Iran Deal Analysis - From a Terrorism Analyst Who Predicted 9/11

Iran Deal Analysis - From a Terrorism Analyst Who Predicted 9/11

If you want to see a war that could cost more of our military lives in five minutes than were killed in Iraq in ten years, then by all means, reject the Iran Deal. How do I know this? Don’t take my word for it. The U.S. military already knows this based on an exercise that was conducted in 2002 called “Millennium Challenge.”

Rejection of the deal means that the European sanctions would end and Iran would press ahead with full nuclear development.  There would be zero inspections.  There would be no reduction in centrifuges as contained in the agreement negotiated by John Kerry. War would be inevitable.  It would not end as most Americans expect.

In Millennium Challenge, the military simulated a mock war with Iran between a U.S. aircraft carrier group and the Iranian navy, which includes scores of small, fast boats. The military commander for the opposing forces approached the exercise like the Iranians would—and swarmed our ships. They called it off after we lost over 16 ships including an aircraft carrier. One aircraft carrier has over 5,000 personnel on board. We lost 4,500 military dead in over 10 years in Iraq.  That’s the real math in this equation.

Iran has a “Sunburn” missile that is so fast it can outrun our ship’s radar. In a short five minute flight, it could incinerate an aircraft carrier like the one Iran recently conducted a test on. I can’t imagine how many would die if we lost 16 ships in a real battle.

I was one of those trapped in Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis when Brown & Root wanted to send me to be a contract lawyer on a naval base they were building for the Shah. I was a TV terrorism analyst during the roll up to the Iraq war, on the Houston Fox news channel no less. I argued against that war because I knew Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

No one listened. That invasion opened Pandora's Box, found no weapons of mass destruction, and cost Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. It created ISIS that threatens to take over a region that has fallen apart from the aftermath created by Bush's blunder.

I am now hearing the same arguments against the Iran Deal, including “we can’t trust them.”  This is by members of Congress, a majority of whom do not have a passport, meaning that they have not been outside the U.S. and have no clue what it’s really like. Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, whom he had called “the evil empire” In order to shrink the size of their nuclear forces. His motto was “trust but verify.”  While we really didn’t trust them, the Soviets honored the agreement.

Rather than learn from that experience in Iraq, I now see Americans being misled about Iran by the usual suspects (who supported war against Iraq) now opposing the Iran nuclear deal.  Israel is not a midget power; it is the largest military force in the Middle East. Experts believe that it has a minimum of 80 nuclear bombs of its own. Even if Iran got one nuclear weapon, it would be no match. It would be instantly vaporized.

Perhaps Millennium Challenge in 2002 is why Bush picked Iraq to attack it instead of attacking Iran in 2003. Even Bush knew that we were screwed if we went into Iran because of the weapons they had back then—with 2002 technology! Remember, Iran held off Iraq and Saddam for 8 years of war!

Do we really have to get hit upside the head again to finally get it? Another war is not the answer, unless you are totally in favor of your kid being blown up on a ship in the Persian Gulf.

This nuclear deal needs to be approved, just like Reagan's nuclear deal with the Soviet Union was approved. Both unwind a march towards mutual destruction and open the door to diplomatic solutions that could bring Iran in from the cold.

If not, then get ready for another unpaid for war a thousand times worse than Iraq. Just don't be as surprised as you were by the mess in Iraq that is still spitting out evil because we were foolish and naïve and believed it would be “solved” with a war instead of diplomacy.

Michael Fjetland, BBA/JD

Twitter

@Fjet2020

Author, Better Times Ahead April Fool

IRAN NUKE DEAL - A Vote "NO" Means A War Worse than Iraq. YES Means No Nukes Over a Decade

                       4 minute video by who predicted 911 (on TV)

I was a TV terrorism analyst during the roll up to the Iraq war, on a Fox news channel no less. I argued against that war because I knew Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

No one listened. That invasion opened Pandora's Box, found no weapons of mass destruction, and cost Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. It created ISIS that threatens to take over a region that has fallen apart from the aftermath created by Bush's blunder.

Rather than learn from that experience I now see Americans being misled about Iran by the usual suspects (who supported war against Iraq) now opposing the Iran nuclear deal.  

Such rejection would guarantee a future WAR with IRAN, which I guarantee will be 100 times worse than Iraq.  I have done the research on it that I know ordinary Americans have not. 

Rejection of the deal means that the European sanctions would end and Iran would press ahead with full nuclear development. War would be inevitable.

In a military exercise in the Bush years, they simulated a mock war with Iran. They called it off after we lost over 20 ships including an aircraft carrier. We would lose more military personnel in 5 minutes than we lost in Iraq in 10 YEARS.  One aircraft carrier has over 5,000 personnel. We lost 4,500 in over 10 years in Iraq. 

See the difference?  I won't bother telling you about their supersonic missiles that overrun our radar when they hit a ship. Iraq was a midget. That's why Bush picked it instead of attacking Iran in 2003. Even he knew that we were screwed if we went into Iran because of the weapons they had back then. Iran held off Iraq and Saddam for 8 years of war!

Do you really have to get hit upside the head again for finally get it? Another war is NOT the answer, unless you are totally in favor of your kid being blown up on a ship in the Persian Gulf.

This nuclear deal needs to be approved, just like Reagan's nuclear deal with the Soviet Union was approved. Both unwind a march towards mutual destruction and open the door to diplomatic solutions.

If not, then get ready for another unpaid for war that makes Iraq look like a cake walk. Just don't come whining later that you were as surprised as you were by the mess in Iraq that is still spitting out evil because we were foolish and naive.

I have experience in this area to know. It's in "Better Times Ahead April Fool"  No one listened before. Guess who was right?

How Even the Bush Administration Backed Away from a War with IRAN

I found this article as part of the research I am doing for a new book - it confirms my prior blog entry about a war with IRAN costing as many lives in 5 minutes as Iraq did in over 10 YEARS.

But it is even worse than that.  Iran's Persian Gulf border is mountainous, giving them the high ground over the Gulf and its only exist, the Strait of Hormus.  Between its Excocet missiles (purchased from France) and Sunburn missiles (thank you Russia), Iran could riddle every ship we have in the Gulf and sink them - while blocking the reinforcement fleet from entering the Gulf.

Towards the end of the article it talks about the Bush administration suddenly backing away from talk of a military conflict with Iran. I quote in part:

"In May 2007, Fallon Nixes an Invasion of Iran
WASHINGTON – Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking.
Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon’s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran."

VERY interesting. Check it out.

Does Israel Have the NEUTRON Bomb? What That Means regarding IRAN

From a knowledgeable source I have been advised that it is quite possible that ISRAEL has a bomb banned - a NEUTRON Bomb.

I confirmed this when I checked Wikipedia:
"By 1984, according to Mordechai Vanunu, Israel was mass-producing neutron bombs.^[23] A number of analysts believe that the Vela incident was an Israeli neutron bomb experiment.^[24]"  

My expert further says that even one Iran nuke would be useless. Two reasons:

(1) Israel has over 200 Nuclear warheads, including the NEUTRON bomb that kills people, not buildings - and has higher yields than standard nuclear warheads.  
(2)  It would take 4 nuclear hits to even take out one city like Jerusalem because of Israel's hills that deflect atomic blast waves. 

One nuclear bomb would not be sufficient for Iran to even knock out one city, much less "destroy" an entire country!

Not even Russia or the USA deploy Neutron Warheads. 

So the question is: WHY is Israel so worried about the Iran deal? They have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation act themselves! No one gets to inspect Israel's nuclear facilities.

Stay tuned...

How We Could Lose More Military in 5 MINUTES in a War with IRAN vs. 10 YEARS in Iraq

International Expert Who Predicted 911 Says This about President Obama’s  Iran Deal

TRANSCRIPT:
There is bold talk by some in Congress that we should reject Obama’s deal with Iran. This reminds me of the loose talk before the Iraq invasion when I was a terrorism analyst on TV, the lone voice in the wilderness opposing it at the time. That invasion led to the growth of Al Qaida and ISIS today and has cost us over $6 TRILLION dollars and countless deaths. 

A war with Iran would make Iraq look like child’s play—because we DO have evidence of what a short conflict with Iran would look like - and how it would end. Ugly, very ugly. Don’t take my word for it – take the Pentagons.

 A 2002 military exercise called “Millennium challenge” was held by the Pentagon simulating a "War with IRAN" took place. Result? America's worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.   The military stopped it after we lost 16 ships including an aircraft carrier—which is home to 5,000 sailors! We could lose more people in 5 minutes than we lost in Iraq in over 10 years! How?  One Iranian cruise missile travels so fast that our ships’ radars can’t even lock on. It could take out one of our aircraft carriers in just 5 minutes. And that would only be the beginning of our losses.

I am Michael Fjetland. In my career I’ve negotiated in over 50 countries and spent time in the Middle East. Several years before 911, I predicted a terror attack on the U.S. on TV during the first Gulf War. No one listened. 

I became a 911 terrorism analyst on TV and opposed the invasion of Iraq since Saddam had nothing to do with it. Again no one listened. As a result of kicking open that Pandora’s box the U.S. lost over 4,000 military and trillions were borrowed and spent to support it  – all it did was lead to a growing Al Qaida and today’s ISIS, and veterans who will need medical care the rest of their lives.

I hear the usual suspects now disparaging President Obama’s deal with Iran to limit its nuclear ambitions. It’s as if they learned nothing from the Iraq war fiasco.

                                                                       Aircraft carrier hit by Iranian cruise missile

Before we convince ourselves to reject the Iran deal and encourage even more evil to fly out of Pandora's Box in the volatile Middle East, know this: key Senators urging a military “solution” like Senator Tom Cotton have not only tried to sabotage the President, he didn’t even know that Tehran has been the capitol of Iran for thousands of years--that's how little representatives like him know about the real world! Are you going to believe a brand new Senator who doesn’t know basic global geography, or a President who has been winding down America’s trillion dollar war boondoogles?

Do you really want to go down that road to war again? The President has put in place a verification process like what Pres. Reagan did with the Soviets in reducing missiles. Reagan’s motto was “Trust but verify.” Obama’s is basically the same.  

Is Israel’s security at risk? Hardly. 

                                    Israel has largest military and hundreds of nuclear bombs in inventory

Israel has the largest military in the middle east.  Experts believe it has a nuclear stockpile of at least 200 nuclear bombs. Iran has zero. Even if Iran managed to sneak production of one bomb it is hardly in a position to threaten Israel who could wipe it off the face of the planet, killing millions of innocent Iranians in the process and launching even more Mideast blowback that would not help our security. And don’t forget Pakistan, a Muslim  country, has had nuclear missiles for years, and its not been used against anyone.

Keep that in mind as those running for president dish it for political reasons – at great risk to the American people. The results of Millennium Challenge is a warning not to rely on a military solution over a diplomatic one -- like we heard before the Iraq invasion.

 The last thing we need is yet another war—or to be fooled into another disastrous war. If Congress kills this deal, we citizens will have hell to pay. You will find links below where you can follow these developments in my Global American Values blog.

Pass it on! 

And find out how to make America No. 1 in the world again in "Agenda for American Greatness" - a free chapter in Michael Fjetland's book "Better Times Ahead April Fool" - How does one go from farm to global negotiator and terrorism adviser in over 50 countries?

How the first Rocket Inventor Would Have Never Been Allowed to Immigrate By Pres. Ted Cruz

From Physics Today

"It's the birthday of Wernher von Braun, who was born in 1912 in Wyrzysk, Poland. Braun studied rocketry and mechanical engineering at the Berlin Institute of Technology. He went on to earn a PhD in physics from the University of Berlin in 1934. His thesis, on liquid-propellent rocket engines, was classified by the Nazi regime. Braun joined Germany's rocket R&D program. By the end of World War II, thousands of the V-2 rockets that he had designed and which were built by slave labor had been fired at London and Antwerp. Braun and members of his team surrendered to the US Army at the end of the war; they were taken to the US, where they formed the nucleus of America's rocket and space program. Braun's career culminated in design, development and construction of NASA's Saturn V rocket, which remains the only launch vehicle to have carried astronauts to the Moon."
###
Von Braun was an amazing individual - he was WAY ahead of his time. He was definitely way ahead of all the others in the years before World War II in his grasp of rockets and the possible...

In America, where is that vision today?  I see talking points aimed at primary voters but I don't see a real global vision of how America wins in a world on fire. Not from any of those running for President. All I see them offering to throw more gasoline on the fires.

I don't see it in Ted Cruz, whose idea of following Jesus would be to deny care to the sick--he actually shut down our government over the idea of people getting healthcare. That ego stunt cost taxpayers $24 billion. Ted Cruz Jesus would not be dividing bread for the 5,000. Quite the opposite. They would go hungry. Where the Affordable Healthcare Act giveth, Cruz would taketh away.

Nor do I see Mr. Cruz, or Jeb Bush or any other GOP candidate with a space vision--which actually is VITAL to our national security and future prosperity.  Not since JFK has any president been bold on space. 

What the Germans did during World War II was bold by picking a young Polish man and let him build the impossible. They were seeking cutting edge high technology and it almost won them the war. Their V-2 rockets would have soon reached New York. Their atom bomb program that was only stopped when two Norwegians managed to blow up their sole source of heavy water made in a secret plant in Norway, after numerous bombings had failed. 

After the war, the USA got the services of Mr. Braun, who helped build NASA that lead to an amazing skill upgrade for America. One wonders if he had been an illegal immigrant, if Mr. Cruz would allow him into the country! In fact we are denying entry to talented people like von braun because our immigration law is so out of date and broken.


Today China is building high tech and space tech which we have neglected because of a lack of vision. They cornered the market on rare earth materials needed to make computers, satellites and anything high tech worth building. And they did it on a global scale while Congress fiddled in Washington. 

China has invested in education while education investment has declined substantially under the party of Cruz in my home state of Texas.  With Mr. Cruz' blessing, Texas has shorted education funding over $5.4 billion, despite a huge SURPLUS in the budget -- and despite more than 70,000 new students arriving in the state every year. 

Its school financing system has been ruled unconstitutional. Yet Texas legislators still have not made vital changes to give Texas kids a chance in this new global high tech economy. That failure is why China is producing more scientists than we are and is building its own Space Station. Instead of investing in education Texas GOP leaders want to give the money away in tax cuts to the wealthiest.  It's beyond short-sighted.

A real road-map and American vision is set out in the "Agenda for American Greatness"  linked below. The goal:  Make America No. 1 again!  

I have negotiated worldwide and know what the balance of power technology looks like. Photo evidence of those changes over the last 30 years is in my book "Better Times Ahead April Fool."

Compare the vision in Agenda for American Greatness to Mr. Cruz's -- and let's discuss.

P.S. JIM BAKER, former Secretary of State, is a Republican who outclasses today's Cruz's  by a thousand percent.
http://bettertimesaheadaprilfool.com/Agenda_for_USA_Greatness.html

Gerrymandering is Killing American Democracy - and Giving Us a Crazy Congress of Lunatics

It has been announced that House Speaker Boehner is going to ISRAEL to meet with Mr. Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister. The Constitution gives international affairs to the PRESIDENT not 535 members of Congress. 

There is nothing worse than an uppity Congressman. Or more DANGEROUS to American security. A house member trying to sabotage a President is one thing. But house members negotiating with foreign leaders is unprecedented. It is inappropriate at best, treason at the worst. Neither are good for our country. American speaks with one voice through the President, not 535 voices crying in the wilderness.

Our Congress politics is now so low that it includes attempted SABOTAGE of our economic revival from Day 1 of the election of President Obama, who inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.

It now extends to SABOTAGE of a NUCLEAR AGREEMENT with IRAN. The same Congress that threw America into two wars they never bothers to pay for now want to throw gasoline on a potential deal that would avoid an even deadlier war.  That is not only sick but STUPID - says this terrorism analyst who did predict 911 and has the tapes on YouTube to prove it.


We are electing such shallow representatives that it has turned into SICK politics. It is no longer about competing views on a bill. It is all about poison pills, making up false facts,  pettiness, disrespect of an elected President, and continued attempts to rob from the poor to give to the already filthy rich. It's crazier than a rabid shunk.

It's cynical. It is the opposite of what we need to move the country forward. 

Gerrymandering is the reason for this sickness.  Our Congress reps are picked by the most extreme voters in rigged primaries. How does that work?

The winner of the primary automatically wins in November because the district boundaries are rigged. So the real choice was made in the primary by partisan voters, not in November where even independents and others can vote --there vote doesn't vote at that point. So the Congress winner (and state office winner) was picked by maybe 10% of the voters in that district! 

I experienced this personally - seeing three different boundaries in three elections in the same district when Republicans were designing districts in Texas (details in my book 'Better Times Ahead April Fool'). 

Picking our Congress members from gerrymandered districts in rigged primaries --where the most extreme control -- makes the November vote pointless in most districts. It screws the minority party and independents alike.

As a result of gerrymandering we get these small men (and women) who now play political games instead of doing their jobs. Many of them exhibit incredible ignorance about basic facts while collecting $185,000 a year up to show up 100 days a year. They get government paid for health care while telling Americans that they can't have the same thing. 

It's pathetic and hypocritical. How does America win when our own Congress is sabotaging progress?  Only the rich and privileged can afford to play these stupid political games when the world is on fire -- from Ukraine to the Middle East. Ordinary people don't have that luxury.

The U.S. Senate can't even multi-task, like most American workers have to do everyday, by debating one bill and voting on other things on the agenda, like the next attorney general we need in office doing that job for the taxpayers. Voter her up or down but hold the damn vote! (same thing on immigration; Boehner has refused to hold a vote on the bill because he knows it would pass).

Instead of doing their jobs in the U.S. Senate, Mr. McConnell and Cornyn are making Ms. Lynch wait longer than any Attorney General nominee in the history of the United States!  That is putting her at the back of the bus, literally and figuratively. If they hate Eric Holder so much, why are they holding up his departure by not voting on his replacement?

Gerrymandering has led to this Congress which is willing to put the American people at the back of the bus too -- wasting weeks avoiding the vote, interfering with our foreign relations, offering budgets to take even more from the poorest to give to the richest. It's madness. 

They need to grow up and we need to eliminate gerrymandering before it kills America. It already is.

Check out "Agenda for American Greatness" for solutions (FREE, at the link above). Pas it on.

Stay tuned and follow for updates....or on Facebook. 

How Our Ignorant Congress is Sabotaging America's Future Success

I first saw India as a legal negotiator in 1979, China in 1982. Went to Syria in 1996 for a child kidnapping negotiation as a young entrepreneur lawyer. They were crowded then. They were stable then.

It is worse now. Action needs to be taken.  Iraq opened Pandora's Box.

It's not being fixed because we have been electing hillbilly congress reps who are totally clueless. They have never traveled on business globally. In fact, they have never been anywhere (beyond Frog Jump Arkansas, or Corpus Christi), but are so "expert" on everything, right? lol.

Mr. Cotton's breach of protocol with Iran could result in making a nuclear event MORE likely because of that ignorance about the real world that I have seen the last 30 years.

Global wars and country instability will INCREASE in coming years because of climate disruption. California is now in such a drought the USA could lose its vegetable food supply.

Even conservatives in Europe recognize climate change is real!

The only logical conclusion is that our conservatives apparently are the dumbest group in the entire world. They are the only ones left on the entire planet that don't believe in man-made climate change, or addressing it. LOL.

Now isn't that special? 

Some REAL Solutions are in Agenda for American Greatness.

Let's debate something real for a change.

No charge.  Thank you.  Pass it on.www.BetterTimesAheadAprilFool.com 

How War With Iran Could Cost More American Lives in 5 Minutes Than Iraq Did in 10 Years

          Last Military Simulation of Conflict with Iran Ended Worse than Pearl Harbor

There is bold talk by some in Congress that WAR with IRAN is a solution if the nuclear talks don't work out. This reminds me of the loose talk before the Iraq invasion when I was a terrorism analyst, the lone voice in the wilderness opposing it at the time. 

However, we DO have evidence of what a short conflict with Iran would look like - and how it would end. Ugly, very ugly.

 A 2002 military exercise simulating a "War with IRAN" took place. Result? America's worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.   The military stopped it after we lost 16 ships including an aircraft carrier! We could lose more people in 5 minutes than we lost in Iraq in over 10 years!

Before we convince ourselves to kick open yet another Pandora's Box, read the following--because some of the Senators and Congress reps urging a military solution don't even know that Tehran has been the capitol of Iran for thousands of years--that's how little they know about the real world (sad to say, but I have more global negotiating experience than the entire current GOP Presidential field!).

Below is a description of the exercise and results of a realistic war game called Millennium Challenge. 
(It's a warning not to believe rosy predictions of easy victory -- like we heard before the Iraq invasion that created ISIS and cost us over $6 TRILLION dollars and countless lives ruined). Pass it on!

 

Iranian ship killer "Sunburn" missile - based on Russian technology

"                                       I

WAR GAMES DESTROY MYTH OF U.S. NAVAL INVULNERABILITY

NEWS BRIEF: "Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf", Rense.com, 4-16-2005
"During the summer of 2002, in the run-up to President Bush's invasion of Iraq, the US military staged the most elaborate and expensive war games ever conceived. Operation Millennium Challenge, as it was called, cost some $250 million, and required two years of planning ... it was set in the Persian Gulf, and simulated a conflict with a hypothetical rogue state. The "war" involved heavy use of computers, and was also played out in the field by 13,500 US troops, at 17 different locations and 9 live-force training sites. All of the services participated under a single joint command, known as JOINTFOR. The US forces were designated as 'Force Blue', and the enemy as OPFOR, or 'Force Red'. The 'war' lasted three weeks and ended with the overthrow of the dictatorial regime on August 15."
"At any rate, that was the official outcome. What actually happened was quite different, and ought to serve up a warning about the grave peril the world will face if the US should become embroiled in a widening conflict in the region ..."
This is not the first time that the American high command has fudged the results of a war gaming exercise because the real results would be very embarrassing to all U.S. leadership, from the White House down to the Pentagon. In the early years of the Clinton Administration, America's top guns -- her elite fighter pilots -- engaged in an war gaming exercise with Israeli pilots. The American aces were humiliated, so much so that the Pentagon discreetly asked the Israeli government not to publicize the results! The story I read was very small and buried deeply in our local paper.
Now, let us return to this news story. The American officer leading the "enemy" -- the "Force Red" team -- was "the straight-talking Marine commander who had been brought out of retirement to lead Force Red. His name was Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, and he had played the role of the crazed but cunning leader of the hypothetical rogue state ... In the first days of the 'war', Van Riper's Force Red sent most of the US fleet to the bottom of the Persian Gulf." (Ibid.)
The tactics adopted by this Marine Corps general were astounding and they produced "The Worst US Naval Disaster Since Pearl Harbor".
"The war game was described as 'free play', meaning that both sides were unconstrained, free to pursue any tactic in the book of war in the service of victory ... Much of the action was computer-generated. But representative military units in the field also acted out the various moves and countermoves. The comparison to a chess match is not inaccurate. The vastly superior US armada consisted of the standard carrier battle group with its full supporting cast of ships and planes. Van Riper had at his disposal a much weaker flotilla of smaller vessels, many of them civilian craft, and numerous assets typical of a Third World country." (Ibid.)
"But Van Riper made the most of weakness. Instead of trying to compete directly with Force Blue, he utilized ingenious low-tech alternatives. Crucially, he prevented the stronger US force from eavesdropping on his communications by foregoing the use of radio transmissions. Van Riper relied on couriers instead to stay in touch with his field officers ... At every turn, the wily Van Riper did the unexpected. And in the process he managed to achieve an asymmetric advantage ... Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats ... Force Red's prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines ... the Navy was unprepared. When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.
"If the games had been real, it would have been the worst US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor." (Ibid.)
Clearly, this war games disaster was something the Pentagon could not have foreseen. Publicly, Pentagon spokesmen admitted of no disaster, since, in war gaming, destroyed equipment and dead sailors can be "resurrected" at the touch of a keyboard. At the end, the government of the rogue state was overthrown and victory achieved -- but only after General Van Riper quit in disgust. Oh, yes, and the Pentagon did not admit that they had anything to learn and insisted there was nothing they needed to change.
But, you may argue, surely they knew better internally and were working madly to change tactics so they would not have this kind of real disaster, from a real enemy, who can really kill our sailors and marines. You may be right, except for the fact that most of the reasons for this disaster are systemic and cannot be easily or quickly corrected. How can this be?
The first problem is that the Navy has heavily invested in equipment which does not work effectively in close-in places like the Persian Gulf. In other words, our Navy was created, and equipped, to fight a blue-water enemy out in the open ocean, and is very vulnerable to a determined close-in enemy using unconventional tactics. Listen as this article explains this terrible reality.
"... instead of being over the horizon like the Navy would normally fight, and at stand-off ranges that would enable their protective systems to be employed, now they're sitting right off the shore ... where you're looking at them. I mean, the models and simulation that we put together, it couldn't make a distinction (between enemy vessels vs friendly) ... all of a sudden, whoops, there they are. And that's about the time he attacked ..."
"Gen. Kernan's nuanced defense was that the simulation had necessarily been conducted in the vicinity of busy sea lanes, hence, in the presence of live commercial shipping; and this required the Navy to 'turn off' some of its defenses, which it would not have done in a real wartime situation. All of which is probably true, but the general's remark that in a real Gulf war the fleet would be deployed differently, in a stand-off manner, with its over-the-horizon defenses fully operable, was a misrepresentation of the actual situation in the Persian Gulf, today. The US Navy's biggest problem operating in Gulf waters are the constraints that the region's confined spaces impose on US naval defenses, which were designed for the open sea. The Persian Gulf is nothing but a large lake, after all, and in such an environment the Navy's over-the-horizon defenses are seriously compromised. Nor can the Navy withdraw to a safe distance, so long as its close-in presence is required to support the US occupation forces in Iraq. The serious implications of this simple fact for a possible future conflict, for instance, involving Iran, have never, to my knowledge, been discussed in the US press." (Ibid.)
As the interview with General Kernan continued, he kept talking about the Navy operating "over-the-horizon", which is fine if you are fighting the blue-water Russian navy in the open ocean; however, if the US Navy is fighting an Iranian force of quick, mobile fighting ships and boats, and aircraft, all of which are equipped with Russian-made supersonic missiles, losses are likely to be staggering, just as this war simulation demonstrated.
General Kernan should not have been surprised, because earlier studies had reported that these kind of problems existed, and were not reserved just for the Iranians.
"As recently as 1997 some forty different nations possessed these awesome weapons (anti-ship cruise missiles). By 2000 the number had jumped to 70, with at least 100 different types identified, and a dozen different nations actively pursuing their own production and research/development programs ... why are anti-ship cruise missiles so attractive? The answer is that they are relatively simple to develop, especially in comparison with ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles can be constructed from many of the same readily available parts and components used in commercial aviation. They are also reliable and effective, easy to deploy and use, and are relatively inexpensive. Even poor nations can afford them. One cruise missile represents but a tiny fraction of the immense expenditure of capital the US has invested in each of its 300 active warships. Yet, a single cruise missile can sink or severely disable any ship in the US Navy."
Now, listen carefully to this next revelation, for it validates a fact Cutting Edge reported several years ago, when we posted an article entitled, "Has Russian Technology Just Doomed The U.S. Naval Fleet?", NEWS1449. A key factor which rendered the American fleet so vulnerable to these Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles was that they flew so quickly, American protective radars could not react quickly enough to track the incoming missile, plot a solution, and fire the defensive gattling guns. This next revelation validates our concerns, and the source is highly believable, for it is the U.S. Congressional (Government) Accounting Office.
"According to the GAO (Government Accounting Office) report, 'the key to defeating cruise missile threats is in gaining additional reaction time', so that ships can detect, identify and destroy the attacking missiles. The thorny problem, as I've pointed out, is that the Navy's long-range AWAC's and intermediate-range Aegis radar defense systems are significantly less effective in littoral (or coastal) environments, the Persian Gulf being the prime example." (Ibid.)
Here we have two distinctively different problems, which combine to produce a very fatal result.
1) American anti-ship missile protective radar cannot reach a solution quickly enough to fire the protective guns fast enough to kill the incoming supersonic missiles flying at 1,700 miles per hour.
2) American radar systems were not designed for coastal situations, where an enemy can hide and pop out to fire quickly at a passing ship and then get out of harm's way. No, U.S. radar is designed to track an enemy vessel "over the horizon", plot a solution, fire the missile, and kill the enemy ship without ever physically seeing it. Smaller vessels firing a variety of close-in weaponry -- including the supersonic ship killers -- can get in under this American radar, and score the kill.
You just do not change this kind of wrong weaponry problem overnight. Meanwhile, the Russians are proceeding quickly to make their ship-killers even more deadly.
"The other important factor is that cruise missile technology itself is racing ahead. The GAO report warned that the next generation of anti-ship missiles that will begin to appear by 2007 will be faster and stealthier, and will also be equipped with advanced target-seekers, i.e., advanced guidance systems. In fact, one of these advanced anti-ship cruise missiles is already available: the Russian-made Yakhonts missile. It flies at close to Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound), can hit a squirrel in the eye, and has a range of 185 miles: enough range to target the entire Persian Gulf (from Iran), shredding Gen. Kernan's glib remark that in a real war the US expeditionary force will stand-off in safety 'over the horizon' while mounting an amphibious attack. Nonsense. Henceforth, in a real Gulf war situation there will be no standing off in safety. The Yakhonts missile has already erased the concept of the horizon, at least, within the Persian Gulf, and it has done so without ever having been fired in combat---yet ... By their own admission the Russians developed the Yakhonts missile for export. No doubt, it was high on Iran's shopping list." (Ibid.)
The concluding information is truly sobering.
"... for a variety of reasons the Navy's forecasts for upgrading US ship defenses against cruise missile attack are overly optimistic. The Navy's own data shows that there will be no silver bullet. The technology gap is structural, and will not be overcome for many years, if at all. US warships will be vulnerable to cruise missile attack into the foreseeable future, perhaps increasingly so ... the most vulnerable ship in the US fleet is none other than the flagship itself, the big Nimitz-class carriers."
The knowledge that our mighty carriers are extremely vulnerable to these anti-ship missiles is not new information, nor is it limited to naval experts. During the early days of the Iraq invasion (March - April, 2003), I talked at length with a family friend who had recently retired from the Army as a Major. He gave me much good advice, including the status of our aircraft carriers if they faced a determined enemy equipped with modern missiles. He said that our carriers were "just sitting ducks". Yet, most Americans still believe that the safest place to be stationed during a battle is on a carrier.
The author of this article then concludes his assessment.
"Just think: If Van Riper could accomplish what he did with Silkworms, the lowly scuds of the cruise missile family, imagine what could happen if the US Navy, sitting in the Gulf like so many ducks, should face a massed-attack of supersonic Yakhonts missiles, a weapon that may well be unstoppable?"