Vessels like the Maersk Alabama which are flying the flag of the United States are part of the United States Merchant Marine. Under long-standing maritime practice (for historical background, study the Barbary Wars), it is considered an act of war for any military force, whatever its composition, to attack a vessel which is part of the United States Merchant Marine. Had the U.S. Congress officially declared war on "terrorism", the Merchant Marine at that point would have become an arm of the U.S. Navy.
Even without a declaration of war (the Barbary Wars were not declared wars, either) the existence of a state of war can, de facto, place the Merchant Marine within the Navy. Since Congress has not seen fit to declare any war since June 5, 1942, the de facto War on Terror, funded by Congress (but somehow recently declared to be finished by the Executive Branch) makes the Merchant Marine a de facto arm of the U.S. Navy.
Pirates/banditos/guerillas/military forces, whatever, attacking a de facto U.S. Navy vessel have declared war on the United States. The captain of the vessel that was attacked is a de facto naval officer. The attackers, who are holding the officer prisoner, are themselves surrounded and cut off from assistance; they are being ordered to surrender.
Ah, my muse has whispered a third choice. He can vote "present" and delegate the problem to Joe and Hilary.
Other than the ad-hominem (to the man) name calling, this was a fairly astute post. The issue faced was not the pirates, it was a lack of clarity in the chain of command. The solution was finally resolved when the captain of the Bainbridge finally decided that he had the legal authority to interpret his orders. The big problem was that the SOP on this operation is so old it doesn't fit with modern tactics. It was compounded by the fact that the president got involved at the tactical level. With an indecisive commander on the scene, this could have been much worse.
ReplyDelete