We got our sailors back, so all is well. But there's a lot more to this story than the safe release of 10 American sailors who had been captured by Iranians in the Persian Gulf.
News of the capture of two U.S. Navy Riverine boats by Iran immediately brought to mind the incident 48 years ago, in January 1968, when North Korea's Navy boarded and took over the USS Pueblo. That incident also had a happy ending — sort of — after North Korea humiliated and tortured the captured crew members and exploited them with propaganda pictures and videos. One Pueblo crew member was killed as the ship was attacked by Korean ships and aircraft before it surrendered.
The crew was held captive until the following December, when a U.S. apology resulted in the crew's release. A court martial for the ship's commander was recommended, based in part on the Pueblo's failure to fight the attackers for control of the lightly armed ship, but charges were rejected by the secretary of the Navy.
What happened in the Persian Gulf was not as egregious as the 1968 incident, but there are parallels. The Riverine crews apparently made no efforts to fight the Iranian attackers, either because of a command decision or equipment failure. The boats admittedly were in Iranian waters, reportedly because of navigational error; the U.S. still claims the Pueblo was in international waters.
Navigational error suggests the crews were taking sun shots with a sextant to determine their position. That was logical in the 1800s; not today. Modern GPS navigational equipment pinpoints the exact longitude and latitude of a vessel, down to a few feet. The Navy has some explaining to do about how a navigational error could have sent the boats into Iranian waters unknowingly.
Secretary of State John Kerry says closer diplomatic dialogue with Iran made it possible for the crews to be released within 24 hours — but only after Iran took advantage of every propaganda opportunity with videos of the submissive U.S. sailors and close-ups of the sailors' identification cards.
Kerry may be right about this positive outcome, but the Navy hasn't told the whole story yet.
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2016
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Use of chemical weapons is not unique
President Obama announced Saturday that he would put the bombing of Syria over its use of chemical weapons before Congress, although he reserved the right to go forward with military action even if Congress objected. The British House of Commons had already shot down Prime Minister David Cameron's proposal to authorize military action against Syria, leaving the United States alone in its plan to bomb Syria.
A majority of the U.S. public and many members of Congress have reservations about getting involved in the Syrian civil war for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the acknowledgement that the administration doesn't know what the outcome of its action might be. Will it strengthen the rebels or will it strengthen the resolve of President Assad? Will it push the Assad regime to negotiate or will it lead to deadly attacks from Iran, Hezbollah or other groups against the United States, Western Europe and Israel? No one knows.
But lost in the debate thus far is the fact that Syria's use of chemical weapons is not unique. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988, and chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war earlier. Chemical weapons were used extensively in World War I, but Adolf Hitler declined to use his available chemical weapons in World War II out of fear of deadly retaliation. This article from The Atlantic covers some of that history and explains how chemical weapons affects people.
The United States has its own history of chemical weapons. U.S. military units have trained for at least 40 years (I remember the drills) for what was called "NBC Warfare" — Nuclear, Biological and Chemical. In 1968, an accident at a secret U.S. military laboratory killed off 3,000 sheep in Utah. That accident was reported to be one of several at the secret chemical weapons lab. U.S. officials could defend chemical weapons by the Cold War excuse that it was necessary to counter Soviet capabilities. When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003, they were equipped and prepared for chemical warfare.
Chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, and their use has been limited in part because every possessor of chemical weapons fears retaliation in kind. Chemical weapons lead to horrible deaths, but other weapons, conventional, nuclear or otherwise, also lead to deaths. In World War II, millions of civilians died, nearly all of them from "conventional" weapons. They would be no more dead if chemical weapons had been used.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued for an attack on Syria as if Syria were the only country to use chemical weapons ever. That simply isn't the case. Treaties have banned chemical weapons since the 19th century, but those international agreements that chemical weapons are bad have not stopped the production or use of chemical weapons.
Does the U.S. still have chemical weapons? I hope someone will ask that question as Congress debates an attack on Syria.
What Syria has done to its own people is horrible, but it has been done before, and the United States did not feel a need to teach the perpetrators a lesson. In fact, in the Iran-Iraq War, the United States took Iraq's side.
A majority of the U.S. public and many members of Congress have reservations about getting involved in the Syrian civil war for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the acknowledgement that the administration doesn't know what the outcome of its action might be. Will it strengthen the rebels or will it strengthen the resolve of President Assad? Will it push the Assad regime to negotiate or will it lead to deadly attacks from Iran, Hezbollah or other groups against the United States, Western Europe and Israel? No one knows.
But lost in the debate thus far is the fact that Syria's use of chemical weapons is not unique. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988, and chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war earlier. Chemical weapons were used extensively in World War I, but Adolf Hitler declined to use his available chemical weapons in World War II out of fear of deadly retaliation. This article from The Atlantic covers some of that history and explains how chemical weapons affects people.
The United States has its own history of chemical weapons. U.S. military units have trained for at least 40 years (I remember the drills) for what was called "NBC Warfare" — Nuclear, Biological and Chemical. In 1968, an accident at a secret U.S. military laboratory killed off 3,000 sheep in Utah. That accident was reported to be one of several at the secret chemical weapons lab. U.S. officials could defend chemical weapons by the Cold War excuse that it was necessary to counter Soviet capabilities. When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003, they were equipped and prepared for chemical warfare.
Chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, and their use has been limited in part because every possessor of chemical weapons fears retaliation in kind. Chemical weapons lead to horrible deaths, but other weapons, conventional, nuclear or otherwise, also lead to deaths. In World War II, millions of civilians died, nearly all of them from "conventional" weapons. They would be no more dead if chemical weapons had been used.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued for an attack on Syria as if Syria were the only country to use chemical weapons ever. That simply isn't the case. Treaties have banned chemical weapons since the 19th century, but those international agreements that chemical weapons are bad have not stopped the production or use of chemical weapons.
Does the U.S. still have chemical weapons? I hope someone will ask that question as Congress debates an attack on Syria.
What Syria has done to its own people is horrible, but it has been done before, and the United States did not feel a need to teach the perpetrators a lesson. In fact, in the Iran-Iraq War, the United States took Iraq's side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
