Apparently, Little Boots is unstoppable!
Posted by Christopher at March 27, 2007 09:00 AMI wonder if China will play a part in this since they have contracts with Iran for oil.
China also has been investing some of its $1.5T in reserves with Venezuela for oil.
Posted by Alex at March 27, 2007 09:28 AMWhy a major military exercise rather than a major diplomatic exercise? Why, if 'all options are on the table', is the military option the first course? Why is the US military glorified and our diplomatic corps regarded as pin-striped wusses? Why does the US government have a death-wish for so many of its brave young people and innocent foreigners? Why are some Democrats criticizing the Administration for not being more militaristic in Iran and Afghanistan, and suggesting that the US withdraw from Iraq for war in those two places, and others to be determined? Why do all of these questions need to be asked when the American people want to keep out of these stupid foreign military adventures?
"War is a racket . . .the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives". --Major General Smedley D.Butler, USMC, double recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor
Posted by Don Bacon at March 27, 2007 09:31 AMWhy a major military exercise rather than a major diplomatic exercise?
A dimestore cowboy from Midland, TX doesn't do any of that sissy stuff and talk.
He sends in three aircraft carriers to do the talkin' for him, y'all.
Posted by Christopher at March 27, 2007 09:34 AM"But the risk for something stupid to happen is real."
Real desirable in some quarters. I guess it depends on how you want to define the word, stupid. In neoconese, it's telling the truth or doing your (alleged) job.
After all, they have all our oil!
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 27, 2007 09:36 AMThis is all really for show. An after action analysis of the First Gulf War revealed that the US Navy's contribution to the projected air power was a fraction of what the US Air Force was able to apply. That was with 6 carrier strike groups, against a target distribution that will not be much different. The real threat to the Iranian installations will be the B52s, B2s, and B1Bs which can be directed against Iran with their precision guided weapons. In many respects, the US Navy's submarines which can lie low off the Iranian coast are more dangerous because of the cruise missiles they carry than the carriers churning the waves above the submarines.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at March 27, 2007 09:39 AMYou have a military exercise because force is all the little hostage taker and his boss understand. They should kill this piece of shit. This has given Bush his out on the War Powers Act.
Posted by JohnT at March 27, 2007 09:41 AMIt is sort of amusing (in a macabre sort of way).
On Friday, the Dems tell Georgie he's getting a boatload of money.
On Tuesday, "war games" off the coast of Iran.
The Dems got played again.
this exercise has been scheduled for months. But there is no denying it's aim is to show Iraq how big George's tool is.
Posted by T2 at March 27, 2007 10:06 AMThis is all really for show.
Possibly, but green-lighting the air force bombers would be sooo much easier after an 'incident' in the Gulf. Remember the Maine!
Posted by Don Bacon at March 27, 2007 10:24 AMAh. And now I understand the timing of the Iranian raid against the British smuggling investigation.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 27, 2007 10:27 AM"Ah. And now I understand the timing of the Iranian raid against the British smuggling investigation.
"
Yes. That too has been planned for months and waiting on the Dems to pass their bill. Thank goodness everything's falling into place.
Bring on the Armageddon. We'll need a vampire slayer and cohorts to pull this one out.
Everything points to April, 2007 as the month the USA, under the demonstrated leadership of George W. Bush, begins bombing Tehran.
The clock is ticking on Bushco's second term, so he has to get busy.
Posted by Christopher at March 27, 2007 11:34 AMBut there is no denying it's aim is to show Iraq how big George's tool is.
Which, of course, actually shows how small it is.
Posted by bartcopfan at March 27, 2007 01:18 PMPossibly, but green-lighting the air force bombers would be sooo much easier after an 'incident' in the Gulf. Remember the Maine!
Our Navy's biggest challenge will be trying to avoid running into each other inside the constricted waters of the Gulf. Two carrier strike groups take up a lot of water when they're deployed for an exercise. It's not that tight little picture you see when they're shooting a photo op. Throw in steaming at 30+ knots and you have enough trouble just making sure you don't run aground. I suspect the Iranians will just stay out of the way of these lumbering behemoths rather than get swamped by their wakes.
Nothing happens until the next new moon. That comes in mid-April. The stealth fliers will be most reluctant to go up when the moon is in the sky.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at March 27, 2007 02:58 PMThe aircraft carrier strike groups Eisenhower and Stennis, each with approximately 6,500 marines and sailors, are now operating in the Persian Gulf. This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to the U.S. Fifth Fleet area of responsibility.
Carrier Strike Group (CCSG) 8, IKE CSG includes the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, with its embarked air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7, and embarked Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 28; the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio (CG 68); guided-missile destroyers USS Ramage (DDG 61) and USS Mason (DDG 87); and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News (SSN 750), all homeported in Norfolk, Va. CVW-7 squadrons that arrived aboard IKE are: the Topcats of Sea Control Squadron (VS) 31; the Nightdippers of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 5; the Bluetails of Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 121; the Wildcats of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 131; and the Patriots of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 140.
JCSSG includes the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, CVW 9, Destroyer Squadron 21, USS Antietam (CG 54), the guided-missile destroyers USS O’Kane (DDG-77) and USS Preble (DDG 88) and the fast combat-support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10). The CVW 9 squadrons include the “Black Knights” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 154, “Blue Diamonds” of VFA 146, “Argonauts” of VFA 147, “Death Rattlers” of Marine Strike Fighter Squadron 323, “Yellowjackets” of Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 138, “Golden Hawks” of Carrier Early Warning Squadron 112, “Topcats” of Sea Control Squadron 31, “Eightballers” of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 8 and “Providers” of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 27, 2007 04:16 PMNEW YORK, March 27 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasuries attempted a brief rally in after-hours trade after oil prices suddenly surged on rumors of an Iran strike on a U.S. ship, but came right back after the White House and the U.S. navy denied any incidents.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 27, 2007 04:27 PMThis is all really for show. An after action analysis of the First Gulf War revealed that the US Navy's contribution to the projected air power was a fraction of what the US Air Force was able to apply. PrahaPartizan
Praha, of course it is. As a former air force pilot (Gulf War I), I can tell you with no uncertainty that if the AF can lift off, serious shit hits the fan. Regardless of who is on the ground. Sleep tight, my former wing-mates, it's only a fucking nightmare.
Posted by tempus at March 27, 2007 04:41 PMf Bsh hd ny sns, h wld'v cncld ths mnvrs. Bt, xpct t mch.
[Editor: ignore=off]Bush is jealous of the Brits.
Look for his very own Gulf of Tehrankin incident any day now.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 27, 2007 08:04 PMThe Brit sailors were fighting auto smuggling--the noble cause. A lot of us thought we were there for the oil, but Operation Iraqi Fiasco and the 'War on Terror' is really all about runaway Jeep Cherokees--SUV's of mass destruction. Who knew?
I don't blame Bliar for demanding the release of these sailors. Who knows how many stolen Land Rovers might find their way to Iraq politicos while these limeys sit in an Iranian prison? Let 'em go--and may God bless the Royal Navy.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 27, 2007 08:54 PMAircraft carriers are great for huge targets and ships. What about rubber dingies with bombs? Once again we are playing football while the other team plays rugby.
Posted by dav at March 28, 2007 09:29 AM