Posted on 04/29/2008 9:49:24 PM PDT by STARWISE
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday the deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf should be seen as a "reminder" of US military power in the region.
But Gates flatly denied that the United States was preparing the ground for military strikes against Iran.
"I don't think we'll have two carriers for a protracted period of time. So I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder," Gates told reporters here during a visit with Mexican officials.
The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Gulf follows a noticeable hardening in US rhetoric against Iran for meddling in Iraq and playing a destabilizing role in the region.
Commander Jeff Davis, a US Navy spokesman, said the Lincoln would overlap with the departing carrier USS Harry Truman by "no more than a day or two." He said it was a "routine regular replacement."
CBS News reported that the Pentagon has ordered new options be drawn up for attacking Iran and that the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell Iran to stop meddling or else.
But when asked here whether the Pentagon was preparing for military strikes against Iran, Gates said flatly, "No."
The stepped-up US rhetoric against Iran has come against the backdrop of an intensifying violence in Iraq as US forces clash with Shiite militia "special groups" that the US military say are backed by Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at afp.google.com ...
The plane is buzzing the “boat”.
Or, maybe it’s a fly-by? ;o)
.
Super animation potlatch!
During the 3 months out of 12 that they are home (3 months, not 6 months). That allows seven carriers to be deployed -- Northern Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, West Pacific (and the three at home resting should be ready to go on a week's notice). No? The USS Saratoga was in port for repair and overhaul maybe 12 months out of 45 months during WWII. One deployed stretch lasted 12 months. There was a war on then. There is a war on now.
Thanks devolve, I first posted it on another thread and pinged you there.
No.
First, are we at peace or war? If we are at peace, then yes, we need lots and lots of R&R for crews, down time for ships, keep deployments short and save lots of money on operating expenses.
If we are at war, then rules change, and life can get tougher on our armed forces.
Second, the simplest way to "surge" forces is just what the Navy is doing now -- overlap deployments for a time. It's not a long term increase, but does "send a message" when needed.
Third, we might note, what most countries call their "carriers," we would call "light carriers," and don't have any. But we do have a number of carrier-like amphibious assault ships. These can also send a pretty potent "message" of their own...
Until you overwork your crews and they leave the service in waves. Then your ships are worthless if you have nobody to man them.
There is no reason for deploying the number of carriers he is suggesting. There is no need for three in the Gulf and two in the Med. One can handle all the needs of Iraq in combination with the air force.
Exactly.
The enemy needs to see one carrier group, and to
understand that if he messes with it, he'll face eleven more, plus
untold other military assets which
will definitely screw up his morning, and
make it very difficult for him to:
"HAVE A NICE DAY!"
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.