Article

2013-09-06 Fifth Column

Information Dissemination: If It's Not "War," It Sounds Like Checkers

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2013-09-06 01:54|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 Author wet his pants after the Navy let him ride the LCS on Lake Michigan, he's been stupid wrong before.

Posted by Shipman 2013-09-06 05:26|| 2013-09-06 05:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Ship,

"He's been wrong before."

What is he wrong about here?

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.

Posted by AlanC 2013-09-06 08:04|| 2013-09-06 08:04|| Front Page Top

#3 This scenario just reeks with possible triggers for WWIII or total political/economic collapse.

My fear as well.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-06 08:08|| 2013-09-06 08:08|| Front Page Top

#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 2013-09-06 08:37|| 2013-09-06 08:37|| Front Page 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 2013-09-06 08:47|| 2013-09-06 08:47|| Front Page Top

#6 The Russians plan to play Chess.

Posted by newc 2013-09-06 09:48|| 2013-09-06 09:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Perhaps that BhO Executive Order outlining Marshall Law is the end game that Holder, Jarrett and Axelrod are playing.

Posted by Mugsy Glink 2013-09-06 10:07|| 2013-09-06 10:07|| Front Page Top

#8 If that happens then WE are once again in civil war. Bring it on you bastids !

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-06 10:25|| 2013-09-06 10:25|| Front Page 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.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-06 10:40|| 2013-09-06 10:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Both sides get time to prepare...

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-09-06 10:42|| 2013-09-06 10:42|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by swksvolFF 2013-09-06 10:48|| 2013-09-06 10:48|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-06 10:50|| 2013-09-06 10:50|| Front Page Top

#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'.

Posted by Pappy 2013-09-06 11:01|| 2013-09-06 11:01|| Front Page Top

#14 That said, I still think there's no plan for before, during, or after.

Posted by Pappy 2013-09-06 11:02|| 2013-09-06 11:02|| Front Page Top

#15 Pappy,

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?

Posted by AlanC 2013-09-06 11:23|| 2013-09-06 11:23|| Front Page Top

#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?

Posted by Shipman 2013-09-06 13:21|| 2013-09-06 13:21|| Front Page Top

#17 Disregard my second paragraph, Captain Smarht Power just poo poo'd the UN.

Posted by swksvolFF 2013-09-06 14:16|| 2013-09-06 14:16|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-09-06 14:21|| 2013-09-06 14:21|| Front Page Top

#19 Honestly, World of Warcraft is not a good thing to list on your C.V. as 'expertise'.

But it could come in helpful in explaining to everyone that we've elected Leeroy Jenkins president.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-09-06 14:58|| 2013-09-06 14:58|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by Pappy 2013-09-06 15:42|| 2013-09-06 15:42|| Front Page Top

#21 Well played TFSM. Start stocking up on chicken.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2013-09-06 16:00|| 2013-09-06 16:00|| Front Page 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 2013-09-06 18:10|| 2013-09-06 18:10|| Front Page 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 2013-09-06 19:14|| 2013-09-06 19:14|| Front Page 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?

Posted by Pappy 2013-09-06 23:28|| 2013-09-06 23:28|| Front Page Top

23:50 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:28 Pappy
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:20 Procopius2k
22:20 SteveS
21:43 Uncle Phester
21:13 tu3031
20:21 Uncle Phester
19:54 JosephMendiola
19:38 Snavise Cholurt4299
19:20 Barbara
19:14 Barbara
19:14 Unineger Barnsmell4545
19:10 Muggsy Splat3663
18:43 Uncle Phester
18:37 Uncle Phester
18:34 Uncle Phester
18:33 Uncle Phester
18:16 swksvolFF
18:12 SteveS
18:10 BrerRabbit
18:10 Steve White
17:52 Throlet Theling4573