Mailbag: Readers Respond to "The Failure of U.S. Maritime Policy"

MarEx readers respond to Tuesday's Editorial, "The Failure of U.S. Maritime Policy" by Editor-in-Chief, Tony Munoz. 

John H. Shanahan, Jr., AICP, MIPI - Ireland

Tony,

I read with interest and much appreciation your essays on American maritime policy (or sadly, perhaps the lack of it) that appear in "The Maritime Executive," most recently this week.  Thank you for each of them and for your continuing efforts to persuade (1.) your readers to take action and (2.) Congress to support the American maritime industry.

The strength and security of an American maritime industry, fully engaged with policies that support America's strategic interests and flying America's flag throughout the world on ships manned by American officers and crews, is key to America's long-term national security interests.  Your writings indicate that you fully understand and support this objective -- and I appreciate the work that you and your publication do to advance this objective.

National security is more -- much more -- than simply creating a "Defense Department" and a "Department of Homeland Security" and expecting that these agencies will accomplish that objective.  They are, frankly, yesterday's answers to yesterday's threats.  Today, national security means security in the domain of communications and cyber-communications.  And it means security projected into the maritime domain -- economic security as well as military/naval security.  If our national economy cannot rely on American ships to handle our international trade activities, we are left to put those activities at risk with national interests not necessarily aligned with our own.  (You have sited the Maersk trading policies with Iran as a case in point.) 

The early lessons of Alfred Thayer Mahan, adjusted to the modern communications/ICT environment of the global marketplace we live in, should not be neglected.  Perhaps a wiser government might transform a current DOD/DHS and long-neglected MARAD into a Department of National Security (DONS), include robust undertakings for cyber-security and the security of maritime commerce, and use this new paradigm to address the objectives you champion.  One wonders... and asks, "why not?"

I look forward to reading more of your work and thank you again for all of it.

Kind regards,

John

-----

Andrew McAleer - MCA shipbrokers - Greenwich, CT

Dear Mr. Munoz

I read your editorial today with interest, as I read all of your op-eds.  I also re-read Steve Carmel's essay in Information Dissemination and disagree with your conclusions.  I saw nothing disrespectful or disparaging to the US Merchant Marine industry in Mr. Carmel's essay.  His focus was on foreign commerce and the absence of US Flag from commercial overseas trade.  Mr Carmel's essay was thought-provoking and identified a vast, untapped potential for US flag, were the country to look beyond conventional trades, such as the Jones Act, military and US cargo preference.  To dispel any doubt about Mr Carmel's laudatory wishes for the US merchant fleet, it should be noted that his company has grown its US Flag tanker ownership from zero to four ships over the past 10 years, all trading internationally, and none with government subsidy.  This was the result of Mr Carmel's vision and John Reinhart's leadership at Maersk.  These are not the acts of “anti-U.S. maritime sentiment.”   

-----

CAPT George E. Edenfield '79, Master Mariner

Dear Mr. Munoz,

I was deeply disappointed when reading your op-ed. Not in the editorial, but in the apparent comments by Stephen Carmel, Senior Vice President for Maritime Services at Maersk Line. Steve is a highly respected classmate, KP ’79. I find it difficult to believe that Steve would make such disparaging comments about the USMM and, albeit indirectly, his alma mater, classmates, and alumni.

Just so happens that a fellow classmate is RADM Mark “Buz” Buzby, USN and Commander of Military Sealift Command. Buz was here yesterday for the Commencement of the class of 2012. I can assure you that the approximately 75 new leaders hired by MSC from the class of 2012 to “…work at ‘hybrid organizations’ like the Military Sealift Command (MSC)…” are every bit as qualified deepwater mariners as those trained and certified by any other nation.

Maybe Steve has changed over the years, as I am sure that we all have. But that is still no excuse.

Regards,

George

-----

Mr. Munoz,

Please thank Mr. Carmel for his forty (40) year old observation and information.

Perhaps he should sever ties with "Mother Maersk" and do something about it - but he should first practice saying "would you like fries with that Sir...for 39 cents I'll supersize that...." - because as Ronald Reagan set it up in 1986, MAERSK IS THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE...Buckwheat!

Do your homework and keep quiet and keep handing out those butter cookies at Christmas and listen to the 21 year old trainee they sit in your office every year!!!

He's your next boss and reports to CPH every day...think you are in charge?  hah!

Wake up Mr. Carmel....and make sure you do what Jens, Tor, Hans and Berger tell you to do...and be thankful...because if they go - you are out of work....

p.s.  Build a few ships in American yards and ask the unions for a"'sweetheart deal" to get started....let us know how you do....

-cfb