sent me the same link to this publication and I was very interested in what Theodore Richard had to say.  To say the least, I was impressed and this paper was well researched and footnoted. (as a good legal type paper should be)

   This was also published in a contract law journal, which tells me that the guy writing this believed it could survive the scrutiny of his peers.  This should be of particular interest to any legal specialists in other countries who would like a source to draw from for exploring how the LoM could help your nation.

   What surprised me is the listing of all the companies that were involved with maritime security in Somalia.  I learned a bunch, and he started out with Hart’s operations there.  Theodore talked about the various politics and financing issues that either contributed to the success or failure of these companies, and I found that to be very informative.

   The author also went over how a modern day LoM would look, and all the various uses for the LoM.  He does a great job in calling upon historical reference to support his modern day applications, and what kind of tweaking it would take to make it work.

   Probably my favorite part of the paper is the way he was able to confront the Max Weber argument, and define exactly how the LoM fits into that discussion.

   The other part of this paper that he goes over, that I continue to forget to talk about in my discussions about the LoM, is the license and bonding aspect of modern day privateering. The author uses the example of America’s modern day bail enforcement officers or ‘bounty hunters’, and discusses how this could be a model.  The point of a license is to ensure you know what you are doing, and bonding puts your money where your mouth is. In this case, a surety bond industry for privateers would be needed if the start up company did not have it’s own financing for such a thing. It would also depend upon what the congress wants, because they are the ones who issue the LoM, pay the bounties and run the Prize Courts.      Let me know what you guys think and check it out. –Matt

Edit: 5/31/2010 -David Isenberg posted a deal that discussed this paper and how the LoM could be used for today’s issues with piracy.  Check it out here.

—————————————————————–

Reconsidering the Letter of Marque: Utilizing Private Security Providers Against Piracy

Theodore Richard

Public Contract Law Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 411-464, Spring 2010

Abstract:

This article examines how letters of marque could be revived to effectively empower the private sector to assist governments in dealing with modern piracy. It examines Somali piracy, the development and different uses of letters of marque and privateers, the current legal framework relating to piracy, Somalia’s decade-long experience with maritime security contractors, the use of maritime contractors outside of Somalia, and addresses concerns involving private maritime security. The article concludes that unless governments provide security everywhere and all the time, the market will demand private security. Governments can effectively manage and control this security in the maritime environment without inventing a new legal scheme out of whole cloth: letters of marque can provide authorization, regulation, and accountability.

——————————————————————–

(From the paper)

As privateering matured, privateers faced signi?cant regulations, including highly detailed and precise requirements for legal captures that were, in turn, subject to rigid enforcement in specialized prize courts.  Serious transgressions, like murder, rape, or mutiny, could result in imprisonment or death.

For example, a British privateer captain was executed for robbery constituting piracy in 1759. Improper privateer conduct resulted in the loss of the commission, the bond, and, if applicable, the prize. Thus most British and American privateers in the eighteen and nineteenth centuries were neither dishonorable nor piratical. Importantly privateers played a signi?cant role in ending piracy.

*****

 The western world’s “Golden Age of Piracy” began in 1715, following the 1713 Peace of Utrecht, which brought an end to a decade of European warfare involving all the continent’s major powers. The upsurge in piracy was caused by the unemployment of signi?cant numbers of sailors: the English navy alone discharged 54,000 sailors and privateers could no longer obtain commissions to attack European commerce. This “Golden Age of Piracy” peaked around 1720 and reached an abrupt end in 1725. More than anyone else, the man responsible for bringing this age of piracy to an end was Woodes Rogers.

  In an early example of the “revolving door” between the private and public sector employment, Rogers was a privateer before being appointed  as the Governor of Bahamas, then the pirate capital of the Americas. In order to reform this territory, Rogers dispersed the pirates of the Caribbean with privateers.

  The piracy problem during this era was solved through a combination of tactics:

(1) the British Parliament passed legislation allowing overseas piracy trials, rather than requiring suspected pirates to be brought to England;

(2) captured pirates were publicly tried and executed;

(3) pirates who turned themselves in were pardoned;

(4) naval patrols were increased;

(5) rewards or bounties were promised for the capture of pirates; and

(6) private ships were licensed to attack and capture pirates.

  Of these methods, the last is the most relevant here.

Link to paper here.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Mexico: Cartel Inc.–In The Company Of Narcos

Filed under: Law Enforcement,Letter Of Marque,Mexico — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:12 AM

   This is a fascinating look at the inner workings and organizational methods of a drug cartel.  This is pure free market warfare, but practiced by thugs.  This is like pre-Westphalia stuff, and certainly deserves some attention if you are a student of the drug war and narco-terrorism.

    I also look at these cartels like big juicy targets, over flowing with cash and assets that could end up in the pockets of privateers given authority to take them down. That is how you take down folks who are playing by pre-Westphalia rules and living without any regards to the rule of law or borders. –Matt

——————————————————————

Cartel Inc: In the company of Narcos

Jan 14 2010

By Robin Emmott

RIO BRAVO, Mexico (Reuters) – Late last year, Mexican soldiers raided a house in Rio Bravo, a dilapidated town just across the border from Texas. What they found was a kind of “back office” that belonged to the Gulf cartel, the country’s most violent drug gang.

Inside the gray, one-storey house, clerical workers helped run cocaine shipments hidden in U.S.-bound avocado trucks from southern Mexico, said soldiers on patrol in the town. The office tracked the drug movements in trucks equipped with GPS and progress was logged into spreadsheets on laptops.

The Gulf cartel as well as its hitmen often refer to themselves as “The Company” — and not without reason. Often overlooked amid all the violence and chaos they engender is the fact that Mexico’s drug cartels are capably run businesses that have turned into some of the most lucrative criminal enterprises ever.

(more…)

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Mexico: Drug War Update–Tijuana Gets A Tough Guy, Drug Cartels Lose Leyva

Filed under: Law Enforcement,Mexico — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 8:39 AM

    Big news with the drug war down south.  The Mexican Navy kills Beltran Leyva, a major drug boss with a two million dollar bounty on his head.  No word if anyone actually collected on that bounty.

    The other story that grabbed my attention is the new security jefe in Tijuana.  This guy is definitely working on being ‘bad ass of the week’.  I just hope he stays alive long enough to do some damage upon the cartels.

   Finally, I would like to say that if Mexico thinks they are doing all they can to stop these guys, think again.  Mexico could certainly open up the cartel killing market using the Letter of Marque concept, and open up a new front in the drug war.

     Mexico has a bounty system for these cartels already, but in order for it to work properly, they need to bring in companies under that system. Individuals, who have no way of protecting themselves and fear retribution if they turn in a drug boss or his buddies, are not likely to partake in a bounty system. But entire companies will join in, because they have the means to protect itself and usually has the kind of guys who can take care of themselves.

     And if there are hundreds of companies going after cartels, along with the police and military, well then you have a diversified strategy with a total drug war concept. More importantly, they need to give the companies involved with taking on the cartels, legal protections–hence the reason behind the LoM.

    One last thing. Mexico is not a signatory of the Declaration of Paris. And what is really cool about the LoM, is it is warfare on the cheap.  Just the kind of solution a country would need in case they ran out of money do to a protracted war or were in a deep recession because of other factors throughout the world.

     Drug cartels are loaded with loot, they fight to bring over billions of dollars of hard cash into the US in order to launder it, and they buy all sorts of ridiculous things with that money.  Privateers would love to take that wealth away from the cartels as well as kill or capture individuals to collect on the state offered bounties.  Seems pretty logical to me.  Dios mio. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Death of a Mexican drug lord

Mexican forces won this battle, killing Arturo Beltran Leyva. But the war is far from over.

December 19, 2009

Understandably, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is trumpeting the navy’s success in taking down Arturo Beltran Leyva, wanted in the United States and Mexico for his part in the $15-billion to $20-billion-a-year drug trade. He was a criminal known to behead his rivals and believed to be responsible for last year’s killing of the federal police chief in his Mexico City home; he was the most powerful cartel boss to be removed by security forces since Calderon launched his drug war in 2006. The operation reportedly was the result of improved U.S.-Mexican intelligence cooperation, and although the naval troops failed to take Beltran Leyva and six cohorts alive, it should yield a trove of new information. Moreover, the battle between cartel grenades and the navy’s mounted machine guns was carried out without civilian casualties or, apparently, some of the other abuses that have marked army operations.For all the accomplishments, however, the operation reveals the extent of unfinished business in Calderon’s campaign. Beltran Leyva was discovered at a luxury apartment complex near the governor’s mansion in the city of Cuernavaca, just south of the national capital. Clearly he felt he had bought enough protection from security forces to stray far from his home base in Sinaloa and into the weekend getaway for Mexico City’s rich. But someone either infiltrated his inner circle or turned on him — possibly for the $2-million bounty on his head. (more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress