A New Blueprint in the Persian Gulf

[Francois]

And what "position" is that? And on behalf of all 270 million Americans I want to thank you for telling us what we can "see" and not see.

Not going to be specific (not the place, plus it is almost 2300, so I have to go), but two things:
- I didn't give a timeline (I used to word long-term for that purpose).
- When you are up on top, you can only go down, and all big civilizations has had its end.

Galrahn, for your scenario, in March, France will have 15 ships in the North of Indian Ocean:
CTF-150: 2 ships (under French command)
CTF-471: 9 ships (CdG BG)
GEAOM: 2 ships (Jeanne d'Arc)
CTF-55: 2 MCMs

Totalling 4700 men.

 

[Galrahn]

Francois,

I know, same with 'most' Americans, but the media and hard core political activists who make the most noise in both countries don't represent most average people. I have been to France three times in the last year, and whether it is a coffee shop in Paris or the wine country in the south, average people don't represent the headlines. I think the same is also true for the states.

As far as the ships go, I also found the ship movement’s extremely interesting. While the French CTF-150 ships are part of rotations, it is an interesting bit of coincidence that two French aviation platforms, the Jeanne d'Arc and Charles De Gaulle, with its 10 total escorts will be in the region over that time period. With the action increasing in eastern Africa, the obvious increase in pressure in Iraq, and some strange covert anti-terrorism activity taking place regionally including in Madagascar, it almost feels like something with momentum is building.

I think what shimmy, and probably a lot more people worldwide, are missing is perspective. When you think of how long Rumsfeld was in office, how long many of the CENTCOM leaders were in control, the time period exceeds that of almost all commanders in every major US war in history, with exceptions being notables like Eisenhower, Nimitz, and Macarthur. Are we supposed to believe the people who have run things in CENTCOM are of the same caliber as those previously celebrated US military leaders? When you break it down, many stayed in their position to long, and now that they are gone a new breed has taken control.

With 2 years ahead of this administration for Iraq policy, and Iran policy for that matter, to expect things will stay static until the elections of November 08 and new administration starting in Jan 09 is to have unrealistic expectations. Things are happening, and I think it’s a coin flip whether they will be effective or not to current policy, and another coin flip whether things spiral larger or not before the US pulls out of the region.

 

[Rich]

Gal, what I can tell you is that French don't hate nor despise the americans more then the brits or anybody else.
Being French myself.
It all depends on the situation and the context.
Americans are not loved all around the world because they abuse of their position, most of the time.

What is interresting is that the US are loosing (on the long term) their grip on the world. Only americans can't see it. Or refuse it, which is a very natural reaction.

Not going to be specific (not the place, plus it is almost 2300, so I have to go), but two things:
- I didn't give a timeline (I used to word long-term for that purpose).
- When you are up on top, you can only go down, and all big civilizations has had its end.

I get it. Not only are you condescending, make no sense, post no facts, are mildly insulting, and like to stereotype Americans. You also conveniently cant find the time to find "specifics" in a post that made no sense to begin with. Our "grip on the world"?:unknown

I do however dig your "when on top you can only go down" theory explaining our 200+ years of history. Thats deep man, real deep.

 

[Francois]

I get it. Not only are you condescending, make no sense, post no facts, are mildly insulting, and like to stereotype Americans. You also conveniently cant find the time to find "specifics" in a post that made no sense to begin with. Our "grip on the world"?:unknown

I do however dig your "when on top you can only go down" theory explaining our 200+ years of history. Thats deep man, real deep.

Well, your message just demonstrates the reasons I haven't and won't develop farther.
Beside this, I am not interrested in nationalists fights of any kind. END.


Galrahn, people you meet in real life and people online or in the media are not really the sames. Hidden behind a screen, at home, is an easy way to re-sort any kind of hidden hate.
I have spent accumulatively two years and a half in North America, and never been insulted.
Same thing in Japan, btw.

Now back to our topic, please note that the Brits are also moving.

857 Sqdn is deploying to the Gulf aboard RFA Fort Victoria which now increases the RN presence in the region to 6 ships (with HMS Campbeltown, Cornwall, Sutherland, + Blyth and Ramsay).

And the Spanish CTG 825.01 (around the PdA) is going to be in East Med at that given time.

I think India may deploy a cbg at that time too.

 

[Rich]

Well, your message just demonstrates the reasons I haven't and won't develop farther.
Beside this, I am not interrested in nationalists fights of any kind. END.

You wont because you cant! And this had nothing to do with "nationalism". Posting irrational and inflammatory crap, and not adding any info, links, or actual fact, to support a thesis, is becoming more and more the norm in this forum.

Well, at least your not calling me a bigot and then closing the thread.nfloorl:

Gal, what I can tell you is that French don't hate nor despise the americans more then the brits or anybody else.
Being French myself.
It all depends on the situation and the context.
Americans are not loved all around the world because they abuse of their position, most of the time.

What is interresting is that the US are loosing (on the long term) their grip on the world. Only americans can't see it. Or refuse it, which is a very natural reaction.
Now, alternatives are either China (which, by seeing how they treat their own population just makes wonder what they do to foreigners if they can), or Europa, but this one fails to unit incessantly.

 

[Manfred]

Interesting notion, that idea of an INdian Carrier getting in close to the Persian Gulf.

What sort of escorts travel with their carrier?

 

[Francois]

What sort of escorts travel with their carrier?

Ok, maybe I messed up a bit on the timeline.. or is it Pandit?

Navy set for war games on foreign shores
Rajat Pandit

NEW DELHI: The Navy now wants to take the 'battle' to the American, Russian and French shores. No, the Navy is not invading these countries. Instead, it's going to conduct intensive combat manoeuvres with their navies in their own backyards.

"After exercising with them off Kochi, Mumbai and Goa over the last few years, we thought we should send our frontline warships near their shores in 2007," said Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta.

Six Indian warships, including Delhi-class and Rajput-class guided missile destroyers, will be deployed towards 'east' from March onwards. Apart from 'touching' Japan, South Korea and China, they will take part in the Indo-US 'Malabar' exercise off Guam in the western Pacific Ocean in April, said Admiral Mehta.

The same warships will undertake combat exercises, code-named 'Indra', with Russian warships off Vladivostok. Then, in August-September, another group will head for the Gulf region and beyond, rounding it off with Indo-French 'Varuna' war games off the Red Sea.

This unprecedented overseas deployment by Navy blends in perfectly with its philosophy of building 'interoperability' and 'bridges of friendship' with foreign navies. "It will help if we need to operate against a common enemy in the future," said a senior officer.

The Navy, which now increasingly acts as a diplomatic instrument to further the country's political and geo-strategic objectives, will also use the opportunity to project power much beyond Indian shores.

"Constructive engagement is the Navy's principle weapon during peacetime. The idea is to enhance security, stability and tranquility in the entire Indian Ocean Region through constructive engagement of regional and extra-regional maritime states," said a senior officer.

Take US, for instance. The naval combat exercises with the American Navy have undergone a quantum jump in recent times, especially after the 9/11 terrorist strikes in 2001. Indian warships, in fact, even provided "escort" to over 20 American and other coalition ships carrying "high value" cargo across the Strait of Malacca between April and September 2002 in an operation code-named "Sagittarius".

Since then, the bilateral military cooperation has been on an upward trajectory. In the Malabar series, the Indian, US navies regularly practice aggressive interdiction manoeuvres and VBSS (visit, board, search, seizure) operations towards counter-terrorism actions on the high seas.

Source

 

[eckherl]

Gal, what I can tell you is that French don't hate nor despise the americans more then the brits or anybody else.
Being French myself.
It all depends on the situation and the context.
Americans are not loved all around the world because they abuse of their position, most of the time.

What is interresting is that the US are loosing (on the long term) their grip on the world. Only americans can't see it. Or refuse it, which is a very natural reaction.
Now, alternatives are either China (which, by seeing how they treat their own population just makes wonder what they do to foreigners if they can), or Europa, but this one fails to unit incessantly.

This was nothing more than a bunch of rubbish, typical Frenchman response. Your country likes to do nothing more than burn that candle at both ends, some day that will blow up in your faces. we have a clear picture and grip on what is going on in the rest of the world, you just cannot accept the fact that after we were attacked that we decided to act with military force, I will tell you that the majority of Americans do not feel warm and cozy with your country, and there is alot of dislike for France with in our military ranks. I really enjoyed watching loose lip Chirac over in China sucking up to China`s prime minister. And by the way, the U.S and Israel would like to thank France for their blind eye and acceptance of Iran with having a nuke capability, in the end that is going to be your problem also.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Galrahn,

I though this article might interest you based on our previous discussion. I still hold the same conclusions and I think the situation is rather imminent. The covert phase you described has been in progress for some time. Things will get quite overt IMHO.

Anyway, here you go...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454153.0444444446.html

...I'm sure you probably already read it though. Just in case you didn't.



DA

 

[merocaine]

we have a clear picture and grip on what is going on in the rest of the world

no offence mate, but that could be a very debatable point.

I really enjoyed watching loose lip Chirac over in China sucking up to China`s prime minister

eh, define sucking up, name a country that has'ent treated China with the upmost respect, president vs president?
Did'ent Bush look in Putins eyes and see a man he could trust, if thats not sucking up I dont know what is.

And by the way, the U.S and Israel would like to thank France for their blind eye and acceptance of Iran with having a nuke capability, in the end that is going to be your problem also.

since when has france turned a blind eye to irans nuclear program? Along with Britain and Germany they have been engaged on this matter for years.
Only last week France and Britian said taking the military option off the table would be a mistake.
Chiracs a joke by the way, i'm sure he's still with the program.
@francois

Americans are not loved all around the world because they abuse of their position, most of the time

no there not to popular because there top dog, and everyone wants to knock the top dog. America has rarely abused its position as much as they could have. Iraq is the only time I can point to where they have acted in a way that left them bereft of international support (apart from the British) normally they have been exemplary coalition builders.

 

[eckherl]

no offence mate, but that could be a very debatable point.



eh, define sucking up, name a country that has'ent treated China with the upmost respect, president vs president?
Did'ent Bush look in Putins eyes and see a man he could trust, if thats not sucking up I dont know what is.



since when has france turned a blind eye to irans nuclear program? Along with Britain and Germany they have been engaged on this matter for years.
Only last week France and Britian said taking the military option off the table would be a mistake.
Chiracs a joke by the way, i'm sure he's still with the program.
@francois


no there not to popular because there top dog, and everyone wants to knock the top dog. America has rarely abused its position as much as they could have. Iraq is the only time I can point to where they have acted in a way that left them bereft of international support (apart from the British) normally they have been exemplary coalition builders.

America makes one mistake and all of a sudden we are out line with the rest of the world, this is the price that is paid when a country gets attacked and takes on mass casualties, I would like to see what would happen if France had the same situation happen to them, with all the financial aide and assistance that my country has given the world and on top of it the blood that we have spilled we have become the brunt of everyones rubbish. America will remember.:usa

 

[Francois]

eckherl

I am not responding to your stupid and definitively racist comment.
Typical should I say!

Cheers!

 

[webmaster]

Guys,

Could you please spare us with the emotional and nationalistic pride nonsense?

Be objective and look at the situation strategically rather than remind yourselves of tragedies and get all worked up.

No more France that or America this BS. Leave that to right wing nut cases in each country to do.

Thank you for understanding, ENJOY!

 

[eckherl]

Guys,

Could you please spare us with the emotional and nationalistic pride nonsense?

Be objective and look at the situation strategically rather than remind yourselves of tragedies and get all worked up.

No more France that or America this BS. Leave that to right wing nut cases in each country to do.

Thank you for understanding, ENJOY!

Sorry WebMaster, I should of not responded to some ones biased opinion in regards to my country, it will not happen again.

 

[Francois]

uke :cry
american honesty

 

[Rich]

no there not to popular because there top dog, and everyone wants to knock the top dog. America has rarely abused its position as much as they could have. Iraq is the only time I can point to where they have acted in a way that left them bereft of international support (apart from the British) normally they have been exemplary coalition builders.

I get a kick when Gulf-1 is portrayed as a great coalition.: Well, as you all know here, I have a swell sense of humor. Oh, and BTW, here was the "grand coalition:. The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/
The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)

Yeah we built a swell "coalition" ok. The Yanks and Brits pretty much fought it, the Arabs paid for it, and entered the cities after we captured them. The French brought some great food. The Germans and Japanese sent checks. And everyone in the "coalition of the stupid" left Saddam standing so's he could make us all look like a bunch of fools for 10+ years, and Koffi's kid rich, until we Yanks got tired of it and put his head on a spike. Or was it a rope?

You just gotta love the power of World coalitions.nfloorl:

And people wonder why we Yanks despise the United Nations.

 

[eckherl]

uke :cry
american honesty

That is my exact thought everytime I see Chirac on TV.

 

[Waylander]

Don't go for it Eckherl.

Just try to ignore such BS.
It's not worth a reply.

 

[Manfred]

Just try to ignore such BS.
It's not worth a reply.

I'll second that. Such posts do more damage to the poster, especialy when thet are left unanswered.

 

[Falstaff]

Oh, Galrahn. This is a very difficult subject to write about.
I'll have to say that the following is far from expert knowledge and just represents my feelingts and thoughts about that matter.

First of all, I'd like to say that from what I heard and read I have the feeling things in Iraq and the middle east are so messed up it'll get worse no matter what we do.
And it all shows that we Europeans and you Americans simply don't (and never will) understand how arabs and muslim people think.

And so here we are:
As to Gulf 2:
1. It has been widely discussed that the coalition forces emphasized a military victory on the battlefield and weren't prepared for what came after that.
The victory over Iraqs military was overwhelming and showed superiority beyond anything I could have imagined.
But as I see it, most people in Iraq reckon their situation hasn't improved but got worse since Saddam fled and buried himself in that hole. Even in Bagdad, their isn't electrical power and clean water for everyone, the security situation is a disaster.
And I think that this is the main reason why sympathy for the coalition forces dropped dead. Their (the iraqui people's) lives didn't improve but got worse.
2. After 40 years or so of dictatorship and your party takes over all responsibility for you you have people that are not used to take on initiative and care for things themselves. Personal freedom could only be achieved against the state, not with it. But nobody was there to take their hands and show them how to exploit the possibilities and responsibilities that come along with personal freedom.
3. The coalition forces made a mistake they avoided after WW2 in Germany: they didn't let the administration and the police intact at first as an regulatory force, creating a power vacuum. They later had to rebuild that institutions.
4. I think we all underestimated the power that religion and family still have in this region. Who would have thought that in one of the more sophisticated countries (which Iraq was) religious leaders could become such a powerful force? Leading militia forces and all this stuff? And who would have thought that the muslims even fight each other instead of working together to rebuild their country? I wouldn't.
5. Exactly as bad is that the western government overestimated the iraqui resistance movement due to the influence of heavy exile iraqui lobbying in both London and Washington.
6. It is not exactly helpful that regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are using Iraq as battlefield for their ideologies.

And now the coalition forces are stuck in the middle of it, being subjects of hatred and marked as the reason for everything that's going wrong down there. This won't be fixed with more or less troops.

No, I don't think the coalition forces are to blame for the things that go wrong down there. Bu I think they opened pandora's box and created a situation that favored all the sh*** happening there.

IMO, get out as soon as you can. Save your people. This isn't your battle anymore.