With the announcement - initially denied - that the USS John C. Stennis would be deployed to the Persian Gulf, the US will effectively have at least two carriers in the oil-rich region within a few weeks. What does this mean?
In November 2006, the USS Stennis participated in a joint exercise off the coast of southern California with the USS Ronald Reagan, forming Carrier Task Force (CTF) 150.
What does that mean?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...
Carrier Task Force (CTF) 150
The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) combined forces with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group for its Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) off the coast of Southern California to form Carrier Task Force (CTF) 150, 12-16 November 2006. JTFEX is the final phase before JCSSG is certified by Commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet as "deployment ready."
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Or oil in Cleveland?
Think of that exercise as a practice run. The USS Stennis has just practiced deployment as a Carrier Task Force (joint operations with another carrier) and is now being sent to the Persian Gulf.
So, HOW MANY carrier groups are being deployed - or available on stand-by - for the Persian Gulf??? Let's count them up:
- The USS Dwight D Eisenhower and guided missile cruiser Anzio were diverted from supporting NATO troops in Afghanistan and are currently off Somalia. http://www.latimes.com/...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...
Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007.
- The USS John C. Stennis sails this month for the Persian Gulf. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/...
Pentagon officials said last month that the extra ships would serve as a show of force to Iran, at odds with the United States over its nuclear program and alleged support of violence in Iraq. They said the ships also would be available to help in the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — and possibly nearby in Indian Ocean waters off the coast of Somalia, a lawless nation that authorities say has been a haven for Islamic radicals.
The addition of a second carrier to the Persian Gulf was reported in the New York Times on December 21, 2006. You know, during the Christmas holidays when things like that aren't noticed as much.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
The officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was expected this week to approve a request by commanders for a second aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year.
- The USS Kitty Hawk status is "forward deployed", made a Hong Kong port visit November 26 and now is in home port in Japan, resupplying.
(two page PDF): http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/...
The Kitty Hawk Strike Group is the largest carrier strike group in the Navy. It includes the Kitty
Hawk, the aircraft squadrons and staff of Carrier Air Wing 5, the guided-missile cruisers USS Shiloh (CG 67) and USS Cowpens (CG 63), and Destroyer Squadron 15 staff. The group’s ships and destroyer squadron staff operate from Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, and the air wing and
staff operate from Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan.
- The USS Nimitz is reported to be "surge ready" - the same status the Stennis had before being deployed.
(Above status reports gathered from "Where are the carriers?" http://www.globalsecurity.org/... and other sources linked)
The build-up of military power in the Middle East goes far beyond Bush's 21,500 Army & Marines "surge" in Iraq. The deployment of two carrier task forces, the availability of two more on short orders and the arrival of more soldiers and supplies for Iraq provides a considerable amount of "force projection capability."
And how does Bush intend to use that force?
http://www.ipsnews.net/...
In his speech, Bush had charged both countries with granting safe passage in and out of Iraq to "terrorists and insurgents" and accused Iran in particular of "providing material support for attacks on American troops."
In response, he announced the deployment of a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf and pledged to "destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
In what appeared to be a deliberate ratcheting up of tensions with Tehran, helicopter-borne U.S. troops had raided the Iranian consulate in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Erbil several hours earlier, reportedly taking five of its staff captive and drawing protests from both Iran and local Kurdish authorities.
What is the world's reaction to Bush's "new strategery"?
http://news.independent.co.uk/...
Bush's tough tactics are a 'declaration of war' on Iran
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 12 January 2007
American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq, hours after President George Bush issued a warning to Tehran that was described as a "declaration of war".
The soldiers detained six people, including diplomats, according to the Iranians, and seized documents and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was condemned by Iran. A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an "extreme provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech on future Iraq strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran.
"The risk is a wider war. Because of the underlying tensions, we are transferring from a 'cold war' into a 'hot war'," he said.
If you watched Bush's speech Wednesday night as I did, you may have noticed there was something other than the 'deer in the headlights' look. Or, rather, I should say, along with that look. The man was lying. Lying through his gritted, red faced teeth. There is something up his sleeve and it is all too evident from simply reviewing the facts. The Brits get it.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...
A war down memory lane
Michael Meacher
January 11, 2007 08:00 PM
George Bush seems intent on settling scores with Iran and recent events are eerily reminiscent of the path to war in Iraq.
...
It is said that US military planners believe that after five nights of bombing, the nuclear targets could be destroyed. However, because of the gaps in US intelligence on Iran, there can be no certainty about how much of the Iranian nuclear programme might survive. Furthermore, to limit likely retaliation, the target range would have to be substantially expanded. Iran's medium-range ballistic missiles that have recently been moved closer to Iraq would have be hit, as well as 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. And in order to protect Gulf shipping, Iranian cruise missile sites, diesel submarines, and other naval assets would need to be targeted. In addition, Iran's two chemical weapons production plants would no doubt be added to the hit list.
What is Bush thinking? Does he not realize that he is about to start the US on the path to regional war? That close allies with Iran will be sorely tempted to punish us for our misdeeds? Does he not realize that attacking Iran is even less justifiable than the invasion of Iraq?
Is he truly the WORST PRESIDENT EVER? Well, the British think so: (same Guardian Link as above)
So why, against all this background, is the US so bent on attacking Iran? Two considerations are probably decisive. One is that President Bush clearly sees his role in the Middle East in messianic terms and will not let does-not-make-sense arguments stand in the way of what he regards as his manifest destiny. The other is oil. Iran holds the world's largest supplies of oil after Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and holds more oil and gas combined than any other country on the planet.
Finally, there is THIS:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/...
At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.
Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush’s nationwide address, NBC’s Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said "there’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way."
Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.
"The President’s inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out," Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.
(emphasis added)
Stock up on firewood, folks. Plant a Victory Garden this Spring so you'll have food in the Summer. This moron named George Walker Bush is about to wipe out our energy supply and plunge the nation, the Middle East, and perhaps many other nations of the world into a much bigger, much much more dangerous war.
Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Here we go...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/... and http://www.globalsecurity.org/...
...with the combined striking power of two CVWs (Carrier Air Wing), the CTF (Carrier Task Force) is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle. During the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was operating with USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) off the coast of Afghanistan. When the order to launch air strikes arrived, together, both CVWs flew 24-hours a day.