The U.S. Navy Does Not Protect Cargo Shipping

Based on this poll (question 39), about 64% of Americans agree that “The U.S. must maintain its current naval forces in Asia and the Pacific to protect the cargo ships that carry most of [the] trade between the United States and Asia.” 27% have no opinion and 9% disagree.

What the vast majority of Americans do not know is that the U.S. Navy doesn’t protect cargo ships in the Pacific or anywhere else. My authority on this is Milan Vego, a professor at the Joint Military Operations Department at the Naval War College in his paper Trade Protection.

In May 2012, a U.S. ship threatened by pirates was saved by a warship of the navy of Iran, yes, the very same Islamic Republic of Iran.

It can be argued strongly that the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet is obsolete, at best useful against third-rate armed forces.

Over in the UK, “The UK’s first private navy in almost 200 years has been set up by a group of pioneering businessmen, former marines and retired captains and soldiers to defend shipping off the coast of east Africa from the threat of pirates.

“The navy will be funded by shipping firms in much the same way as the cargo ships sailing under Russian, Chinese and Indian flags hire private convoys.”

“They are frustrated at the inability of the Royal Navy, NATO, the European Union Naval Task Force and other navies to guarantee security for shipping in an area of ocean the size of North America.”

The Chief Executive says “They can’t do the job because they haven’t got the budget and deploying a billion-pound warship against six guys [pirates] with $500 of kit is not a very good use of the asset.”

It’s the same with the U.S. Navy. Its thrust is offensive, not defensive. Vego says that protecting shipping is now and always has been given short shrift. An “offensive spirit still permeates the U.S. Navy leadership today. Although the protection of shipping is one of the Navy’s core missions, far more attention and resources are given to offensive missions such as strike warfare and ballistic missile defense.” According to Vego, “the Navy’s focus is on protecting military shipping.” Vego says “There is not a single document in use by the Navy that explains the employment of combat forces to defend and protect maritime trade.”

Vego goes on to criticize government inefficiency: “Responsibility for ensuring safety of merchant shipping, military sealift forces and port security is highly fragmented because authority and responsibilities are divided among the military and numerous federal agencies.” Later he writes “As in many other warfare areas, the Navy lacks a coherent and compressive approach in resolving successful defense of merchant shipping and military sealift forces.”

Neither centralization nor a coherent approach will transform the Navy into an effective agency of protection. Inefficiency, waste, featherbedding, mis-directed resources, failure to plan properly, high costs, and failure to deliver services effectively are hallmarks of every government everywhere. These are part and parcel of the structure and incentives of governments.

The American public looking at old war films about Victory at Sea, or looking at today’s ships launching cruise missiles, or visiting huge ships that are docked, or looking at navy ships launching aircraft in Hollywood movies to the accompaniment of stirring music, is being led up the garden path. Any number of nations can now put together an armed strategy and force structure to neutralize the U.S. Navy in any serious war. Some are already well along the road to doing this. In any serious war, the Navy would be unable to protect the shipping lanes. It would fail at this very basic mission. Prof. Vego says there are no real or realistic plans to do so, even if the fleets survived attacks.

The existing safety of cargo shipping is not due to escorts by the U.S. Navy. It could not do it if it wanted to. The cost would be prohibitive to use hugely expensive naval vessels and crews for the number of cargo containers entering U.S. ports (some 9 million a year). Ships under threat are better off with some weapons of their own and/or small armed escorts. They are better off in convoys. The extensive open seas provide a built-in protection against many threats.

There are private services that supply armed protection such as Armed Maritime Security. There are said to be 140 companies operating in this space. 80% of container ships have armed guards.

The market sector has risen to the piracy protection challenge. It can rise and has risen to other protection challenges as well.

Share

1:11 pm on December 11, 2014