. Tanker owners make enough money to hire their own security. They can hire their own mercenaries.
4 Likes
My thoughts exactly. Either reflag to the Stars and Stripes to enjoy the protection of its Navy and Marine Corps or call your nearest warriors of fortune clearing house.
Are we now considering protection of U.S. owned cargoes being carried on foreign bottoms to be legitimate grounds to intervene with our military?
6 Likes
Different stakeholders in this situation face different incentives.
Not saying itâs necessarily the case here but for example hypothetically some tanker owners might benefit from high oil prices or could just consider the heightened risk to be acceptable.
To be clear Iâm also not saying I agree with using the U.S. military in this case.
Itâs the perfect Fox News issue.
If the Administration doesnât use the military to protect U. S. shipping then itâs weak.
If the Administration does protect U.S. shipping then itâs warmongering.
2 Likes
Also add in that Foreign Shipping is now US Shipping as long as it stops in a US port.
Add in; âwasting taxpayerâs moneyâ
1 Like
An interesting comparison to this issue is the way outrage-media stirs things up on the China issue.
If the Administration does not patrol the China Sea to maintain the right to traverse international waters then it is weak. Itâs letting China walk all over us.
If the Administration does send in carrier battle groups to keep the seaplanes free (as it presently does) then itâs warmongering. Itâs provoking the Chinese to war.
2 Likes
The original post talks of protecting ships from Iranian attacks that are transiting the Straits of Hormuz, oil tankers.1. These are not US flagged ships. 2. If one or two are sunk the price of gas may go up in the USA. 3. It isnât worth starting a war to keep the price of gas down while people purposely buy gas guzzlers. If these foreign oil tankers are that concerned they can pay for their own security. The US paying for security of foreign owned tankers is just socialism for rich foreign owners courtesy of the US. Hopefully this will never happen
3 Likes
Any of the ships could be U.S. Flagged, yet they donât want to pay U.S. taxes, yet they want U.S. taxpayers to pay for their protection, and have U.S. Marines risk their lives to guard them.
Fuck That
When they call their jobs in U.S. Union Halls, we can reconsider
3 Likes
That was the entire reason the US Navy was founded.
2 Likes
Quite true. It was founded to protect the interests of the rich as history tells us. Seems not much has changed.
1 Like
Unless I am mistaken, the protection was provided to US commerce exclusively. Does oil on a foreign registered and crewed tanker bound for the US qualify as a US commerce interest?
5 Likes
An interesting historical (but by no means perfect) parallel:
The Barbary Wars of two centuries ago. The Barbary pirates had been extorting money from European countries for hundreds of years. Any ships passing that part of the Med, including British and French ships, were subject to capture. European kings paid tribute because it cost less than going to war with the Barbary States.
The USA initially did so, too. Then a new Administration decided it would go to war to maintain free shipping lanes. A matter of commercial interests. Also, to keep sailors on American ships from being enslaved (though not all sailors on American ships were Americans).
The US Navy/Marines were sent in. The war was won. Lauded today as a huge victory, and a testing ground for American naval might. Even celebrated in the Marine Corps hymn.
But at the time the war was controversial. A lot of people had been in favor of continuing to paying tribute. And the war at first was a fiasco. A series of humiliating losses. American naval ships were captured by the pirates. Imagine if outrage-media existed then.
1 Like
Has any foreign shipowner/manager, or even charterer, requested US armed guards on their ships?
Yes
Owners should hire Wagner to protect their tankers:
They are cheap
Donât care about ROE
Who cares if they are captured, no-one is going to pay ransom
Keeps them off the streets and out of third world countries
Just lock up the bar and any domestic animals
1 Like
That was short, sweet and to the point.
I presume your source is top secret?
Any of your sources say anything about which flag state that approved having armed US Marines onboard vessels in their register?
why are we putting the American military in harms way and the expense of American navy assets. the UAE should be suppling the security and paying for it. mercenaries are everywhere and the UAE has the money. We were self sufficient with regard to oil during the last administration NOW THIS.
3 Likes
An article with a broader perspective. FWIW, Iâve no foreign policy expertise.
IDK whatâs happening in the PG, different actors have different incentives.
Sal Mercogliano
1 Like
Exactly. Reflag and receive benefits. . . oh, wait, that might cost $$$$$, , , , ,