sherpa

All of this internecine squabbling aside, I think this gets underway in the next 24 hours. Very difficult to mobilize that amount of troops and not move. I expect the delay has been the US negotiating with the Israelis to provide some humanitarian corridor, but I think the time is nigh.

You know "shellback" has a very specific meaning in Navy parlance. One is either a "pollwog" or a "shellback." I enjoy the more prestigious shellback status.

I really enjoyed my active duty time in the Navy. It is impossible to duplicate squadron life in a civilian career. Not a week goes by that I don't hear from or talk to old squadron mates and Navy friends. It's just very hard to be an involved dad and do what I was doing, so when I got engaged, I submitted my six month notice that I was leaving. As an example, I got married in San Francisco on a Saturday. Had Fri, Sat and Sun off, then got on a plane for Manila on Monday. Fought the USS Midway airwing from Cubi Point, Philippines for six days. Pan Am home to California from Tokyo. Two days off then off to China Lake, Ca to fight F-18's four five days. When I got home, my wife of about three and a half weeks, who I had spent four or five total days with asked me if this is going to be what it's like. Obviously that was unusual, but that was shore duty, which was supposed to be relaxed with weekends off. Carrier deployments were six to eight months long.

On a related note, USS Eisenhower was supposed to get underway yesterday from Norfolk, but it has been delayed at least a day. All of the high visibility networks were claiming that it was going to add to Ford in the eastern Med, but the Navy never discusses ship movements. She could certainly do that, or backfill the waters near Italy where Ford was supporting the Ukrainian thing, or she could sail through the Suez and join 5th fleet in the northern Indian Ocean to keep Iran in check. I can't imagine the alert level if she transits the Suez.

Hopefully the next month will be peaceful.

I think there is a real systemic problem in the situation. There is simply no Arab leader willing to step forward and engage in a peaceful agreement that involves Israel keeping land. It would be viewed as a gross weakness. Look at what happened to Anwar Sadat after his agreement.

The potential for a peaceful resolution was in hand in 2000, during a Clinton led summit. It would have been a great foundation. Arafat was offered nearly everything they had demanded. I recall he claimed it was all a "trick." Most reasonable people disagree, and understand that he was a lying clown never intending to save his people from this, and greatly engaged in self enrichment. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3 "The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism."

I doubt they will fly into Russian airspace. Very low probability of survival doing that. But, I think they will use HARM to target Russian air defense systems in Russia. HARM range capability would allow that while launching from a safe distance, inside Ukraine. Additionally, with minor modification they can carry Harpoon anti ship missiles.

This just in. Everybody tells everybody about everything. The US was "told" about 9-11, but they really weren't, and were told to look elsewhere. There is simply no way that Netanyahu would be part of this. Such a claim dispels any knowledge of his service to Israel or his personal and family history. It has zero chance of being true and is bizarre.

Whoa. I never asserted you were behind it. I don't do that kind of thing. If someone believes that stuff, they should write the screenplay and see if it gets any traction.

He could have taken Gaza without this wacky, imaginary scheme. The assertion is politically motivated nonsense based on hate.

It is simply implausible to seriously consider that Netanyahu would be aware of this and not prevent it. His biography is incredible. Wounded many times during military service away from college. MIT and Harvard. Masters in two years while taking time to fight various Israeli wars. His family are Israeli martyrs. To think he would desecrate the memories of his father or brother is simply the fantasies of reality denying fools. Those things mean a great deal to these people.

The above conspiracy theory regarding Netanyahu is simply crazy. Shin Bet, which is their domestic intel operation and responsible for the Gaza border has done what all western countries have done, which is rely more and more on electronic surveillance. These "warnings" occur all the time across all services. They screwed it up because they underestimated Hamas, thought that there new jobs program would pull the Palestinians away from Hamas, and didn't give proper attention to things that they obviously saw, like these stupid para things.

That could very well be true. Iran and Hezbollah, (who is Iran), if they are on concert with this scheme are probably watching the Israeli response, which is dramatic and probably not to their liking. If they concluded it was worth expanding into additional actions from Lebanon, the Israeli Air Force response would be massive, and it would include support, though not necessarily offensive missions, from the Ford task force. That capability is significant.

I think it is quite correct. There are all kinds of shared information and coordination on many thigs, but the Israelis, when they are going to do something that is really risky to their forces do not share, unless there is a specific reason to do so.

That is certainly concerning and a real possibility. If so, it points to a far more detailed and coordinated scheme.

Of course they can be. Something like a western hemisphere earthquake or similar. They are not going to get involved in humanitarian missions with the airwing embarked, and certainly not in any hostile environment. It simply makes no sense.

No. I think it has not progressed to where stuff like this gets discussed. I assure you that if Reagan sails for the IO, or anything spreads to where Syria or Iran get "kinetic," you'll see it discussed.

No. The situation is this: The US Air Force has bases in Incirlik Turkey, which is being bolstered this week, and more than one in Saudi Arabia. I have no idea if the Saudis would endorse operations against Iran from their soil. Having USS Ford in the eastern Med as reported would cover southern Lebanon, which is Hezbollah and if this spread, Syria. Be aware that Hezbollah has real missiles, and lots of them. Not the unguided trash that Hamas launches from Gaza. That eastern Med position is too far to reasonably strike Iran, as you'd have to tank in unfriendly airspace on the way in and out. The US Navy currently has no carrier task force in the Indian Ocean. That's why I suggested watching USS Reagan which in its' home port of Yokosuka, Japan. If they alter her schedule and send her to the Indian Ocean, that would be a clear indication of being on station if some anti Iran scenario unfolded. The problem is that doing that would take her away from the South China Sea, and significantly impact any defense of Taiwan. The other option, which would take a long time, would be to deploy another Pacific Fleet carrier to the South China Sea, so you would have one in the IO and one there. Either way, neither would be humanitarian. Carriers don't do that.

I'm hesitant to go down this rabbit hole but...... If a carrier strike force heads to the northern Indian Ocean, it absolutely isn't going there for humanitarian purposes. It is a war ship and that's what it is designed to do. The last time the Iranians decided to take one on, they nearly lost their entire Navy in one day. Things are different now. They have a bit more capability, but while inland targets would present a formidable challenge, their Navy would be demolished. Further, The US Navy has hospital ships for that purpose, and a carrier with it's airwing embarked has very little additional room for anything else. International protocols prevent hospital ships from being attacked. Not so for an obvious combatants.

One of the uncomfortable realities regarding the actions of countries that constantly claim support for the Palestinians is that they've been throwing them out of their own lands. It's happened many times over many years. They "support" them as long as they don't have to deal with them.

Israel has proven to be a responsible party regarding its nuclear capabilities for many years. While they don't talk about it, they've never signed non proliferation treaties, so its not like they lie about it. As trusted allies, we certainly influence them, but as I mentioned above, they are a bit different and will never compromise control of their sovereignty by being jawboned beyond what they think is reasonable. Not to move in a different direction, but what is really disturbing is that with their extremely strong history of sniffing this stuff out before it occurs, something has happened to diminish their intel capabilities in the occupied areas. They have always been very good at this, while the US has almost no HUMINT there and relies on technology which has not only been figured out how to deny, which isn't that tough.

If you "cut them off," the risk of a really bad outcome is multiplied. The US has been mostly comfortable with this long relationship, and has provided them significant support when they have been attacked, and that leverage has worked to end two wars when they had every opportunity to take over Damascus and Cairo. If Israel's existence is threatened, it is likely that they use their "Temple" weapons. They were about a day from getting into deployable situations during the Yom Kippur war. I can't imagine the danger involved in denying them support, especially against a group that not only wants to destroy the state of Israel but advocates ridding the entire earth of all Jews.

From historical observation and a little knowledge of past aid including military to Israel, they are far more reluctant to agree to controls as precondition. They'll go a certain distance, but not nearly as far as other countries. Because of their history, they pretty much refuse to allow any other country to control their actions. They don't share intel beyond a very basic level, as they think the US is incapable of controlling leaks. See Operation Opera, the brilliant strike on the Baghdad nuclear plant, Operation Orchard, which was their undetected strike on a Syrian nuclear reactor, and Operation Thunderbolt, the Entebbe rescue mission which was probably the greatest rescue mission ever. The US knew nothing of these until completed. On a smaller scale, Operation Bayonet, which was the Mossad operation to assassinate all of the folks involved directly in the Munich Olympic killing of the Israeli team, and scores of other Mossad assassinations in the middle east and those targeting various Iranian nuclear program players. In addition, they not only modify specific weapons purchased from the US to suit their needs, they always resist any joint air to air exercises, which is the norm for the US and its other allies. The US has tried to engage in this, but they have never agreed, though they did send us gun camera film of their exploits. Anyway, they have a unique, singular attitude about agreeing to any restrictions.

I'll disregard the knee jerk response of the idiocy of this. I am merely pointing out that if we change carrier cruise schedules and put one in the norther Indian Ocean, it is something to pay attention to. Back to your usual incredible geopolitical and and military insights. Shocking to me, given your incredible brilliance, how you were on a cruise ship right there, mere months ago, and didn't see this coming.