January 10, 2008
CHALLENGES?:
Iran's Provocation (WALTER RUSSELL MEAD, January 10, 2008, Wall Street Journal)
Two centuries of experience have created a broad consensus in the U.S. that the freedom of the seas cannot be compromised or abandoned.The link between global freedom of the seas and foreign policy has been a driving force in modern world history. Like Britain before us, the U.S. is a commercial power whose economic interests have led it to play a unique global role in the interests of making the world hospitable to its investments and trade. The Pax Britannica and the Pax Americana have both rested on sea power, and any country that challenges America's ability to secure vital sea lanes risks the full weight of U.S. military power.
The Straits of Hormuz, site of the weekend provocation, are exceptionally sensitive. The ability of the U.S. to protect the free flow of oil through these waters is absolutely vital to the global economy. Any U.S. military response to a challenge there would be swift and overwhelming -- perhaps far greater than the Iranians expect.
The danger of war between the U.S. and Iran over free passage in the Straits is very real. Iranian authorities may not fully understand the political and military consequences of such raids. The commanders of the maritime forces of the Revolutionary Guard, by all accounts less professional than the commanders of Iran's regular navy, may be operating without central authority, and may have underestimated the likelihood and the scale of the probable U.S. response. Believing that retaliation would be minor and half-hearted, they may even be seeking a limited confrontation with the U.S. for domestic political reasons.
Last weekend, the Iranians fled before shots were fired. Good for them. If Iran wants a large-scale military conflict with a U.S. that is angry, aroused and united, endangering American naval vessels in the Straits of Hormuz is the right way to get one.
What's most significant here is the triviality of the threat. Long gone are the days when several world powers had serious navies and needed them. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 10, 2008 4:14 PM
And you think carrier battle groups are only for attack on naval targets? Silly blogger.
Fully utilized, two battle groups can do (on the far side of the globe) what the Air Force can currently only dream about. Remember, there are (as I recall) only 22 Spirit bombers, and they aren't going to stage from anywhere but Missouri. And over 160 F-15s remain grounded after the recent frame inspections.
And if cruise missiles are to be used, what platform is going to launch them? Probably not the B-52.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 10, 2008 7:11 PMYou can kill a gopher with a nuclear weapon, but it's probably not a wise use of money, men, or machine. The notion we need a big navy is amply explained by Freud.
Posted by: oj at January 10, 2008 8:59 PMMissiles have to come from somewhere. Unless you think the Air Force has squadrons of invisible scramjet bombers at Nellis. Or that the CIA has pre-positioned hundreds of them in tubes all around the globe (you know, like Hezbollah in Lebanon).
And I didn't say anything about nukes - they are your favorite pet, not mine.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 10, 2008 10:03 PMRegarding "the triviality of the threat".
Wich / Who's threat?
(a) threat from Iran towards US
This threat turned out to be trivial but it could have been different; for instance, it could have been a sucide attack on the three warships.
(b) threat fro US towards Iran
This threat is not trivial against the small Iranian boats; the US warships could easily destroy them.
The warships are (if you look at them as a stand alone threat) rather trivial against Iran as a whole but they are certainly not trivial when they are seen as part of the US military force.
There are few better descriptions of trivial than "a suicide attack on the three warships"
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2008 8:47 AMAs carrier groups are to Iranian patrol boats so is the nuke to a gopher.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2008 8:48 AMSophomoric squabbling.
Military power exists in layers, from the individual, through the tactical, operational, strategic, up to the national.
The tactical supremacy and individual superiority of the forces of the World Government persist because of their operational supremacy. Sea power, as Jim tells us, is a major componect of operational supremacy. It is the umbrella, if you will, under which we operate tactically.
Now, our strategic and national supremacies, in turn, are the umbrellas over our operational force components.
Let me spell it out. the other side cannot operate against our destroyers because our CBG's protect them; they cannot attack a CBG, because our strategic and national countervalue capabilties deter them. If they were to nuke a CBG or an air base, they may expect the fate of Amalek, minus the sin of Saul.
If we dispensed with the higher levels of capability, we would be engaging the enemy at the lower levels at something more like a fair fight, which would mean that we had not planned correctly.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 12, 2008 8:45 AMYou don't need an umbrella if it never rains.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2008 2:14 PM