Over at “End of Empire,” Adeodatus asks whether, given the abundance of naval missions, paucity of ships and budgetary pressures, might it not make sense to privatise certain low-end functions? Because, with deepest respect, the “1000 ship Navy” remains less a force in being than laudable concept based on the ever shifting tides of national interest.
There are advantages to employing contractors: The Army has done so with KBR and Blackwater with varying degrees of success. While up-front costs are high, life-cycle management can be much cheaper. And push comes to shove at budget time, or if roles and missions suddenly change you can always just terminate the contract next year.
The Coast Guard would strenuously resist any privatization of inshore operations I should think – that’s core mission, bread and butter stuff. And ofcourse the international legal aspects are daunting – no one has issued a letter of marque in over a hundred years, since they were abolished by the Treaty of Paris. A treaty that, perhaps significantly, the US never ratified.
According to the Wikipedia entry linked above, the dean of Catholic University law school testified to the US Senate in 2002:
Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one’s citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution.[1]
That could lead to some interesting command and control challenges I should think, with regular forces reporting through operation chains up to the President and private forces reporting to Congress. And for risk mitigation purposes it would be interesting to know how signatories of the Treaty of Paris might treat private naval forces in international waters.
Intriguing question, and who knows – a business opportunity?
Aaarrrrrr. If ’tis mercenary ASW ye be seekin, give me a call matey.
I’m buying a DDG and heading to the Carib OPAREA to participate in the “war on drugs.”
Who’s with me!?! AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa!
Aye, Cap’n…
Give us a holler too… I happen ta like the sound of the words “mercenary ASW”… has a certain ring to it, ya know?
On t’other hand, Letters of Marque would be a really good idea for dealing with the rising pirate situation in various parts of the world. I would imagine that some of the larger shipping concerns and insurance companies might also support such an endeavour.
“Mercenary ASW”… I like the cut of that jib, sir!…..
Besides, it would free up the regular navy to deal with all those important issues like diversity lectures, sexual harrasment training, power point presentation seminars, PDR.Bluetooth interaction training, etc. You know… the REALLY importnant Navy issues..
respects,
Lex, you have got to stop re-reading O’Brian! Seriously, even though we did not ratify the Treaty of Paris, our repudiation of letters of marque in two subsequent conflicts would probably lead a court to find that it was now what is known as “customary” international law binding on the US. (There may already be a Supreme Court decision on this from the Spanish American War era. I am a little fuzzy on this since it is not part of current admiralty law.) Of course, the constitution still authorizes it and Congress is still free to establish new statutory law which could provide some level of protection to a US privateer. I agree that it is an interesting questions as to how the international community would react. Blackwater is not getting much good press right now. IMV, if privateers were put under Navy opcon, it might make it more palatable to other nations.
“they were abolished by the Treaty of Paris”
I don’t understand. The Treaty of Paris was ratified by Congress in 1783, and the King went along with yet.
Yet Captain Jack Aubrey, RN, got fantastically rich operating HMHV Surprise under a Letter of Marque during the War of 1812.
Being a
squidsailor he promptly lost much of this fortune to Land Sharks on his return to England.Jim Howard,
Wrong Treaty of Paris. That was one of many – why do the French get all the treaties?? (surrender is always is option). Check the Hague Convention as well. Letters of Marque began their real decline shortly after the Crimean War but the US didn’t sign on until the subsequent treaty 60 years later.
As for any ASW/Sub-surface types, I mentioned in the Orbis article that you could have naval aviation and submarine components. Has anyone been on one of the Caribbean tourist subs. Although limited in range/capability, they could have some use if modified properly.
I rode on one of those Caribbean sub.
The view was great, but I had a tremendous feeling of unease during the whole voyage. It felt really great climbing out of what looks to me like a steel coffin.
Once was enough!!
Anybody that wants to sponsor lex’s private war on terror in an FA-18 (a “charlie” of a preference, but an “alpha” in a trice), please PM me.
Because, as the saying goes, “I’d hit that.”
Lex-
RAAF, you know it makes sense
Sea Wolf is pretty much spot on.
Of course, the question is what sorts of mission are “low end” and where’s the profit? The business model seems a little troubling. It’s never the pointy thing by itself, but all that logistics and sustainment stuff that gets in the way. I do note that Somalia was proposing to use a contractor for offshore security a couple of years ago, although that seems to have fallen through. See here for Kathryn Cramer’s extensive look at that effort.
The pirates of Somalia?Malacca, etc are not exactly driving multi-million dollar boats., so prize money may be hard to come by.
This thread is starting to look like one over at The Flight Deck from a few months back.
Leave it to “lawfare” to take the wind out of your spinnaker….
But…Eagle1 does have a worthwhile point.
Perhaps you could get a SBA loan to start a new enterprise along these lines…something I need to look into.
ASW, however, is waaaaay too expensive.
However, I could definitely see money to be made in the “anti-piracy escort” area. Go buy a FFG or one of those European corvettes…make it a mother ship for some smaller RHIB’s. Yeah, that could work. (SBA might not cover it)
If you need a Master Helmsman, I’m all in. I’m not too bad with an M-2 .50cal either.
Yeaarrrggghhh!
Mercenary coastwise Q-shipping in 500 ton ex-Dutch costvaarders ? I’m in …
Sea-robbers who would kill you for a can of red lead paint need a ‘whiff of the grape’. Several whiffs.
I can cook! The last time I manned a ship we hit a gale. I poured all of the soup cans together and heated them up. Now that’s cooking!
Eagle1,
You’re right – that’s the difficulty in issuing letters of marque. The purpose which I intend for them would largely be non-monetary assets (cheap ass dhows or the like), and Congress doesn’t have the will to impose LoMs. That’s why I suggested option 3 as Private Naval Companies which would be a function of the Executive Branch via DoD or HS on a contracted basis. You could write the Statement of Work and CLINs to identify specific piratical, smuggler, or terrorist entities and place various values on them, then issue any one of a number of contracts, maybe cost plus fixed-fee or whatever, to provide for basic cost plus profit and incentivize it.
Or you could just build 1,000 U.S. Navy ships – which is my preference.
BullNav,
Hey, that SBA loan idea might work. Tell them you’re starting a maritime RePo business. You could ice the loan by basing it out of New Orleans. Tell them it’s a Katrina-start up loan to help the economy. Don’t have to tell them it’s YOUR economy that’s being jump-started.
Heh….
“eeexxccellent Smithers….”
Gee. I ain’t toting an H&K but I’m already doing the Navy’s “dirty-work” as a contractor…
Will one of dem letters o’mark get me more dough? LOL.
b2
The Navy long ago started down this path. In the past, all UNREP ships were fully manned by uniformed types. Now, these ships (even ammunition ships) are mostly manned by civilians with a handful of uniforms to supervise. Check the number of USNS prefixes in the Navy register. I don’t expect the Navy will allow mostly civilian staffing of an actual combatant (as opposed to an auxilliary) anytime soon, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they started to turn certain on board, non-core functions over to civilians. Likely suspects would include mess, laundry and other similar functions; maybe even engine spaces. This would not be that dissimilar to what KBR does in active combat areas like Iraq, Afghanistan and (formerly active) Bosnia.
I volunteer to be a Gunner’s Mate.
I’m thinking… I can hit that.
Adeodatus,
We would all like to see the 1000-ship Navy.
In the meantime, the Private Naval Companies aren’t a bad option. I’d volunteer for a berth. But I question whether it could be done without the formal protection of a LoM, or something like it. Its one thing to have Blackwater carrying guns in Iraq with the approval of the Iraqi government. It is quite another to operate a “Blackwater-like” organization in international waters. Especially in light of the 1856 Treaty of Paris.
I also think your business model is the only way it makes any sense. While it is romantic to think of capturing prizes for private profit, Congress took the private profit out of the Prize Laws more than 100 years ago. (They thought it was unseemly to have Admirals Dewey and Sampson arguing their prize cases before the Supreme Court.)
Sea Wolf,
Thanks. I agree with you. I’ve worked in both the private and public sectors and the military, in R&D, acquisitions, and the Hill and teach govt. and naval history. I know we’ll never see another real U.S. 1,000 ship Navy again and spell out why.
I encourage you or anyone else interested to check out the article in Orbis which is about 6,300 words. It goes into far more depth than the blog on the reality and pros and cons of the three alternatives to ADM Mullen’s “1,000-ship Navy” concept.
At the end of the first page is a list of individuals, some very senior, with whom I consulted to get their thoughts on specific portions, including legal issues. If I missed any idea, I’d appreciate your thoughts since I’m working on a follow-up article.
Thanks.
Lemme know if you need some Marines (“fighting tops” and the likes…)
b2,
“Dough”? I believe the proper pirate term is “booty”.
Jeopardy,
brings a whole new definition to the term “booty call” eh?
As to prize money, I’m thinking in a percentage of value payout for ships cargoes and crews recovered, paid for by the owners and/or insurance underwriters.
respects,
Legally I don’t see the need for a letter of marque, the framework for contract security already exists. It is the same contract system used by the Military Sealift Command for contract security onboard MSC vessels.
In fact, the only thing that prevents offensive action by security personal on MSC vessels is the MSC policy on use of deadly force, not a Congressional mandate.
Additionally, what you are talking about is really not necessarily solely Navy contracts, rather Coast Guard contracts. In fighting piracy you are talking about police action, which as we know is Coast Guard.
I know for fact the Coast Guard already has a similar contract system in place for that as well, the contract personel in the USCG Maritime Force Protection Units are a good example.
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLetters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared … [...]
New ship unveiled for training & disaster response
Blackwater showing off new training ship at Nauticus
“Blackwater’s maritime division will operate vessels suitable for training, disaster response, law enforcement, surveillance and security, including anti-terrorism and anti-piracy activities.”
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! The US should be reducing outsourcing of this kind of thing and building up its military to larger numbers.
We’ve gone too far down this road and proven Eisenhower right once again. Its time to return to the better way- 600 ship NAVY with dungaree wearing sailors on the focsle.
Everything is upside down and backwards, these days. The President can declare a state of reprisal? Yah, I know he got a resolution, just like LBJ, but that’s not the same as a declaration of war. Or reprisal.
Which we should have done long ago. Informal actors are doing murderous violence against us, let’s do informal murderous violence right back at them.
And grab their stuff!
Which is the most important part, and would make the whole thing more humane, and less destructive.
Privateers had to post a huge bond, were not in it for the killing and the breaking, but for the goodies.
Those considerations sorta required them not to kill too many people, and not to ruin too much stuff.
Sometimes greed,when properly regulated, leads to less violence, than would otherwise happen.
Pistris, Inc.
http://www.pistris.com/Video/Pistris,%20Inc.%20NTSC.wmv
Wanna buy a private navy?
Bull Halsey,
Our C2 flagships are now MSC ships–lots of contractors and a handful of Navy crew. Good food, no bells and loudspeakers squawking day and night, professional laundry staff.
Kinda nice that way.
Except the C2 ships are legitimate targets of war-which is why Blue Ridge remains with an all military crew.
Skippy-san,
Again, I agree with you. We should build up our Navy. No question about that. I pointed that out in the Orbis article. But the reality of the situation, which I discussed in the article, is that we’re not going to see a significant – or minimal – increase in the number of platforms unless things change drastically.
Zane,
This may be picking nits, but the C2 ships are still technically commissioned Navy vessels. Mount Whitney, for example, is still the USS (not USNS) Mount Whitney and doesn’t have a “T” prefix on the hull number. You raise a good point, however, which is that the complement consists of 170 Navy personnel and 155 civilians. While I expect that many of these civilians are higher-end technicians, I don’t see any reason why, on any Navy vessel, the more mundane tasks in the laundry and galley need to be performed by Navy personnel. Turn these functions over to civilian contractors and focus the Navy personnel on the core war fighting functions.
Quick follow-up to the earlier post:
According to Wikipedia, “[i]n 2004, Military Sealift Command civilian mariners were integrated into [the Mount Whitney's] crew. She remains a commissioned warship in the United States Navy, but the size of her complement shrank from 600 sailors to approximately 170 Navy officers and enlisted and 155 civilians.”
From an efficiency standpoint, this looks like a home run. The ship is able to perform the same functions, but the complement was reduced from 600 to 325. The Navy needs to do more of this.
oooo! If you need a mad scientist for this venture, please let me know! We’ll just call it “proactive salvaging” for better PR. May I also suggest some diversity in this privateer fleet? Specifically submarines. We could set some splendid traps Q-ship style.
The CIVMARs of MSC are not contractors but civilian employees of DoD. MSC does use contracts but these are ship operators who man, maintain and conduct the mission of the ship with private sector mariners.
My guess would be that other nations would not recognize the LoMs and consider the privateers pirates even on the high seas. Unlikely they would pursue them unless they were engaging their flagged vessels. However, most of the piracy and such is happening in territorial waters even if in international straits. As such, any entry by an armed vessel would be most likely met as an act of war and most certainly would be a violation of the Law of the Sea. Even barring that, I would suspect that a privateer would not be granted entry into other nation’s ports or would be subjected to import regulation on their arms and possibly be denied innocent passage through territorial waters since they would be armed but not “warships.”
As for Presidential control, a vessel operating under an LoM would need support of US bases and would need export licenses, all controlled by the President.
In short, since the bureaucracy has reached every nook and cranny of the globe, they’ve taken all the fun out of it.
Cannoneer, they ain’t PBRs but they don’t look bad-Ah, to be young again. RivDiv 594 back in the day
Nav. Dept. checking in. I’v got a lead on two more QM3, 1 QM2 & a Chief. Good to go.