Thread: Beyond Iran’s ‘Go Fast’ Boats: Critical Military Chall

Beyond Iran’s ‘Go Fast’ Boats: Critical Military Challenges for the 21st Century

Guest Column | By Col. Jeff Bearor | January 17, 2008


The incident between three U.S. warships and about half a dozen Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "go fast" boats in the Straits of Hormuz (SOH) Sunday a week ago is not necessarily "new" news: U.S. Navy ships patrolling in the Persian Gulf have encountered these small boats for years. What's new is that the IRGC boats seemed intent on drawing fire from the U.S. Navy ships, perhaps to spark an international incident prior to the President's trip to the region.

While most reports of this latest incident have focused on the political aspects of the Iranian maneuver, it points out a potential for future war that is causing major concerns among U.S. and allied military professionals.

The Persian Gulf is fairly small. At any given time there are about 1,500 vessels, large and small, plying the shallow and constricted waters of the Gulf and the SOH. The U.S. Navy has to identify and operate among all of them. This is no small feat when a Navy carrier battle group is running up and down the northern gulf at 30 knots launching and retrieving fighter jets.

The mix of Iranian capabilities arrayed against the U.S. and allied Navies in the Arabian Gulf and along the Straits of Hormuz has always concerned our sailors. Quiet submarines, fast missile-armed medium patrol boats, ground based anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship sea mines � and the swarms of "armed run-abouts" present our sailors with multiple, simultaneous challenges.

How serious a potential threat this poses was aptly pointed out during a summer 2002 war game conducted in Norfolk. In that game the "red team," commanded by retired U.S. Marine Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, used swarms of small, fast boats armed with machine-guns, rocket propelled grenade launchers, and explosives along with more conventional weapons like cruise missiles to virtually sink most of the "blue" naval forces, effectively winning the sea battle before the land campaign could start.

Using cheap technology, costing at the most millions, and innovative tactics, Van Riper's red forces defeated tens of billions of dollars of high tech ships. It was such a devastating blow to "blue" forces that the war game had to be restarted.

Currently the U.S. military is the unchallenged master of conventional, high intensity war characterized by high-tempo movements of heavy maneuver forces across long distances supported by networked intelligence and communications systems and precision, high volume air and ground delivered fire support. Our enemies and potential enemies understand that fighting the U.S. conventionally is the surest way to lose.

Potential enemies are proving themselves much smarter than that. Evidence of that fact abounds from the attacks on 9/11 to the recent Hezbollah/Israeli war in Lebanon. In the summer 2006 war in Lebanon, the conventional Israeli Army was fought to a standstill by an irregular or "hybrid" force, Hezbollah. Long a terrorist organization, Hezbollah transformed itself after the Israelis left Lebanon in the spring of 2000 into a formidable force focused on defeating the Israelis the next time they entered Lebanon in force. They were well supplied with conventional weapons by their sponsors in Iran and Syria.

Hezbollah fought the Israelis using a mix of information operations and propaganda, massed missile attacks against population centers in Northern Israel, focused ambushes of Israeli Army mechanized units from well prepared defensive sites, hit and run attacks from Lebanese villages and towns, ground launched anti-ship missiles, and even unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles (UAVs). Who "won" this campaign is still the subject of much discussion amongst military professionals.

Is this the face of future war?

The current, accepted term for this style of conflict is Irregular Warfare (IW) and figuring it out has been the subject of an intensive effort in the U.S. services and our allies. IW describes a mode of war where the primary target is the mind and will of the enemy, the battlefield is the "amongst the people," and the activity of war � the combat � is multifaceted, wildly variable, and brutal.

Whether called Irregular Warfare, combinational war, Fourth Generation War, unrestricted war (a Chinese military term) or another idea on the rise, "Hybrid War," the challenge that faces our forces is to maintain the major-war winning capability represented by our conventional prowess and protect the homeland while at the same time generating increased capability to defeat hybrid challengers who will seek to engage us in "complex environments," including densely packed urban centers.

It can't be "either/or" � it has to be both. U.S. forces have to be capable of operating across the entire spectrum of current and potential conflicts around the world.

General James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, has described how to prepare for hybrid wars in complex environments by saying the Corps has to be a "two-fisted fighter" capable of jabbing and sparring continuously to keep agile opponents off balance � while still maintaining that round-house right, able to send any heavyweight opponent to the mat. He maintains that our forces, now and in the future, have to be trained, ready, and capable of being that "two-fisted" fighter.

He and other military leaders have also said that our armed forces don't have to get the future exactly right, but the military, government and our nation cannot afford to be disastrously wrong.

Getting this "mostly" right is very important to our nation's security. Next time you see political candidates (Presidential or otherwise) in your neighborhood, ask them what they are doing to help the military and security establishment "get this right."

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/beyond- ... st-centur/

This is nothing more than propaganda. Not to say these encounters aren't happening because I am confident they are. What gets me is that after 15 plus years they are starting to report it. Isn't that strange? Strange that these incidents are as common as seeing a dolphin in the Persian Gulf. So why report it now? Are we setting up an invasion by Blackwater?


Iran has not shot at us and they will continue to play cat and mouse like we did with the Russians during the Cold War. Maybe we should be a little more concerned about China and the Taiwan Straights.

Post Script: Iran has the Straights of Hormuz armed and ready with a healthy collection of missile systems. Including the Silkworm.

Bush and the neocons are drumming the drums against Iran.

I agree it's propaganda.

The Mullahs are trying to rein Amajedad(I know I didn't spell that name right). Is there a power struggle within Iran too? Or are they all in agreement with persuing a nuclear program? Before the fall comes pride. All of our world leaders are very prideful. The rest of the world, unfortunately reaps the outcome good or bad.

These are definately tight-rope times we live in.