Author
|
Topic: Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas. (Read 3051 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« on: 2008-03-01 11:40:55 » |
 |
US Navy flexes its muscles in front of Lebanon
Source: Telegraph
Authors: Tim Butcher
Dated: 2008-03-01
America deployed a warship off the coast of Lebanon yesterday prompting anger from Iran-backed Hizbollah and surprise from the pro-Washington Lebanese prime minister.
Fouad Saniora said that he had not requested the display of naval power.
The USS Cole, a guided missile destroyer that was almost sunk by al-Qa'eda in a terrorist attack off Yemen eight years ago, was steaming in international waters just off the Lebanese coast.
An unnamed US military source said the deployment was meant as "a show of support for regional stability" because of Washington's concern about the political crisis in Lebanon.
Squabbling between the pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian factions has paralysed Lebanese politics for months, leaving the country unable to pass any basic legislation, including the national budget, or chose a head of state or president.
Members of Hizbollah, the Lebanese Shia movement supported and financed by Teheran, were critical of the move.
"This decision proves it's the United States which is interfering in Lebanese affairs and that this interference has taken on a military slant," Hussein Hajj Hassan, a Hizbollah MP, said. [ Hermit : I wonder when Hussein Hajj Hassan thought it was not? ]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.69
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
 |
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #1 on: 2008-03-01 12:35:20 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2008-03-01 11:40:55 | ...The USS Cole, a guided missile destroyer that was almost sunk by al-Qa'eda in a terrorist attack... |
[Blunderov] Interesting semantics. An attack by a non state actor on an unambiguously military target is still considered a "terrorist" attack. The point is, I suppose, that it was by a non state actor. But by this definition even perfectly legitimate resistance movements, for instance, would be considered terrorists - even if they attacked only military targets.
Oh the hubris. Even educated journalists, who should know better, are unable to even contemplate this distinction let alone draw it. What is revealed is the implicit assumption that only the west may legitimately resort to violence. Everybody else is just a nigger.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #2 on: 2008-03-01 15:16:32 » |
|
You should know better :-)
In most Western media, the distinction between terrorism and other things is not usually determined by the methods or the target, it is merely a matter of the actors. When WE detonate a car load of explosives in a packed city street in Beirut to kill somebody WE don't like, it is another blow struck for freedom by OUR fearless defenders. When THEY get a hit in against a military target it is terrorism. When OUR allies blow up a restaurant full of schoolchildren - or soldiers, it is another blow against an evil regime, when THEIR allies blow up a column of OUR occupying forces it is terrorism.
The number of times this rule of thumb fails is small, but sometimes ought to be memorable. One case that proves that terrorism need not be perpetrated by a non-state actor was when the USA was found guilty of terrorism against Nicaragua in a judgement largely forgotten, and with the reparations awarded by the court never paid. Yet another example of how WE behave like lawless thugs, but fortunately enough for us, there is no reason for us to be any better. Who needs a World Court when WE are there to dispense freedom? As you put it, the rest of the world are our niggers.
Fondest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #3 on: 2008-03-03 11:58:35 » |
|
Lebanon: The Unknown Crisis
What is the USS Cole doing off the Lebanese coast?
[ Hermit : Justin Raimondo is the chief editor at Antiwar.com, so while this article is speculative, it is also from somebody well connected to military and diplomatic sources and practiced at the analysis of strategy in the mare's nest that is the Middle East now that 7 years of Dick Cheney and George Bush doctrine has destroyed the last vestiges of stability. Over the past 6 years his speculation has proved to be on the target more often than not, and I find this analysis cogent; but would also add to it. Firstly I think it worth observing that it is clear that Israel and the US colluded on the last Israeli invasion of the Lebanon (where the turds on the table not mentioned in the Israeli analysis of that debacle are that Olmert's reason for going to war was the undiplomatic, "George W Bush told me to;" (implicit being that Cheney and the rest of the Likudnics on the Potomac had told GW Bush this was necessary) along with the fact that the US was extremely unhappy that Israel ended the illegal attack and occupation "too early", and did not extend the war to Syria). Given the arrival of US naval forces in the area, just as Israel, having triggered an escalation in violence by imposing a siege on Gaza, engages in a massive military build-up, ostensibly to perform a ground attack into Gaza (which would be madness), I think that we should assume further collusion until proved otherwise. An additional and highly significant factor is that we are just coming into the window when military action in the Middle East becomes most viable. And, of course, it is also clear that another "little war" - or two - no matter how illegal, could do the Republicans no harm and might do some good, making it clear that as usual American internal interests trump any rational international objectives. Given how the decks have already been stacked and the propaganda horns blown, along with the general spinelessness of Congress, I am not sure how the disaster projected here by Justin Raimondo if accurate, can possibly be avoided.]
Source: Antiwar
Authors: Justin Raimondo
Dated: 2008-03-03
The USS Cole isn't engaged in a sightseeing tour of the Eastern Mediterranean: its sudden deployment just "over the horizon" near Lebanon – in tandem with two other warships – is a clear sign that the Americans are preparing for something big. That's what the Arab world seems to believe, anyway, if you listen to al-Jazeera and the chatter coming from other Arab news outlets. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and the government of Bahrain have all warned their citizens to get out of Lebanon, pronto. What's curious, however, is that, while it's big news in the Arab world, this "visit" by a guided-missile destroyer and accompanying flotilla has received scant attention in the U.S. news media. What's going on?
Well, it depends on what U.S. government spokesman is speaking on what day: "I would not specifically relate this to any kind of events in Lebanon or any place else," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey on Friday. However, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, it is "a show of support for regional stability." Responding to the accusations of Hezbollah, the Muslim resistance organization that sits in the Lebanese parliament, that this amounts to interference in Lebanon's internal political affairs, Johndroe averred: "I would express some of our own concerns with Hezbollah's actions."
These actions consist of opposing the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, which has locked the opposition out of all governmental decisions, and effectively defending the country against the Israelis during the 30-Day War.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, was a bit blunter, responding to the question of whether the Cole was showing the flag off the Lebanese coast in order to influence the outcome of elections scheduled for March 11: "To say it is absolutely tied would be incorrect, although certainly we are aware elections are due there at some point in time." Those elections have already been postponed on no less than 15 occasions, and no one is betting that they'll come off this time – although that is certainly the result desired by the U.S. Department of State. The idea is that the poll will strengthen the Siniora government and lay Hezbollah low, but this latest move – a provocation, really – is almost guaranteed to have the opposite effect. So much so that Siniora was forced to distance himself from the Americans, denying that the ships were in Lebanon's territorial waters and declaring that his government did "not ask anyone to send warships."
Everyone knows which government asked Washington for the warships: the same one that is now slaughtering children in Gaza and has threatened the besieged city with an Arab holocaust, the government whose deputy defense minister recently warned that the response to continued rocket attacks would be a Palestinian "shoah." The Palestinians, he brayed on state radio, are "bringing upon themselves a greater shoah [ Hermit : My emphasis. When a comparative is used without a referent, we should inspect it to determine the referent. In this case the referent can only be "greater than the current shoah (Holocaust)" ] because we will use all our strength in every way we deem appropriate, whether in air strikes or on the ground."
The Lobby's line is that the whole thing is a misunderstanding based on a mistranslation. National Review's Tom Gross espies a radical difference between "a shoah" and "the Shoah." "It is like confusing a 'white house' with 'The White House,'" he writes – and furthermore, this was no innocent mistake. The whole brouhaha, in his considered opinion, is evidence of an anti-Semitic conspiracy by major American news organizations.
Such an interpretation can only succeed, however, if we wear the special blinders that the Lobby would have us don, which blank out the context in which this rhetoric is being uttered. The use of the word "shoah" against the backdrop of a major military operation in Gaza – one that seems to be escalating in ferocity – amounts to the very real threat of genocide. Any alternative explanation seems on the same factual and moral plane as garden-variety Holocaust denial. If, God forbid, the Israelis ever carry out their deputy defense minister's threat, these folks will morph into little David Irvings, busily spinning out heavily footnoted disquisitions on why it never happened. [ Given that discussion of previous apologetica for Israeli ethnic cleansing operations, including bloody and illegal incursions into Palestinian areas, and the massive and brutal depopulation of Southern Lebanon has occurred on Antiwar.com, it is understandable why Justin Raimondo does not emphasize that this would be no new thing, but for the benefit of those unfamiliar with Israeli agitprop, it is worth mentioning that this would be part and parcel of a longstanding pattern of "news management." ]
Gaza, however, is just one prong in the U.S.-Israeli "surge." The main immediate target is Syria, not Gaza or Lebanon – and, standing behind them, Iran. The Americans and their Israeli allies have tried every sort of provocation to stir the Lebanese pot and lure the Syrians back into Lebanon, where a proxy war is brewing. With the Americans supplying cover by sea and air, the IDF may get revenge for its ignominious defeat in the 30-Day War by taking out Hezbollah once and for all, and then hitting Damascus – or so the most optimistic scenario would have it.
The USS Cole and accompanying warships are not merely making a strong gesture; they have also effectively blockaded the Lebanese coast and will surely be intercepting any arms coming from Turkey or elsewhere, readying the battleground for the Israeli incursion.
The first stages of the coming conflict with Iran will be fought as a proxy war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and Syria, as anticipated in this space on at least one occasion. In terms of predictive ability, however, my prognosis was hardly Nostradamus-like.
After all, the Israelis and their American sympathizers long ago set down in writing, and in plain English, the plan to do just what they are now doing. One need only consult "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," written in 1996 by an influential group of future Bush administration officials as advice for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to make sense of recent U.S.-Israeli war moves.
While "A Clean Break" famously laid out a strategic rationale for deposing Saddam Hussein, it also offered a blueprint for "securing the northern border" that parallels what is happening and has been happening since the launching of the 30-Day War:"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by: [1] paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces, [2] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." That's what's on the agenda of the radical Likud wing of the Israeli ruling elite, as represented in America as well as in Israel. The dogs of war are straining at the leash.
The War Party has never been shy about proclaiming its intentions. If only its ostensible opponents were half as bold. Yet we hear nothing – nothing – from either Barack Obama (or Hillary "Bring Them Home" Clinton) about the most significant and ominous American military mobilization since U.S. warships engaged in a massive show of force off the Iranian coast around this time last year [ Hermit : A provocation controlled largely due to Admiral Fallon's assessment that we could not withstand the consequences of an (illegal as usual) war with Iran. ] Of course, we don't have to ask John McCain where he stands on this deployment: he's for it. What the sudden outbreak of a major war in the Middle East will do for McCain's presidential prospects – currently rather dim – is a factor that is undoubtedly being considered by this White House.
Both Obama and Clinton have been mum on the Gaza shoah, and the coming storm in Lebanon seems not to have fazed them. Clinton can be relied on to keep her mouth shut, what with her support from the hawkish wing of the party. What we do know about Obama is that he, like Hillary, supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, albeit not with a degree of enthusiasm sufficient to impress the Lobby. However, if that invasion was okay, then why not the Gaza sweep? And why not invade Lebanon again? According to the logic of Obama's past positions, one would expect him to hop aboard the "Clean Break" express and ride it all the way to World War III (or is that IV?). But I guess we won't know until war breaks out and he gets that 3 a.m. call [ Hermit : But see also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jan4V6B3UuU ] – from his campaign manager.
None of this is inevitable, of course. We don't have to wind up in a proxy war with Iran in the Levant, a conflict that could escalate until the entire region is aflame. Public pressure on Congress to hold hearings regarding the looming Lebanon intervention, including an inquiry into U.S. covert meddling [ Hermit : This is the one link you absolutely should read in this post. ] in Lebanon's internal politics, would focus attention on the issue. We also need to pressure the candidates to at least issue statements on this rapidly developing situation.
I suppose we'll have to wait until the media declares this an official "crisis," but by that time the shooting will have already started – far too late to do anything about it. Which suits Obama and Clinton just fine – and, ultimately, serves McCain best of all.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.52
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #4 on: 2008-03-03 19:28:52 » |
|
great posts .... thank you
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #5 on: 2008-03-07 08:32:50 » |
|
http://USA threatens action against Syria
[ Hermit : The Cole and its support vessels (including a bunker vessel) have now passed south through the Suez canal, and their place has been taken by the guided missile destroyer USS Ors and the guided missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea. ]
Source: Al'Arabyawm
Authors: Not Credited
Dated: 2008-03-04
Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab Al-Youm reported today, through sources that an American message leaked by Egypt to Syria shows that the United States is ready to launch a broad military operation against Syria if it insists on its position on the Lebanese crisis and this is the real reason behind the deployment of “USS Cole” in front of the Syrian - Lebanese waters
The source said that the official announced reason of Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Egypt is to push the Palestinian - Israeli peace process forward but the real reason is to explain the American military actions and the presence of the American ships to the Egyptian leadership.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #6 on: 2008-03-24 22:31:58 » |
|
US deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf
Iran rejects Sarkozy’s claim on missile threats
Source: The International News
Authors: Not Credited
Dated: 2008-03-24
Dateline: Tehran
An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say.
Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal.
An American destroyer recently left the Persian Gulf, heading towards the Mediterranean Sea; earlier on Thursday, a US Navy rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Red Sea.
The deployment comes as recent reports allege that US Vice President Dick Cheney is seeking to rally the support of Middle Eastern states for launching an attack on Iran.
This is while US officials deny that Cheney’s Mideast tour is linked to a possible military attack on Iran.
According to the latest reports, in recent months a major part of the US Navy has been deployed in and around the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, Iran on Sunday rejected French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments on the necessity to build a strong deterrent against new security threats posed by nuclear-armed Islamic states, a news agency reported.
Speaking on Friday at the launch of the fourth of France’s latest generation of nuclear-armed submarines, Sarkozy said Iran was “increasing the range of its missiles while serious suspicions weigh on its nuclear programme”.
But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini insisted Iran was a source of peace and stability in the Middle East.
“Iran has upgraded its capabilities (and) drawing a parallel between these achievements and possible threats against other countries is inappropriate and invalid,” the students’ news agency ISNA quoted Hosseini as saying.
Iran, locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear plans, had previously boasted it had missiles that could sink” big warships” in the Gulf, a region where US aircraft carriers and warships operate. Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 2,000 km is capable of hitting Israel and US bases in the Gulf, Iranian officials say. Iran has refused to recognise Israel since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the US-backed Shah.
Tehran said in November it had built a new missile with a range of 2,000 km, a step analysts said could add more power to its conventional arsenal when tensions over its atomic plans are rising.
The West accuses Iran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian programme. Iran denies the charges, saying it only wants to generate electricity to meet the country’s booming demand.
The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sanctions resolutions against Iran following Tehran’s failure to suspend its nuclear activities, as demanded by the council.
Hosseini said Iran posed no threat to any country. “Iran’s foreign policy is in line with international regulations and laws,” he said.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #7 on: 2008-04-05 17:04:33 » |
|
British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes
[ Hermit : This is by far the worst article I have seen of late, but I thought I'd use it to demonstrate how the propaganda is being assembled. Notice that what it has done is firstly to reframe a complex situation into a black and white perspective which relies on a framework within which it is impossible to respond to the lies. The underlying framework includes:- The puppet government in Iraq is democratically elected and thus legitimate, popular and unbiased (i.e. non sectarian)
- The coalition government of Iraq, lead by al Maliki, is a legitimate government (with the implication that it has widespread popular support)
- The al Maliki government is competent or would be competent absent Iranian opposition
- The Iraq army is not acting as a militia for al Maliki
- The al Maliki government is allied with the USA
- Any Shiite government in Iraq will survive the US withdrawal without Iranian assistance
- The US has a legitimate interest in Iraq
- Iran does not have a legitimate interest in Iraq
- Of all the hardware/training suppliers in the region, including the USA, Iran is alone in arming non-state actors
- Iran is the most prevalent supplier of non-Iraqi anti-American forces
- Iran is not interested in stability or peace in the region
- It is not legitimate for Iran to respond to any American treats or aggression
- It is legitimate for the US to threaten Iran
- Petraeus is not making his assertions due to internal US political considerations
- The USA and its British allies are neutral actors able to make objective assessments
- Iran is opposed to the Iranian dominated al Maliki government
- Iran prefers al Sadr to al Maliki
- Iran has threatened to attack Israel (possibly repeatedly)
- Iran sponsors terrorists
- Elements of Iranian forces engage in terrorism
- Iran has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program
- Iran is actively seeking to build nuclear weapons
In my opinion, none of the above is self-evidently true and that which is not self-evidently false is arguably false or biased. However, once you have accepted any component of this framework, rejecting the conclusions being disseminated is difficult if not impossible. ]
Source: The Telegraph
Authors: Damien McElroy (Foreign Affairs Correspondent)
Dated: 2008-04-05
British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.
A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies. Notice the multiple inversions of reality here. There were three Shiite militia armies involved in the recent fighting, all of which are supported to a varying extent by Iran which is much more aware than the USA that the occupation will eventually end at which point the likelihood is that Saudi Arabia and Libya (both of which support Sunni (Baathist) groups) will become even more involved, and Iran would vastly prefer the ongoing control of Iraq by Shiites, no matter how much the Persians despise the Arabs. One of these militia has the dubious advantage of wearing the uniform of the Iraqi army. That was the one that attempted to initiate attacks, transported to the scene of the fight by the US military, supplied by the US military (which controls all logistics in Iraq), and supported by American aircraft and British artillery. The Iraqi army, was used by the desperately unpopular al Maliki in an attempt to manage the popularity of al Sadr prior to elections in the fall. His attack which broke a long sided unilateral cease fire by the numerically larger al Sadr was lauded as it began as a defining moment by GW Bush (so much for claims that the US was caught by suprise). The response was a local response to the attacks as is shown by the fact that it did not trigger widespread fighting, although that option remains. This claim depends on the strange idea that Iran is somehow against the puppet government in Iraq, which it is not, as it owns that government to a far greater degree than even the Americans. Indeed, reading the words of al Sadr who is fiercely nationalist, this is behind one of his major complaints as he would prefer the government of Iraq to be independent. ] .
The outbreak of Iraq's worst violence [ Hermit : Note the use of the passive here - a strong indication of a desire to obfuscate. Here what has to be hidden is that al Maliki and the USA triggered the violence in an area that has been much more peaceful (ethnic cleansing having been largely accomplished), since the withdrawal of the British to an armored camp far out of town. ] in 18 months last week with fighting in Basra and the daily bombardment of the Green Zone diplomatic enclave, demonstrated that although the Sunni Muslim insurgency [ Hermit : An insurgency can only occur against a legitimate government. The legitimacy of then unpopular and ineffective Vichy government, unable to sustain its population and supported by an occupation force is debatable. ] is dramatically diminished [ Hermit : So long as the US continues to arm and pay the Sunni not to attack them. ] , Shia forces remain in a strong position to destabilise the country [ Hermit : To destabilize something requires that it first be "stable." Currently the UN is not recommending that Iraqi refugee's repatriate as the situation remains "dire". ]
"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.
"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone." [ Hermit : On the grounds that once you have become a rogue state, ignoring international law and engaging in illegal wars of aggression against two states, you might as well try for a trifecta? ]
Tension between Washington and Tehran is already high over Iran's covert nuclear programme. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes. [ Hermit : Next incorrect projection. The ostensible reason for the USA's aggression towards Iran is Iran's continuation of their legitimate, fully inspected and IAEA compliant civilian nuclear program. The USA has no objection to covert nuclear programs is shown by its willingness to supply components to India, Turkey and Israel - all of which have covert nuclear programs (and two of which are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty which means that the USA is breaching that treaty when supplying them). ]
In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said. "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts." [ Hermit : Somebody should ask Petraus for evidence of what the "promises" he alleges were about, and that, if the Iranians promised not to provide support, that the "Iranian made rockets" were knowingly supplied by the government of Iran after the alleged "promises" were made. I seriously doubt that he can do that or he would have provided evidence substantiating his assertions already. This should be seen for what it is. Unsupported, incendiary and illegal propaganda by a senior American General. ]
The humiliation of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq. [ Hermit : More inversion and more use of the passive. This sentence, to more be accurate, should read "Iran's ability to negotiate a cessation of hostilities following the unprovoked aggression launched by the American and Iranian backed Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and his humiliation by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq. " ]
Gen Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, will answer questions from American political leaders at the US Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday before travelling to London to brief Gordon Brown.
The [ Hermit : Neocon and Israeli dominated ] Wall Street Journal said last week that the US war effort in Iraq must have a double goal.
"The US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," wrote the military analyst Kimberly Kagan. [ Hermit : Of course, this unsubstantiated assertion presupposes rather a lot and buries rather more. ]
There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq. "Iran is the bull in the china shop," said Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military." [ Hermit : This should be the most terrifying news of all. Once again the Democrats are facilitating the Republicans to embroil the US in illegal threats and potentially war against another country. And of course, the real bull in the fragmented shards of the china shop they have demolished is the USA. ]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.69
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #8 on: 2008-04-06 01:49:23 » |
|
[Blunderov] A nice analysis of the meme stream emanating from the oligarchical collective by the Hermit. Most enlightening. The passive voice is a favourite in academia too, mostly legitimately. It is convenient to refer to teamwork in this way; "it was found...". But often enough the passive voice is used to elide and obfuscate. By their fruits we shall know them.
"There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq."
This is truly frightening.
I know I have remarked before that I can't wait for the USA to attack Iran because it would quickly lead to the demise of the Americam Empire and Israel too but I must be clear that this is hyperbole. Of course I do not really wish for that huge additional amount of misery this would impose upon the decent everyday ordinary human beings of the world. That said, I'm fairly certain that an attack on Iran would be a blunder exceeding even the staggering stupidity of the Iraq debacle.
It remains only to add that the Western reality disconnect continues unabated as evidenced by "a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said."
Of course Dubya has already achieved the strategic masterpiece of a two front war. Afghanistan hasn't gone away. If it were up to me, instead of going about Europe humiliated and with cap in hand begging a reluctant NATO for more troops to send there I would abandon that pile of rubble tomorrow. But I suppose that would make nonsense of the entirely specious claim so often bandied about that "if we don't fight them there then we will have to fight them here". Our world is sadly afflicted with leaders of no education and even less intellect. Can it be possible that we deserve them? I don't think it's true but I may be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #9 on: 2008-04-07 05:52:06 » |
|
Thank-you Blunderov.
Please note that the academic use of the passive voice, "it was found" serves the identical purpose to its use in reportage, and that is to diminish the significance of the individuals involved in obtaining a result. The fact that in an academic society, this is done to reduce the urge to exceptionalism and individual exhibitionism as well as to make the task and the achievements the focus; while in the political sphere, the same rhetorical practice serves, as you note, to obfuscate and elide actions and actors, usually to prevent the apportioning of blame or even to suppress the messy way in which results may have been obtained; should not deflect us from recognizing that in both cases the purpose of the passive is identical.
Petraeus Testimony May Signal Iran Attack
[ Hermit : I fear that an attack on Iran is becoming inevitable and immediate (See my tiny Parallels post too) and Congress, pushed hard by the Lobby, is, as the following article observes, massively facilitating this blatantly illegal tragedy. To my mind the really obscene aspect of this farrago is that, courtesy of their dysfunctional media, the American people generally don't have a clue what the results of even a moderate attack will be (and nobody envisages moderation from the USA's current leadership) - and those that do have - or at least should have - a clue, don't seem to care. I think that Paul Craig Roberts (infra) has a clue (even if I often disagree with him root and branch). So does Larry Beinhart, whose article, "Report From Iran: Should We Really Bomb These People?" I have placed on its own thread at "Church of Virus BBS, General, Serious Business, The exquisite ladies of Iran are not the only reason not to bomb them", in the hope that some Virians will read it and find it illuminating if painful, even if there doesn't seem to be a whole lot we - or any other of the non-ruling caste in America - can do.]
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Paul Craig Roberts
Dated: 2006-04-06
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell
On April 5, the London Telegraph reported that "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from Gen. David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment."
The neocon lackey Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the U.S. governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the U.S. must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq."
Don't expect Congress to do anything except to egg on the attack. On April 3, the International Herald Tribune reported that senators and representatives have made millions of dollars from their investments in defense companies totaling $196 million. Rep. Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is already on board with the attack on Iran. The Telegraph quotes Skelton: "Iran is the bull in the china shop. In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military."
All Skelton knows is what the war criminal Bush regime tells him. If Iran really does have all these connections, then it behooves Washington to cease threatening Iran and to make nice with Iran in order to stabilize Iraq and extract the U.S. from the nightmare.
Reporting from Tehran on April 4, Reuters quotes Mohsen Hakim, whose father, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leads the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, an ally of the Maliki U.S. puppet government in Iraq: "Tehran, by using its positive influence on the Iraqi nation, paved the way for the return of peace to Iraq and the new situation is the result of Iran's efforts."
Instead of thanking Iran and working with Iran diplomatically to restore stability to Iraq, the Bush regime intends to expand the nightmare with a military attack on Iran. Crocker was quick to dispute Hakim's report that Iran had used its influence to end the fighting in Basra. Crocker alleged that Iran had started the fighting. The absurdity of Crocker's claim is obvious, as even the neocon U.S. media reported that the fighting in Basra was started by the U.S. and Maliki in an effort to clear out the Shi'ite Sadr militias. Most experts saw the attack on Sadr for what it was: an effort to remove a potential threat to the U.S. supply line from Kuwait in the event of a U.S. attack on Iran.
Crocker alleges that the rockets dropping on the Green Zone during the Basra fighting were made in 2007 in Iran. As should be obvious even to disengaged Americans, if Iran were to arm the Iraqi insurgency, the insurgents would have modern weapons to counter U.S. helicopter gunships and heavy tanks. The insurgents have no such weapons. The neocon lie that Iran is the cause of the Iraqi insurgency is just another Bush regime lie like the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaeda and the lie that the Taliban in Afghanistan attacked the U.S.
The Bush regime will tell any lie and orchestrate any event in order to "finish the job" in the Middle East.
"Finishing the job" means to destroy the ability of Iraq, Iran, and Syria to provide support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Syria might simply give up and become another American client state. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Israel can steal the rest of the West Bank along with the water resources in southern Lebanon. That is what "the war on terror" is really about.
The entire world knows this. Consequently, the U.S. and Israel are essentially isolated. The U.S. can only count on the support that it can bribe and pay for.
At the NATO-Russian summit in Bucharest, Romania, on April 4, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, "No one can seriously think that Iran would dare attack the U.S. Instead of pushing Iran into a corner, it would be far more sensible to think together how to help Iran become more predictable and transparent."
Of course it would, but that is not what the warmonger Bush wants.
Perhaps the British government has derailed the plot to attack Iran by leaking in advance to the Telegraph the disinformation Cheney has prepared for Petraeus and Crocker to deliver to the complicit U.S. Congress Tuesday and Wednesday. On the other hand, the U.S. media is likely to bury the real story and trumpet Petraeus' claims that Iran has, in effect, already declared war on the U.S. by sending weapons to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.
By next Thursday we will know from how the Petraeus-Crocker dog and pony show plays in the U.S. Congress and media whether the Bush regime will commit yet another war crime by attacking Iran.
[ Hermit : I agree with this assessment. If the propaganda continues to rise in tone, frequency and amplitude, and if Congress does not act forcefully to prevent it, there is little quest ion but that the USA is going to engage in a further war of aggression, "the greatest crime" according to the Nuremberg trials, on behalf of Israel. And the wheel will have completed the circle. ]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.52
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #10 on: 2008-04-08 19:04:11 » |
|
.
Quote:
[hermit] <snip>
while in the political sphere, the same rhetorical practice serves, as you note, to obfuscate and elide actions and actors, usually to prevent the apportioning of blame or even to suppress the messy way in which results may have been obtained; should not deflect us from recognizing that in both cases the purpose of the passive is identical.
<snip> |
Lulling us into accepting the current state of affairs as normal and then up'ing the anti since we are not alarmed because the threshold has been set higher yet again ?
<snip> wartorn region.<snip>
<snip> current mandate for Nato <snip>
<snip> imperative reasons of security <snip>
Am I understanding what it is you mean by 'the passive' [Bunderov] and [hermit] ?
I may have exceeded my brain's band width or I'm only at half duplex today.
Thx
Fritz
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/world/features/world-news-roundup/world-at-glance-$1217781.htm
Draft agreement could allow US troops to remain in Iraq 'indefinitely'
Tuesday, 08 Apr 2008 10:21
US troops could be stationed in Iraq indefinitely, according to a leaked document.
The draft agreement, obtained by the Daily Telegraph newspaper, proposes a change to the current mandate for Nato coalition forces currently in situ in the wartorn region.
The document would reportedly allow the US to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security".
Though the draft, marked "secret" and "sensitive", describes the proposed arrangement as temporary and says US forces do not desire "permanent bases or a permanent military presence", it sets no time limit on US occupation of Iraq
Some 156,000 US troops are currently stationed in Iraq and General David Petraeus, the head of US forces in the region, is today expected to call for a pause in withdrawals.
General Petraeus is to testify at the Senate armed services committee and the Senate foreign relations committee and is likely to praise the success of the 'surge' strategy that saw extra 30,000 troops sent to Iraq.
Should US president George Bush endorse General Petraeus' proposals to retain two of the five brigades of additional forces sent during the surge, the next president would take office in January 2008 with some 140,000 US troops still stationed in Iraq.
Today's hearing will also see presidential hopefuls John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama outline their plans for Iraq should they be installed as commander-in-chi Some 156,000 US troops are currently stationed in Iraq and General David Petraeus, the head of US forces in the region, is today expected to call for a pause in withdrawals.
General Petraeus is to testify at the Senate armed services committee and the Senate foreign relations committee and is likely to praise the success of the 'surge' strategy that saw extra 30,000 troops sent to Iraq.
Should US president George Bush endorse General Petraeus' proposals to retain two of the five brigades of additional forces sent during the surge, the next president would take office in January 2008 with some 140,000 US troops still stationed in Iraq. [Fritz] I'm assuming they ment 2009
Today's hearing will also see presidential hopefuls John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama outline their plans for Iraq should they be installed as commander-in-chief. [Fritz] CNN here I come :-)
.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #11 on: 2008-04-08 23:09:53 » |
|
[Fritz] Am I understanding what it is you mean by 'the passive'
[Hermit]
Perhaps not. As I meant it, passive voice is a grammatical thing. In sentences written in the active voice, the subject performs the action expressed in the verb; in other words, the subject acts. In sentences written in the passive voice, the subject is the target of the action expressed in the verb; in other words, the subject is acted upon. In sentences written in the passive voice, the agent of the action may be omitted and often is. Science uses the passive voice as it used to convey objective information unbiased by individual perspectives or personal interests. Unfortunately its abuse by people with agendas has left me looking for lies and shadowing whenever I see it, unless the author has already earned my trust.
Here are two theoretical examples:
Active: The dog bit the policeman as he walked up the path
Passive: On entering the property the policeman was bitten [by the dog].
And here is a real one, describing the start of the Vietnam war. Think about the Gulf of Tomkin and earlier - stretching back at least as far as Woodrow Wilson. Examine how the words form a barrier to comprehension and curiosity:"Later in the 1950s, war broke out in South Vietnam. This time the United States gave aid to the South Vietnamese government." Who was involved, no-one can tell. Why did it happen, not a word. What was the cost? There is only silence.
This quotation is from, "American Adventures," a current American school textbook which devotes four pages discussing the pretexts for the US starting the war of 1812 (although, unsurprisingly perhaps, it doesn't put it quite like that either), yet this is all that it has to say about the reasons for Vietnam. I kid you not. If you want to know why Americans who have not studied history at an undergraduate level are generally knownothings about recent history, you are looking, I think, directly at a root cause.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #12 on: 2008-04-30 11:41:57 » |
|
"Hostile" Iran Sparks U.S. Attack Plan
Pentagon Wary Of Tehran's Expanding Nuclear Program And Support Of Iraqi Insurgents
Sources: CBS
Authors: Not Credited
Dated: 2008-04-29
A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.
"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.
No attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has warned Iran not to assume the U.S. military can't strike.
"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.
Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.
If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #13 on: 2008-04-30 12:13:12 » |
|
Gates says 2nd carrier in Gulf is 'reminder' to Iran
Gates says 2nd US carrier sent to Persian Gulf as 'reminder' to Iran
[ Hermit :Tehran, Iran: Next phase New Moon Monday, May 5, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Optimum air attack window: 03h30 -2/+2h Local Time, 3 Days before or up to 5 days after New Moon ]
Source: AP News
Authors: Lolita C. Baldor
Dated: 2008-04-30
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf could serve as a "reminder" to Iran, but he said it's not an escalation of force. [ Hermit : yeah right! ]
Speaking to reporters after meeting with Mexican leaders, Gates said heightening U.S. criticism of Iran and its support for terror groups is not a signal that the administration is laying the groundwork for a strike against Tehran. [ Hermit : I'm sure that Gates didn't mean to acknowledge US support of "terror groups" against Iran - but that is exactly what he did! ]
Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"I do not have a sense at this point of a significant increase in Iranian support for the Taliban and others opposing the government in Afghanistan," Gates said. "There is, as best I can tell, a continuing flow, but I would still characterize it as relatively modest." [ Hermit : And again, exactly as the neocons and their stooges did in Iraq, Gates is completely ignoring all the available facts. The Taliban and Iran are hereditary enemies at the religious, and even more significantly at the ethnic and tribal levels! So when you see statements attempting to tie Iran into support for "the Taliban" or "Al Quaeda" you can be certain you are seeing deliberate propaganda as opposed to mistakes, mistranslations or misunderstandings. ]
His comments contrasted with those from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last week that he had not seen any new signs of Iranian support for the Taliban.
Gates played down the addition of a second carrier to the Gulf, saying that the number of ships there rises and falls continuously. He said he doesn't expect there to two carriers there for a long time.
Asked if the carrier move went hand in hand with the rising U.S. rhetoric against Iran, Gates said, "I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder."
In the past, military officials have said that beefing up the Navy's presence in the Gulf was a way to show that that the U.S. remains committed to the region. And they have acknowledged it also serves as a show of force for other countries there, such as Iran.
In recent weeks, U.S. officials have ratcheted up their complaints that Iran is increasing its efforts to supply weapons and training to militants in Iraq.
Military commanders in Baghdad are expected to roll out evidence of that support soon — including date stamps on newly found weapons caches showing that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.
Another senior military official said the evidence will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives — known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs — that troops have discovered in caches in recent months. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not yet been made public, said that dates on some of the weapons were well after Tehran signaled late last year that it was scaling back aid to insurgents.
Speaking of Afghanistan on Tuesday, Gates said that the Taliban is changing its tactics there — from large-scale firefighters to a "significant increase in terrorist acts," including roadside bombs and suicide attacks, similar to the one that unsuccessfully targeted Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday.
At least one police officer has been arrested in connection with the assassination attempt, deepening concerns about the Taliban's infiltration of Afghan security forces.
Gates said, however, he does not have a sense that the infiltration is any worse that it has been before. He said that it is important to screen the security forces well and that military trainers working with those forces need to make that a focus of their efforts.
On other matters, Gates said it was critically important for Congress to approve funding for an anti-drug trafficking program to aid Mexico.
The so-called Merida Initiative is a $500 million proposal to counter drug crime in Mexico. While the Pentagon portion of the program is small, the U.S. military has worked with Mexico to provide intelligence, surveillance and equipment to counter drug cartels.
"We have a shared concern and a shared threat in the drug cartels," Gates said, adding that it will benefit the U.S. to enhance Mexico's ability to deal with them.
He added that if Congress failed to approve the funding — which is included in the emergency war funding bill — it would be "a real slap at Mexico."
This is Gates first trip to Mexico City and only the second visit in recent history by a Pentagon chief. The only other U.S. defense leader to travel to Mexico was William Perry, in 1985.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Yahoos at the helm, Gunboat diplomacy returns to the high seas.
« Reply #14 on: 2008-05-01 22:29:36 » |
|
Bluff and Bloodshed
The Persian Gulf is more dangerous than ever. Will the U.S. and Iran go to war at sea?
[ Hermit : Perhaps worth mentioning that it was just after Iraq moved out of dollar based oil trading that the US invaded it. The reason I mention this is that as of this morning, Iran is no longer selling any oil in dollars. The Iranians have taken the logical step of setting their oil price against a Euro/Yen basket - which over the next 9 months will liquidate at least 3 to 7 trillion dollars created in trade credits as part of the now collapsing Breton Woods agreement. This would have to be absorbed by the US treasury or it will contribute to inflation by an amount equal to 30% to 70% of the US GDP. Unfortunately the US has neither the funds not the borrowing capacity to absorb this sum which is almost as great as the 9 trillion dollar deficit which is already the principle legacy of the Bush maladministration. The likely consequences are fully understood by the European bankers who are already treating this as the catastrophe it undoubtedly is. ]
Source: Slate.com
Authors: Christopher Dickey
Dated: 2008-05-01
If there's a war between the United States and Iran, it may well start on the water. After all, it's happened before. Twenty years ago American ships were under fire in the Persian Gulf [ Hermit : Perhaps it should be emphasized that the US, spearheaded by Gates at the CIA instigated and forced the reluctant Iranians into this battle in order to support the (losing until then) Saddam Hussein ] , and mines laid by the mullahs' men nearly sank a U.S. guided missile cruiser. In April 1988 the American and Iranian navies fought the biggest air-sea battle waged since World War II. By the time it was over, carrier-based U.S. attack planes had sunk the frigate Sahand and disabled the frigate Sabalan, the pride of the Iranian navy.
That's why the comment by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday about the brief deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the gulf was so terse and so telling. "I don't see it as an escalation," Gates said. "I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder."
Gates would know. He was deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency back in 1988. He has seen firsthand the treacherous complexities, the bluff and the bloodshed, of war with Iran, whether fought in the shadows or on the high seas. And anyone who was out in the gulf at the time, as I was, can see similarities between then and now. But looking back at the last undeclared war with Iran, who is reminded of what, precisely? The challenge is to draw the right lessons.
For those who've forgotten those naval operations with computer-generated names like Earnest Will, Nimble Archer and Praying Mantis (and I suspect most people in the United States don't remember them at all), the best history I've read is "Inside the Danger Zone: The U.S. Military in the Persian Gulf, 1987-1988," by Harold Lee Wise, which came out last year from the U.S. Naval Institute Press. It's not only thoroughly researched, it reads like a Tom Clancy thriller—or, rather, better. And Wise too is worried about what's happening now. [ Sensibly. Every war game played around a US action in the Persian Gulf has led to massive losses for the US and rapid escalation of hostilities to the point where it is difficult to predict the scope or the outcome. ]
As he sees it, any war with Iran today is going to involve a major naval component. Forty percent of the world's oil supply passes through the gulf on vulnerable tankers, he points out, and that would come under direct threat.
Wise, in a paper he sent me this week, argues there are three basic lessons to be gleaned from the fight 20 years ago:[1] Even if outgunned, Iran will not back down from a fight.In 1988 the Iranians surprised American intelligence officers with their "aggressiveness and boldness," says Wise. In one of the shootouts during the battle in April 1988 an Iranian guided missile patrol boat confronted three U.S. warships. "Despite radio warnings that the Americans intended to sink it, the patrol boat captain did not surrender and instead attacked," says Wise. "Later in the battle two Iranian frigates left the safety of port to join the fight against what they surely knew were overwhelming odds." [2] Low-tech weapons are effective in naval conflict."Modern technology remains weak at detecting undersea mines," says Wise. But mines are not the only problem. In the 1980s, as now, the Iranians used "swarming" tactics against larger merchant and naval vessels, sending relatively small boats at high speeds buzzing around and near the U.S. ships. The same thing happened in January this year, and possibly—the boats were never identified—just last week around a merchant ship on contract to the U.S. Navy. [3] Fight fire with fire.In 1988 the most effective way to combat the Iranians turned out to be with weapons similar in scale to their own. Special Operations Forces using stealth helicopters from bases built on huge oil barges in the northern gulf effectively shut down Iranian mine-laying activity there. In contrast, the billion-dollar guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, gunning for Iranians near the Strait of Hormuz, fought a battle against a swarm of Iranian gunboats in July 1988 that was inconclusive.
What was memorable about that day was that in the heat of the moment the Vincennes mistook a civilian airliner overhead for an Iranian warplane and shot it down, killing all 290 people aboard.
Of course, much has changed in two decades, but the military situation in the gulf that was confusing and dangerous in 1988 is in fact much more complicated and dangerous now.
Back then the United States was looking for a way to back Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran—without quite saying so. He was a thug, but the Iranians had humiliated the Reagan administration by training the Hizbullah shock troops that forced the United States out of Lebanon in 1984 and by revealing the scandalous arms-for-hostages deals the Reagan administration cut in 1986. So by 1987 the CIA (with Gates effectively running the show) started sharing satellite intelligence with Saddam that allowed him to fight more effectively against Iran.
By coincidence according to Wise's history, by conspiracy according to the Iranians, the big naval battle the United States launched against Iran's little fleet in April 1988 happened at exactly the same time that Saddam launched a massive offensive to retake the strategic Faw Peninsula. Thanks to his American-supplied intelligence and his huge arsenal of chemical weapons, he succeeded. Months later, after eight years of war, Iran admitted defeat.
Today Saddam is no longer a problem. But Iraq is a huge one. The government the Americans helped install there is very close to the Iranians. So are the militias now killing American soldiers in Iraq almost every day. A safe bet about this dangerous situation is that any major confrontation with Iran on land or at sea will make life even more hellish for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Today Iran is on its way to becoming a nuclear power. Whether it builds weapons, as the United States claims it will do, or keeps its technology purely peaceful, as it insists it intends, its nuclear knowledge changes all strategic calculations in the region.
But today the most volatile danger zone remains at sea, because today the U.S. Navy and American ships face threats that overlap with those Iran might pose. Twenty years ago there was no Al Qaeda. Now there is. And while its most devastating attacks have been from the air, it also developed techniques for blowing up ships at sea. In October 2000 Al Qaeda hit the USS Cole in the Yemeni harbor of Aden, killing 17 sailors; in October 2002 it hit the French oil tanker Limburg, killing one crew member, injuring a dozen more and doing tens of millions of dollars worth of damage. That the mastermind of those two attacks, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was caught in late 2002 and is now in U.S. custody at Guantánamo is cause for some relief, but hardly complacency.
To protect against these threats, what are called "embarked security teams" of about a dozen U.S. military personnel are now put on American-flag merchant ships working with the 5th Fleet from the Suez Canal to Pakistan and from Kuwait to the southern border of Kenya. But there are tens of thousands of little boats in those waters. Are they Al Qaeda? Are they Iranian Revoluionary Guards? Or just fishermen and merchants? To warn them away the American security teams try radio contact, loudspeakers, a flare, then .50 caliber rounds fired into the water in front of the boats or beside them. In March one of those bullets hit an Egyptian peasant on the Suez Canal and killed him.
"The U.S. Navy has had 20 sailors lose their lives because of small boat attacks," says Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokesperson for the 5th Fleet operating out of Bahrain. That number includes those killed on the Cole and another three killed in an attack on Iraqi oil platforms in the northern gulf. "We train our commanding officers and crews to be ready … That includes being aware of surroundings and putting together information in unique situations."
But as tensions mount, so does the potential for tragic mistakes, including accidental escalation and widening war. This isn't a prediction, of course. Just a reminder.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
