EckerNet.Com

I wrote previously that we had sent two aircraft carriers and their battle groups to join two battlegroups already in the Persian Gulf, and about the significance of this move. At the time I theorized that the move was related to a move against Iran, but then later thought that perhaps we have advance knowledge of the strike on Georgia. Turns out, not only was I right on both counts, but what I then termed as “not a trivial chess piece in a global chessboard” is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is a massive naval fleet heading for the gulf, most of which just completed Operation Brimstone, a joint US/UK/French/Brazil naval wargame. From descriptions of Operation Brimstone, it appears it concentrated on international cooperation to conduct military operations in littoral waters. All handy skills to have if one is planning a international naval blockade of another country.

Previously, I was aware of only the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan and their battle groups heading for the Gulf. Now it appears they are joined by the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship (similar to the Peleliu), the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier, and her battle group, along with assorted French naval assets including the nuclear attack submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. By virtually any measure, that is a massive amount of firepower, especially combined with the forces already in the Gulf. Forces which include the USS Abraham Lincoln and her battlegroup, the USS Peleliu and her battle group, at least one US nuclear attack sub and miscellaneous other forces. This is the largest buildup of US allied naval forces in the Gulf since the invasion of Iraq.

There are several possible reasons for this buildup of forces:
1) The US and several allies have decided to enforce at least a partial naval blockade of Iran
2) The US and several allies are preparing for an Israeli and/or US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities
3) The US and several allies are preparing for an invasion of Iran.

Option #3 is the least likely, as this buildup is happening absent any major redeployment of air and ground forces. Both of these would be necessary for an invasion. Also with it’s easily deployed ground forces already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the potential of action in Georgia. The timing of this, make option #3 severely unlikely.

Option #2 while possible, has become increasingly unlikely. Israel certainly has the capability. And if they feel the US isn’t gonna do it, then they may feel the need to step up. And they may very well be at that stage. However, the US just rejected a request from Israel for military equipment necessary to make a strike on Iran. So clearly the Israelis lack some equipment necessary to make a strike. Even if they could manufacture it themselves, they are clearly not at a stage were a strike on Iran is imminent hence no need for a force buildup.

Which leaves us option #3, which I think it increasingly likely, especially considering that a majority of the forces involved just participated in a training exercise practicing precisely this. Plus a naval blockade would be a likely next step in the escalation of force to get Iran to comply with UN demands. While Iran is rich in oil, it has limited domestic refining capability. Which means while it exports lots of oil, it also has to import benzene in massive quantities. So a naval blockade would cripple their economy and that tends to draw attention.

Now certainly a much smaller force would certainly be capable of a naval blockade. The fact that such a large force is being arrayed also says quite a bit about the operational planning that went into this, and tends to imply two different possibilities.

First that it was considered possible that such a blockade would be resisted either by Iran or others (i.e. Russia). In the latter case, this formidable force would likely be intended to make intervention seem futile, or at least impractical. While Russia does have forces in the area, most notably the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, in the Mediterranean, it’s aircraft would have to pass over Iraq, and the US forces deployed there, in order to reach this flotilla.

Almost certainly the Iranians would attempt to resist as well, through quite a few different methods. Air attacks from land based aircraft would seemingly be met by aircraft from the four different carriers. Helicopters from the amphibious assault ships would likely be tasked to anti-sub detail. And the numerous warships in the battlegroups would fend of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard high-speed boats, functioning as suicide boats, similar to the attack on the USS Cole.

Almost certainly there would be an attempt by Iran to close the oil route chokepoint (only 21 miles wide) of the Strait of Hormuz, since one side is controlled by Iran, and the other by US allies United Arab Emirates and Oman. With the forces currently being positioned in the Gulf, it seems very likely that the US would be able to keep this route open, and prevent any attempts by Iran to break through the blockade.

Of course, a naval blockade is generally considered an act of war. So it’s unlikely that everything will be just this simple. The board is set, the chess pieces are moving. This game is about to get interesting.

Late last week I saw an article that the US was sending two aircraft carriers, and their battle groups, to the Gulf. The US routinely maintains a carrier presence in the Gulf and it’s common for carriers to rotate in their position. However, the current US carrier in the gulf, the USS Abraham Lincoln, arrived in March of 2008, and is scheduled for a seven month deployment, making her departure date October of 2008. This makes it highly unlikely that the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan are heading to the gulf to relieve the Lincoln of her station.

In addition, the Lincoln is not alone either, along with her own battle group, there is also a battle group centered around the USS Peleliu. The Peleliu is an amphibious assault ship, the home of lots of helicopters, Harrier jets and a few tons of Marines. And apparently a US nuclear sub just entered the gulf as well.

A large shift in the distribution of forces is enough to peak my interest, especially when it involves a relatively large number of a very finite set of a particular unit. Carriers are by their very nature very expensive, and very valuable. They are not a trivial chess piece in a global chessboard. A US carrier entering any area instantly become one of the largest cities, most advanced hospital and most powerful military asset in the area.

They are also machinery, which means they take maintenance. It’s one of the reasons why the threat of China building an aircraft carrier is less than an immediate danger. To be truly a factor they would need three of them. Because at that point it becomes possible to always have one deployed. The US maintains a force of eleven carriers. And there are always at least a few down for maintenance and others that are busy with training and trials of new equipment. This leaves a relatively few available for action.

So I took a look at our carrier force and what they’re up to….

USS Kitty Hawk - With it’s home port in Japan, it is the ever present thorn in China’s side and one of the biggest trump cards in any hostile intentions China has towards Taiwan. With the Olympics also going on, it is pretty much unavailable for anything short of a foreign invasion of the United States.

USS Enterprise - The Big E is most definitely out of action. She’s in drydock for an much needed overhaul.

USS Nimitz - The Nimitz is down for planned incremental availability until December. While she could set sail if needed, really she’s down for repairs, upgrades and other miscellaneous maintenance.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower - She’s somewhere in the Atlantic doing qualifications. She’s be easy to pull into action. However, it’s also nice to maintain a presence in the Atlantic, it being a pretty big ass pond and all that.

USS Carl Vinson - Most certainly down, as she is down for refueling. Which for a nuclear powered carrier means she’s pretty much in pieces in a drydock. She’s unavailable even if the fate of the free world depending on her sailing tomorrow.

USS Theodore Roosevelt - Just set sail for the gulf, for unknown reasons.

USS Abraham Lincoln - Already in the gulf supporting the war in Afghanistan.

USS George Washington - In dock for repairs following a onboard fire while enroute to permanently relieve the Kitty Hawk in Japan. Not available for action until the end of August.

USS John C Stennis - Prepping for her next deployment in the Pacific. Once again, it’s nice to maintain a presence in a pond the size of the Pacific. Currently the Kitty Hawk in Japan, is the closest we got.

USS Ronald Reagan - She was in the Pacific, now steaming for the Gulf.

When you break it down, our carrier force while not exactly stretched thin, does exactly have carriers to spare either. So committing at least two and potentially three carriers to one region is a significant statement. Originally, when seeing the story, I thought perhaps the United States was either worried about, or preparing for an Israeli strike on Iran, which they’ve been threatening to do.

Now with the sudden war between Russia and Georgia, I have to wonder if perhaps the US had advanced warning of it and decided they needed more assets in field in case we had to make a move to protect US interests. Either way, this move is worthy of notice and certainly warrants keeping an eye on the region because something big is either happening or about to happen.

While understanding that every American soldier lost is a tragedy, this still seems damn impressive…

Mullah Omar may have wanted to see his metrics improve from the 100-1 loss ratio in Kandahar last month. Well, those numbers certainly changed — from humiliating to catastrophic [165:1]

Granted it’s a rough estimate, but even considering ballpark figures that’s damn impressive.  And it says a hell of alot about the efficiency of our forces there.  Plus the idea that there are 165 more terrorists at room temperature makes me very pleased.  On the other hand, there is grieving US family out there and suddenly 165 seems a very small number.

However, I’ve been unable to come up with even a ballpark figure for Iraq that I have any degree of confidence in, although these guys are making an effort.  Certainly the styles of battle are apples and basketballs, so I’m not sure one can make any meaningful comparisons.  Plus obviously something as simple as a kill-ratio does not win a war, nor even a battle.  As evidence of that, there were plenty of WWII battles in which the Germans and Japanese possessed overwhelmingly superior kill ratios.

However, it does go to support the flypaper theory of attracting lots of fanatical martyrs to the battlefield were they can be removed from the equation.  Although, how Allah is coming up with enough virgins, simply boggles the mind, even if just from a logistical standpoint.

Most of you may have read about the little international incident between Israel and Syria recently. Basically Syria fired upon some Israeli aircraft it claims entered it’s airspace, didn’t hit them but did manage to chase them off. Now Israel is refusing to acknowledge the incident, but Syria is claiming it happened. The US isn’t commenting either.

So it’s basically an international he (Israel) said, she (Syria) said….but something is striking me as not making sense here. For at least a couple reasons.

Jettisoned Fuel Tanks

The current version of the story indicates that when they were fired upon the aircraft jettisoned fuel tanks.

I say the current, because earlier in the day news reports indicated the aircraft “pushed out” their fuel tanks and bombs. Ok I don’t think aircraft have “pushed out” bombs since WWI. And extra fuel tanks are usually attached externally. However, I’m willing to chalk that up to a journalist not knowing what they were talking about….if not combined with other discrepancies.

Now they only fuel tanks being jettisoned, no mention of bombs. Fair enough, normally that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. It’s common practice to attach external tanks and use that fuel up enroute to the target, jettison them as you enter hostile territory to improve aerodynamic performance.

One problem though….Israel doesn’t use external fuel tanks. They’ve rather cleverly come up with what they call Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT). They’ve retrofitted their F-16s (designated F-16Is) with them, and their F-15s (designated F-15Is) were manufactured with them. They serve the same purpose but they conform to the aircraft itself and as a result have minimal effect on aircraft handling, and they can’t be jettisoned.

That alone raises all sorts of red flags

From the Northern Border

Supposedly they infiltrated Syria’s NORTHERN border from the Mediterranean?? Take a look at a map of the area. That’s not even close to Israel, and it’s not close to anything that Israel would likely be flying over. Israeli pilots are very good at what they do, not that you’d really have to be to not mistake Syria for Israel.

Exactly how were these established as Israeli aircraft? Because if the Israelis just wanted to mess with the Syrians or test their defenses, much like the Russians have been doing to Norway lately, it would make more sense to do it on the southern border of Syria. Not only for logistically reasons but also it’s closer to home just in case something goes wrong.

Headed East

So four or five Israeli aircraft penetrated their northern border and were heading east?? Let’s take a look at that map again…

Only thing within range of these aircraft would be either Iraq, Iran, or Syria itself. All three of which are not a target that you would send in only four aircraft for. Much less if your route to target takes you through hostile territory.

Syria On The Pipe? 

Personally there are too many things that don’t make sense about this story for me to accept it as presented. I have to assume one of the following happened:

1. Syria is just making stuff up
2. Israel is probing Syrian defense in a very unorthodox manner using aircraft that I’m not sure they have in their inventory
3. Aircraft did penetrate Syrian airspace but they were not Israeli aircraft
4. Some very critical details were left out of this story.

Other than the above, I have to call bullshit on this story.

UPDATE : Capt Ed smells something funny as well

It appears as if Britain, already a mere shadow of it’s former greatness, has decided to finally end all speculation and formally declare it’s impotence.  Essentially they have agreed to meet to discuss how to prevent future boundary disputes, which to all but the most optimistic sounds like they are basically admitting that they crossed into Iranian territory.

And from the sounds of it, they should even have become hostages.  In addition to the Cromwell, it appears the sailors had plenty of other support nearby, including US forces, whom weren’t alerted to the situation until it was too late.  Politically correct impotence at it’s greatest

If you think this isn’t going to teach the Iranians that not only can they get away with stuff like this, but they’ll be rewarded when they do, you’re fooling yourself.  This will only embolden them, much like embarassing the US back in 1979 did (thanks alot Carter).

Thank you for proving there isn’t anything you won’t roll over for.  You have now shown you won’t stand up for your own people.  What lesson should your allies and those that depend on you for their protection draw from this episode?

It is said that history repeats itself, and while it’s hardly an impeccable historical reference, one only need to recall this tale of how a fledgling city-state of Rome dealt with hostage-taking, and began their rise to prominence.  A few lessons can be drawn there me thinks.

And yes I’m aware that the Iranians appear to have done this in retaliation for a US raid on an Iranian laison office.  Which only serves to prove the point more.  We offended them but they didn’t dare hit us, so they picked the weakest player on the team to hit.

Heh Brits, buck up buttercup, time to play ball.  We’ll back you up every step, but you’ve gotten take the lead for your own men (and woman).

Ok I’ll admit I’m a little confused over this Iran capturing British sailors as they were conducting UN-authorized searches.

Now first of all, Iran claims they are gonna interrogate them and try them for espionage, which, as Capt Ed points out, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Where is the outcry for that?? If all those assholes in Gitmo are supposed to be considered soldiers, surely a bunch of British sailors in uniform, on a British Navy boat are considered soldiers. Yet no outcry from the local media, which isn’t suprising because they are stupid, so they can’t help it. But heh UN and Amnesty International, where the hell are you on this one??? Where is our outcry about this one?? Prove you’re worth your weight. And why isn’t the Bush administration pushing that issue. We’re getting pounded internationally because supposedly we don’t follow the Geneva Convention, why not point out to the world the double standard and watch them attempt to explain it.

Also, how the hell did they get captured. I mean sure, you’re a dozen sailors and you got a warship bearing down on your little dinghy, fair enough, not much you can do. But they were in a dinghy basically, that was launched from a British warship. Anyone else have this same question?? What the hell was the HMS Cromwell doing during this time?? Did this happen during their afternoon tea or what? Your shipmates are in harms way, how about a little something? Why did you even allow them so close? I should sure hope a US vessel wouldn’t allow their mates to get ambushed or even get in the area without a challenge.

And finally why the silence from the US. Hello, at the very least the Brits are a NATO ally. A little loyalty maybe? Not to mention they’ve been at our side through both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now they suffer a bit of an incident and we’re standing silent? At the very least I hope we’re play a role behind the scenes, because our current posture doesn’t seem very ally like.

UPDATE : So now Iran has paraded captured sailors on TV.  And where is the outrage by the usual suspects?  Where is the cries for the violations of the Geneva Convention?  When video of US troops rounding up prisoners during the march to Baghdad were broadcast, everyone was raising holy hell.  When we showed pictures of Saddam in captivity to reassure the Iraqi public, it was a horrible miscarriage of justice.  Now no outcry.  Congrats world, you have shown your true colors

LOL, so Syria thinks we attacked our own embassy. Well they are nuts that’s their right to say goofy crap. In fact it’s probably the only reason they still exist. Especially when they also utter phrases such as

“Only the Americans can succeed in carrying out an attack just 200 meters from President [Bashar] Assad’s residence in the most heavily guarded section of Syria.”

Anyone else think we should take them up on that challenge?

Thanks for teaching terrorists all over the world that kidnapping people and holding them hostage eventually pays dividends

Israel and the Palestinians have reached an agreement to swap the Israeli soldier held hostage in Gaza with imprisoned Palestinians, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted on Tuesday as saying..

I’ll try not to hold a grudge when the next American is taken hostage.

Ahhhh, how cute….Kofi wants to appoint a mediator.

U.N. chief Kofi Annan said Monday he would appoint a mediator for indirect talks between Israel and Hezbollah on the release of two abducted Israeli soldiers, the first public word of negotiations between the bitter enemies since fighting in Lebanon ended.

How nice…he’s taking a break from not implementing Security Council Resolution 1701 and 1680 (2006) because apparently he believes the unconditional release of hostages requires negotiations. Hence he’s providing a mediator. Considering Annan’s past statements I’m sure his mediator will be completely non-biased.

But seriously, considering how successful the UN, under Annan’s leadership, has been in deploying 15K UNIFIL troops in Southern Lebanon and disarming Hezbollah as required by resolutions 1701 and 1680, I can’t imagine how this would not be a success.

I fear I was correct in my prediction that the ceasefire in Lebanon would not last long. Because it has become fairly obvious that Israel did not accomplish one of it’s main goals….to destroy or severely weaken Hezbollah. And that Hezbollah will most certainly not disarm, nor will it withdraw from South Lebanon. This violates one of the central tenets of the ceasefire. And no matter how many UN troops are ineffectively standing around, it doesn’t change the fact that Hezbollah is still there and gathering strength once again.

But there is talk of a possible compromise…but as always, there is good news and there is well…

Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said.

Wow, give you three guesses what that implies. That’s right folks, Hezbollah has weapons a plenty, and a bunker under every garden gnome in Lebanon. Anyone think those are just for the next PTA meeting??

Now, some have argued that Hezbollah will face an angry public as they return to their demolished homes. However, no sooner had the ceasefire begun when Hezbollah began the work that has made it so incredibly popular amongst the Lebanon people. They’ve started investing in the community around them. And they apparently have an unlimited budget. Anyone think the Lebanon street is still gonna be angry when they get a new house and car out of the deal??

I fear that Hezbollah will only become more powerful in the aftermath of this conflict. Which basically makes this the first war that Israel has lost in it’s entire history.

But what is the alternative? Begin the fighting?? It is clear that either Israel lacks the political willpower and/or the necessary intelligence capability to finish the job. One of the major goals of the conflict should have been to cut off the head of Hezbollah. Eliminate the leaders. And sure a handle were, but by and large the leadership appears to be intact including Nasrallah. And it is fairly clear that Israel did not possess the necessary intelligence to make effective strikes on Hezbollah forces. How many times did we hear Israel make extravagent claims of killing Hezbollah leadership only to find they hit an empty bunker or a car of Lebanese soldiers?

I fear the infamous Israeli intelligence agencies have proven human after all. To begin a new conflict blind is to invite massive casualties and a potentially failed mission. But do they have any choice. It is clear their enemy wants to go another round.