Maersk Alabama fights off pirates ... Europeans still wimps

     It seems lightning does strike twice.  The AP reports that Somali pirates attempted to take the Maersk Alabama again today.  This time the crew was prepared and "An on-board security team repelled the attack by using evasive maneuvers, small-arms fire and a Long Range Acoustic Device..."  So, a group of rag-tag thugs come running up in power boats firing "automatic weapons" (from 300 yards) and a security team runs them off.  Very Well Done!  I applaud this and think it's long past time that such vessels were protected by an armed contingent of professionals.
     Consider that two days previous to this another merchant vessel was seized by Somali pirates.  The 28 North Korean crew members were taken hostage and the captain of that ship has now reportedly "died of wounds."  These pirates are obviously dangerous.  Whatever their intent, they run around, loosely diciplined, firing automatic weapons.  Someone is bound to get hurt.  I think it's highly irresponsible of a corporation to send captain and crew out in a big floating treasure chest with ransom prices on their heads and not to provide adequate security.

     Vice Adm. Bill Gortney of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command apparently approved.  He reportedly said the Maersk Alabama followed the  "best practices" of the maritime industry by employing such a security team on board.  Vice Adm. Gortney was quoted as saying, "This is a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action to prevent being attacked and why we recommend that ships follow industry best practices if they're in high-risk areas."
     Hell, I've been saying this for a while now.  For too long now we've shipped our valuable goods (and even more valuable manpower) in huge floating gun-free zones.  Gun-free zones, as we have learned (some of us, anyway) are great big smorgasbords of unarmed, grab-all-you-want, hurt-whomever-you-want play pens for the more criminally sociopathic among us.
 
     Of course some of our European neighbors seem to think otherwise.  Mr. Roger Middleton, a fellow described as a "piracy expert" working at Chatham House, a London-based think tank, favors the sheep approach.  He reportedly says "the international maritime community was still 'solidly against' armed guards aboard ships, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community."
 
     Well, hell yeah!  It seems some Americans are still totally on board (no pun intended) with the idea that we are all responsible for our own safety and that just taking the moral high ground of not stooping to a violent aggressor's actions is not really winning.  Not all Americans, it seems, are as wimpy as the upper crust British seem to want everyone to be.
 
     Middleton was quoted saying, "Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards."  Really?  I wonder, if we could hit some cosmic "pause" button as the pirates are storming over the rail of a ship, if we could as the merchant crew who are in the midsts of being plundered, pillaged, and worse if they are opposed to the presence of armed guards on their vessel, how many do you think would agree with Mr. Middleton?  
 
     The pusillanimous Mr. Middleton was further quoted as postulating, "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."
 
     Okay, so one of his big beefs with having security aboard these floating targets is that the security personnel aren't experienced mariners?  Um, correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but don't most sailors have a first voyage?  Is anyone born with some innate knowleges of maritime ways?  I thought not.  Further, let me remind everyone, we're talking about security officers, not sailors.  They are there to repel pirates not to run the ship.  I would think that whatever firm hired them for their ships would give them a basic run down on company policy, maritime law, where the life preservers and fire extinguishers are, etc.
 
     Oh, and as to the ships' security being up to the respective navies and states ... just how far up your arse did you shove your head, Mr. Middleton?!  No nation that I'm aware of can spare a frigate to escort every merchant vessel.  How the hell is America, England, or any other nation supposed to protect their own shipping interests on the open seas?  Ah, I see.   More, "take the moral high ground and pass the responsibilty so we can feign outrage while the barbarians storm the gates," attitude I guess. 
 
     I have some news for the Roger Middletons of the world:  If we turn everyone into sheep, the wolves win!
 
     Congratulations to the crew (security and otherwise) of the Maersk Alabama!  Congratulations to every ship that has armed security and to every coporation with the forethought to provide it!