I've always had a very good talent of being able to notice similarities and draw parallels between things that happen now and things that happened in the past.
So Iran made a threatening maneuver in the strait of Hormuz this past week against US warships. This particular strait is exceptionally strategic; whoever controls it controls the vast majority of oil supplies in the world. Should Iran or anyone else seize control of it, theres a world of economic hurt for the west in store.
This is the second time Iran has toyed with coalition naval forces, the first was a British contingent being seized in contested waters in March. (Which was a serious blow to morale for a navy with outstanding traditions and history such as Britain's, considering the Iranians really made them look stupid)
Now the parallel I'm seeing dates back to Vietnam (this whole war reminds me of Vietnam, but I'm not getting into that right now) .
These nations, which can't match the technological superiority of the US, regularly employ brinkmanship tactics to elicit an response that will make the US look bad (hence our very strict rules of engagement). However, this tactic is not limited to unfriendly nations; Israel punked the British with the Exodus incident in 1948.
The British being seized slightly brings the Pueblo incident to mind. But forunately, the Iranians aren't as dickhead-ish as the North Koreans and the situation was resolved somewhat humanely, excepting the fact that Tehran broke the Geneva convention by parading the captives on TV.
Now this other thing with the US Navy is a little more scary, 5 Iranian vessels rushed 3 of our warships, radioing that they're going to blow us up. Our gunnery was trained and in the firing process when the vessels veered away, dropping boxes in the path of our task force causing them to take evasive action.
Tehran must be damn comfortable with our rules of engagement to pull a stunt like that off. They're obviously trying to provoke further hostility and make it look like we are the aggressor. It's not the wisest idea in the world to threaten a US warship.
Now this reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin incident which preluded major escalation in the Vietnam conflict. Vietnamese torpedo boats supposedly attacked an intelligence gathering destroyer. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was then passed giving president Johnson the green light to use military force in Vietnam without a declaration of war.
Evidence has since come to light that the attack may not have happened, or happened under very different circumstances and that the intelligence was faulty. Now that has a ring to it doesn't it?
But the major, and scary difference is that Tehran openly admitted to this, while Vietnam denied it. But still, faulty intelligence and shadowy skirmishes and an underlying political motive led to the senseless Vietnam war, as well as the war in Iraq. Is Washington really trying to call Iran out right now? History does repeat itself.
So we have China developing technology that can bring our hugely advantageous satellites down, and they managed to surface a submarine in the middle of the Kitty Hawk carrier group. Which makes me ask how the hell did the Iranians get close enough to us to let this happen?
And let's pray, that China isn't close to finding a way to defeat our carriers and the vital air power they provide.
So instead of worrying about who we need to police, maybe we need to get out of where we don't belong, really reassess our situation and rebuild our military before we really get into trouble. Because we are really fucking up.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Back in 2001 I was on the Lansing State Journal Community Voices panel. One day Mike Rogers came and spoke with us. The only question I raised with him that day was WTF about Iraq (I think this was pre-911 but for some reason Iraq was already on the radar). My point was at that time our sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people more than they were hurting Saddam and I said such efforts were counter productive at best. They ended up calling me the last William Taft Republican.
As an afterthought I'm very glad we got Saddam but I can't say I agree with our continued presence in harm's way.
Did you take that as an insult? Because Taft was actually a pretty good president. Ironically he was a pacifist and him and his father both served as the secretary of war.
He had a good grasp on how to get involved in international affairs without the military, in fact, he has a lot to do with the reason Britain is our strongest ally.
Or... if they weren't insulting your position they could have been insulting your weight :) Taft was well over three hundred pounds
Post a Comment