'We should've sunk every one of them'
Great article from Ralph Peters in yesterday's NY Post on how the U.S. Navy should have responded to the threats from the Iranians in the Straits of Hormuz the other day. From the article:
"The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?"
Peters continues:
"At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision? "
Peters, of course, is absolutely right. The Iranians were testing us in a variety of ways, and we failed to show them that we are not a nation to be toyed with. The kind of aggression we saw from the Iranians needs to be dealt with in such a way that in the future, they won't dare to come anywhere near our ships. At one point during the escalation, one of the Iranians radioed to a Navy commander, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes." If a threat like that is not enough to warrant a swift, ferocious response of fury upon the aggressors, then I'm afraid that history may be doomed to repeat itself in the form of another USS Cole-type attack.
"The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?"
Peters continues:
"At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses: How soon do the American weapons radars activate? At what range do the lasers begin to track targets? How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship? How do the Americans respond to possible mines? Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones? How long does it take an American commander to make a decision? "
Peters, of course, is absolutely right. The Iranians were testing us in a variety of ways, and we failed to show them that we are not a nation to be toyed with. The kind of aggression we saw from the Iranians needs to be dealt with in such a way that in the future, they won't dare to come anywhere near our ships. At one point during the escalation, one of the Iranians radioed to a Navy commander, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes." If a threat like that is not enough to warrant a swift, ferocious response of fury upon the aggressors, then I'm afraid that history may be doomed to repeat itself in the form of another USS Cole-type attack.
One of the five Iranian speedboats that circled U.S. warships Sunday
posted by Nick J. | 1:08 AM
<< Home