Mearsk Alabama Attacked Again

Yes, you've probably heard the news and know that the guys on board had a security team which scared the pirates off before they could board, but I wanted to weigh in on what some are saying about this latest encounter with Somali pirates. Here is a quote from Foxnews.com to show you exactly why I wanted to say my piece:

"However, Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the international maritime community was still "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community."

 First of all, both from reading past this point in the article and then using common sense, I would tend towards wanting to have at least a few armed guards aboard.

Middleton went on to suggest that to have a security force aboard ship makes it a privateer, out on the high seas to put an end to piracy. I seriously doubt that's what Maersk had in mind when it put a security force aboard Alabama. I just makes sense to have at least some who are armed aboard ship especially when in potentially dangerous waters; this is even part of the industry's "best practices" according to ADM. Gourtney.

Oh yeah, I've got to add something for good measure.

Did those pirates realize that they were attacking the same ship that made the news all over the world, especially here in the U.S.? I mean, they need to understand what we do when you mess with us. I thought the Navy SEALs tought them that. Apparently the Somali pirates needed to be shot at again to figure it out. But I doubt they did. They'll just go after ships from other countries. Hopefully those other ships have adopted industry "best practices".

(photograph courtesy Foxnews.com)