Head to the link for the logic leading up to this:
When I take the red team perspective of action unfolding in the Middle East, if I am Iran and Syria supported by Russia, my calculation is that I may never have a better opportunity to change the regional security conditions and balance of power in the Middle East than the opportunity being presented in this situation unfolding. By throwing every military asset possible in attack of the surface action group of 4 destroyers in the Mederterranian Sea, and throwing the entire armed forces of Iran against the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Pakistan, the entire US policy for the Middle East would be dead in the water if Iran and Syrian attacks were to be successful. As red team, I would attack these targets specifically because they are sovereign US targets and don't inherently escalate tensions by giving any other nation a reason to join in.
Oh, you honestly believe - like John Kerry does - that the US would muster the military and muster allies around the world, and would start World War III in response to a tactical defeat at sea? Think again. The simple fact is the world would immediately stand in shock, and there is no evidence anywhere suggesting the Obama administration handles pressure well. The Middle East would explode in celebration of a public US tactical defeat, leaving the Nimitz Strike Group south of the Suez unable to cross north to help. Hu Jinping would shit a Great Wall when facing the possibility of a major war across the sea lines of communication throughout the Middle East, and would be with Russia in the UNSC within 24 hours shouting for a cease fire. Iran would immediately make clear that with the first sign of a US counterattack against Iran, Iran would unload their ballistic missiles into US bases across Afghanistan and potentially leverage other resources to broaden the conflict regionally.
Is Europe going to seriously come to the aid of a belligerent US who got smacked for attacking another nation without a coalition, any legitimate alliance, or a UNSC resolution? The NATO alliance clause doesn't protect the US under the scenario unfolding in Syria. Remember, gas prices across the world will triple - or more, in the first 24 hours on the threat of escalation, so the gravity of the situation will hit the wallet of an happy American population as well. Where is the support for the US coming from? If you think the US has a reserve force ready to deploy in the US, you don't understand the impact of sequestration on the US military at all. It would take the US weeks, and in some cases months, to mobilize military forces in response to a major escalation. Does anyone honestly believe Asian nations are going to rise up and help the US after our military adventurism that went wrong? If the US Navy takes attrition across the Middle East and the Med, how does one think France - our only real coalition partner right now - will react? When bad ideas lead to things going badly, people don't take great risk in support of the foolish losers.
This isn't some impossible scenario, Syria does have the military capability to defeat 1 surface action group of 4 destroyers if committed to that tactical action, and Iran does have the capability to destroy a single Carrier Strike Group in a surprise attack less than 300 miles off the coast of Iran.
A successful counterstrike leaves the US with no one to turn to except Israel, whose assistance could send the entire region into chaos.
So if I am red team, if Obama goes from Congress directly to war, I attack. The Obama administration is playing a game of checkers, and it is impossible to suggest the absence of policy, strategy, objective, and coalition by the Obama administration is akin to a game of chess. If the enemy plays chess in response, we're screwed. At that point it would come down to US military forces winning tactical battles despite bad strategy to avoid humiliating strategic defeat, which honestly somewhat describes US policy for the last decade across the Middle East.
Is he wrong about the US responce to this sort of counter-attack from Syria/Iran/Russia?
Is he wrong about the possible success of such an attack?
Is he wrong about the possibility that Iran et.al. might analyse things this way and launch such an attack?
This scenario just reeks with possible triggers for WWIII or total political/economic collapse. Our regime is incapable and incompetent when it comes to judging the consequences of their actions.
Give me some reason to hope that if O pulls the trigger we won't wind up in total breakdown.
#4
Galrahn is a smart guy. He might be wrong but he's not stupid.
He has been hammering the issue of what sequestration is doing to military readiness. Essentially it comes down to this: the Navy can deploy a strike group or task force, and they can prepare the next set of ships in the rotation for that group or force, but all other ships and units are in deep unreadiness. There's little or no maintenance and repair money, and little money to train up the follow-on units.
We have 9 carriers (1 more is refueling and thus is unavailable). We have three deployed and six at home. How many of those six can sail within (say) two weeks? Per Galrahn, at most one. The rest would take a while.
Ditto for other surface combatants.
The Air Force has similar issues: it can maintain Afghanistan operations and some operations at home but it can't forward deploy rapidly to (say) Turkey or Greece for operations against Syria. It would need a lot of money to fix the readiness issues, money currently sandbagged by sequestration.
As he points out in his scenario (go read it all), the Obama/Kerry/Hagel/Dempsey 'strategy' works only if the Syrians are callow, cowardly and stupid. If they have any spine at all and come back at us we're potentially in deep trouble.
And he's certainly got one issue right: if Syria or Iran managed a successful attack on our Navy, the whole Middle East, save Israel, would be dancing in the streets.
Great Mideast policy we got, huh.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2013 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Give me some reason to hope that if O pulls the trigger we won't wind up in total breakdown.
Maybe total collapse/breakdown is what he is aiming for. Sure looks that way to me. I suspect he doesn't want all the sh!t on his hands though. I mean, he does like to shift the blame to others.
This jack wagon will be the death of us.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
09/06/2013 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#9
From what I am hearing on teevee, it sounds as though he will completely ignore a congressional "no vote" and proceed with his plans for a strike. Rand Paul would then be correct, the entire congressional exercise was little more than a sham to buy preparation time.
#11
I think there is truth in the theory. We may have sponsers in the Middle East, but those governments have populations with, what, five six generations of hate america - hitting a high value target quick and even with large casualties could trigger a general hello snackbar movement and end any sort of public support. And what happens here if the gasoline simply 150%s which is definately going to happen, especially with the non-movement of a moral building Keystone. And Egypt, how will they feel with our arming and training of the very groups they are trying to ouster? There is no support for this publically.
I have to agree that the solution is mass diplomacy and the building of a large coalition with may take years. Thats what Bush did, but that may have alredy been lost with the President taking his military to war with or without approval, and everyone and their secret squirrel knows that Team AQ is culling Team Free Syria - hell the FSA general was flat assassinated not too long ago. Kerry is flat lying and Putin is moves ahead.
#12
Darth Bolton just said Champ would need a "character transplant to go against a congressional no vote". Bolton however, thinks he will get the 'YES' vote from congress.
#13
Our illustrious "naval expert" leaves out the submarine force. True, they're not much good against aircraft, but the Burkes are geared for those.
Secondly, carrier groups are defense-in-depth. They practice it regularly. I'm not going to go into details, but it'd take one hell of a multi-environment saturation launch by the Iranians.
Honestly, World of Warcraft is not a good thing to list on your C.V. as 'expertise'.
Earlier I asked:
Is he wrong about the US responce to this sort of counter-attack from Syria/Iran/Russia?
Is he wrong about the possible success of such an attack?
Is he wrong about the possibility that Iran et.al. might analyse things this way and launch such an attack?
I felt, when I asked those questions, that the success of such an attack was the least likely part of the scenario for the reasons you say.
HOWEVER, I don't doubt that such an attack could do some serious damage let's say like the USS Cole level damage to 3 or 4 ships.
What then? Does Oblather tell the military to attack Iran? Go to BOTG in Syria? Is Russia going to just sit there? What will China do?
PLUS, if this regime goes to congress and gets voted down and STILL tries to pull the trigger would the military balk on the grounds that it is an unlawful, unconstitutional order?
From what I'm seeing I don't think the House will go for it. Is that enough to stop the insanity?
#16
AlanC this is the para I think is wrong, and it's the base of his entire argument.
This isn't some impossible scenario, Syria does have the military capability to defeat 1 surface action group of 4 destroyers if committed to that tactical action, and Iran does have the capability to destroy a single Carrier Strike Group in a surprise attack less than 300 miles off the coast of Iran.
How? How does Syria strike a Surface Action Group with air cover and destroy it? How does Iran attack a Carrier Task Force and destroy it?
#18
I don't know squat about anything maritime, but the Argies certainly managed to give the UK some pause during the Falklands dust up. That many ships, subs, and rockets.... anything could happen.
#20
Earlier I asked: Is he wrong about the US responce to this sort of counter-attack from Syria/Iran/Russia?
Yes.
Is he wrong about the possible success of such an attack?
He's confusing 'probable' with 'possible'.
It's possible that a meteorite could strike, it's possible that the Eastern Med Monster could rise out from the depths. The probability of either is low.
It's possible that such an attack could be successful. The probability depends on a lot of factors, both attacker and defender.
Is he wrong about the possibility that Iran et.al. might analyse things this way and launch such an attack?
Again, he confuses 'possibility' with 'probability'.
I felt, when I asked those questions, that the success of such an attack was the least likely part of the scenario for the reasons you say.
HOWEVER, I don't doubt that such an attack could do some serious damage let's say like the USS Cole level damage to 3 or 4 ships.
That's a lot different than "defeat 1 surface action group of 4 destroyers if committed to that tactical action."
One, the Syrians have to launch aircraft, or missiles, or both. Without giving away a lot, let's just say that a launch of either or both would be detected early and defensive measures taken. It's likely that damage will be taken. But reality is a lot different than armchair warfighting.
and Iran does have the capability to destroy a single Carrier Strike Group in a surprise attack less than 300 miles off the coast of Iran.
1. Iran has to muster the assets to attack a carrier group.
2. Iran has to launch assets to attack a carrier group.
3. Iran has to get through the carrier forces' defenses to inflict significant damage.
4. Iran has to be prepared for an immediate or near-immediate response.
What then? Does Oblather tell the military to attack Iran? Go to BOTG in Syria? Is Russia going to just sit there? What will China do?
It depends on what the Rules of Engagement (ROE) are. If the ROE says "refer to National Command Authority", then that is what happens. It's not light-speed, but it communications are fairly quick. I have no idea what the President would do, nor do I have an 'in' with the Chinese or the Russians.
I do know that a carrier group isn't a collection of sitting ducks.
PLUS, if this regime goes to congress and gets voted down and STILL tries to pull the trigger would the military balk on the grounds that it is an unlawful, unconstitutional order?
Again, I don't know. Donald Sensing says it's unconstitutional. It would likely be unconstitutional IMNSHO. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
From what I'm seeing I don't think the House will go for it. Is that enough to stop the insanity?
And once again, I don't know. The inner workings of the US political system aren't my forte. I also am aware that the inner workings of the US political system aren't my forte. That's why I don't comment on it.
#21
Well played TFSM. Start stocking up on chicken.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/06/2013 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Pappy correctly points out the steps Iran has to take to engage successfully a carrier strike group.
Let's say that the probability of success of a sudden Iran full-scale strike on a carrier strike group is 1%. One percent.
Let's say the price of failure (the other 99% of the time) is that Iran then receives a truly prodigious thumping by remaining U.S. assets in the region -- not just the carrier group but all other assets as well.
Rational actors would conclude that the risk, one percent chance of success counterbalanced by 99% chance of being gobsmacked, isn't worth it.
The assumption there is that when the attack fails, we'd return fire.
What if we don't?
I think that's implicit in Galrahn's analysis. We don't respond because either 1) we can't, the forces being unable to launch a counter-strike (less likely) or 2) we won't, because our national command authority refuses to authorize a counter-strike.
Why would Obama back down? Could be he gets a warning from Russia -- counter-attack Iran and bad stuff starts to happen. Could be he gets a warning from Iran -- counter-attack us and assets we have elsewhere start to do bad things. Could be he loses his nerve. Could be he sees it to be advantageous to the U.S., or to him politically and personally, to refuse to order a counter-strike.
What are the odds of that? I dunno, but lately I'm wondering if it's a non-zero number.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/06/2013 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#23
"Could be he sees it to be advantageous to the U.S., or to him politically and personally, to refuse to order a counter-strike."
FTFY, Steve.
Bambi doesn't give a rat's ass what's advantageous to the U.S.; everything revolves around him. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
09/06/2013 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#24
The assumption there is that when the attack fails, we'd return fire. What if we don't?
I think that's implicit in Galrahn's analysis. We don't respond because either 1) we can't, the forces being unable to launch a counter-strike (less likely) or 2) we won't, because our national command authority refuses to authorize a counter-strike.
Again, it depends on what Rules of Engagement (ROE) are in effect. If the ROE says "refer to National Command Authority", then that is what will happen. You may not like it, Sea Lord Gahlran may not like it, but that's the way it is.
What is being confused here is military ability with political ability. I can fill this post with examples of clusterf&cks from the First Gulf War because all decisions had to be "kicked upstairs".
The ships will only do what they've been given permission to do. How hard is that to understand?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
