Don’t Wait to See the Whites of Their Eyes

This raises some very serious questions.

An Iranian fleet of high-speed boats charged at and threatened to blow up a three-ship U.S. Navy convoy passing near Iranian waters, then vanished as the American ship commanders were preparing to open fire, the top U.S. Navy commander in the area said Monday.
No shots were fired an an Iranian official in Tehran said the incident amounted to “something normal.”

[...]

The three U.S. warships — cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham — were headed into the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz on what the U.S. Navy called a routine passage inside international waters when they were approached by five small high-speed vessels believed to be from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy.

The Iranians “maneuvered aggressively” in the direction of the U.S. ships, said Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based at nearby Bahrain. The U.S. ship commanders took a series of steps toward firing on the boats, which approached to within 500 yards, but the Iranians suddenly fled back toward their shore, Cosgriff said.

I don’t know if the Iranians were intentionally trying to be provocative or just screwed up.  I don’t really care.  What I want to know is how they were allowed to get within 500 yards of a United States war vessel.  A high speed boat can close the distance of 500 yards in a matter of seconds.  What if they were carrying explosives and were on a suicide mission to blow up a U.S. ship?  What if they were going to drop a torpedo?  The U.S. ships should have opened fire and removed the threat. 

There can only be two reasons for the commanders of those ships to have allowed the speed boats to get so close.

1) The commander and/or the crew were too slow to react to the threat.

2) The rules of engagement prohibited the commander from acting sooner. 

If number 1 is true, then someone needs to be disciplined.  If number 2 is true, then the White House and/or the Pentagon should be hammered for putting our sailors’ lives at risk with such stringent rules of engagement. 

1. Lee Bollinger and the democrat party seem to be winning this one.  Maybe they can re-invite ahmadinijad back for a rebuttal. Remember boys and girls, we’re the bad guys!

   Thank God no U.S. personnel were injured, this time…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2008 at 2218 hrs




2. After the exciting events of the past decade plus in the Gulf I’d lean to it being restrictive ROE and not the crew being asleep at the switch.

   Posted by Brian on January 07, 2008 at 2314 hrs




3. I’m curious. How does having a Republican commander-in-chief, a Republican Secretary of Defense, and 7 years of a Republican administration make this the fault of the Democrats, BigT? I mean, I know they’ve rolled over and given him everything he’s asked for, but they’re still his plans and all.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 0951 hrs




4. Sadly, it’s the latter.

   Posted by The Asian Badger on January 08, 2008 at 1101 hrs




5. I think there are a few more options to consider here:

   3) The Skipper flinched - un-prepared and inexperienced in any real challenging high seas combat, he hesitated to give the order to fire.  This, for better or worse, is the situation with our Navy these days.  It has been such a long time since any real Naval battles were waged that the guys commanding have no real-world experience from which to make decisions like this.  I just hope they can pull it off when actual sea battles resume someday.

   4) (sort of related to #2, but in a different way) The Skipper had to call the CAG for permission to shoot (or advice on what to do).  The CAG called the fleet Commander. The Fleet Commander then called Chief of Naval Ops and/or the Supreme Allied Commander for Iraq, who then called the Pentagon.  In the amount of time it took just to get advice/permission to do something, the incident had come and gone.

   5) The whole thing was a setup orchestrated by BushCo as a way to show Iran as being “aggressive” so we can eventually start bombing them.

   The fact that even became public was certainly orchestrated by BushCo.  Ship captains and the Navy don’t go issuing press releases about stuff like this without someone way way way high up giving the order to do so.

   I’ve been through the Strait of Hormuz on several occasions.  I can tell you that it is one of the most dangerous places in the world for a U.S. Naval vessel.  One would think that the U.S. would make it very clear that our ships are not to be f*cked with in that area by sinking the Iranians who came so close by.

   But Bush is running our military now.  So I have little faith that our Navy is being properly protected or put to good use.

   Posted by David on January 08, 2008 at 1347 hrs




6. You make some excellent points, David. I wonder if tactics for open sea battles are even taught any more, since ships haven’t actually traded gunfire with each other since WWII (I think it was Midway or Leyte Gulf, but I can’t remember exactly off the top of my head). It’s all over-the-horizon stuff with missiles and fighters now.

   I don’t know how well-equipped the Iranian Navy is, but I’d think a US Navy warship would be able to dispatch a small Iranian vessel without much problem (no matter how fast it is), although I do worry about a torpedo launch and the ability to destroy that torpedo before it hit. What I worry about the most is your number 5. It’s just the type of PR offensive that this administration would use to justify doing whatever it wanted to do. Since the recent NIE shot down their whole “Iran will have the bomb any day now” rationale for war, enough time has passed for something new to act as a rationale.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 1426 hrs




7. Leyte Gulf was the last true battleship fight. 

   The thing is that at that range, it isn’t even really a matter of battle tactics.  It’s straight out self defense.

   Posted by Owen on January 08, 2008 at 1441 hrs




8. You’re right, of course, about tactics versus self-defense at close quarters; I was just wondering out loud whether or not it was still taught (other than in history classes) at Annapolis and at the various training academies.

   Thanks for remembering that it was Leyte Gulf. I knew it was one of those two, but I was too lazy to look it up and make sure.

   FWIW, I think the US let its navy deteriorate to a criminally low point over the last 20 years or so. I blame Democrats and Republicans both for this. I think naval power is far and away the best method of projecting US power without actually having to blow stuff up to make a point. A carrier battle group off your coast will certainly focus your mind.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 1605 hrs




9. Oh come on now. A couple of patrol boats with good American outboards. I’m sure the pucker factor on those Iranian boats was at critical levels. Martyrdom at the receiving end of a PHALANX gatling gun. No missiles required.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 2055 hrs