Friends, the conflict with Iran is dragging on, although President Trump extended the ceasefire indefinitely today. The Strait of Hormuz is the real battleground. For whatever reason, the mighty U.S. Navy doesn't seem willing or able to establish physical control over the vital waterway. Small Iranian boats continue to harass commercial shipping and essentially deny the entire world use of the Strait. Unacceptable, I say!!! Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed a blockade that has brought all Iranian maritime commerce to a complete standstill. Who will blink first? Well, it's hard to see how Iran could possibly think it could outlast us in such a struggle, but, if they watch CNN over there, they probably believe the U.S. is going to knuckle under any second. It's the countries most dependent on Middle Eastern oil, like China and our "friends" in Europe, that must really be sweating bullets. If this impasse continues much longer, their energy crisis will become acute.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w3vqv0edpo
In other very important news, voters in Virginia have approved a plan to gerrymander the state's Congressional districts to give Democrats four extra seats. A judge has taken issue with how the referendum was conducted, but don't count on Virginia courts to rescue the GOP from this disaster. It will take federal intervention to do that. Thus far, I think we can safely say that President Trump's plan to redistrict his way to victory in the midterms hasn't gone well. Of course, there are other states that may save Republicans' bacon...like Florida? On the other hand, if the blue wave is strong enough, none of this will matter anyway.
Dr, Waddy from Jack: We'll see: some remnant of lawful Virginia may have survived in its appellate state courts. Of course the case will eventually make its way to Scotus but perhaps not in time for the midterms.
ReplyDeleteI agree , the Florida redistricting prospect may be vital. My. my but Hakeem Jeffries of , dah, dah, da dah NYC, threw down the guantlet today, with intimidating vulgarity and would meet Florida's champion on the field of honor. No doubt he assumes that Florida's large population of NYC refugees will grace his cheering section but gee, I think most of them left NYC because well, NYC is NYC of course and that it elects such as "Rep" Jeffries.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Iran's mosquito fleet presents a special problem. Their crews may well be unfearful of death, having been assured by radical Islamist doctrine that eternal bliss awaits them thereafter. I'm certain they will take some precautions in order to accomplish their mission but if ample numbers of them still exist, some will probably get through and make their deposits.
ReplyDeleteAgain , our Navy has extensive experience in this regard , having dealt with clandestine enemy craft in many settings and having done much mine sweeping. It has a new class of ships designed to operate against enemy coastal areas in many ways, including with nimble attack helos. The North Vietnamese had small attack boats for use in the confines of the Tonkin Gulf but they seldom if ever used them after the Tonkin Gulf Incident in 1964. Its war and there will be setbacks but I think our Navy will prevail. But it is plausible for you to note that they have apparently not yet destroyed this threat.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: In 1950 China intervened in the Korean War ostensibly when it saw its national security threatened by the close approach of U.S. forces. Now we have engaged a freighter of some sort, which, as I understand is thought to have been bound for trade with Iran, in the Bay of Bengal.
ReplyDeleteRemember the old Kipling saw: "out'er China 'cross the Bay. " True, China isn't directly across the Bay of Bengal but there is only Burma (which the Brits held in Kipling's time) in between. Too ,all commerce debouching west from the vital Straits of Malacca , enters waters close to the Bay of Bengal. That includes China's very jealously valued intercourse with the Middle East and East Africa.
Yes, we come alot closer to China's ports in the Western Pacific, so maybe its difficult to discern how China regards this new U.S. presence in what they may view, in their historical resentment of Western imposition on them (eg. 19th century riverine "gun boat diplomacy " by Western powers within China ) as yet another U.S. threat. One must wonder, might they regard any American interference with their extensive trade with Iran as a step too far? What then?Their extensive new Navy consists in large part of escort vessels meant to protect their Indian Ocean commerce, against primarily the U.S. Navy but also against allied Navies such as those of Australia or India. These Chinese escorts are not meant to engage the main capital ship strength of the U.S. , or for that matter India.They do have some ships up to that task but they are not well suited (as we and the Brits learned in WWII) for convoy escort (can't be everywhere, too few of them). Maybe though , Chinese carriers and their stronger escorts could be directed toward Iran and China itself is an unsinkable aircraft carrier.
I'm not presuming to gainsay our "extensive " blockade policy. In history I know it was customary to attack the enemy's shipping, both naval and merchant, anywhere in the world but what about other vessels simply bound for an enemy's port? Yes, surely the close blockades of the Union against the Confederacy and of the Brits against Germany in WWI included stopping all vessels trying to enter Germany but German extension and "enhancement "of their blockade of Britain brought the U.S. into WWI.
I am not trying to gainsay our blockade strategy; I lack the expertise and the access to our strategic planning to do so. I am simply posing these questions for discussion's sake.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Remember the old saw from Kipling "out 'er China 'cross the Bay" . The soldier character who said it in the poem which started "Ship me somewhere east of Suez , where the best is like the worst" was referring to the Bay of Bengal. And even though Burma, which the Brits held then ,was in between, China was just beyond and the sun could be said, as the poem did, to rise from there.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm prompted to wax thus by our Navy's dutiful interception of a so-called "stateless ship" connected to trade with Iran in the very Bay of Bengal. Historically it is customary for naval powers to engage both the military and commercial commerce of an enemy anywhere on the high seas. I don't know if such precedent includes a plausible right to extend a blockade approx. 3000 mile from the coast being blocked(?)Germany can be said to have tried that and it , in part,brought the U.S, in against it in 1917 and 1940 (Neutrality Patrol).
I believe China's much jealously valued seaborne intercourse with the MIddle East and East Africa debouches from the Straits of Malacca into seas close upon the Bay of Bengal.
China's extensive modern Navy consists in large part of numerous escort vessels to protect that Indian Ocean commerce . Escort vessels are of necessity smaller than the capital ships, such as aircraft carriers and large missile and helo armed cruisers which comprise the modern "battle line". They cost less than the behemoths for which no nation can afford very many. There must be many of these escort vessels because there is constant commerce and compellingly necessary transportation of such vitalities as oil.
One could argue that China faces a much more powerful threat from the U.S. Navy in the western Pacific with its carrier action groups but that may not become urgent unless China invades Taiwan and we choose to resist it. China's defense of its Indian Ocean commerce was also designed to defend against U.S. , or perhaps Indian or Australian or even Japanese attack. Therefore , China might regard American naval action in the Bay of Bengal as a present , actual threat to their Indian Ocean commerce. And China might see that as intimidation and they are very determined never again to endure the contemptuous advantage taken of them during their latest period of domestic dissolution in the 19th century, by Western powers. (eg. foreign gunboats plying their rivers and such as zones excluding all Chinese in Chinese cities such as Shang Hai). China is very proud of its deeply historically proven great civilization and absolutely resolved to countenance no attempted repeat of its shameful degradation over 170 recent years. A three thousand year old culture understandably looks on that as "only yesterday".
I say all this not to gainsay our present naval operations. I lack the information necessary to do so. I do but express what I believe to be realities. I'm simply expressing them for the sake of productive dialogue.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: test
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it could all come down to FL... The best we can hope for is a close result in the House, but a close result is, after all, a result that could still leave us in the majority.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how we will handle the small boat problem, tactically, and specifically I wonder whether we have the guts to deploy any of our ships in the Strait itself. We may be fearful that Iran has held back some anti-ship missiles that could be hard to intercept at very short range. I'm only speculating, of course...
Excellent point that the U.S. may or may not have the gall to intercept Chinese-flagged ships trying to engage in commerce with Iran. My guess is that no such ships will venture to break the blockade, but if they did things could get hairy!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: I just read that our new "littoral combat" ships are underperforming. I don't know if they have been used in the Strait and/or in the Persian Gulf. We have used air power to intercept drug boats off our coast but we almost certainly have not gotten them all. But any one minelayer which gets to set its mines can cause immense damage. Imagine one of those super tankers being struck. We do have alot of shipborne helos so my guess would be that they might do best against the minelayers. Helos are of course vulnerable but perhaps can be well supported by fighters
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, should this "cease fire" collapse we probably have the airpower necessary to launch an onslaught on the places which harbor these boats. Jack
ReplyDeleteRight! But we already did that, surely, i.e. suppress Iran's "Navy" (big and small) in its ports. I can see why some might survive, but why are they permitted to go to sea? That's the part I don't get.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: You are right to question it. Minelaying would appear to be a violation of a ceasefire and therefore suppression of it should not await a general cessation of the ceasefire. We may not catch all those pleasure craft , so offensive minesweeping should commence.
ReplyDelete