Pentagon says ships harassed by Iran

[raptor10]

Huh? How has their behavior changed any? (Other than giving the Revolutionary Guard maritime duties, which happened before the NIE was released, iirc).

I wasn't implying that their behavior had changed just that the mentality of the average Iranian has changed... Before the NIE every "expert" in the media was harping on the "fact" that an American attack was not only likely but imminent (apparently after our incursions into Iraq, and Afghanistan the world still believes in a credible American striking force) because the Iranians had Nuclear weapons. The NIE took away an American motive for attack and the world no longer views an attack on Iran as imminent - except for that *wonderful man* in Russia Vladimir Putin who warned the Iranians in a speech shortly after the NIE that an American sneak attack was imminent and not to be fooled by our publication of the NIE (yup Russia has a lot to gain from entanglements between the US and Iran as well as domestic policies that rest on the US being seen as the new Third Reich)

All of that detracts from the question of why we are negotiating with Iran. Well Iran (as well as the US and Russia, and China to a different extent) seeks to be a regional power. Before the NIE any negotiations with Iran had to account for the fact that not only were they possibly providing EFP's to insurgents but that they also had a nuclear program, both of which were bargaining chips in negotiations, our bargaining chip was that "all options are on the table" with regards to how we would deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. The publishing of the NIE, once again, means that we are taking off the military option and are willing to treat them as non belligerents. This strait of Hormuz incident shows that because of Iran's normal SOP, we can easily ratchet up the Iranian threat and justify to the world that it may be necessary for us to carry about military action. And as this incident occurs the day before President Bush heads to the Middle East to negotiate, it seems obvious that the situation has been worked to benefit our side of the negotiating table.

Constructive criticize away!

 

[squorch2]

words

I see you wrote some things there, but I don't quite get your point... was it about the mentality of the average Iranian? Cause damn, if you know that, you should be talking with some intel guys, not wasting time on AW.

Are you positing the question "why are we negotiating with Iran?"

Are you lamenting the treatment of Iran as a non-belligerent?

These are real questions... I'm just trying to understand your point here.

 

[raptor10]

I see you wrote some things there, but I don't quite get your point... was it about the mentality of the average Iranian? Cause damn, if you know that, you should be talking with some intel guys, not wasting time on AW.

Are you positing the question "why are we negotiating with Iran?"

Are you lamenting the treatment of Iran as a non-belligerent?

These are real questions... I'm just trying to understand your point here.

The real purpose of my post was to say that this is a normal event that is being exploited by the US to gain an edge at the negotiating table with Iran. Which is a good move by the US.

 

[squorch2]

The real purpose of my post was to say that this is a normal event that is being exploited by the US to gain an edge at the negotiating table with Iran.

Ah. Concur, then.

 

[raptor10]

was it about the mentality of the average Iranian? Cause damn, if you know that, you should be talking with some intel guys, not wasting time on AW.

If the intel guys are interested in the mentality of the average collegiate Iranian-American woman, then I'm their go to guy Although I'll need to increase my sample size... no not that sample size.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

However, you used the term Weapons Free incorrectly. There are three weapons control postures: Weapons Free, Weapons Tight, and Weapons Hold. They are issued AHEAD of time, and are tied in very closely with decisions that are made using ROE...

Weapons Free = Engage any target not positively identified as friendly.
Weapons Tight = Engage targets that are only positively identified as hostile.
Weapons Hold = Engage only in self defense.

And even that's a simplification of what's going on out there.

 

[phrogpilot73]

And even that's a simplification of what's going on out there.

Huh? I mean, I understand that there are more complex stuff going on with regards to ROE, EOF and the like, but weapons control postures are weapons control postures. If you evaluate the threat, ROE, and all that jazz and determine that Weapons Hold is appropriate, then you brief Weapons Hold - and then perhaps restrict it even more by defining what constitutes a situation leading to self defense. Maybe I'm missing something, but those are the base postures that all else is built upon. Definitions of hostile/non-hostile, etc... are going to come from somewhere else.

 

[Flash]

The real purpose of my post was to say that this is a normal event that is being exploited by the US to gain an edge at the negotiating table with Iran. Which is a good move by the US.

What negotiations?

 

[raptor10]

What negotiations?

Well, when you put it like that, I guess I just assumed that the US is working on some sort of discussions with Iran.

There were supposed to be Ambassador level talks between the US and Iran on the 18th of last month, but various factors (Russia giving them the nuclear fuel rods they need; the NIE report) led Iran to call it off.

Hopefully this recent news forces them back to the table... The bottom line is, we can't pull out of Iraq until we get some guarantees on the whole Sunni-Shiite thing, and Iran is a big part of the problem.

 

[xj220]

This seems to me to be one of those situations were your officer judgment comes into play (in reference to the CO). If there's something going on, hopefully the ROE covers it and you can contact the chain of command, but if not that's where you earn your pay. There's a reason a CO is the CO, they've earned that position and they're entrusted with a huge responsibility. They won't give the ship to just any guy. Not only is he in charge of the safety of his ship, but his actions could also lead to an international incident with huge ramifications. He has more experience than a lot of us have (and a lot more information as to what's going on over there) so criticizing him is probably not the best idea.

 

[usmarinemike]

We are now beyond the point of bloviation and radical speculation. Just let it go.

 

[HeloBubba]

However, you used the term Weapons Free incorrectly. There are three weapons control postures: Weapons Free, Weapons Tight, and Weapons Hold. They are issued AHEAD of time, and are tied in very closely with decisions that are made using ROE...

Weapons Free = Engage any target not positively identified as friendly.
Weapons Tight = Engage targets that are only positively identified as hostile.
Weapons Hold = Engage only in self defense.

Thank you for fixing my ignorance. As someone who has a problem when others use terms incorrectly, I appreciate the correction.

 

[HeloBubba]

Not going to answer ROE questions, and not going to speculate about why a CO made a decision.

As I said at the very start of my post "I know that I won't get the answer here", so I fully expected NO answer to the ROE.

As far as the CO's decision is concerned, my comment/statement comes from a position that too many times, CO's on the scene get second guessed by the higher-ups which weren't there. Which bugs the crap out of me. I'm glad it worked out for him and the crew.

@ Skyward - I was not insinuating that the Skipper was a pussy. Far from it - see above.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

I have no doubt the COs involved in this latest incident would have shot if the ROE called for it or if they felt their ships were in immediate danger. Since nothing happened, they obviously made the right call and the ROE obviously worked.

The CO obviously thought the ship was in some type of danger since he gave the "prepare to fire" order. Yeah, sometimes decisions work out for the best in the end, and sometimes they don't. Better safe than sorry. And blowing these speedboats out of the water would not have resulted in 290 non combatant casualties, sorry. So, your comparison is not really valid.

 

[raptor10]

The CO obviously thought the ship was in some type of danger since he gave the "prepare to fire" order. Yeah, sometimes decisions work out for the best in the end, and sometimes they don't. Better safe than sorry. And blowing these speedboats out of the water would not have resulted in 290 non combatant casualties, sorry. So, your comparison is not really valid.

Says who? Who said the captain gave that order?