Options limited in Iran stand-off

[tw]

I was waiting for anyone to post what should have been obvious. First, Iran is not monolithic. It should have been obvious from details - even Iranians are infighting about what to do with these 15 Brits. Good reason to believe this was a minority response to point two.

Those in power who saw this could use it to settle early. But then we have 'big dic' attitude (ie Cheney) where the neighborhood bully must get what he wants. Upper are what strategic thinkers see. Lower 'big dics' can only see tactically and have no idea that their attitude only makes things worse.

Strategically, this trivial problem will go away with time. But if 'big dics' are not aggressively quashed, then this problem will fester.

Want to see how this plays out? Remember a silly spy plane incident? What happened once the 'big dics' were silenced? It took months because the 'big dics' in America started saber rattling.

Second, do you think this incident is isolated? Remember, the US kidnapped some Iranians who were invited into Iraq by Iraqi's government to setup what eventually was to be an emissary office (ie where Kurds can get Iranian visas). You may have forgotten them because Rush Limbaugh types were not promoting hate for their release. Iran has not forgotten their hostages held by America. Iran now has hostages to get their hostages released. This was going to happen because of American attitudes. A hostage trade that may eventually happen once the 'big dics' are held quiet long enough and so that you have forgotten about these hostages.

But again, this is really a non-event where people see a bigger picture (a strategic perspective) and saw the foolishness of America kidnapping those Iranian diplomats.

[glatt]

I heard this story on the radio this morning, nothing much new was said, and then the announcer said almost offhandedly that the US has sent two aircraft carrier groups into the gulf in response to this. Are there even two aircraft carrier groups in the region?

[glatt]

And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there. The headlines of the mideast papers showing up in google news ask questions like, "will the US launch its attack on Iran when the 4th carrier arrives in the region?"

[Griff]

Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag.

When Bush invaded Iraq it suited his and bin Laden's interests. It suits Ahmadinejad's interests to crank up the East / West tension to keep his people in line and I suppose the neo-cons want a mushroom cloud as well.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there.

Posted in What are we doing in Iraq?.

Meanwhile an Aircraft carrier task force is really quite impotent. Its more about hype. Its attack abilities without air tanker support (land bases) is short. Its influence is mostly emotional hype - little actual destructive power. Therefore the target must be small and especially important.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile an Aircraft carrier task force is really quite impotent. Its more about hype. Its attack abilities without air tanker support (land bases) is short. Its influence is mostly emotional hype - little actual destructive power.

You are kidding? Right?


An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missles, multiply that time 2.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missiles, multiply that time 2.

Somehow TheMercenary actually believes those numbers are impressive? During the 1991 Gulf War, four carriers sat in the Persian Gulf. Marines that invaded Kuwait had zero air cover. Where was all that aircraft carrier might? Mythical. When Iraqis surprised the Marines on their left flank, what did the carriers do? Nothing. Marines saved their own ass. Swartzkopf personally said in that daily briefing that he "could not say enough about what the Marines did". Why? Four carriers did nothing to help Marines they were assigned to support.

Eventually, carrier forces were so pathetic as to be removed from most combat missions. Carriers consumed too much tanker support and achieved little. In fact, only 'most useful' functions in that war was an F-14 surveillance package which is why the Navy pilot "Stryker" got shot down in western Iraq, probably captured alive by Iraqis, and was never found.

OK. Carriers have improved abilities. And still its planes have limited range and are completely depended on land based tankers to achieve mission beyond a few hundred miles. What does just as good if not better? What almost toppled Saddam in 1998? Conventional ships and submarines with cruise missiles. Carriers expend so much effort just defending themselves as to be quite impotent. And without land based tankers, then carriers have extremely limited range. Well if the tankers are land based, then planes don't need carriers to launch from.

Why then have carriers? Hype. With 'big dic' thinking, those numbers sound impressive. From the strategic perspective, those carriers are less potent - have limited abilities.

Let's see. Shock and awe took out how many members of Saddam's family and the 52 most wanted characters on playing cards? Zero.

Where on a carrier is anything even approaching what an A-10 can do? Nothing. It planes have maybe ten minutes over a target when warriors need air cover that is available for four hours. Who wins a war? A '10 minute' navy plane - or the grunts? That ten minute air cover does what for those grunts?

What did all the work? Those grunts. Carriers are nothing more than support functions. Those who are easily impressed by numbers: a carrier is to be feared. Then we apply reality. Other things military are far more dangerous. How many carriers will it take to rescue 15 Brits in Tehran? How many carriers can take out bunkers where uranium is being processed? How many carriers can conquer a city or win a war? In each case, apply all the carriers and no objectives are achieved. Where is all this ability? Carriers cannot do anything that defines a military victory here. Carriers are only a support function that 'big dic' thinking never grasps.

Deja vue Nam. If we blow things up, then we will win. Well that was an outright lie promoted by those who also deny military principles from 500 BC. Carriers are nothing more than support function in the Middle East. Overhyped by 'big dics' who even and also forget the basic purpose of war. Marines had to breach Iraq lines to get into Kuwait without support from *four* carriers. How many know without first learning fundamental facts ... such as the purpose of war?

TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?

Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft. The carrier based aircraft were critical in the opening weeks of both the Afgan Campaign and the first two weeks in the opening drive to Bagdad. Pretty simple, I have practical real world experience and you have left-wing talking points. Oh, and years of service on active duty, of which you don't appear to have any, unless you would like enlighten me with where you gain your fantasy wisdom.