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.
ping
Not thinking too hard about consequences, are you?
I am French by ethnicity, my family is French, I went to university in France (and America, where I went to military school), and have lived and worked in France for many years, but I was born in America - in Detroit, specifically - and am therefore also an American citizen, and I served for 19 years in the US Navy. My family are dual citizens. I live a trans-Atlantic existence.
And yes, my being French certainly did irritate some of my Navy colleagues, just as it irritates some of my fellow Republicans, to which I say "Go boil your bottoms you empty-headed animal foutre-wipers. I burst my pimples at you and all of your silly running-about advancing behavior! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time. Phhhhhhhhtttttt."
I was a surface warfare officer for several years, and served in the Gulf, and then I went to flight school and went back to the Gulf aboard a carrier for Desert Storm/Southern Watch. From there we went to Somalia and I flew the Marines into Mogadishu for the invasion there.
So, I am French, and American, and US Navy and not shy or apologetic about any of it. I am also a lawyer, for which I am truly sorry.
-Erasmus
"Stupid is as stupid does."
Forrest Gump.
Anyway, thank you for your service in the US Navy and the country.
Thanks for the ping, Dog.
Stennis on station, check.
Enough for me,
I'm on your side.
(But not Navy, not a lawyer; 'only' a second generation American.)
A war with Persia would be no small undertaking, especially now. For the time being, Erasmus is right.
I don't know, honestly. I don't know Admiral Fallon.
In my experience, every single Admiral I ever worked for was a competent naval commander.
Many of them were relatively difficult men. Most were alright. Some were indifferent leaders. But when it came to the technical aspects of the naval profession, I never met an incompetent skipper, and I never met an incapable admiral in the US fleet.
This is not true of foreign fleets, for the most part, which always seemed to be more social platforms than true fighting forces, with four notable exceptions: I was impressed by the Australians. Although their forces were small, they were perfectly integrable as units and even as individuals with the Americans. The Australian Navy for all intents and purposes IS the US Navy. I admit that the British, although characteristically arrogant, are also very proficient navally. The French are as professionally competent at sea as the British or the Australians, although much more effaced and not bold. The Japanese are very effaced but very, very effective, and quite bold.
Probably pound for pound, in terms of training and ruthless efficiency, the Japanese were the best naval forces I saw.
Of course naval warfare is driven by equipment, and the Americans have the best of that. That is the American secret and always has been. Better equipment and a lot more of it.
The Russians, by contrast, were very unimpressive at sea. I was involved in the first series of cross-deck landings on a Russian Navy ship back in 1992. They were personally very tough, but their ship was a rusted mess. Not professional.
The most formidable adversary at sea in the world would be the Japanese. Without American numbers and technology, all things being equal, I think they would win the majority of head-to-head fights. But modern warfare is not a duel of knights, and the Empire is an American ally anyway, and none of this has anything to do with your question, so I'll stop.
"I sometimes think in all this world the saddest thing to be...
Old Admirals who feel the wind, but never put to sea."
- Al Stewart
Thank you for your service to our country.
And you for yours.
To actually desire this war to expand into Iran at this time requires either idiocy or insanity. Quite probably, both.
Since the US military leadership is quite obviously neither, I'm sure they don't intend any such expansion.
OTOH, there is the Iranian airliner incident, lo these decades ago. Armed parties distrusting one another in close proximity is always a dangerous mix.
LOL !
I now have a mental image to go along with your posts !
Going to my Atlas to check air-miles....
When Iran orders a large with all the toppings, the USS Dwight D Eisenhower will deliver in 30 minutes or less or its free!!
remember to tip your driver.....
Yep. But remember, you and I are unpatriotic cowards for suggesting that.
You continue to surprise and amaze me. Thanks for sticking around.
> Yep. But remember, you and I are unpatriotic cowards for suggesting that.
LOL! Is that the new term of art for realism?
One would think that, if there were absolutely no other lesson taken away, the Iraq war would certainly teach that kicking the other guy's butt militarily is the easiest and least important part of winning a war these days...
The Cochon de Lait can't start till all the party-goers
arrive,,,Cocodrie is already there,,,Surge ??
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.