I disagree with this notion. I realize it seems “innovative” and “asymmetric” and (insert exciting jargon here). However, I disagree with a couple things here. https://twitter.com/WarOnTheRocks/status/1362396737571323908

First, there is a difference between a guerre de course strategy and reverting to privateers. You can decide that commerce warfare is wise (which it is), and that it potentially has important impact on an imagined war with the PRC (it does). I agree.

But naval forces can and have conducted guerre de course strategy throughout time. In the American examples often cited, commissioned warships made significant captures & impact on the wars. Most of these “lets privateer” articles advocate commerce warfare and leap to privateer.

Next, in no case did historical privateers ever arm themselves in order to take on enemy warships. You’d be an idiot as a privateer skipper to want to fight a commissioned ship toe to toe.

So this notion that “modern” “lethal” technology means it’s time to bring back privateers is simply silly. Privateers were never particularly high tech or “lethal” because they go after merchant vessels which are largely unarmed.

But my largest disagreement w/ the notion of 21st century American privateering has to the with the legal, political, and grand strategy implications. It is true, the US never formally outlawed privateering. And didn’t ratify the Treaty of Paris or Hague Conventions which did.

(Though interestingly in both cases the State Dept helped negotiate the treaties and executive branch wanted them, but Senate refused to ratify. Like UNCLOS today I guess.)

But the rest of the world did. And the rest of the world considers privateers illegal. Now, if the US was an upstart regional power, or a rising power, that was hell bent on challenging international norms, then ignoring the rest of the world makes strategic sense.

(Like, say for example, the US was throughout the long 19th century when these treaties were negotiated.)

But the US isn’t. The US is the global maritime hegemon, and the most interested defender of the norms of a free trade base liberal international order. If the US is going to hold up maritime and economic norms as a reason to contest PRC ambitions and efforts ...

... privateering goes politically, diplomatically, and strategically against US interests. If the rest of the world considers them illegal, the US would be foolish to thumb its nose at that, without realizing the rest of the strategic construct is at risk when they do.

If we were talking about an existential war between US and PRC, sure it becomes no-holds barred for survival. But we’re talking about Great Power Competition (TM). We’re taking about limited conflict. Existential/total war = nuclear war. Privateers are meaningless at that point.

So, while I appreciate appeals to the history that I study, and it’s certainly always good to do some thought experiments, I see 21st century American privateering as a foolish idea. While at the same time I whole heartedly support a discussion of 21st century guerre de course.

Just as one final note... that title is complete BS. It may be the editors fault, not the authors. It's hard to know. But privateers were not pirates. There were legal and action based differences. Calling for "the banner" is calling for out and out piracy.