The Pirates of Finance

In what seemed like the longest standoff in U.S. History, Captain Phillips was safely rescued Easter Sunday, at the expense of 3 Somali “pirates.” Great. We, as a nation, have reason to be proud.

And really worried.

Not only does the U. S. military have a responsibility to protect the homeland, but many of our interests abroad. This cannot be debated; it is a necessity. But with this act of piracy, something hardly new to this region, we are spending resources on protecting those that 1. Willingly put themselves in harm’s way, and 2. Could, at additional cost, be protecting themselves.
The inherent dangers in this part of the world are no secret. Even before this particular act pushed it into the spotlight, stories on piracy were not uncommon on every news channel. Training is routinely done to prepare crews for a pirate attack. Nothing that happened in this case was a surprise.

When something of value is open to obvious danger, additional measures are taken. Armored cars are aptly named for a reason. Every day, vehicles carrying millions of dollars deliver to hundreds of banks under the protection of those with holstered weapons and extensive training, paid for by the banks that employ them. As necessary as the banking industry is to the economic state of the country, the government does not pay for this service. You and I do, in the form of bank and interest fees. It is, quite simply, a cost of doing business. Pretending that the danger of a robbery is not real will not make it go away, it must be taken seriously and accounted for.
The shipping industry has made a calculated risk. Last year, there were approximately 111 successful hijackings of ships in this region. Of the thousands of ships going through annually, this is a tiny percentage, something the industry has taken into account when calculating the potential cost of ransom fees vs. the cost of arming the ships. This is a conscious decision on how to deal with a very real and documented risk.

So why is the American public paying for military support of this private industry? If large banks suddenly decided to deliver cash in unarmed minivans, should the government be called on to provide security? If I, as a white man, decide to open a 24 hour bodega in Harlem, should I really be surprised if I am robbed? Or is it on me to pay for an armed guard at the door? If I choose not to have one, who is to blame when the obvious happens?

These companies have made conscious and calculated decisions, based solely on financial reasons, not to pay for armed guards, despite knowing that the unarmed or poorly armed ships are the exact target of the pirates. They then send these unarmed ships to the region most known for pirate activity, expecting that some will actually be hijacked, but because the percentage is low enough, it is fiscally worth the risk. Completely ignored is the fact that no insurance will come anywhere close to issuing a policy for the trip, for this exact reason. If something goes wrong, despite being expected, the Military serves as the ultimate insurance policy, with the taxpayer footing the enormous bill.

Just add the shipping industry to the list of bailout recipients.