Posted on 02/23/2007 5:31:04 PM PST by blam
American armada prepares to take on Iran
By Damien McElroy aboard USS Eisenhower
Last Updated: 1:09am GMT 24/02/2007
It is four and a half acres of US power in the middle of the Arabian Sea but the influence of USS Dwight D Eisenhower stretches hundreds of miles.
The aircraft carrier, backed by its sister vessel, a handful of destroyers and a shoal of support ships, has placed a ring of steel around an increasingly unstable region.
While the Eisenhower is ostensibly assisting US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is increasingly occupied by the looming threat of Iran.
Recent tensions between the US and Iran over Teheran's meddling in Iraq and attempts to build a nuclear bomb have raised the prospect of its third regional war in a decade.
The addition of a second aircraft carrier to its strike groups has fuelled the belief that the US is gearing up for a fight with Iran. Not since the Iraq war in 2003 has America amassed so much fire power around the Persian Gulf.
As flagship of the Fifth Fleet, the Eisenhower welcomed the arrival of the second Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS John C Stennis, and its accompanying destroyers on Tuesday.
Captain Dan Cloyd, the Eisenhower's commanding officer, compared the situation with the international tension of the Cold War.
"There was a time when we had two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean," he told The Daily Telegraph. "The world changes and we adapt."
The quietly spoken Capt Cloyd embraced the suggestion that the dual deployment is at the forefront of efforts to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, pointing out that his maritime assets have been tasked to quash any challenge to global security.
"Our presence here is an affirmation of our resolve to engage with the nations of the region either where we share common goals or where we face challenges."
The Eisenhower has more than 5,000 people on board and its range of missions is virtually limitless.
As it patrols the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz, the Eisenhower ensures the safe passage of oil tankers. It also prevents the trading routes being used to transport materials that would help rogue nations build a nuclear weapon.
Capt Cloyd said: "Our maritime security mission is about denying the use of the seas to any potential spread of weapons of mass destruction."
Iran's belligerent posture has increased the challenges facing the Eisenhower since it was deployed to the Middle East last October. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the Fifth Fleet, issued a stark warning that Iran risks triggering an "accidental war" during aggressive military manoeuvres.
During the Great Prophet 2 missile test in November, the Islamic Republic fired a Shabab missile into the six-mile corridor of shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. In such a constricted corridor, the results could have been disastrous.
With Teheran's real strategic intentions unclear, the US takes the threats made very seriously. "They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Adml Walsh said. "It is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."
US commanders ascribe the increase in instability to increasingly deliberate aggressive actions by Teheran. For that reason the deployment of the carriers is designed to intensify pressure on Iran to step back from the brink.
The first shot will not be an American shot. A fanatic, on the Iranian side, will have the honors. After that, the momentum will be too great to stop the train. There will be a response. Muted, perhaps. The response to the response is key. Iran holds their future in their own hands. They'd best fear Israel more.
Bon ami !!! Beaucoup Bateau !!! Fais do do Flambeau ??
LOL,,,tired now,,,I learned to cuss in 178 languages,,,
Everybody at the UN will understand...;0)
I agree with you, and we're going to have to do it before the RATS tie President Bush's hands with some French legislation! There's coming a point in time that Iran will have nukes and they won't hesitate to use them on Israel, or the US. They've got to be stopped. I really hate to see any more innocent people die, but they are going to have to overthrow that nut, Ahmadinejad before Israel or the US are forced to attack. IF either one of us, (or both) are forced to take action, it's going to be a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, and it's going to produce lots of new terrorists, but I'd rather fight them before they get the nukes.
I checked where we have bases in the area. We do not, at least that I could find, have a base in Turkmenistan. They turned our offer down.
We do have airbases (I think - old info) in Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Both of those could be used for a Caspian routed strike on Tehran.
Flying from Afghanistan direct into Iran would be shorter - but still longer than carrier based strikes from the Persian Gulf. Plus you have the added risk of more time and distance over enemy territory.
I kinda think that the initial strikes on Tehran would come from long-range B-1, B-2 and Tomahawks. Which means distance is not a problem. This would go on until much of the anti-aircraft capability is neutralized. Then the carrier based stuff could do the low level precision stuff.
Unless Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs get religion soon (pun intended), I suspect we'll know in the coming months.
Just as a side note, B-1 Lancer bombers have been seen over Baghdad - first time since 2003....a non-too-subtile message to Iran.
Now, would we do that? LOL.
A Lawyer? Yegads, who let you on the forem?
I thought that quote was from Pelosi or Durbin.
French legislation? What do Democrats have to do with the French?
Nah. Why would they plan to have two engagements when one good one would have done the job.
You are more knowledgeable in military matters than I am, that's for sure. Caspian sea = one more area to guard = spread too thin. That was the fake-out of the beach landing in kuwait, 1991, iraqi troops diverted and out of the REAL action.
The only real war experience the iranians have had was the 8 year long war with iraq, which was inconclusive, just excess mouths on both sides no longer needing to be fed(malthusian solution). Now the municipal elections have brought up the guns vs butter issue for the iranian people. Do they want to be dragged back to the barbaric jihad of the 9th century, or be welcomed into the 21st century?
Jesus said it best : when you see a king coming at you with 3 times your army, best send an ambassage. If the iranian nutjobs didnt get the message of a 3 week campaign to take down saddam's army 5 years ago, and still mouth off like punks, then we HAVE to show them again who's BOSS.
Look at the checkerboard : india/afghanistan/UAE/kuwait/iraq/israel/turkey/egypt vs saudi/jordan/syria/pakistan/iran...libya knuckled under, algerian military keeps its nutjobs in check, morrocco(sp?) is not all that hostile to us. And so when the nutjob looks around, there isn't much in the way of allies he can COUNT on. Lip service? No end of THAT, but HARD support = little more than fellow suicide bombers.
These nutjobs just don't really understand why we are the sole remaining superpower left, the super PREDATOR. All of our previous wars have but sharpened our teeth, we do a good job just killing EACH OTHER off as others who get in our way. Movie : PATTON.
And yet we are generous to a fault, look at all the MONEY we are sinking into iraq to rebuild it to modern standards. We do that with every country we conquer, what other empire in history has done anything like that on the SCALE we do? As a shriner : a plug : what other country in the WORLD has 22 hospitals that treat crippled and burned children for FREE, often at a cost of $300,000/child(or more), over 400,000 kids in 80 years?
So it comes down to a simple question : who takes out the iranian nutjobs/terrorists? We/israel with a LOT of military ordinance and LOTS of collateral damage, or the iranian people in a second revolution? Its getting to be CRUNCH time folks...
Erasmus was a 13th-14th century philosopher and theologian. He was also a correspondent and friend of Martin Luther.
I am well aware of Erasmus. He and Luther were a focal point of my undergrad studies.
Then I'm surprised that you would compare a man of his stature to Pelosi and Durbin.
"The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war,"
-Erasmus
Because this is something that can easily come from their mouths....
Erasmus was wrong. They are wrong.
P.S. I do not believe that Erasmus was such a great intellect.
"A Lawyer? Yegads, who let you on the forum?"
Well, I did see where he'd expressed some remorse over that character flaw.....
Besides, he's ex-Naval Air, so I'll vouch for him. (I recall something in the CPO Manual about Care and Feeding of Junior Officers...)
They surrender. LOL! IOW, The RATS are making legislation to surrender. :o)
Actually, since I was born, the French have a better military track record than the Americans.
The French withdrew from Algeria, and from Beirut.
The Americans also withdrew from Beirut after the same incident, and the Americans withdrew from Vietnam.
The American-sponsored invasion of Cuba was defeated.
The Americans withdrew from Mogadishu.
The Americans withdrew in disorder from their disastrous mission into Iran.
I don't look back over my lifetime and see a series of glorious American victories and French humiliations. I see a series of American humiliations and few French committments of force. Where they HAVE committed force, as in the Gulf War, or in Afghanistan today, or in various regime-stabilization efforts in Africa, or in New Caledonia and even Corsica, I see the French has having prevailed.
The Fifth Republic began in 1958. Since then, France has withdrawn from Algeria (because Algeria was a mistake in the first place) and withdrawn from Beirut at about the same time the Americans did. Where have the other defeats and disasters or surrenders of the Fifth Republic been? They haven't been. Different system. Different government. More capable than the governments of old.
But unfortunately nothing we can do will stave off the eventual French surrender to their own Islamists (primarily Algerians), whom they foolishly thought would assimilate and become French -- an incurable/terminal mistake.
C’est la vie, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.