Showing posts with label Navy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Navy. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Washington Navy Shipyard: Death, Security, and Voices

What happened at the Washington Navy Shipyard yesterday morning is starting to look less like a terrorist attack, and more like what the CDC calls workplace violence:
  • "Occupational Violence"
    Workplace Safety & Health Topics;
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
After killing a dozen people, Aaron Alexis was killed in a confrontation with authorities. Families are mourning their dead, law enforcement and national security outfits are working at sorting out what happened and why, and journalists are cranking out copy for news services.1

News and Views

I don't have a boss and a deadline, for which I'm duly grateful. I suspect that many reporters aren't as daft as their work suggests.

When your job depends on submitting a fixed number of words in less than enough time, researching a story could be difficult. Add to that the knowledge that editors expect to see 'proof' that whatever happened supports their preferred reality: I'm glad I'm not a journalist.

Happily, we no longer depend on old-school information gatekeepers. And that's another topic. (August 14, 2009)

I won't pretend to be "unbiased" in the sense of having underlying set of assumptions about reality. I do, however, try to distinguish between facts and assumptions. More topics.

He Heard Voices

It's possible that someone used Aaron Alexis, exploiting his reported mental problems. The Associated Press says he'd been treated for paranoia, had trouble sleeping and heard voices in his head. Someone like that could be encouraged to act against his own best interests.

Someone may be trying to convince others that Aaron Alexis was sent by the CIA, Big Oil, Al Qaeda, or lizard men. I don't think so, but I'm one of those folks who enjoy conspiracy theories in fiction: not as a basis for public policy

Applying Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely that Aaron Alexis acted alone.

On the other hand, I hope that investigators are looking very carefully at Mr. Alexis' life, particularly the last few years. I don't think lizard men are behind those deaths: but as I said, someone could have used Aaron Alexis as a weapon.

Security

Aaron Alexis almost certainly got into one building using an employee pass, but had to shoot his way into another. The pass he apparently used was either his own, or one he shouldn't have had.

I've seen both possibilities reported as facts. Like I said, I don't have a boss and editors telling me what to write: so I don't know if he had a pass, and if so whose it was.

Either way, he shouldn't have been able to get onto a naval base with those weapons. Apparently employees don't have to go through a metal detector on their way in. That may have saved some money, and kept "privacy advocates" happy: but in this case it was a lethal oversight.

After what happened yesterday, it's obvious that Mr. Alexis shouldn't have been allowed into the Washington Naval Shipyard yesterday. He probably shouldn't have been allowed to get a job with a subcontractor that brought him to the base in the first place.

That's obvious today. How obvious it would have been when he was hired: I don't know.

Mr. Alexis' general discharge from the Navy was upgraded to an honorable discharge because there wasn't enough evidence backing up misconduct charges. Maybe the charges were bogus, and he really is a victim of discrimination: maybe not. I don't know.

However, if half of what's been reported about his background is accurate, Aaron Alexis shouldn't have been given clearance to work on computer upgrades at a major military base. With my background, I probably wouldn't get that sort of clearance: even if I had the necessary skills.

Computers, Guns, and Keeping Up

Since Aaron Alexis was working with The Experts on a computer upgrade, it's possible that he had the skills and access necessary to provide himself with a valid-looking employee pass that he shouldn't have had. If that's the case, The Experts, Hewlett Packard and the Pentagon should take a hard look at their security.

We use technology today that was literally science fiction in my youth. Thanks to my eclectic job history, I've kept up with most of the major developments. Folks my age, whose successful career paths led them to positions of importance? I'm not sure that some of them really understand the Information Age. Still more topics.

Unlike some of my contemporaries, I like tech: and think that people use tools to do things, not the other way around.

Technology and Free Will

I don't think guns made a sleep-deprive paranoiac kill a dozen people. Human beings were quite capable of acting badly for uncounted ages before firearms, and I think we'll continue to be trouble when an assault rifle is displayed alongside a crossbow and a palstave in some museum.

I have no problem with people using dangerous technology like LP gas, guns, or computers. I also think that every society needs to find common-sense ways to control how they're used. (June 27, 2008)

Somewhat-related posts:
1 From the news:

(FBI, via CNN, used w/o permission.)
"The FBI identified Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old military contractor from Texas, as the dead suspect involved in the shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, September 16. Authorities said at least 12 people -- and the suspect -- were killed in the shooting."

"Vetting military contractors: How did Navy Yard gunman get in?"
Josh Levs, with Drew Griffin, Mariano Castillo; CNN (September 17, 2013)

"The shooter at the Washington Navy Yard had a 'pattern of misconduct' as a Navy reservist, had sporadic run-ins with the law, and had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals for apparent psychological issues, sources have told CNN.

"Somehow, none of that prevented Aaron Alexis from getting clearance to the Washington Navy Yard as a subcontractor.

"In the wake of the horrific incident that left 12 victims and the gunman dead, lawmakers and military experts are calling out the vetting process for contractors and subcontractors. Did the military even know the things about Alexis that news agencies managed to find out within hours?

"Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who serves on the Intelligence Committee, said she now questions 'the kind of vetting contractors do.'

" 'Washington needs a lot more answers,' Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-Washington, said in an interview Tuesday with CNN.

"The incidents in Alexis' past 'should have been a red flag that maybe we need to delve a little deeper into this individual,' said retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold.

"The Navy had sought to give him a 'general discharge' due to at least eight incidents of misconduct while on duty, but ultimately had to give him an honorable discharge due to lack of evidence to support the sterner measure, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday.

"But he went on to work for a group called The Experts, which was subcontracting with Hewlett Packard on a large military contract.

"With security clearance, he worked from September 2012 through January in Japan. His clearance was renewed in July, and he worked at facilities in Rhode Island, North Carolina and Virginia for weeks at a time upgrading computer systems, according to Thomas E. Hoshko, CEO of The Experts...."
"DC gunman was suffering host of mental issues prior to shooting, report says"
FoxNews.com (September 17, 2013)

"Navy veteran Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 people at a Navy building in Washington Monday morning, had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, law enforcement officials told the Associated Press.

"Alexis had been hearing voices in his head and had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation in the case was continuing.

"Alexis, 34, was discharged from the Navy two years ago after serving hitches in Texas and Illinois....

"...He most likely gained entry into the facility with a CAC card, or a common access card. The system does not require workers to pass through a metal detector and usually only requires employees to show the card. Senior military officials tell Fox News that he most likely shot his way into building 197, because that building requires a separate pass he did not have.

"Washington Mayor Vincent Gray said there was still no motive for the shootings and no indication of terrorism 'although we haven't ruled that out.'

"While some neighbors and acquaintances described him as 'nice,' his father once told detectives in Seattle that his son had anger management problems related to post-traumatic stress brought on by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination...."
"Navy Yard: Aaron Alexis 'treated for mental health' "
BBC News (September 17, 2013)

"The ex-US Navy reservist who killed 12 people and wounded eight at a Washington DC Navy installation had received treatment for mental health issues, US media have reported.

"Aaron Alexis, 34, was treated for paranoia, trouble sleeping and hearing voices, the Associated Press reported.

"A contractor for the Navy, he had a valid pass for the secure site at the Washington Navy Yard, authorities said.

"Alexis was shot and killed by police during the attack...."
"Authorities question vetting of Washington gunman who killed 12"
Mark Hosenball and Ian Simpson, Reuters (September 17, 2013)

"Washington authorities questioned on Tuesday how a U.S. military veteran with a history of violence and mental problems could have gotten clearance to enter a Navy base where he killed 12 people before police shot him dead.

"The suspect, Aaron Alexis, 34, a Navy contractor from Fort Worth, Texas, entered Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning and opened fire, spreading panic at the base just a mile and a half from the U.S. Capitol and three miles from the White House.

"Investigators are still trying to determine the shooter's motive. Alexis had been given clearance to enter the base on the Anacostia River, despite two gun-related brushes with the law and a discharge from the Navy Reserve in 2011 after a series of misconduct issues.

"A federal law enforcement source told Reuters Alexis had a history of mental problems but gave no details. CNN reported that Alexis had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals recently and was believed to be seeking psychological help.

" 'It really is hard to believe that someone with a record as checkered as this man could conceivably get, you know, clearance to get ... credentials to be able to get on the base,' Washington Mayor Vincent Gray told CNN.

"He said automatic U.S. budget cuts known as sequestration could have led to skimping on vetting that would have barred Alexis from the heavily guarded base...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 16, 2013

Washington Navy Shipyard: Monday Morning's Off to a Bad Start


(Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
So far, BBC News seems to have the best summary of what's happened:
  • A gunman has killed at least four people at the Washington Navy Yard, a naval installation in the US capital, officials say
  • Police were called to the scene after reports of shooting at 0820 local time (1320 GMT)
  • Police say that one gunman is deceased and two additional suspects wearing military-style uniforms may still be at large
  • US President Barack Obama has been briefed on the matter by top officials
  • All times in GMT
    (BBC News)

"Going Postal??"

At about 8:20 this morning, Washington D.C. time, someone started shooting at people in the Washington Navy Yard. When news reports started, I thought that maybe one of the 3,000 or so folks who work there decided that today would be a good time to 'get even' with fellow-workers.

It's been a long time since "going postal" became a regrettable stress-management option.

What I've Heard

Now it looks like more than one person has been attacking folks at offices of the Chief of Naval Operations and other naval commands.

Based on what I've heard and read in the news, it looks like more than one person decided to attack the Washington Navy Yard, and that we don't know why they made that decision.

The only victims I've heard identified so far is police officer and one of the shooters. How many people are wounded or killed: those numbers are changing, which isn't a surprise this early in the situation.

Motive?

What motive the attackers have is important: but I don't know what it is. There isn't enough information available. I'm pretty sure that right now nobody except the attackers know why morning routines got disrupted. If they had associates, those folks know, too.

A half-century back, I wouldn't have been finding out so much this fast. When news did start filtering through, some folks would insist that commies were to blame; others would blame racists or blacks.

Today, I suppose some have already decided that Muslims are to blame. White supremacists probably wouldn't have been accused, since one shooter's ancestors came from Africa and another's from Europe.

At least one of the attackers is wearing something that looks like olive drab military garb: so someone has probably decided that the American military is to blame.

That's not as silly as it might seem, at least to folks who assume that the Pentagon, CIA, and 'they' are conspiring to do something dreadful. With that mindset, the attack could be seen as infighting or a plot to sway public opinion.

Keeping Track

I'm upset about this attack.

I can understand someone being disgruntled with working conditions, or not approving of American policy, or believing that the Federal government shouldn't act the way it does. But that's no excuse for hurting or killing people.

Since there is almost certainly more than one person involved in the attack, It's also very likely that the motive isn't related to someone's dissatisfaction with a job.

Given the meager facts we have so far, I could cobble together a nostalgic tale involving crazed white guys going after blacks who work for the Navy; explaining the black shooter as one of a team of secret commandos dedicated to spreading law, order, and the American way - - - or the other way around.

That, I think, would be an almost complete waste of time: mine and yours.

Instead, I'll get back to what I was working on before, and check in on the news at intervals.


(BBC News, used w/o permission.)

Background: Washington Navy Shipyard

The Washington Navy Shipyard started as a shipyard, was re-purposed as an ordinance, and now is a ceremonial and administrative center for the United States Navy.

In the news:
Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile: Cause for Concern

The news is calling it a "kill weapon" - which strikes me as a bit redundant.

The point is that there's good reason to believe that China has developed an anti-ship missile that could deliver a carrier-destroying warhead. Anti-missile systems like the Aegis might be able to destroy the missile before it reached its target.

On the other hand, they might not.

The Chinese missile seems to be a modified Dong Feng 21 missile: a ballistic missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers. I think that works out to around 1,250 miles.

So What?

The War on Terror (a term which is no longer officially sanctioned) doesn't involve China, right?

I certainly hope so. But, most of a cyberspy network just happens to be in China: and has been active enough for mainstream news media to mention it.

And, if China did get involved in a conflict with America, and allied itself with Al Qaeda, it wouldn't be the first Odd Couple. Remember Germany and Japan, back in WWII? Things have changed in the sixty years since the ethnically-conscious national socialists in Germany allied themselves with, of all countries, Japan: but I think that's still a reminder that differences don't necessarily make that much of a difference.

Vaguely related posts: Background:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Ahmadinejad Wants America to Apologize: This is News?

Actually, yes. For one thing, he wasn't speaking in Tehran. The Iranian president was in Kermanshah. And, he's responding to President Barack Obama's "conciliatory tone toward Iran," (The New York Times) which may be a hopeful sign of real change - or not.


(from Reuters, via FOXNews, used without permission)
This is news?

President Ahmadinejad's list of American crimes include
  • America's support for the 1953 coup that ousted the "democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi"
  • Shooting down an Iran Air Airbus A300
    • The U.S. Navy missile cruiser Vincennes, 1988, Persian Gulf)
  • "America's efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions"
    (information and quotes from The New York Times)
Sounds pretty bad.

And, those American 'crimes' actually did happen.

CIA Ousts Elected Government - 1953

True enough. As far as it goes.

A coup overthrew Iranian Premier Mohammed Mossadegh. Depending on how one views the Cold War, he was either a victim of capitalistic, imperialistic, warmonger oppression: or someone in cahoots with the Iranian Communist party, and who had nationalized some foreign oil holdings. (That's the cue for "It's All About Oil!")

The History Department at the University of San Diego has an interesting timeline of the Iran Crisis of the fifties. From USD's account, it sounds like getting the Shah back on the throne was Eisenhower's fault (the timeline identifies him as "Ike"). I haven't discovered details about how Mossadegh's government wound up being elected in the first place.

American Warship Shoots Down Unarmed Airliner

Also true.

Iran Air Flight 655 was, in fact, an Airbus A300. The Vincennes was (and is) an Aegis class cruiser with advanced tracking radar. And, the Vincennes did shoot down IA 655 on July 3, 1988. One version of this incident is that American sailors saw a perfectly harmless civilian airliner on their radar, and decided to shoot it down. And, as far as that goes, that's an accurate account.

As usual, it's not quite that simple.
The Strange Matter of the Silent Air Crew
One detail that doesn't get discussed all that much is what the Iranian Airbus A300's crew didn't do:

"10:49 AM –Vincennes warns aircraft on military frequency, no response
"10:50 AM –Warnings repeated, civilian and military channels, no response"
"USS Vincennes Incident" (Spring, 2004)

It seems to me that a flight crew of a civilian airliner would be highly motivated to let a warship with the Vincennes' firepower know who and what they were. But, for whatever reason, they didn't.
Aegis Computers, Memories, and a Mystery
The Vincennes' computers recorded that the Iranian airliner was ascending. The crew remembered clearly that it started descending - just like a military aircraft starting an attack. Oddly, they might both be right. The Aegis tracking system may have started feeding the crew tracking data about another aircraft, that actually was descending, but identifying it as the IA 655 airliner.1

If they hadn't been in a war zone, with the death of 37 Americans on the USS Stark fresh in their minds (May, 1987, Exocet anti-ship missiles), and with literally seconds to make a life-or-death decision, the Vincennes' track coordinator would almost certainly noticed the error, and corrected it.
Cool Titles, Easy Reading, and Public Perception
I think one reason that Ahmadinejad's version of the incident is better-known is that it is a close match to articles with cool titles like "Sea Of Lies" (Newsweek (July 13, 1992)). Detailed information and background tends to be in reports with dusty monikers like "Manipulating the OODA Loop: The Overlooked Role of Information Resource Management in Information Warfare" (...Air Education and Training Command (December 1996)).

Given a choice, which do you think most people would feel like reading?

America Thwarts Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

Although Iran started working with nuclear reactors back when the Shah was in charge, the 'Iranian nukes' issue is very much current events. Iran seems to be insisting that it needs nuclear power for strictly civilian purposes - and has been making weapons-grade fissile material off and on for years.

So, this charge is true. And, since I'm rather concerned about what the Ayatollahs would do with nuclear bombs, if they had them, I'm okay with America, and the United Nations, 'thwarting' Iran's nuclear plans. (I discussed this recently: "Iran's Nuclear Program, Israel, Iraq, America, Bush and Obama: Simple? Not!" (January 11, 2009).)

Facts, Selective Awareness, and American 'Crimes'

President Ahmadinejad's list of 'crimes' sounded pretty bad. He is, after all, among those who seem to believe that America is behind most of the world's problems - just like the Zionists.

Since the ideas and languages of that view are very familiar by now. I thought it might be a refreshing change of pace to take President Ahmadinejad's wish list, and re-phrase it.

Iranian Preisdent Ahmadinejad wants apologies because America
  • Doesn't want religious fanatics to have nuclear weapons
  • Helps Jews defend themselves from neighbors who want to kill them
  • Stopped the (real) torture and killing at Abu Ghraib
  • Allows its armed forces to defend themselves
If the American government is supposed to apologize for that sort of thing, maybe all Americans should apologize because America
  • Is one of the countries that people try to break into, instead of the other way around
  • Helped bitter enemies get back on their feet after WWII
  • Is helping Iraq recover from Hussein's three decades of neglect
So much depends on what facts one decides to admit.

Related posts: In the news: Background:
1 Turns out the Iranian airliner was sharing that general area with "...a second aircraft, a low-flying A-6 Intruder, descending in altitude, from the carrier Forrestal. By a bizarre serious of events attributable to the Aegis system itself and not to operator error, she [Captain Dotterway] believes the track identification numbers of the Iranian airbus and the A6 were transposed. Under normal circumstances, the track coordinator would have identified the number conflict and rectified it. However, given the time compression of approximately 180 seconds, the confusion over track numbers was never resolved...."
("ADA259045 - Reconstructing Combat Decisions: Reflections on the Shootdown of Flight 655" (October 1992))
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and The War on Terror

The War on Terror started on
  • September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew airliners into New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon
  • October 12, 2000, when two "Islamic extremists" blew themselves up, and put a 40-foot hole in the USS Cole
  • February 26, 1993, when a car bomb exploded under New York City's World Trade Center
Or even earlier: when the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were hit (1998); or Khobar Towers were destroyed (1996); or back when Ayatollahs overthrew the shah (1979).

When Did the War on Terror Start?

I think that September 11, 2001, will remain as the generally accepted milestone that marks the start of the War on Terror. Aside from the enormous death toll, that was the date at which the American government began acting as if organized terrorists were a military threat, not a law enforcement issue.

Most of the other events, including the attack that killed 17 American sailors on the USS Cole, didn't have that sort of an effect. For that matter, the 9/11 attack doesn't seem to have convinced some congresspersons that the FBI and CIA aren't America's biggest threats. But that's another issue.

If I were to choose an earlier date to mark the start of the War on Terror, it would be the first successful Al Qaeda-financed attack on New York City's World Trade Center.

That car bomb attack only killed six people, took out three concrete floors in the WTC's underground parking, collapsed part of a subway station, and sent smoke through one of the towers. Although the damage was relatively minor, and the death toll low, it was a moderately successful attack by Al Qaeda on a civilian target on American soil.

I think that may count as an act of war:
  • A foreign power killing people
    • And quite possibly trying to destroy a national landmark
  • In one of America's major cities
The fact that American authorities decided to treat it as a matter for law enforcement is a little embarrassing, in hindsight.

Of course, the whole 'death to the great Satan America' thing wasn't taken too seriously until America had another president, and airliners started flying into buildings, almost a year later.

USS Cole: Not Just Another Milestone

Still, I think I understand how Former Navy Commander Kirk Lippold sees the October, 2000, attack on the Cole. He was in command of that ship at the time.

"...'The biggest thing people fail to realize is they look at 9/11 as the start on the War on Terror,' said Kirk Lippold, former commander of the Cole. 'The reality is that the war on terrorism started not on 9/11, but 10/12.'... "

For him, and the crew of the USS Cole, there's a genuine emotional reality to that statement. However, the USS Cole was far from the first American target hit by terrorists. From the embassy in Tehran to the Khobar Towers and African embassies, those self-styled lions of Islam have been busy for a long time.
Remember the Cole?
I think there's a real danger that follow-up to the attack on the USS Cole won't get the attention it deserves. I'm also worried that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and others responsible for the attack, may not be held accountable. Or, in close to a worst-case scenario, be released because someone decides that 'these things happen,' and feel magnanimous. And no: I don't think that's likely.

Right now, the USS Cole is back in the news. Mainly because Barack Obama will soon be president, and we don't know quite what he'll decide to do about the prisoners held at Guantanamo (or Guantánamo, and I'd bet there are other spellings).
Unbiased, Objective, Reporting
And, despite what people who believe Code Pink has a centrist philosophy may think, national news media in America isn't likely to treat the Cole with "Remember the Main" headlines. for example, here's what a respected, major, American news magazine had to say in its article on the Cole incident, and how the CIA and the Bush administration bungled the aftermath:

"...Nashiri was one of three 'high-value detainees' who was 'waterboarded'—a diabolical technique in which subjects are strapped to a board and then doused with water to simulate drowning...."
(Newsweek) [emphasis mine]

"Diabolical?" I know that President Bush is thoroughly hated in some circles, to the point where an otherwise-sensible person I know asserted that he's "diabolical." But waterboarding? Sure, it's unpleasant, but if it's "diabolical," then demonstrators who waterboarded each other for the news cameras were practicing diabolical techniques.

I'm getting off-topic. I listed more posts about waterboarding below.

Fairness and Fairly Silly Attitudes

America is a nation of law. This country's respect for human rights and due process is something to be proud of: even though I think the last several decades of creative Supreme Court decisions need to be fixed, ASAP. But that's a whole different topic.

The point here is that in civilian courts it doesn't seem too unusual for a major case to take the better part of a decade to come to trial. So, I'm not all that surprised that a trial of one of the Cole masterminds hasn't happened yet.

And, I think that due process should be followed in that trial: including allowing the accused to mount a reasonable defense.

That's the way we work.

Just the same, I think that the nature of the crime, and of the War on Terror, should be recognized.
Terrorists Aren't Nice People
There's very good reason to believe that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is responsible for talking a couple of people (Muslims, probably) into taking a boat up to the USS Cole and turning themselves into shrapnel: along with many American sailors.

I don't think that's very nice: even if the two lions of Islam thought they'd get an all-expense-paid ticket to the 72 Virgins celestial social club.

I might be more concerned about the matter of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri's being waterboarded, if it weren't for all the hysterical objections to using the technique. Since protesters quite willingly waterboarded each other, and the American armed forces includes waterboarding as part of its training, I can't take it seriously as being a "torture" technique.

Protesters might, possibly, torture each other - but I find it extremely difficult to believe that the American military tortures its own soldiers, as a matter of policy.

So, I hope that people accused of terroristic activity get fair trials: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri included.
Remembering the Dead
Let's not forget the sailors who died, serving on the USS Cole.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Kenneth Clodfelter was as close as any to the center of the blast. He was 21 at the time, and he and his wife had a child. He was buried in installments. His parents aren't happy with how either of the administrations handled the Cole incident.

Back to the former commander of the Cole: "...Lippold says the rights of terrorists are being given more priority than the rights of his sailors who died as Americans for their country. 'When you say "we need to treat detainees fairly," what about my crew?' he asked.

"The Clodfelters buried their son more than once. The Navy kept finding more of his remains in the sea...."

I do not, thank God, understand first-hand what Former Commander Lippold, and the survivors of the Cole, are going through. It's obviously a very stressful, emotional experience. I can try to sympathize.

The USS Cole Attack, Terrorists, and America's Military

One of America's strengths is that it respects the rights of people who don't deserve them. That's annoying, at best, but I'd rather live in this system, than in one where trials - at least in theory - involve a systematic examination of evidence to arrive at a true verdict.1

I hope that accused terrorists are exposed to that process.

I also hope that, whether they're victimized tools of the military-industrial complex, or (my view) brave Americans, dedicated to defending the right of people back home to call them puppets of Big Oil: the people in America's military are extended the same courtesy.

Thanks for the Right to Write This

Finally, a personal 'thank you' to everyone who serves, or has served, in the American military. Whether it was by sitting behind a desk somewhere, or by sacrificing your life, you all have helped make it possible for Code Pink to protest, and for me to post opinions that not all Americans agree with.

News and views: Related posts: Posts related to waterboarding: Background:
1With bizarre exceptions: Like the fellow on Texas death row, whose conviction was reversed recently.

Even so, I've talked with enough people who escaped their homelands to know that I'd rather live here.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, January 8, 2009

America to Unilaterally Attack Somalia!

Well, no.

The fact is, an international naval force is assembling "to battle pirates off the coast of Somalia." (AP) By the time its mission starts, later this month, more than 20 nations will probably be involved.

The international force must be "unilateral" though. An American is commanding it: U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Terence McKnight.


(U.S. Navy photo by Anderson Bomjardim, used without permission)
Task Force 59's commander, Rear Admiral Terence E. Mcknight, fielding questions at a coalition forces' crisis response exercise. (November 6, 2007)

"Unliateral," "Quagmire," and Living in the Sixties

To be fair, I don't think we'll be hearing all that much about "unilateral" American action against Somali pirates.
  • Terms like "unilateral" and "going it alone" fell out of fashion rather early in the presidential election: Partly, I think, because people found out how many countries had "unilaterally" invaded Iraq.
  • Since it is an international force, credit for success can be doled out to
    • Participating nations
    • The Obama administration
      • Thereby vindicating hopes that Barack Obama will restore America's standing in world opinion
The Obama administration? It's quite possible. Barack Obama will be president by the time the international force's mission is at its most active, and I think it will be much easier to associate successes with the current president. If things don't go well, we'll probably read that the international force was part of the 'failed policies' of George W. Bush.

I'm not cynical: but I have been following the news for decades, and think I've spotted a few journalistic habits.
Woodstock's Over, Disco Died, It's Time to Wake Up
I'm probably preaching to the choir, but: It isn't the sixties any more. It's time to tune in, and drop back in. Quite a bit has happened in the last forty years.

For one thing, the Vietnam war ended: badly, but it ended. From the way "quagmire" kept being used to describe wars fought in deserts, I get the impression that many Americans didn't get the memo.

Word seems to be getting around, though. I recently found "quicksand" used to describe America's 'failure' in the Middle East.

There was, and is, an almost nostalgic quality to many reports from Iraq. A few years ago, headlines like "Iraq's My Lai!" and "Defining atrocity of the Iraq War!" heralded an incident at Haditha, Iraq. People like me, who aren't working for the traditional information gatekeepers, found out what actually happened. The fanfare of "Iraq's My Lai!" faded, like echoes of a trumpet in the hills.

I don't expect people to give up memories of their youth, but I do think that it's a good idea to keep up with the times.

Today, outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a rather definite idea about how the world should be run. The 9/11 attack that took out New York City's World Trade Center was part of their efforts to make the world safe for their version of Islam.

This is a real threat to America, and practically everybody else. Their approach to people who protest against them, or are counter-cultural (like men who wear trousers), makes Kent State look like a tea party.

Pirates and the War on Terror

The Somali pirates are not Islamic terrorists. In fact, real terrorists, based in south Sudan, attacked the northern-Sudan pirates after a Saudi ship was captured. Apparently, it's okay to pillage non-Muslims, but 'Islamic' interests should be left alone.

The way I see it, dealing with Somali pirates and the War on Terror are closely related, because both stem from cluelessly idealistic efforts to 'help' European colonial holdings become nations (like the Versailles Treaty).

America, at least, seems to have learned something about dealing with people who aren't European. The invasion of Iraq and this international force to deal with piracy are two examples of an approach that seems to work:
  • Treat local leaders with respect
    • If they want to communicate with bullets, oblige them
  • Find out which nations are willing to help deal with a situation
    • Get them organized - odds are, this will mean leading them
  • Let nations whose leaders don't want to help know what you're doing
    • But don't wait for their permission
Let's hope it works in the waters off Somalia.

More-or-less related posts:
News and views:
Background:
Related posts on piracy and the War on Terror.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Chinese Navy to Somali Waters - Time Running out for Somalia?

I've lost track of how many nations have warships near Somalia by now. America and Russia were among the earlier arrivals, and now China has a naval force on its way.

Enter the Dragon: Chinese Navy Returning to Western Waters

This is of historical importance, since it seems that the current regime hasn't sent major naval expedition outside the Pacific before. China's got good reason for looking after its interests: the crew of a Chinese cargo vessel fought off pirates with beer bottles, fire hoses, and "homemade incendiary bombs" this week.

In a way, it's good to see China getting back on its feet. It's been a long time since the time of the Ming Dynasty's Zheng He, when China was setting up trade partnerships with places in India and east Africa. I wouldn't mind seeing American interests trading in that part of the world, either: and I figure that we'll all profit if trade with major nations like China helps places like Somalia become prosperous.

That's the long-range view, though. Right now, Somalia is in big trouble.

Somalia: Good News, Not-So-Good News

For starters, there's no government to speak of, pirates seem to be running the north part of the territory while religious fanatics hold parts of the south. From what I've heard, fanatics have killed pirates because pirates captured a Muslim ship, pirates are making trade risky in the Gulf of Aden, and a growing number of countries with serious firepower are getting interested in stopping the pirates.

That's no way to run a country.

At this point, the American navy commander in the area isn't at all anxious to go after the pirates on land. He's concerned about the possibility of hurting people who aren't pirates. That wasn't a big surprise to me. In the world I live in. American armed forces really are quite careful about collateral damage. That's one of the reasons we're developing increasingly precise and intelligent weapons: and why we didn't nuke Baghdad.

I don't think all nations are quite as squeamish. And, at the rate the Somali pirates are going, sooner or later they're going to convince some nation that stopping them is worth the cost in fuel and bombs to blow away a few Somali villages: people, livestock, and all.

Putting it mildly, I don't think that would be a good idea. Particularly since at least one private-sector American diplomat may be on the way to ending Somali piracy without a land war (and making a profit doing it).

I don't know if China would be the 'bombs away' nation. Chinese leadership has been pretty heavy-handed with places like Tibet. On the other hand, I like to think that the people running China are savvy enough to know it's not a good idea to bomb potential customers into the stone age.

As with so many other things in this world, "we'll see."

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Pirates Hijack Saudi Supertanker: Not the Brightest Idea?

It's a familiar plot device in several genre:
  • The cattle rustler who steals a herd belonging to "Vengeance" Sutton, the biggest cattle baron in the state
  • The pickpocket with the score of a lifetime: "Icepick" Grogan's numbers receipts for the day
  • The cutpurse who relieves a shabby stranger of his pouch, and finds some very odd jewelry
    • Mordu the Necromancer wants his tools back
Somali pirates may have finally hijacked the wrong ship.

Pirates Anchor Saudi Supertanker off Somali Coast

The Saudi supertanker Sirius Star was carrying around 2 million barrels of oil. That's about a quarter of a day's output for Saudi Arabia. Not exactly chump change.

The pirates almost certainly want money in exchange for the supertanker, its cargo and crew.

The House of Saud wants them gone.

Pirates, Ransom, Common Sense, and History

The Somali transitional government's prime minister, Nur Hassan Hussein, says that shipping companies should stop paying ransom to pirates. (CNN) Sounds reasonable to me. Giving pirates money when they hijack a ship isn't what a behaviorist would recommend, if your goal is to have fewer hijackings.

It's easy for me to say that: I don't have captive relatives. Some Ukrainian families seem to have raised money for a ransom (The Standard), and I sympathize with them. I'd want my kinfolk back, too.

On the other hand, it is probably a good idea to stop the pirates. And paying them, so they can hijack more ships, isn't the way to do it.

We've been through this before. A few centuries back, the Barbary Pirates had a lucrative business going, until an upstart former English colony sent in the Marines.

I know: quite a few people feel that it's 'simplistic' to think that military action might be considered. I'd just as soon have the Somali piracy issue resolved through sweet reason alone. But I doubt that the pirates will give up their profits, and think it's unlikely that many countries and companies will have the hard clarity of vision it takes to not pay ransom.

Not the Best Time to Insult the House of Saud

I imagine that the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques was already in a less-than-sunny frame of mind, what with dropping oil prices. Under the circumstances, I'd say that the Somali pirates could have picked a better time to steal his ship and his oil: insulting him in the process.

America's Stake in Somali Piracy

There's some truth to the tired old 'it's all about oil' slogan. In common with every other industrial and post-industrial culture on the planet, America needs petroleum to keep running. We're working on alternatives, but right now oil is important.

Which is one reason why the American Navy is helping keep an eye on the Somali coast. The USS Destroyer Howard is, as far as I can tell, still stationed there, along with warships from a number of other countries.


USS Howard (DDG 83)
(From the official website of the USS Howard)

I don't have a problem with that. The Howard's mission is "to conduct prompt, sustained combat operations at sea in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious assault groups and stands ready to become an integral part of interdiction forces." ("USS Howard's Mission") The current task, monitoring a hijacked Ukrainian ship, sailing under a Belize flag, seems to be part of its mission.

But, if there's trouble somewhere else in that part of the world - hardly unlikely these days - either the Somali mission will have to be abandoned, or the American Navy will have one less destroyer to work with.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 27, 2008

American Destroyer USS Howard Watching Ukrainian Ship With Belize Flag and Russian Tanks Taken by Somali Pirates: Nothing's Simple, These Days

Here's what we know so far: A Ukrainian ship, sailing under a Belize flag, carrying Russian Tanks to Kenya, was seized by Somali pirates. Now an American destroyer, the USS Howard DDG 83, is near the Somali coast, keeping an eye on the ship.

And the pirates want ransom for their captives and booty.

"It's déjà vu all over again." I've written about the Barbary pirates before. Follow the links if you're interested.

In the news:
Update (October 7, 2008)
This particular example of Somali piracy is still in the news. I'm planning another post, soon.

Meanwhile, I received a comment which starts with "It is not necessary to lie!"

So, a little clarification: The tanks were, apparently, manufactured in Russia, sold by a Ukrainian entity, and were to be received by the Kenyan government.

And, before someone assumes that I'm accusing the Somali government of piracy: The Somali pirates are, to all indications, acting independently of, and in defiance of the government of Somalia. I do not believe that the Somali leader(s) are complicit in this piracy. In fact, it sounds like Transitional Federal President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, Prime Minister Nur "Adde" Hassan Hussein and the rest of the Mogadishu government, would be only too happy for the pirates to stop giving Somalia a bad name.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 2, 2008

Forget the Olympics For Now: China's Secret Submarine Base is Serious

China and the Olympics are very much in the news: I'll grant that the Olympics is a big deal, and that threats to reporters and China's desire to shelter Olympic guests from the rigors of communicating with the outside world are important.

But this should be a major concern, too (first five paragraphs of a British news article):
  1. "China has secretly built a major underground nuclear submarine base that could threaten Asian countries and challenge American power in the region, it can be disclosed.
  2. "Satellite imagery, passed to The Daily Telegraph, shows that a substantial harbour has been built which could house a score of nuclear ballistic missile submarines and a host of aircraft carriers.
  3. "In what will be a significant challenge to US Navy dominance and to countries ringing the South China Sea, one photograph shows China’s latest 094 nuclear submarine at the base just a few hundred miles from its neighbours.
  4. "Other images show numerous warships moored to long jettys and a network of underground tunnels at the Sanya base on the southern tip of Hainan island.
  5. "Of even greater concern to the Pentagon are massive tunnel entrances, estimated to be 60ft high, built into hillsides around the base. Sources fear they could lead to caverns capable of hiding up to 20 nuclear submarines from spy satellites."
("Chinese nuclear submarine base" Telegraph (UK) (May 2, 2008))

"Analysts for Jane's Intelligence Review, a defense magazine, said that the secret base could allow Chinese subs to "break out to launch locations closer to the U.S.," according to the Telegraph. The base has immediate access to very deep waters, which would make launched submarines very difficult to detect." ("China Builds Secret Nuclear Submarine Base in South China Sea" FoxNEWS (May 2, 2008))

Whaddaya Mean, "Secret Base"?!

"Secret submarine base" has a sort of dime novel/comic book ring to it, for me. I wondered what could be so secret about a base that had been located and identified.

It looks like much of the base is underground. It would be difficult, maybe impossible, to tell if there were no submarines inside, one sub, or 20. And that does make a difference, when it comes to security and military planning.

As I've said before, it's a mistake to focus strictly on the Middle East. The War on Terror may become - and may already be - a global conflict. And if that is the case, it will almost certainly have alliances as odd as that between "Aryan" Germany and sincerely non-"Aryan" Japan, a half-century ago.

I think that this submarine base is a clear indication that the Chinese government has a great deal more on its mind than just keeping awkward facts from leaking out during their Olympic Games.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Westward Venture Incident: No News, and That's News

An American warship (well, it was as much an American warship as the Global Patriot was) fires on fast boats from the Iranian coast guard. Except Iran says, 'is not!'

Compared to news coverage after the Global Patriot incident, there's dead silence about what happened with the Westward Venture near Iran, in the Persian Gulf.

That's just a comparison, of course: There actually is some news coverage. For example: There really isn't that much new to report, in terms of facts. What impresses me is the lack of anti-American "news," based on innuendo and speculation. I suspect that the lack of a sympathetic victim, and a disappointing response to last month's publicity campaign, may be factors in today's resonating silence.

I wrote about the Westward Venture incident yesterday: "Westward Venture: American Ship Fires on (Iranian?) Fast Boats" (April 25, 2008).
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 25, 2008

Westward Venture: American Ship Fires on (Iranian?) Fast Boats

Here we go again. This time in the Persian Gulf.

An American ship, the Westward Venture, was about 50 miles off the coast of Iran yesterday (April 24, 2008). Two "fast boats" come screaming over the horizon, headed for the American ship.


(FAST BOAT 2888 - 'No, mate, this is a fast boat.' Video presented for reference - this is not one of the fast boats that played chicken with Western Venture.)

Fast boats: Very cool, unless they're aimed at the bridge of your nose, near a country that made "death to the Jews! death to the great Satan America!" a global catch-phrase.

To Communicate, You First Must Get the Other Party's Attention

The Westward Venture blew its whistle.

The fast boats didn't turn back.

The Westward Venture fired flares.

The fast boats didn't turn back.

The Westward Venture's Navy security team fired M16 rifles and .50-caliber machine guns toward the boats. The fast boats were within a hundred yards of the ship at that point.

The fast boats turned back.

That Navy security team was on the Westward Venture because the ship's contracted to haul military supplies to Kuwait.

"Bridge-to-bridge communication was established after the shots were fired, with someone claiming to be the Iranian Coast Guard contacting the Westward Venture.

"The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is suspected of being involved in this incident, officials told FOX." ("Navy-Contracted Vessel Fires Warning Shots on Fast Boats" FoxNEWS (April 25, 2008))

Iran Says Did Not!

"In Tehran, an Iranian navy source denied that any confrontation had occurred with a U.S. ship in the Gulf. But the source, quoted by a journalist for Iran's state-owned Arabic Al-Alam TV channel, said any shooting that may have occurred could have targeted a non-Iranian vessel.

"U.S. defense officials said they suspected the boats were Iranian. "We don't have complete confirmation of that but we suspect it," one official said." ("Ship hired by US military fires warning shots in Gulf" Reuters (April 25, 2008))

Western Venture in the News

So far, this incident hasn't made much of a splash in the news: Not entirely unexpected. News services weren't able to report that Americans carelessly killed a cigarette salesman this time. News of this incident is supposed to have raised the price of oil, though. To be fair, America isn't specifically accused of raising the price of oil, and that factoid is relevant to the story.

This run-in with boats that just happened to be near Iran and just happened to identify themselves as Iranian Coast Guard vessels reminded me of the Global Patriot incident, last month. The circumstances aren't exactly the same, but they're similar.

That Global Patriot matter was interesting in quite a few ways:
About the selection of news articles: I'm not slighting CNN. Aside from that blog, all they have on 'Western Venture' is "Columbus: Intrepid explorer or accidental navigator?" CNN (August 4, 2004): an article only remotely connected to the Persian Gulf incident yesterday.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 22, 2008

An Airman and a Screech Owl

And now, something quite different.

"The Week in Pictures - 6"

"Airman Jacob Larsen, holds 'Fod,' a screech owl discovered in the wheel well of an F/A 18 Hornet fighter on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, at sea in the Persian Gulf. ..."

It may be my imagination, but Fod seems a little shocked.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

What is Russia Thinking?

Russia has been acting oddly lately.

A number of Russia's more important cities and industrial centers are within range of Iranian missiles. But, Russia is helping Iran develop a nuclear program which the oil-rich country doesn't need: a program which could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Elsewhere, Russia seems to be reverting to the Soviet Union-era habit of flexing military muscle.

Last Saturday, four Tupolev-95 Bear bombers took off from Russia's Ukrainka Air Base, which doubles as a nuclear weapons arsenal. It looks like one of them violated Japanese airspace, while another flew over the USS Nimitz, which was operating in the western Pacific. The news said that the bomber, which could have been carrying a nuclear device, "buzzed" the carrier.

The TU-95 was flying at 2,000 feet, but I won't quibble about the word "buzzed." That's a big aircraft.

Then, the bomber flew over the Nimitz again.

The Russian air force has been busy lately. There have been eight incidents off Alaska since July, 2007, and flights over the North Atlantic that encouraged the British and Norwegian military to scramble fighters.

Why Would Russia be Doing This?

Ever since Peter I pushed Russian holdings to the Baltic, Russia has had coastline on several bodies of salt water.

Although the country isn't landlocked, Russia's access to ocean trade is limited.
  • Arctic Ocean: navigation here is limited, at best, with little commercial use
  • Baltic Sea: ships may sail to the Atlantic, as long as Scandinavian countries, Poland and Germany don't make trouble
  • Black Sea: sailing to the Mediterranean involves passing through Turkey, by way of Istanbul
  • Pacific Ocean: Russia's only direct access to a commercially navigable ocean is here - with the entire width of Siberia between the ports and Russia's heartland.
Russia's Pacific coast is the only place where Russian trade has access to the world's ocean that isn't dependent on the good will of other nations. But it's not easy-access. Shipping goods and people across Siberia is no picnic, even today.

The Arctic may be open to commercial submarine traffic someday, but not any time soon.

Russia's other two lanes to maritime trade require that ships go past, or through, other countries.

It must be very frustrating.

I think it's possible, if unlikely, that Russian leaders believe that they are securing the goodwill of the new rulers of their western passages to the sea. They may think that Europe will soon be part of the Islamic world, and that Turkey will ally itself with the Ayatollahs of Iran.

Given those beliefs, it might make sense to placate the rising power, in hopes of being given maritime access as a reward.

I do not think that a policy like that would work, any more than the Soviet Union's deal with Germany did in WWII. But I can, with a little effort, imagine a combination of desperation, frustration, and arrogance leading to an effort to buy the good will of a hypothetical western Caliphate.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, January 14, 2008

"You Will Explode" Hormuz Transmission:
Not From Iranian Boats?

More about the shenanigans of those Iraqi speedboats at the Strait of Hormuz:

That "you will explode" radio transmission may, or may not, have come from one of the boats.

The "Navy Times" wrote that "American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of 'Filipino Monkey,' likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets."

As spokeswoman for the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain said: "We don’t know for sure where they came from," referring to the threatening words. "It could have been a shore station."

I don't think this lets Iran off the hook. Even without that "you will explode" transmission, playing chicken with part of the U.S. 5th Fleet isn't a friendly act - or a smart one.

Besides, arranging for a shore station or another ship to transmit that threat would give Iran plausible deniability.

Or, the "Filipino Monkey" may be an independent nut case, or a bowlful of assorted nuts, who saw what the boats were doing, and decided to have some fun.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Iran's Gambit in the Strait of Hormuz: "Don't Do It" Again

Those Iranian speedboats that Iran says didn't do anything unusual in the Strait of Hormuz weren't blown out of the water. As it turns out, the American Navy's commanders' decision not to open fire was the right one.

Next time, the outcome could be different.

America's President Bush said that "all options are on the table" when protecting U.S. ships. About the boats: They "were very provocative and it was a dangerous gesture on their part. ... And they know our position, and that is: There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, pure and simple. And my advice to them is don't do it."

President Bush's "don't do it" is quite blunt, direct, even monosyllabic. Particularly with a presidential election going on, I'd say it won't be long before someone says "cowboy diplomacy."

Wikipedia's definition of cowboy diplomacy, "a term used by critics to describe the resolution of international conflicts through brash risk-taking, intimidation, military deployment, or a combination of such tactics," is a pretty good fit with President Bush's statement. Apart from the "brash" part, in my opinion.

Diplomacy, in the form of interminable speeches, discussions of what shape a conference table should be, and exquisitely-worded letters, is a valuable tool for resolving differences.

But, that sort of diplomacy has its limitations. It seems to work best, when all parties in a dispute share a commitment to compromise and the peaceful resolution of disagreements.

With "death to Israel! Death to America!" Iran in the mix, I don't place much confidence in the gentile end of diplomacy. There's too great a chance that what gets dropped overboard the next time will be explosive, and not Sunday's harmless boxes.

I'd say that, right now, the Strait of Hormuz is a place better suited to the diplomacy that uses phrases like, "step away from the gun!"
Despite my views on the use of force as a diplomatic tool, I have a great deal of respect for pacifists. It takes a rare sort of courage to reject physical confrontation, and accept
  • Defeat
  • Death
  • The destruction of cherished
    • Objects
    • People
    • Institutions
    • Laws and customs
I feel that pacifism is a philosophy which will thrive: as long as there are non-pacifists to defend its followers.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Iranian Government Says American Video Fake:
Did Anyone NOT See This Coming?

The American military released recordings of small, fast Iranian boats zipping around U.S. Navy ships Sunday morning.

An officer of Iran's Revolutionary Guard says the video, and audio, are fake.

No big surprise there. Particularly since the Iranian line is that the nice little boats were just minding their own business, asking the great big warships who they were and what they were doing.

The video and audio show speedboats playing chicken with the three warships, and airing threats ("you will explode" - a threat, yes?). After violating quite few rules of the road (seas, rather), and dropping boxes, the Iranian crews went back to whatever they do on shore.

That was just as well, because at least on of the warship commanders was close to giving the 'open fire' order.

Iran could wind up with perforated boats and scrambled Guards is they try that stunt again. I doubt that the American military is willing to risk another USS Cole.

I hear that the American military re-released the video and audio, with quite a bit of the static and crackle taken out. The 'you will explode' dialog is much easier to hear now.

Could it have been faked? Maybe. As I wrote yesterday, the audio could easily be a fake. The video would have been harder to fake. It's one thing to make a crystal-clear special effects shot, and quite another to produce something with the haze, jiggle, foreground figures,and all the rest that we saw in the video.

But I suspect that the country that produced the special effects artists and technicians behind Steven Spielberg and George Lucas could have faked the video.

Getting the officers and crews of three American Navy ships to lie about what happened isn't so likely. I know that a tiny percentage of the American military's officers and enlisted personnel have, at one time or another, lied: generally to cover up some crime they committed. That's one of the things courts martial are around for.

But this time, a lot of people are involved: and I simply don't believe that the conspiracy explanation is true.

However, I'm pretty sure that this isn't Iran's last word. And, I'm even more sure that Iran's 'we were just minding our own business' claim will be taken very, very seriously.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Playing Chicken in the Strait of Hormuz

Sunday morning, in the Strait of Hormuz, the USS Port Royal, the USS Hopper and the USS Ingraham had a close encounter with at least five small, fast boats from Iran. There's a Department of Defense video on CNN that shows several minutes of the 20-minute-plus incident.

Although Iran has a different version of what happened, I think the question isn't what happened: it's why it happened.

Here's a selection of what was said and done, according to another news story:
  • U.S. Navy ship: "Inbound small craft, you are approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not known and your intentions are unclear.Request you alter course immediately to remain clear."
  • Iraqi boat radio reply: "You will explode in a couple of minutes."
  • At some point, the Iranian boats dumped boxes overboard.
  • The boats sped between the navy ships, crossing the wake of at least one.
The Strait of Hormuz is 34 miles across at its narrowest point, where there is a six-mile-wide navigable channel: two miles for northbound traffic, two for southbound, and a two-mile buffer between them. Two miles doesn't leave much rooms for ships like the Port Royal, Hopper and Ingraham to maneuver.

Iran and America don't agree on how serious an event this is: at least, not officially.
  • America ("President Bush Participates in Video Teleconference with Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Team Leaders and Brigade Combat Commanders," White House, January 8, 2008):

    Q Mr. President, what do you make of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz with Iran on Sunday? Do you think they were trying to provoke a fight with the U.S.?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mark, we viewed it as a provocative act. It is a dangerous situation, and they should not have done it, pure and simple.

    Q What do you think they were up to?

    THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what I think -- what their thinking was, but I'm telling you what I think it was. I think it was a provocative act.

    Q What will your message be to the Fifth Fleet when you're there in Bahrain?

    THE PRESIDENT: My message is, thanks for serving the United States of America; we're proud of you. And my message today to the Iranians is, they shouldn't have done what they did.

  • Iran (FM spokesman says act taken in connection with US ship is normal," IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) January 7, 2008):

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said on Monday the act taken in connection with an American navy ship is something normal.

    In an exclusive interview with IRNA on Monday, Hosseini said, "That's something normal taking place every now and then for each party and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties."
    He recalled that the case had happened in the past too and finalized as the two parts identified each other.

    He said, "The case happening on Saturday was similar to the past ones and it was a regular and natural issue."
    Some western media late Monday quoted US officials as claiming that several Iranian speedboats had neared several US navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

    The US officials also claimed that during the incident warnings had been exchanged between the two sides.
I'm sure that the Iranian point of view will be solemnly considered, but I think Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman is factually challenged in this matter.

About the Iranian boats needing to identify the U.S. naval ships:
  • The commander of U.S. 5th Fleet said the American vessels had been identified by Iranian authorities before the boats started playing chicken with the U.S. Navy ships. In a telephone interview with the Associated Press, reported in USA Today: "The group had been successfully queried by an Iranian ship, possibly a Revolutionary Guards ship, and two or three Iranian (shore) stations and an Omani station," Cosgriff said. Besides, the ships were marked - those oversize numbers that naval ships wear.
  • As for "Some western media late Monday quoted US officials as claiming that several Iranian speedboats had neared several US navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz." - that video the Navy released might have been absolutely top-notch special effects, processed to look like it had been recorded inside a Naval vessel, the officers and crew of all three ships could be lying through their teeth, and the recorded ship-to-ship dialog could be a fake. But I don't think so.
An answer we may not learn for years - if ever - is why this incident happened.

It's possible that about a dozen Iranians, who had access to those fancy boats, decided that it would be fun to see how close they could come to getting killed. That explanation would be more likely, if Islam allowed boozing.

I think it's much more likely that Iran arranged this incident. If this is the case, whoever gave the order must have seen a really big payoff. Playing chicken with the U.S. Navy could have been expensive: those boats, similar to cigarette boats, aren't cheap, and their crews presumably represent an investment in training.

Iran may have been trying to send a "political message," as Riad Kahwaji, an Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis member, said. The Associated Press quoted his speculation that Iran was showing how dangerous military confrontation would be. "When somebody gets so close to a big ship then he's very likely asking for trouble or trying to provoke something," he said. "Opening fire means sparking a war. ... Does anyone really want to take that risk?"

Or, as crazy as it seems, Iran may have hoped to draw the United States into a shooting war with Iran. It's not too hard to imagine that the ayatollahs decided that Allah wouldn't let them lose.

I think it's more likely that Iran hoped for fatalities, or at least casualties. I'm no expert in Middle East political society, but I strongly suspect that shot-up and Muslims killed by infidels would have given Iran an opportunity to play the victim. The sympathy might have been enough to make their neighbors stop fussing about the nuclear weapons that Iran may or may not be developing.

Sunday's encounter reminds me, in a way, of the USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 655, back in 1988. The American naval vessel shot down an unarmed airliner with 290 people aboard. There were no survivors.

I did a little checking, and found a copy of declassified sections of the Pentagon report on what happened. It was posted by someone who added comments with a distinct attitude.

The Iran-Iraq war had been going on for years, with Iran attacking shipping in the area.
  • Kuwait had asked for - and gotten - help from America to defend their ships
  • In May of 1987, an Iraqi Mirage F-1 launched two missiles that hit the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors
  • in April 1988 the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts hit an Iranian mine
  • That was about the time that the Vincennes was deployed to the area
The Vincennes had a new defense system: the AEGIS combat system. Dealing with new technology is hard enough. Doing so when people are trying to kill you doesn't add a bit to a person's tranquility.

Apparently, Iran Air Flight 655, a routinely scheduled flight, took off and followed a course which would have taken it directly over the Vincennes. The Iranian military hadn't

The American government's explanation was that an inexperienced crew, under very stressful circumstances, made a series of fatal mistakes.

The Iranian government said that the Yankees did it on purpose.

I'm willing to accept the idea that Flight 655 was shot down by accident. However, there are some disturbing points.
  • The Iranian military didn't tell the pilot that the flight would be passing over foreign warships
  • If I'm reading the report right, flight 655 was picked up by the Vincennes radar at an altitude of 900 feet. A minute later, another ship picked Flight 655 at 1500 feet.
1500 feet is where the airliner should have been. To the Vincennes crew, a blip 900 feet above the water, flying straight at them, would have looked a lot like an attacking war plane.

For some reason, Flight 655's transponder seems to have 400 feet off. The transponder is a device that determines altitude based on air pressure, and broadcasts the altitude when it receives a signal. If somone had "interrogated" Flight 655's transponder while it was on the runway, it would have reported that the airliner was 40 stories underground. It looks like the Vincennes got its altitude data from the transponder.

Whether the Vincennes/Flight 655 incident was an accident, or a very well-set-up trap, the results were the same: America paid reparations to Iran, the International Court of Justice said that it was America's fault, and people had opportunities to explain in detail why and how America was at fault. (There's a pretty good summary in Wikipedia's "Independent Sources" section of its Iran Air Flight 655 article.)

I can't help think that Iran may have been trying to relive its Flight 655 aftermath successes.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.