open Democracy News Analysis - The Persian Gulf: a war of position, Paul Rogers - Comments

nandmbanks on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

nandmbanks — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:23:01 +0000

Nathaniel_1 (482) might wish to note that CENTCOM is a unified combatant command where leadership positions are shared, or rotated, between the joint services. Whilst recent leadership has seen consecutive Army Generals in overall command, their predecessors were always rotated with Marine Corps. Of note, the Deputy Commander, and more importantly the Commander�s senior Flag and General Officer ranked advisers are also evenly divided between all the services and have always included US Navy officers in influential leadership positions.

That a very capable naval officer is commanding the HQ, albeit a first in this HQ construct, is in no way an indicator of the likely nature, or environment, of any subsequent military posture or potential conflict.

nathaniel_1 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

nathaniel_1 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:56:31 +0000

Another enormous clue into this impending mess is the fact that the U.S. Senate on Feb. 8 confirmed a new commander of CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command.) CENTCOM is in charge of both fronts in the Middle Eastern theatre (Iraq and Afghanistan.) It is quite odd that the man chosen for this new position, replacing Gen. John Abizaid, is a Navy Admiral.

What exactly is a career naval aviator and carrier commander going to know about fighting a decentralized, limited engagement, house to house, ground based insurgency ?

Personally, I think the fix is in. Four ESG groups, at least two carrier groups, a new wave of accusations from the Pentagon about Iranian involvement in Iraq, new deployments of Patriot missile batteries along the Arabian peninsula, and the cherry on top - A Navy Admiral now running the show.

Not logged in on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

Not logged in — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:17:54 +0000

mysticsailor

Thanks for these details- anything else you come across do pass along to dan@danplesch.net

tkymagble on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

tkymagble — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:59:08 +0000

It beggars belief that after the world wide condemnation of the totally unnecessary war in Iraq, the awful loss of life and the resultant turmoil into which the Iraqi nation has been thrown, that the US could be contemplating another invasion of a country for reasons other than self defence. What exactly is the use of the UN? Is America under George Bush and Cheyney to be allowed to set the world ablaze, unchallenged?

Yolande M. Agble

justicequest2000 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

justicequest2000 — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:28:45 +0000

Scott Ritter: Scott Ritter - "We're on the edge of the abyss...." (must listen audio of a recent presentation by Scott Ritter in the USA about coming war with Iran):

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/154/1/

mysticsailor on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

mysticsailor — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:15:26 +0000

I would also like to point out a couple of other interesting facts in addition to the excellent posts and article here.

A very small article from Radio Australia mentioned that VP Cheney was showing up in Guam on the 22nd of February. Of all the places on earth this guy could be 2 days after the UN deadline on Iran...

A second very interesting piece that everyone seems to be missing is that in a local, small paper in Pearl Harbor, the headline reads "Two Pearl Destroyers Head for Persian Gulf". The problem is that one of the 2 is the USS Russell which is slated to be with the USS Ronald Reagan.

The question therefore is who is headed where? The Reagan to Japan or to the Gulf with the Russell? My bet is on the small, hometown paper with the crying wives and children who probably know the truth..... Here are a few links:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1841554.htm

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=6035178

tony ryan on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

tony ryan — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:15:25 +0000

Is Paul Rogers being academically obtuse, flamboyantly nonpartisan, or simply naive? These are not exercises in military diplomacy, but the calculated prelude to ongoing war. Everyone knows this except, it seems, Paul Rogers. The attack on Iran will simply be the 42nd aggressive invasion by the US since 1946; with the usual motive: resource hegemony. Syria will be the 43rd victim, as punishment for resisting. Although Israel may actually fire the first missile, only the blind and the stupid would not perceive this relationship to be anything other than a hegemonic symbiosis.

Rogers then goes on to doubt the logistic capacity for the US to maintain a strike capacity. Has he never heard of conscription? Remember Vietnam?

And finally, he implies we must huddle helplessly in the audience while these war crimes unfold. Hell no! Now is the time for every citizen on this planet to demand loudly that their government suspend trade and diplomatic relations with the US and Israel until they learn to respect other nation's sovereignty, and desist from breaches of the Geneva Convention and international law. As far as I am concerned, any citizen who fails to make his disapproval loudly known to his or her elected representative, can later be presumed to have supported the US. The post WWII punishment of Germans was based on this premise, yet most Germans feared to protest. There is no such element of intimidation in this media-driven war; at least not in Europe or other western nations. And as a media-supported war, loud protests will be its undoing. Or we can wait until the time for words is over and the western bloodshed begins.

douglas-jones on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

douglas-jones — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:53:18 +0000

I,indeed perhaps most, hope this is saber rattling.

The sooner Bush Blair and hangers on are indicted and placed in limbo the better. Moves are afoot in America Britain and in a minor way Australia.

Equally one might hope that the media having experienced, indeed been an active part of the lies for Iraq which proved to be the dreams of the few will become less partisan returning to news reporting or to these days the more common trivia passing for news embedded in entertainment.

justicequest2000 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

justicequest2000 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:51:28 +0000

A former consultant with Janes Defense Weekly (according to what he mentioned via email) sent the following as a possible consequence of a coming attack on Iran:

Ramifications of a coming war with Iran for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=66184

Donald Jones wrote:

What would Bush do if 250,000 Iranian troops joined with 60,000 Iraqi Shiite troops to attack the US forces in Iraq ? There is no way the USAF could deal with such an attack. Perhaps Bush should consult with Col. Custer about that. More and more army officers are coming out against any attack on Iran . They say it would be catastrophic. Because he is a psychopath I bet Bush doesn�t care. I can�t wait to see the outcome. It might cause the American sheeple to wake up.

justicequest2000 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

justicequest2000 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:19:12 +0000

Stop the Iran War (for Israel) before It Starts:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=67774

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

ken_1 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

ken_1 — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:41:03 +0000

The aircraft carrier "Ronald Reagan" is having a "biggest loser" competition as it heads for the Gulf. This does actually seem to apply to typical American obesity but it does reveal their irony deficiency.

Not logged in on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

Not logged in — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:14:51 +0000

In addition to the Marine aircraft carriers Paul mentions, it appears that there are two or more additional Expeditionary Strike Groups in, or on the way to the Gulf. These are the Kearsarge- which should have returned home a while ago and has not, and the Bonhomme Richard which left San Diego a few weeks back. Others (Wasp, Nassau, Pelelieu) are also only a few weeks away.

As to the big Navy carriers, a Japanese military source informs me that the Kitty Hawk is in dock till April. However the Truman is underway in the Atlantic. More important, the post-9/11 Navy can put six carriers into battle in a month.

These forces are now integrated with the far larger firepower of the US Air Force. Rumsfeld placed a Marine General in charge of all these strategic conventional and nuclear bombers and missiles- for the first time in US history. This General Cartwright has created a force that stands on 12 hours notice to attack 10,000 plus targets with "smart" bombs in a single raid. This, and unreported Air Force and special force deployments in Iraq and the "stans", are the more important parts of the US build-up. They merely await the starting pistol.

The Persian Gulf: a war of position, Paul Rogers

Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0000

The United States operations in Iraq continue to be costly. The number of American combat deaths in October 2006 - January 2007 (334) was the highest of any four-month period since the war began in March 2003. In the first five weeks of 2007, 110 US troops have been killed and nearly 700 wounded. The destruction of five helicopters between 20 January and 8 February has inflicted serious damage, and created a new strategic headache for US forces aware of the rising technological capability of the Iraqi insurgents.

The US casualties are still minor compared with the heavy loss of life for Iraqis, and the number of Iraqi deaths too is expected to rise as the US troop "surge" brings more intensive patrols in Baghdad. A more visible American troop presence may not lead to the insurgents melting away to return later, as they have so often in the past. Instead, they may be prepared to engage more forcefully in urban warfare, especially as elements of them have been able to acquire some of the more sophisticated portable anti-aircraft missiles that have arrived in Iraq.

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001

In any case, the exact level of US troop reinforcements is less than clear. There is apparently some confusion as to whether the 21,500 additional combat troops being sent will be accompanied by the even larger number of support troops that usually back up the combat brigades. The current overstretch in the US army means that existing support troops may have to carry much of the extra work, and this creates something of a dilemma: either additional support is forthcoming (which could mean another 30,000 troops), or else it will be difficult to maintain the new level of forces for any length of time.

Whatever happens in Iraq, a significant build-up of US forces in the Persian Gulf appear to have much more to do with a possible crisis with Iran. The previous column in this series pointed to four important recent military decisions:

the order to US forces in Iraq to kill or detain members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who might be operating in Iraq

the decision to deploy a second aircraft-carrier battle-group to the region for the first time in nearly four years

an increase in the number of Patriot anti-missile batteries

the assignment of additional mine counter-measures ships (see "The United States and Iran: the logic of war", 1 February 2007).

In addition, two unusual and lesser-noted developments deserve attention, for they could carry even greater implications for the future course of events.

A naval surprise

The first concerns the USS Ronald Reagan, an aircraft-carrier that is at the centre of yet another carrier battle-group that may be heading to the region. The Ronald Reagan left San Diego on 27 January at the head of a powerful force that included the guided missile-cruiser USS Lake Champlain and the guided missile-destroyer USS Russell; both warships are reported to be equipped with scores of sea-launched cruise missiles.

The US navy reports that the Ronald Reagan carrier strike group "was deployed under the navy's Fleet Response Plan (FRP), which provides the United States with the ability to respond to any global commitment with flexible and sustainable forces and the ability to respond to a range of situations at short notice."

Two aspects of the carrier's operations are of interest. The first is that the carrier only returned from its previous deployment to the Arabian Sea in July 2006, something usually followed by a longer period of home-porting; instead, the ship has since been taking part in exercises designed to maintain a high state of military readiness. The second concerns the current operations. The navy says that the carrier is actually deploying to the western Pacific to take over from the older carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk - this being the only carrier permanently based abroad (at Yokosuka in Japan), and currently undergoing maintenance.

What is a bit unusual here is that the Kitty Hawk's three-month maintenance work is being undertaken by the crew, not external contractors, with the ship retaining the ability to deploy at short notice if need be. Furthermore, this maintenance started on 8 January, whereas the Ronald Reagan carrier battle-group will not even arrive in the area until mid-February. This does not seem to fit with standing in for the Kitty Hawk and does mean that another carrier battle-group could actually be deployed to the Gulf at short notice. Moreover, this is a strike group that has a crew experienced in recent operations in the Gulf.

A third carrier battle-group deployed to the region would be a clear sign that, at the very least, a major show of forces is in prospect; but in another sense, and from a rather different angle, that is beginning to happen already.

In addition to maintaining an aircraft carrier battle-group in the Persian Gulf region since the Iraq war began in 2003, the US navy has also tended to keep another type of naval force there as well. This is termed an "expeditionary strike group" (ESG): it comprises of a very large amphibious warfare ship, normally a Wasp-class 45,000 ton warship, accompanied usually by two smaller amphibious warfare ships - although even these are as large as the Royal Navy's two Albion-class vessels.

The current ESG in the Gulf is centred on the USS Boxer, together with the USS Dubuque and the USS Comstock, as well as a cruiser, a destroyer and other supporting vessels. This flotilla alone has well over 2,000 marines on board, equipped with helicopters, AV8B strike aircraft, landing craft, tanks, armoured vehicles, an array of logistics support and even military hovercraft. It is designed to be highly versatile but is particularly suited to coastal and near-coastal operations against defended positions. The Boxer ESG has been in the area since late October and, in the normal way of things, might have another two months to go before being replaced by another group.

An accidental war?

This is the second major recent development noted above. For what has not been widely noticed is that a second expeditionary strike group - based on a sister ship to the Boxer, the USS Bataan - transited the Suez canal into the Red Sea on 30 January and has joined the US navy's fifth fleet, responsible for US naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and surrounding waters.

Furthermore, the Bataan ESG is a particularly powerful flotilla; it includes two more amphibious warfare ships, USS Shreveport and USS Oak Hill, the guided missile-cruiser USS Vella Gulf, the guided missile-destroyer USS Nitze, the frigate USS Underwood and the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Scranton.

Thus the naval forces now gathering in the region include two carrier battle-groups and two expeditionary strike groups, with the possibility of yet another carrier battle-group, centred on the USS Ronald Reagan, being barely ten days away.

This combination of events does not mean that a war with Iran is imminent, although it does mean that a remarkable concentration of forces will be available to the US by late March and early April - including precisely those kinds of forces that would be employed to defend US and coalition assets in the region should a crisis with Iran escalate to open conflict.

That could happen in three ways:

an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, leading to Iranian retaliation against US forces

a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, with a similar response

a determined US show of military force to add to the diplomatic pressures on Iran that "goes wrong".

In other words, quite untoward and unplanned developments, even accidents, could combine to turn a tense crisis into conflict.

In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here

Paul Rogers's new book is Into the Long War: Oxford Research Group, International Security Report 2006 ()

April's danger

This military build-up, in the context of hawkish rhetoric from neo-conservative quarters in Washington, can be held to imply a firm intention on the part of the United States (or Israel) to launch an attack on Iran. As last week's column pointed out, this may not be the case.

What is actually more risky in current circumstances is a crisis getting out of hand, particularly in the complex and volatile circumstances that now prevail in Iraq as the American surge continues, as well as in the context of the uncertainties and infighting of Iranian politics.

From a strictly diplomatic point of view, this is a dangerous time for the United States to be sending powerful naval forces into the region, especially as there will be far greater media coverage of these moves in Iran than will appear in the western press. The powers that be in Washington think differently, however, and are making decisions accordingly. The effect could be to make April a rather dangerous month.

Average rating

(8 votes)