Millions for Tribute but not One Cent for Defense?

With the rescue of Captain Phillips many people are ready to move on to the business of killing pirates already, or at least do something. Clearly we have arrived at a moment where policy has changed, but before we start down that road, perhaps we should ask why policy has changed?

It is my understanding that the standard US Navy practice in maritime kidnapping situations like the Maersk Alabama incident has been to stand aside while ransom negotiations take place between the pirates and the ship owner/operator. The pirates sometimes contact the Navy, but the Navy's practice in such instances has been to provide them with the telephone number of the ship owner/operator, so that the pirates can negotiate directly with the firm.

I have a few questions. Why didn't that happen in this case? Why did the Navy (with the FBI) in this instance apparently engage in direct hostage (i.e., non-ransom) negotiations with the pirates, instead of letting Maersk negotiate with the pirates for a ransom? Was it because the ship originally hijacked was a US-flag ship? Because the kidnapped person was a US national? Because the situation was logistically different in terms of the kidnapped person being on a lifeboat and the hijacked ship no longer being in the possession of the pirates? Some combination of these factors?

If so, why should any of these things make a difference? If not, then what was the reason? I think it is important that the Obama administration and the Navy explains why this situation wasn't handled like others, in which the Navy stands aside and the pirates and the ship owner/operator work out a ransom agreement. The response by the BAINBRIDGE represented a major policy shift, but no explanation has been given why the shift occurred. Was the policy shift dictated by conditions, or directed by leadership?

As acknowledged by Admiral Gortney toward the end of his telephone call with news reporters, the killing of the three pirates by the Navy SEAL snipers creates a risk of elevating the overall level of violence in future ship hijackings, which can increase the risks faced by the mariners on these cargo ships. If that's the case, and if there aren't enough naval ships from various countries to fully patrol the area, as the Navy repeatedly acknowledges, then how successful was this operation? Will people still be celebrating this operation if the pirates adapt and begin employing highly lethal forms of violence when attempting to seize control of ships? It will be interesting to see whether the international community blames the pirates, or us, if the pirates make a violent tactical adjustment in response to the events of Easter Sunday.

The Navy states that it believed the ship master's life was in imminent danger. I don't doubt the Navy's judgment on this, but it gets back to the first question: Would the situation have come to this if the Navy had treated this as a ransom negotiation situation to be worked out in talks between the pirates and Maersk?

I believe it is absolutely fair to compare these maritime insurance policies that protect shipping from pirates to a modern form of tribute. With that said, military forces are either unwilling (due to cost) or unable (due to resources or political will) to secure the seas from Somalia piracy, and the insurance as a form of tribute model does have an extremely high success rate in protecting the lives of mariners.

So I do wonder if at the end of the day, the American spirit of liberty over oppression played a role in how this scenario played out. I wonder if that spirit came from the Navy, the administration, both, or was it spawned in the Navy and administration when Captain Phillips demonstrated that spirit himself?

I might be wrong, but it appears to me that somewhere in the decision process a patriotic emotion rooted in either an obligation or loyalty to protect our citizen became the National Policy guiding the American response that freed Captain Phillips, thus fundamentally changing the existing American policy regarding Somali piracy in that moment. I celebrate the rescue of Captain Phillips, but I think there are several important questions that have not been answered in this incident.

(Please do not lecture me on the title, this is not the XYZ Affair and that is not even the phrase used in that incident, even if we potentially find ourselves on the verge of a quasi war at sea where war will probably not be declared by Congress)