Pirates Hijack Fishing Boat Off the Seychelles

Pirates from Somalia have struck in the Somali basin.

Pirates hijacked a Spanish trawler with a 36-member crew Friday in the Indian Ocean, an official said.

The boat, called the Alakrana, sent out distress signals advising of a pirate attack and since then the company has not been able to communicate with Alakrana, said Echebastar Fleet, the company that owns the ship.

Two planes from Luxembourg, taking part in an EU anti-piracy flotilla, flew over the ship and saw armed people aboard, said Pilar Unzalu, the Basque region's fisheries and agriculture minister. The Alakrana is based in the Basque port of Bermeo.

The ship was 415 miles (670 kilometers) from the Seychelles islands, Unzalu said. Company executives were headed for the Spanish Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, Echebastar Fleet said.

It was the second attack in less than a month against the Alakrana. On Sept. 4, while operating in waters off the Seychelles islands, the vessel dodged an attack by taking evasive action.

ONI issued an alert this morning warning that attacks may continue over the next 24-48 hours, wind and weather conditions are favorable for more pirate activity in that area. The success of pirate activity in the Gulf of Aden will force tactical adaptation from pirates, and the fishing regions south of Somalia off the Kenyan coast are a likely tactical adjustment.

David Axe has had some great materials over the last few days on the efforts in the Gulf of Aden, including articles in the Washington Times and World Politics Review.

Security at Sea and on Land

David Axe recently completed an embed off Somalia on the USS Donald Cook, and has done some excellent reporting. See especially this article at World Politics Review assessing the determinants of the decline in Somali piracy.

Jutland 1916

Film studies won't become a regular ID feature, but in doing some research on "Battleship", I came across this:

A film about one of the Royal Navy’s most controversial battles is due to be shot next year.

Oscar-winning actor Sir Ben Kingsley is to play the British commander, Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, in the most expensive British-made film about the First World War.

Jutland 1916 will tell the story of the epic clash that took place while the outcome of the war still hung in the balance.

The £40million movie, which will be shot in Britain, will draw on diaries and first-person accounts featured in the book Jutland 1916: Death In the Grey Wastes by Peter Hart and Nigel Steel.

The film is provisionally titled "Jutland 1916," although it might be worth paying Robert Massie for the rights to the name "Castles of Steel", or even Andrew Gordon for "Rules of the Game." I haven't read the Hart and Steel volume, but I've long thought that Gordon's Rules of the Game could plausibly serve as the foundation for a film script; the first chapters (about the "Run to the South" between Beatty and Hippers' battlecruisers) just crackle. I also think that the best dramatic choice for any Jutland film would be trying to understand the battle in terms of the tension between Beatty and Jellicoe. Trying to reduce any battle to competition between two men is invariably an injury to history, but the relevant question with regard to historical epics isn't whether history is injured, but rather how badly. Kingsley as Jellicoe would be fine; perhaps Clive Owen as Beatty?

The film may never be made, but what gives me just a touch of hope is the cinematic nature of the Battle of Jutland. I have no doubt whatsoever that modern special effects can do justice to the destruction of HMS Queen Mary, and to the rest of the battle. Moreover, there are some remarkably dramatic moments within the battle, particularly when the entire Grand Fleet, arrayed in three columns, emerges from the mist ahead of the German van, or when Major Francis Harvey, legs blown off by a German shell, saves HMS Lion by ordering the flooding of the Q-turret magazine.

High Expectations Are Good

This is an interesting discussion at Danger Room regarding the 60 Minutes revelation that General McChrystal and President Barack Obama had only spoken once prior to today's meeting. Read the Danger Room article and come back...

I think Professor Mark Grimsley is wrong, and I think both Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Michael E. O’Hanlon are right.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said:

“I agree with President Obama in his approach — strategy first, then resources,” Mr. Rasmussen told reporters in the Oval Office. “The first thing is not numbers. It is to find and fine-tune the right approach to implement the strategy already laid down.”

Mr. Rasmussen is exactly right, but the question is what kind of strategy is being examined. This is war, so the answer should be military strategy. The revelation that President Obama has not talked with General McChrystal leaves the impression the President is treating the situation as political strategy. That perception of political strategy for Afghanistan instead of military strategy for Afghanistan being the focus of the President is the first reason why Professor Mark Grimsley's analysis is off. When it comes to leadership, particularly political leaders, perception matters a lot - as the talks with Iran today will prove.

Michael E. O’Hanlon said:

“I don’t think I can defend him for being out of touch with his commander,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. “He has other people who advise him. But there’s no one else with the feel on the ground that McChrystal has.”

Exactly right. We live in the Information Age, so there is no excuse for anyone with resources and responsibility, like the President of the United States in wartime for example, not to be the most informed person in the room. Talking to the folks on the front lines would seem a logical approach to being informed about a war. Professor Mark Grimsley attempts to make a comparison between being informed and micro-management. I think these are apples and oranges comparisons.

I also don't think President Obama is in danger of being accused of micro-managing any policies so far in his presidency. In fact, the legitimate criticism he appears to be taking from all sides, including his base on health care, is that he doesn't give the impression he is engaged enough. I think the criticism is very legitimate. We should have high expectations from our political leaders.

I also want to add one last thing here. Do you sense the real debate regarding Afghanistan? I do. To COIN or not to COIN... isn't that the question? This is the discussion that never happened before Iraq in 2003. It feels icky and looks ugly, and the Presidents political opponents even call it political dithering... but taking a bit of time to debate the war is a very good and healthy thing for America, because I think it helps insure everyone has a clear picture of the consequences and commitment that comes with each of the choices the President must make.

This isn't dithering, it is what it looks like when you don't make haste of decisions regarding war. Dithering would have been legitimate criticism had the President not bought time with an Afghanistan surge up to 60,000 troops earlier this year, a surge that btw has yet to hit the battlefield in full yet.

Pashtun rebels and the Taliban have been fighting in the same ~200 districts of Afghanistan all summer. The fighting has not expanded out of those ~200 districts. That suggests we now have a better understanding of the limits of Pushtun reach in Afghanistan. The summer has defined what the battlefield terrain in Afghanistan is. I think that is an important detail in the development of a military strategy for Afghanistan.

ADM Roughead - Two Years as CNO

I left my thoughts regarding ADM Gary Roughead's two year anniversary as CNO over at the USNI Blog.

Random Thoughts...

The only time I met ADMRoughead, folks on his staff suggested I'm an insurgent, and that ID is seen by OPNAV as home to the Navy insurgency.

I am OK with that. I'd be really pleased if NAVSEA saw ID as home of the Navy insurgency, but that is neither here nor there. I'd like to think ID is residence for N3/N5, the internet spot those guys go to for beer and wings - but alas...

We are always open to new ideas.

We try to be objective, will always be honest, and when given the chance shall tell you exactly what we think if asked. The way I see it, if something said by one of the authors on ID isn't disagreeable to everyone who visits at one point or another, we simply aren't contributing much to the discussion.