pmaidhof

boy we certainly have some problems.

U.S. wraps up massive Persian Gulf exercises By James Calderwood and Jim Krane - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Mar 28, 2007 22:19:54 EDT ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS — The United States wrapped up a massive military exercise in the Persian Gulf Wednesday, putting on a show of strength for Iran even as the United Arab Emirates became the second Gulf nation to declare it would not take part in any attack on the Islamic Republic. The U.S. has denied any intention to attack. But the public refusals of two allies to help could affect U.S. military options or require shifting of resources if tensions did seriously escalate. Qatar — home to 6,500 U.S. troops and the enormous al-Udeid Air Base, headquarters of all American air operations in the Middle East — said earlier this month it would not permit an attack on Iran from its soil. The Gulf Cooperation Council, a loose alliance of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Emirates, has called on all its members not to support any U.S. action against Iran. The United States has close to 40,000 troops in the Gulf, including 25,000 in Kuwait, 3,000 in Bahrain, 1,300 in the United Arab Emirates and a few hundred in Oman and Saudi Arabia, according to figures from the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. Gulf Arab nations are increasingly uneasy with the United States’ tough stance against Iran, fearing any outbreak of hostilities could bring Iranian retaliation. All lie within distance of Iranian missiles. Also, Iran has booming trade and tourism links and full diplomatic ties with the Emirates and most Gulf countries. On Wednesday, the Navy wrapped up its largest show of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with 15 ships, 125 aircraft and 13,000 sailors in an exercise a few dozen miles off Iran’s coast. The maneuvers were meant to show “the commitment of the U.S. to stability and security in the region,” said Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn, commander of Strike Group Three — which includes the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown said the Gulf maneuvers were defensive in nature, aimed at keeping open the sea lanes that carry two-fifths of the world’s oil shipments. “We’re not looking for any kind of confrontation with Iran,” Brown said. “The purpose of the exercise is to ensure that no one miscalculates about our commitment to security and stability in the Gulf.” But some U.S. allies were clearly aiming to make it clear they don’t want to be caught in the middle if the situation escalates. “We have assured the brothers in Iran ... that we are not a party in its dispute with the United States,” said United Arab Emirates Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyana in a statement carried on the Emirates news agency WAM. “We will not allow any force to use our territories for military, security and espionage activities against Iran.” The Emirates “refuses to use its territorial lands, air or waters for aggression against any other country,” Khalifa said. That could prevent the Air Force from flying intelligence missions over Iran with its squadron of U-2 and Global Hawk spy planes based at al-Dhafra Air Base near the Emirates capital, Abu Dhabi. The Air Force said Wednesday it had not altered air operations in response to Sheik Khalifa’s statement. Air Force Lt. Col. Mike Pierson, based in Qatar, declined to say whether U-2s were flying missions over Iran, but said the Air Force only operated in international airspace or over countries that had granted permission. In the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Turkey denied access to Turkish territory, forcing U.S. military planners to adjust their plans and to forgo opening a northern front. The refusal ushered in a tense period in Turkish-American relations. Navy Times article

Yes indeed, the scenario fodder for a depleted US military and resurgent, not insurgent, "insert country name here_______________________" is probably greater than even the period of the fall of communism/"peace dividend".

USA Today March 28, 2007 Pg. 1 'One Of The Last': WWI Vet Recalls Great War 90 Years Later, Its Impact Endures In Iraq And Beyond By Andrea Stone, USA Today CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. — When the guns fell silent on Nov. 11, 1918, exactly 4,734,991 Americans had served in World War I. Four are known to be alive. "I am one of the last," says Frank Woodruff Buckles, who at 106 is among the few living links — and perhaps the healthiest — to what was known as the Great War. "I didn't know it would be down to one to a million." April 6 will mark the 90th anniversary of the United States' entry into World War I. The soldiers who went Over There thought they were fighting the "war to end all wars." It did not live up to its title. The United States has fought five major conflicts since then, including the current war in Iraq. Type "World War I American casualties" into the Google search engine and it asks, "Did you mean World War II?" Yet this largely forgotten war has never been more relevant. The days of trench warfare and biplane dogfights are long gone, but the first industrialized war set the stage for all that came after. It marked the emergence of the United States as a superpower. The war in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ethnic cleansing, weapons of mass destruction, globalization, U.S. foreign policy and even women's rights and controversy over the treatment of returning veterans — all have roots in World War I. "If you want to understand the world of today, don't start at 9/11/2001," Harvard historian Niall Ferguson says. "You need to go all the way back to August 1914," when the war began. Buckles was a schoolboy then. When America got into the war in 1917, the 16-year-old went looking for adventure. "I was a snappy soldier," he says now, holding a sepia-toned photo of himself as a doughboy. "All gung-ho." Such romantic spirit soon was ground up in the "no man's land" between the bloody trenches on Europe's Western Front. It was from there that the original "Unknown Soldier" was retrieved to be entombed in Arlington National Cemetery. Today, the nameless dead of World War II and Korea lie nearby. Their battles are more familiar to tourists watching the ritual changing of the guard on a recent afternoon. Few know that the original tomb, dedicated in 1921, contained a soldier from World War I. Visitor Linda Mendenhall, 56, a former middle school history teacher from Greensboro, N.C., is an exception. As for her students, "They knew nothing about World War I. It was right up there with the Civil War and the Revolutionary War as ancient history to them," she says. "Their grandparents didn't fight in that war. They couldn't relate." World War I "has such a dusty distance to it," Tulane University historian Douglas Brinkley says. "It's been eclipsed by World War II" in the nation's memory. In 1914, the world was ruled by empires: British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman. They were tied to each other through military alliances and secret pledges, but tensions were rising amid industrialization, global competition for resources and growing nationalism among ethnic minorities. When a Bosnian Serb assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo, that triggered a chain reaction of war declarations that engulfed all of Europe, and eventually countries as far as Japan. The United States, long wary of foreign entanglements, stayed out of the fighting until April 1917. By then, German U-boat attacks on U.S. ships and evidence that Germany was wooing Mexico to its side persuaded President Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war. In words resembling those used later by President Bush to justify the Iraq war, Wilson said, "The world must be made safe for democracy." In tiny Oakwood, Okla., where Buckles lived, patriotic posters appeared in the post office. "The world was involved in it, and so was I," he says in a voice made halting and raspy by age. Only 16, he walked into a Marine Corps recruiting office in Wichita and said he was 18. The recruiter didn't believe him and sent him away. The Navy rejected Buckles as flat-footed. Finally, an Army recruiter in Oklahoma City accepted him, but only after Buckles insisted that the only proof of his age was in a family Bible back in Missouri. The state didn't issue birth certificates in those days. "I liked the Army right off," says Buckles, recalling how he enjoyed calisthenics. He was in a hurry to get to the front. A sergeant told him to join the ambulance corps because the French, America's ally, were "begging for ambulances." At Fort Riley, Kan., he learned how to use his belt to cinch a wounded soldier to his back and carry him from a trench. In December 1917, he sailed from Hoboken, N.J., on the RMS Carpathia, the ship that had rescued survivors of the Titanic after it sank in 1912. Buckles says he passed the time listening to the crew's accounts of the rescue. While in England, the young corporal drove dignitaries around. He eventually got to France, but never close enough to the action to pull anyone from a trench. In 1918, after the armistice was signed between the allies and Germany on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month — a date now commemorated as Veterans Day — Buckles stayed in Europe to escort prisoners of war back to Germany. A curio cabinet in his farmhouse here holds a German military belt buckle with the words "Gott Mit Uns" — "God with us." When President Wilson and the victorious leaders of France and Britain met in Paris in 1919 to draft a peace treaty, they believed God was on their side. They excluded the defeated powers from negotiations and produced the Treaty of Versailles, which slapped heavy reparations and placed blame for the war on Germany. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party would rise to power by railing against the treaty. When World War II began in 1939, "people saw these as two distinct events," says Eli Paul, director of interpretation at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City. Historians now believe they "were the same war with just a long intermission in between." Ferguson, author of The Pity of War: Explaining World War One, says the legacy of that war is more enduring than that of World War II. He notes that the Cold War that followed World War II has become less relevant to today's world. America's help in rebuilding Europe after World War II and the success of the European Union have knitted most of the continent together in peace. World War I's impact continues to resonate. With the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France drew up "arbitrary frontiers" in the Middle East, says Yale University historian Jay Winter, "usually made in an afternoon after tea without much thought to ethnic balance or viability of these countries." Those borders remain and control the lives of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq and rival ethnic groups in Lebanon. In 1917, before the war ended, Britain, which had wrested Palestine from the Turks, issued the Balfour Declaration. It expressed support for establishing "a national home for the Jewish people" there. The statement gave a major push to the founding of Israel. "Most of our headaches in the Middle East today are a hangover from the great military binge of 1914-18," Ferguson says. He says the current war in Iraq can be traced to 1917, when British troops entered Baghdad proclaiming that they, like the United States in 2003, came as liberators, not conquerors. "They found themselves facing an insurgency," Ferguson says. "History is repeating itself." Another disturbing historical parallel between now and then, says World War I historian Jennifer Keene, is controversy over the treatment of returning veterans. More than 200,000 U.S. soldiers suffered physical or mental injuries during World War I, but in 1919 only 217 had completed rehabilitation programs, she says. Later, when veterans marched on Washington to demand promised bonuses during the Depression, armed soldiers attacked them. The episode was "a horrible black eye on the country and how we treat veterans," says Steve Berkheiser, a retired Marine general who heads the Kansas City museum. "Fast-forward to Walter Reed" and the scandal over substandard treatment of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, he says. "There is a line of unfulfilled promises." Pressure by Great War veterans helped persuade Congress to pass the G.I. Bill in 1944, Keene says. The bill helped create America's postwar middle class and paved the way for benefits still used to attract recruits. Women's rights also got a boost from World War I. Women's contributions on the home front and overseas as nurses and telephone operators helped persuade Congress to give them the vote in 1920. And the United States' industrial contribution to World War I, along with the bankrupting of Europe, led to the transfer of the world's financial capital from London to New York. It was the ascendance of U.S. economic and military might. "That war created the American century," Winter says. "It was when the country became the broker of international affairs." Frank Buckles says he "didn't give much thought" to the big picture. By the time he sailed home in January 1920, "The parades were over. Nobody asked me a question … even though I was still in uniform." That scratchy wool uniform caught the eye of Gen. John "Black Jack" Pershing at a reception in Oklahoma City soon after Buckles returned. The general, just back from commanding U.S. forces in France, shook Buckles' hand and asked where he was from, Buckles recalls. When Buckles said he'd grown up on a farm in Harrison County, Mo., Pershing said, "Just 43 miles, as the crow flies, from Linn County, where I was born." Buckles visited Pershing's grave on Veterans Day last year. The general is buried under a plain marble headstone in a little-visited corner of Arlington. America's top World War I general is not noted in the cemetery's tourist brochure. Nor is there a national memorial to World War I on the National Mall in Washington, as there is to World War II. The World War I museum in Kansas City, whose Liberty Memorial Tower was built with private donations soon after the war, is the closest thing to a national tribute. The United States plans no special ceremonies to mark the passing of the last American veteran from World War I. The British, who have seven surviving World War I veterans, plan an elaborate memorial service featuring a symbolic empty coffin atop a gun carriage at Westminster Abbey after the last British survivor dies. Buckles says it used to bother him that the nation quickly moved on after the war. But then, so did he. The steamship business beckoned, and he traveled the world. In 1941, he was working in the Philippines when the Japanese invaded. He was captured and spent three years in a prisoner-of-war camp. Later he moved to San Francisco, married, had a daughter and bought a 330-acre cattle farm here in West Virginia's panhandle, where his ancestors — some of whom he says go back to the Mayflower — had put down roots. Sitting in a wingback chair, recalling distant names and dates with a clarity that would challenge someone half his age, Buckles says he was always "full of history." And in more than a century of living it, he says, little compares to that first time the world went to war. "The world began to change with World War I," he says. "Nothing like it ever happened before." Last surviving vets of American wars Nearly 90 years after America entered World War I on April 6, 1917, just four known U.S. veterans remain. Charlotte Winters, 109, of Boonsboro, Md., the last female veteran of the war, died Tuesday. That leaves Frank Buckles, 106, of Charles Town, W.Va.; Lloyd Brown, 105, of Charlotte Hall, Md.; Russell Coffey, 108, of North Baltimore, Ohio; and Harry Landis, 107, of Sun City Center, Fla.; Other last survivors of wars: •Last Spanish-American War veteran: Nathan Cook died at 106 on Sept. 10, 1992, nearly 94 years after the war ended. •Last Civil War Union veteran: Albert Woolson died at 109 on Aug. 2, 1956, or 91 years after the war ended. •Last Civil War Confederate veteran: John Salling died at 112 on March 16, 1958, nearly 93 years after the war ended. •Last Revolutionary War veteran: Daniel Bakeman died at 109 on April 5, 1869, nearly 86 years after the war ended.

McCaffrey: Military ‘in peril’ By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Mar 28, 2007 9:21:33 EDT The Iraq war has left the U.S. military “in a position of strategic peril,” retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey has warned in the wake of a recent trip to Iraq. “The majority of the Iraqi population [sunni and Shia] support armed attacks on American forces” while “U.S. domestic support for the war in Iraq has evaporated and will not return,” McCaffrey writes in a memo to colleagues at the U.S. Military Academy, where he is an adjunct professor of international affairs. He says the United States and its allies must focus on a strategy aimed at a political consensus among the three main Iraqi population groups: Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds. “We can still achieve our objective” of a stable Iraq, he writes in a memo to colleagues at the U.S. Military Academy, where he is an adjunct professor of international affairs, but “[w]e have very little time left.” Failure in Iraq will have dire consequences, according to McCaffrey. “A disaster in Iraq will in all likelihood result in a widened regional struggle which will endanger America’s strategic interests in the Mideast for a generation,” he writes. “We will also produce another generation of soldiers who lack confidence in their American politicians, the media, and their own senior military leadership.” McCaffrey paints a largely gloomy picture of the situation in Iraq, which he says “is ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels with as many as 3,000 citizens murdered per month.” “The population is in despair,” he writes. “Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate.” McCaffrey, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who retired in 1996 as head of U.S. Southern Command and then served as President Bill Clinton’s drug czar, wrote the eight-page memo based on a March 9-16 trip to Iraq and Kuwait. The memo lists over 65 U.S. and allied officials that McCaffrey talked to during his trip. They include Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of Multi-National Forces – Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who commands Multi-National Corps – Iraq, as well as virtually every other senior U.S. or allied military figure there. His view that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war is at odds with that expressed by incoming U.S. Central Command chief Adm. William Fallon, who told CNN March 27 that he didn’t think Iraq was in a civil war. Three million Iraqis, including many of the country’s educated elite, have fled the country, McCaffrey notes. In the land they left behind, the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “has little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged,” writes McCaffrey. “It is despised by the Sunni as a Persian surrogate. It is believed untrustworthy and incompetent by the Kurds. “There is no function of government that operates effectively across the nation – not health care, not justice, not education, not transportation, not labor and commerce, not electricity, not oil production. There is no province in the country in which the government has dominance .... No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi – without heavily armed protection.” The Iraqi security forces are in poor shape, according to McCaffrey. “The police force is feared as a Shia militia in uniform which is responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings,” he writes. “The Iraqi Army is too small [and] very badly equipped.” The army “is also unduly dominated by the Shia, and in many battalions lacks discipline,” writes McCaffrey, adding that the high rates of desertion and absence without leave “frequently leave Iraqi army battalions at 50 percent strength or less.” In contrast, the number of insurgent and sectarian militia forces likely exceeds 100,000, McCaffrey writes. “These non-government armed bands are in some ways more capable of independent operations than the regularly constituted” Iraq security forces, he adds. McCaffrey notes that although the U.S. and its allies have arrested 120,000 insurgents (including 27,000 still in custody) and killed “some huge number of enemy combatants” that he estimates at “perhaps” over 20,000, “the armed insurgents, militias, and al-Qaida in Iraq without fail apparently regenerate both leadership cadres and foot soldiers. Their sophistication, numbers, and lethality go up – not down – as they incur these staggering battle losses.” The retired four-star then warns of a looming disaster for the U.S. military if current trends are not reversed. “Stateside U.S. Army and Marine Corps readiness ratings are starting to unravel,” he writes. “Ground combat equipment is shot in both the active and reserve components. Army active and reserve component recruiting has now encountered serious quality and number problems .... Our promotion rates for officers and NCOs have skyrocketed to replace departing leaders. There is no longer a national or a theater U.S. Army strategic reserve.” Noting that the Army “will be forced to call up as many as nine National Guard combat brigades for an involuntary second combat tour this coming year,” he adds that [m]any believe that this second round of involuntary call-ups will topple the weakened National Guard structure – which is so central to U.S. domestic security.” However, the situation in Iraq is not irretrievable, according to McCaffrey. “Since the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus in command of Multi-National Force – Iraq – the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved,” he writes. The Maliki government has “given the green light” for U.S. and Iraqi special operations forces to “prune out” elements of Shia politician Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi army, McCaffrey says. As a result, U.S. and Iraqi forces have “harvested” over 600 “rogue leaders” from the Mahdi army, while “Sadr himself has fled to Iran and many of his key leaders have escaped to the safety of the Shia south. “His fighting cadres were ordered to go to ground, hide their weapons, take down their check points, stop the terrible ethnic cleansing and terror tactics against the Sunni population, and ignore (not cooperate with) US and ISF forces.” The new U.S. and Iraqi strategy of establishing joint security stations across Baghdad is working, according to McCaffrey. “The Iraqi people are encouraged – life is almost immediately springing back in many parts of the city,” he writes. “The murder rate has plummeted. IED [improvised explosive device] attacks on U.S. forces during their formerly vulnerable daily transits from huge U.S. bases on the periphery of Baghdad are down – since these forces are now permanently based in their operational area.” In addition, the Iraq government has “finally committed credible numbers of integrated police and army units to the battle of Baghdad,” McCaffrey says. Those forces are also “showing increased willingness to aggressively operate against insurgent/militia forces.” In Anbar province, “[t]here is a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda in Iraq terror formations,” he writes. “This counter-Al Qaeda movementÂwas fostered by brilliant U.S. Marine leadership.” The result is an ongoing fight between the western Sunni tribes and Al Qaeda in Iraq. “This is a crucial struggle and it is going our way – for now,” McCaffrey says. Ultimately, only a political deal will end the bloodshed and secure a satisfactory outcome for the United States in Iraq, according to McCaffrey. “The primary war winning strategy for the United States in the coming 12 months must be for Ambassador Ryan [Crocker] and General Petraeus to focus their considerable personal leadership skills on getting the top 100 Shia and Sunni leaders to walk back from the edge of all-out civil war, he writes. “Reconciliation is the way out. There will be no imposed military solution with the current non-sustainable U.S. force levels. Military power cannot alone defeat an insurgency – the political and economic struggle for power is the actual field of battle.” Navy Times Article

Command readies assault on terror Web sites By Jim Michaels - USA Today Posted : Wednesday Mar 28, 2007 6:34:42 EDT The U.S. military has been quietly developing capabilities to attack enemy computer networks, including hacking into terrorist Web sites, military officials and experts say. The move comes as al-Qaida and other groups fighting in Iraq and elsewhere have expanded their activities on the Internet and increased the sophistication and volume of their videos and messages. Much of the material is designed to raise money and recruit fighters for Iraq. “You should not let them operate uncontested” on the Internet and elsewhere in cyberspace, said Marine Brig. Gen. John Davis, who heads a military command located at the National Security Agency. The command was established to develop capabilities to attack computer networks. Davis and other officials declined to say whether the military has attacked computer networks, which would require presidential authorization. The techniques are highly classified. Pentagon contract documents show the military asks companies to develop a “full spectrum ... of computer network attack techniques.” Run by the Air Force Research Laboratory, this program aims to spend $40 million over four years, documents show. The growth in offensive capabilities signals a shift in military thinking from just monitoring terrorist Web sites for intelligence to attacking them. “The offensive is increasingly on leaders’ minds,” said John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who also works for the Defense Department on cyber-war issues. Some officials say cyber-attacks would lose critical intelligence. “You always have the built-in tension between the operator who wants to destroy the target and the intelligence officer who wants to use the target to gain more information,” said Lani Kass, director of the Air Force’s cyberspace task force. “Our opponents do a heck of a lot more than just watch us in cyberspace,” Davis said. “They are acting in cyberspace. We have the responsibility, and we need to develop options so that we can ... not just operate, but dominate cyberspace.” Cyber-attacks can take different forms, including eliminating terrorist Web sites and creating doubts among insurgents about their networks’ security, said Arquilla, who favors an offensive approach he calls a “virtual scorched earth policy.” Terrorist groups in Iraq videotape nearly all of their attacks on U.S. forces to help magnify their impact. “Everything they do in Iraq and Afghanistan is geared toward propaganda,” said Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J., a member of the House Armed Services Committee. The videos and messages are “getting more and more professional,” said Andretta Summerville of iDefense, a private contractor that monitors terrorist activity on the Internet. Some sites and Internet forums find recruits and push “them toward a pipeline that ends in suicide attacks,” said Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, a spokesman for Central Command, which runs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The propaganda is very effective. It reaches an impressionable audience,” McLaughlin said. Attacking Web sites may have limited value, said Ben Venzke of IntelCenter, a contractor that monitors terrorist Web sites and Internet forums. “The problem is the nature of the Internet itself,” he said. “It can always come back up in 10 seconds.” Navy Times Article

As much as I dislike reading on screen versus paper in-hand, I also try not to scan ahead. In reading the DDG's and Minesweepers, I immediately thought, gee wish they would have listed the minesweeper classes as I am not totally familiar with them and BOOM! Brad lays them right out before me! Thanks Brad.

U.S. launches show of force in Gulf Aircraft carriers, warplanes feature in maneuvers off the coast of Iran The Associated Press Updated: 8:17 a.m. ET March 27, 2007 DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran. The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes. The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran’s capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters. U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors — nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters. He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises. Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast. Simultaneous French operations A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, officials said. Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines. “What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it’s for regional stability and security,” Aandahl said. “These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there’s a destabilizing effect, it’s Iran’s behavior.” © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17810017/"" target="_blank">the story

Sure was. Strategic Hex J-09, for those scoring at home, encompasses all of the Straits of Hormuz. The natural choke point. When I ramp up the complexity further, I will give the Iranians the base Level2 mine "density" in that hex, and the ability to supplement it with surface, possible air forces. The US will have MCM assets, and the obvious capability to engage those opposing forces laying more mines. The game is daunting at first glance/read-through, heck I had it over 20 years ago and punted. That original 1983 copy became lost in the many moves since then. However, gives a very nice operational overview. Now if only it can be upgraded again - the last unofficial upgrade was in late 2002, but you can imagine the focus. I'll attempt to post a photo one of these days.

Well in the Third Action Stage, there was not many options for the Iranian forces. All but one F-4 Squadron had spent their one sortie in the previous two action stages. The two Fast Attack Craft were hanging out near Abu Musa, hoping to engage the amphibious forces. Basically the Iranians licked their wounds and abdicated their only chance this turn for having the initiative, and simply prepare to defend themselves. The US player decided to take advantage and launch a 3x F-18 and 2x EA-6B stike on Qeshm's Silkworm battery. Since the Iranians were spent aviation-wise, all the F-18's were strikers. The air defense bde on Qeshm detected the strike at the maximum one hex, but were unsuccessful in engaging the strike. When the strike entered the target hex is when things went south. The up until now superior EA-6B suppression failed horribley while the AD unit rolled low, securing three hits! 1x EA-6B and 2x F-18's aborted. The one remaining F-18 squadron pressed on and secured a second hit on the Silkworm before returning to base. Subsequent naval movement called for the un-mined CG to push forward, and launch a TLAM strike on the Qeshm silkworm battery, to be followed up by the ARG shipping to set up a landing of the embarked 7th MEB. The CG entered the Level 2 mined J-09 strategic hex and successfully launched its strike, neutralizing the SSM battery. The ARG began to follow but bad luck struck the USN again when the ARG struck a mine. At this point not sure how the mining of amphibious shipping effects the embarked units, I am taking an OpPause, and will most likely re-set with the inclusion of MCM ships and mine sweeping helicopter assets. Dark day (two days actually) for the USN.

Herman pointed out to me last night on the chat that "Sortie" was a noun and that I was yet another American "butchering" the English language. Yes H, it is a noun but, per dictionary.com, can also be used correctly as an intransitive verb (see below "sortieing"). sor·tie (sôr'tÄ“, sôr-tÄ“') Pronunciation Key n. An armed attack, especially one made from a place surrounded by enemy forces. A flight of a combat aircraft on a mission. intr.v. sor·tied, sor·tie·ing, sor·ties To go on a sortie. [French, from feminine past participle of sortir, to go out, from Old French.] You Sir, stand corrected. dictionary.com's sortie

Re-started this scenario again. One change from yesterday was giving the Iranians their F-14 EAW capability. Tried to play a bit more methodically so while I played the three action stages that make up a complete 2 day turn, the US forces have not progressed as far. A little due to the AEW, a lot to some unfortunate events against the US. To start, both the Enterprise and Nimitz raids were detected prior to reaching their targets. This allowed two air defense unit shots, one air base air defense shot, and the sortiing of interceptors prior attempting to put bombs on deck. Also, my early raids are comprised of 1x air-to-air configured F-18, 1x air-to-ground F-18, and one EA-6B squadrons. Until the Iranian interceptors, and/or air defenses can be ground down, I will not be able to have two or more strikers. Rule limit the number of air units on "a mission" to three. A am also coming to the realization that with CAP on station, I can probably just leave out the air-to-air F-18 - they are in range to prounce. 1st Raid results: EA-6B suppresses the air defenses, but the strikers miss. High point of the raid was Air-to-Air F-18 tagged an intercepting MiG-29 squadron with 50% losses for none in return. The 1st Qeshm raid was also well supported by ECM, and again the strikers missed. Iranian F-4's from Bandar Abbas intercepted this strike on its egress, scoring one hit on an F-18. SSN then launched a TLAM strike securing one hit on the closest Silkworm. A US CG moving up to also engage with TLAM's struck a mine putting a wet blanket over that party. In the first reaction segment, the Iranians were wuick to attempt retaliation on the damaged CG, launching two squadrons of Su-24's, escorted by a squadron of MiG-23's. This raid was intercepted by the CAP of both carriers. The F-18 CAP from was a waste of air time taking one hit and aborting, but the F-14's from Nimitz crushed the escorting MiG-23's inflicting 8 hits on this two hit capacity unit. The F-14 then intercepted the Su-24's inflicting three hits, split between the two Su-24 squadrons. Tomcats save the day. 2nd Action Stage, raids continue. The Nimitz raid was intercepted by a squadron of F-4's, both the F-4's and the air-to-air F-18 missed, so both aborted. Once again, EA-6B is invaluable suppressing the air defenses and the stikers finally earn their pay inflicting a second hit on the closer silkworm. In the Qeshm raid, one F-18 squadron was hit and had to abort. An F-5 squadron intercepting the raid was themselves intercepted by CAP and destroyed. The raid continued on and secured the first hit on the Qeshm battery. The previously mined CG moved up to engage the closer Silkworm battery, displaying that sometimesd no luck is better than bad luck, both the CG and Silkworm battery missed each other. Enraged the SSN pumped out its final strike, and eliminated the Silkworm battery. Third Action Phase was uneventful as the Iranian sorti rate prevented any meaningful action as in the third action phase, the reaction player has the initiative. More to follow tonight or tomorrow. Pete

OK, using the Gulf Strike system I ran a short, small-scale engagement. Background: Iran has declared itself the arbiter of all naval traffic in the Straits of Hormuz. The straits have be sown with sea mines and Iranian fast attack craft have been attacking/harassing western naval assets in the gulf. Two US Carrier Battle Groups, along with an Expeditionary Strike Group are operating in the northern Arabian Sea. USCENTCOM tasks CENTNAV and CENTMC to destroy the silkworm batteries both along the Iranian coast and on Qeshm Island, and clear Qeshm Island of all Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps forces. US forces for avoid attacks into and around the Iranian military base at Bandar Abbas. On Qeshm there is an "5" rated AD bde, a Silkworm battery, an armored bde in reserve mode, and an infantry bde in a deliberate defensive posture. The airfield at Bandar Abbas has two squadrons of Su-24, 2 sqdrn of F-4, one sqdrn of F-5. A non-desript base somewhere between Bandar Abbas and Jask has an airfield with a sqdrn of MiG-29 and 2 two sqdrn of F-4, along with a "2" rated AD bde and a silkworm battery. With the US as the initiative player, two raids are launched consisiting of two F/A-18 squadrons and a det of EA-6B's. An F-14 maintains CAP over CVN-68, while the all hornet CVN-65 has a F/A-18 CAP. E-2 Hawkeyes are up over both carriers conduting AEW. Qeshm was the only force with detected the incoming raid and informed Bandar Abbas, which launched an F-5 intercept mission. On Qeshm, the AD Bde unsuccessfully engaged the CVN-65 raid, both F/A-18 sqdrns inflict a hit on the silkworm battery, then egresses - chased by the F-4's. The CVN-68 raid surprises the defenders and scores a total of two hits on the second silkworm battery. In response to the raid, the MiG-29 sqdrn gives chase. The CVN-65 raid crushes the F-5 interecptors for no loss by inflicting 3 hits on this 2 hit capacity unit. The CVN-68 raid forces the MiG's to abort with one hit. The MiG-29's being forced away without any damage to the US is huge as the MiG's are done for this turn given the Iranian sortie rate. A combination TLAM strike by an SSN and CG eliminates both Silkworm batteries. Here is where the ESG/ARG approaches to land 7th MEB, and where errors are made. While an AV-8 close air support mission was run, it had no effect. The MEB conducted an amphibious assault on a hex occupied by the infantry bde. The armor brigde used reserve movement to also jointhe declared combat. Each unit took one hit, but it was the MEB that could least afford it. Hits on the amphibious assaulting force are doubled, while the two enemey brigades took their hits and retreated inland. Brigades are brittle in this game, two hits and you flip to its reduced side. The third hit eliminates the brigade. Will need to soften up the enemy ground forces before "landing the landing force". Also, I'll land where the enemy is not so that I can have a better than movement to contact posuture. I'll try this one again.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/defense_dunham_destroyer_032007/ From Marine Corps Times Destroyer to be named for Medal of Honor Marine By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Mar 21, 2007 8:33:43 EDT The name of a Marine who gave his life to save his comrades in Iraq will grace a new destroyer, the Navy announced Tuesday. Cpl. Jason Dunham received the Medal of Honor on Jan. 11 for his actions April 14, 2004, when he grappled with an insurgent after his unit was ambushed in Karabilah, Iraq. Dunham threw himself on a live grenade to shield fellow Marines and, although he survived the initial explosion, died of his injuries after 10 days. Navy Secretary Donald Winter plans to officially announce the ship’s name Friday in Dunham’s hometown of Scio, N.Y. The USS Dunham (DDG 109) will be the 59th DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The ship is expected to be delivered to the Navy from the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine, in the fall of 2009. Dunham is the first Marine to receive the Medal of Honor since the advent of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A machine gunner for Company K, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Dunham was 22 years old when he died. The Navy provided an account of Dunham’s heroic actions: “On April 14, 2004, Dunham’s squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in Karabilah when his Battalion Commander’s convoy was ambushed. When Dunham’s squad approached to provide fire support, an Iraqi insurgent leapt out of a vehicle and attacked Dunham. As Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground, he noticed that the enemy fighter had a grenade in his hand. Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines, and when the enemy dropped the live grenade, Dunham took off his Kevlar helmet, covered the grenade, and threw himself on top to smother the blast. In an ultimate selfless act of courage, in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of two fellow Marines.”

E-GAHTS !, doubt that's spelled correctly, but I'm sure any reader knows the intent.

Turn 2 (Days 3-4) Due to losses suffered by CV-63 the previous turn, the A-7 squadron was attritted. The two B-52 raids were both aborted after each squadron suffering one "hit". Kitty Hawk did launch two separate raids consisting of A-6's and F-14's, supported by EA-6's. The required 3 "hits" were inflicted on the Ethiopian forces with a loss of an EA-6. An S-3 located and put a hit on a Soviet SS unit. On the Diego Garcia front, a pack of US SSN's ravaged Soviet naval forces sinking a DDG and crippling the Soviet CVH. As this was a scenario designed for getting familiar with the air/naval interaction, I think that I will bust out the operations map and tangle with some Iranians in the Gulf.

This is an introductory scenario for Gulf Strike, a game designed by Mark Herman through Victory Games. Ethiopia is attacking western interests in Somolia and Djibuiti. Each attacking force is provided with air defence by a soviet Anti-Air Regiment. A US's Kitty Hawk CBG has been tasked with conducting air strikes in support of the friendly goverments. ROE prevents the CBG from attacking the Soviet AA units themselves. The US commander is also given two B-52 sorties per turn. Soviet naval and air forces are arrayed along the southern Arabian peninsula and in the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean. There orders are to attack the US forces in the area, to include the US base at Diego Garcia. Turn 1 B-52's only got one of the required 3 hits on the northern Ethipian force. A repeated A-6, A-7, EA-6 raid did get the required 3 hits on the southern force, losing one step of A-7's in the course of the raids. The Soviet CG shadowing the Kitty Hawk got one hit on the Kitty Hawk before submitting to combined ASW attacks from a US DDG and Kitty herself. Two squadrons of Soviet Yak-36's, flying off of a CVH stuck at Diego Garcia for no joy. US and USSR SSN's tangled NW of Diego Garcia, Soviets coming out on the short end of that exchange. Finally a regiment of Tu-26 Backfires attacked Kitty Hawk. Two CAP squadrons of F-14's got in their licks first, downing a squadron and a third, for one more hit on Kitty Hawk. That was it for turn one. More to follow.

Wow Dewayne, really trying to pump up that message count. I answered you in chat the other night. I found upgrading from 4.0 to 4.1 very beneficial for me. When I did so I has unwittingly purchased 4.0 about the time of the migration to 4.1. As I was tapping into the online H4 community to assist in my learning the system, I often found myself behind the errate 8-ball. I do not regret one iota going back and purchasing v4.1. As you can tell from this board, I have gotten my moneys worth.

Not that everyone isn't on at the same time, it appeared odd that the last two nights Tuesday and Wednesday, nobody appeared to be on - not even Brains. Could there be a software issue or just you guys having quiet time with the Mrs's - watch American Idol

Wishful thinking and belief that the definition of behavior is "relative". As Dewayne mentions liberty call after months at sea with little to spend one's creative energy, and money, leads to quite a display by those who may be dicipline/decorum-challenged at the first port call.

HOLY COW!...not the holy cow.

Stinking newbie (shamelessly goading you into another post).

After all these years...

I'm currently in the 3rd turn of Bear Trap. I have learned some interesting lessons so far in my first multi-divisional game of A&A. Due to some poor NATO set-up, the Soviet 39th and 57th Guards each have a regiment clearing the northern Wurzburg hexes. US 1st Bde 3rd Mech has little combat power remaining north of the Main River. Another error in NATO set up was voluntarily destroying 3 of the 4 most westernly bridges over the Main, thus preventing a quick link-up of US 1st Bde/3rdMech and WG 36thPz/12thPzDiv. As it is developing, 36th Pz Bde is having a rough time pushing east towards Wurzburg in the face of the 174th Mechanized Rifle Regiment and 57th Tank Regiment defending the Soviet western flank vic Vietschoeschhm. 35thPzG on the other hand swept west-southwest and after being on the receiving end of some rather effective artillery defensive fire, ended up sweeping through soviet divisional tube and rocket artillery in and around the northern edges of Gramschatzerwald. After what appeared to be a successful screen mission by the Soviet 112thMRR/39Guards forcing US 2nd Bde/3rdMech to search for alternative Main River crossing points, 2nd Bde found an undefended road bridge and shot that gap right into the Soviet 39th Guards Forward HQ. After the divisional tank battalion reacted to the HQ's defense, both the HQ and DTB were annihilated. Lesson there and in a couple of earlier engagements is the relative weakness of 1, 2, even 3, in this case 5!, step units when there are brigades and regiments roaming around out there. This may change with advanced rules and airpower. Also, the loss of 39th Guard divisional artillery displayed the benefit of arty support or lack thereof. It is a interesting, rather fluid situation right now. NATO has the lead step losses inflicted, Soviets have multiple Wurzburg hexes, the reinforcing Soviet division has not yet made their appearance. This has already gotten ugly.

So the West is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Does Mr. Blix offer any insight as to how to deal with a radicalized, nuclear country without simply putting our collective heads in the sand? I continue to wonder what will happen if Pakistan ever "goes under".