Mon 14 Jan 2008
As any sailor will tell you, deploying a naval battle group into a small body off water like the Persian Gulf is difficult, when you drop three or four battle groups in there, it becomes insane. You put that many ships in such a confined space and then add all the normal seafaring traffic in the Gulf and you have a recipe for disaster – with habanero sauce.
Here is a question I want answered, where are the US Naval ships? In the Strait of Hormuz, there are no international waters – you are either in Iran’s or Oman’s territory. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides transit passage through this area. So if Iranian boats are mingling with US ships, what are we doing in their waters? The Convention established guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. But the US Senate has yet to sign the Convention. Military vessels also have the right of “innocent passage” defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent”, and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.
As I read the Convention, we have no right being there.
Also, if all of our ships are in Oman’s territory, isn’t Oman upset that these boats are in there territorial waters? I doubt it. Oman has one of the largest ports in the world and there is a lot of small boat traffic coming and going from Iran – been that way for a very long time. In other words, boat traffic from Iran is normal, our presence there, clogging up the works with such a heavy-handed posture.
Now we learn this last event, was not the first time boats came within “the safety zone” of the US Navy. (The size of the safety zone is also something that hasn’t been released as far as I know.) According to new evidence, these close encounters are common. The audio the Pentagon presented as part of the video turns out not to be associated with the video. There is no evidence the audio came from the boats in questions. Further evidence shows the audio may not have happened on the same day, nor associated with any boat. Even the Navy admits these were not a threat.
Here are the questions the MSM are unwilling to answer…
1) Whose waters was USS Port Royal in, Iran or Oman?
2) Did the USS Port Royal have permission to be in those waters?
3) What was the destination of the USS Port Royal? Was it complying with innocent transit guidelines or was it parked waiting to scrap with someone?
4) What is the size of the safety zone for the USS Port Royal. If you can’t tell the American people, how are the Iranians supposed to know?
Rate This Strip
(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading ...
(9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5) Loading ...Check out one of the previous TCD series!
January 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
While I will agree that the Straight of Hormuz may be small, but the Persian Gulf is, by no means, a small body of water. Compared to any ocean or sea, sure. It is pretty small.
Granted, we have several battle groups there now, but the question is, how large is a battle group? These can run from anything from a 5 or 6 frigates and cruisers to several aircraft carriers and/or battleships with their full complement of escorts.
As far as the physical location of the USS Port Royal and her group, they cold have been going to or from the Persian Gulf, or sitting right on the line or who knows what. I have an E-Mail that I can send your way about how this incident is starting to look suspiciously like events (or non-events) that sparked off our escilated actions in Vietnam.
Speaking of the USS Port Royal and her “Safety Zone”, speaking as a veteran in a potentially stressful situation, the “Safety Zone” could be whatever the captain decides. If a vessel is moving at such a velocity and direction that the captian feels threatened, then that vessel has violated that ship’s “Safety Zone”. It is that simple, and it is nonnegotiable. It doesn’t matter why or at what point the captain felt threatened – only that he was. Keep in mind, that he must think about the lives of his crew and the wellbeing of his ship. If a speedboat approaching at 1,000 meters out is viewed as a threat, guess what? It is a threat.
The captain gave his warning and announced his intentions clearly. He told those guys “You are threatening me. Back off!” I cannot and will not fault him. The fact that he was paranoid about a few small boats is not without jsut cause either, after all we have lost sailors in the past due to bomb-laden speedboats getting too close and/or ignoring warnings.
To put this into another perspective, consider this: You are on the street and someone approaches you in an aggressive manner. You feel threatened. Are you going to tell this person how far away they must be before you seek to try to defend yourself? Or are you just going to say “Back off, you are making me uncomfortable and I feel threatened by you”? Do you have a set distance in mind for this to trigger? Or do you just make that decision arbitrarily based on your own desire to keep yourself safe?
While I am not defending the rights or reasons for our ships to be camping out in, near or around the Straight of Hormuz (or the Persian Gulf for that matter), I am defending the Captain’s decision and actions.
January 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for the post! Send that email on over if you can.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
There ya go again..
Asking for accountability and questioning the motives of The Worst President Evah.These war crazed degenerate idiots have gotten so brazen it boggles the mind.
They just don’t care anymore, thats the only reasoning I can come up with.
Whatever it takes to get Iran to step into the ring.
They are running out of time, too, so it can only get worse.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:13 am
OK–
Remember Pearl Harbor? The Russo-Japanese War? Big ships in small areas are sitting ducks. Wonder if they think that the sacrifice of a ship or two is worth it to get their way?
Oh, well, “Remember the Maine”; was it maybe blown up by a stuck boiler valve?
Cynical is,
Bill
January 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am
No problem Storm.
You should have gotten it by now, unless AOL is being stupid.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Did you see the article in the Asia times? I came across it via dailykos. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak02.html
A lot of questions need to be answered by the Bush administration and the U.S. Navy concerning their actions.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
A lot of armchair quarterbacks here. Not to many Maritime Law experts, not to many ship captains, not too much sense. Please scrape the politics from your eyes, educate yourselves on the topic, and accept that “a ship” is only steel – she carries hundreds of husbands, wives, sons, and daughters who are not out to pick a fight with Iran. Oh, and put a little trust in your Navy – they are not automatons.
This is the first time I have ever posted a comment online, and will never again. I have better things to do.