Military AI Works

http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -iran.html
Scary eh?

I personally find it hard to believe that this man could have access to all this information. While I'm sure battle group info is most likely known to military analysts, I wouldn't think this guy would have first hand information regarding the exact units that are being deployed.

What really tops it for me is this, "French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt." Cmon....

And remember, this is just a blog. It's not an article from any known news source. We have no way to verify this guys indentification.

This guy is in Evansville, Indiana? He's way too close to that Kentucky moonshine for my taste...

Just more anti-American propaganda if you ask me.

Edit: I just replied to this blog. The owner has the right to remove all replies. So I'm sure mine won't be published.
Just 1 more thing that tells me this article is bull-feces.

Whenever you use the words like "neocon" in your article, you've lost me.

Well, my comments on here are now linked at this blog.
Dan, you might want to look into this.

So hopefully someone with some sense will see that this guy is merely 'spreading manure'. LOL

I can't find your comment. I am sure it got deleted. I am doubly sure mine won't get posted either

If you look to the right side you'll see a box with 'newsfeeds'. Thats where I found the link to here.

For your comments to be posted in the blog, the author has to OK it. That's why I don't think anything contrary to his BS will be published.

I work with a bunch of people who are into conspiracy theories and such. It's a hoot how worked up they get. These are people with advanced degrees too!

BadPvtDan wrote:These are people with advanced degrees too!

Like lighthouses in the desert. Very bright, but f***ing useless.

Well, a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. If GW was good enough to be behind every boogeyman behind every tree....we'd probably be doing a bit better.

A couple of perspective comments.

The composition of ships forming a carrier task group is usually totally unclassified. Subs attached or working with the TG are a different matter.

Task group departure plans and actual departure dates from ports are public knowledge - arrival and departure dates are usually prearranged with port authorities for both security and logisitcal supply reasons. This information is easy to assemble from public records in port management offices - think about it, ship berthing must be planned/scheduled. Consequently, large force movement from port to port is relatively easy to "track" when they do "show the flag" operations.

It's also very easy to sit on a hill/rooftop with a view of a harbor and notice that CVx, DDGx, etc are no longer in harbor Y today when they were there yesterday. Ship movements into and out of almost any ports are kinda hard to hide.

And consider this, shore personnel arrange shipments to meet up with deployed units all the time - sometimes air freighting things commercially to airports which then are met transferred to military aircraft/transport for ultimate delivery. Also, dependents have "loose lips" and knowledge about where their loved ones have been, are going, and when they might be coming home.

Transfer of task groups from one operational area to another are seldom unnoticed by "allied" news/political organizations. Consequently, multiple sources may each have data elements which can be collected, compared and ultimately, the entire composition of ships in a task group identified from public sources within a couple days - if you know where to look. Something air force people may not realize is that, like restricted flight zones, areas of restricted shipping/naval operations are published daily around the globe - and such reports contain quite a bit of useful information concerning the reason for restriction as well, sometimes, as the units operating.

References like Jane's' series can be assembled from purely open source materials - all it takes is a bit of time and dedication.

This guy's page has nothing that could not be found with a bit of diligence. His "analytic conclusions", as opposed to what are presented as facts, are fairly well identified as such if you read the article carefully.

Personally, I'd give it a B grade for a basic intelligence report on US naval operations for the next 5-10 days. To get an A, he'd have had to include some personality data, exercise goals and timing, and such.

But all that's just my opinion.

Ford,
I agree completely with your view of this.
What I don't like is that so many people actually believe his conclusion. It's nuts like this that get normal people riled up.
I also agree that the CTers can come up with all kinds of scenarios.

BTW, the French Navy actually has done carrier ops on US Navy ships. But then again, that's public information.

KevinJarvis wrote:What really tops it for me is this, "French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt." Cmon....

Along with the 2 FN E-2s that returned to France on Thursday via Inverness!

They were there for training as far as I know, though all are now back in France.

I give him an A for detailing movements.

On the subject of escorting Iranian ships....
I haven't really considered the "why" in terms of "neo-con" this or that. However, his argument is one that was seen quite often between 1988 and the end of Gulf War 1 (in what, 2000? [old man memory loss syndrome]). Only there it was Iraq not Iran... but theoretic "naval operations/alliances with Russian and Chinese forces were also described in numerous analyses during that period, too.

He does lay out the potential political impact pretty well. Would US/Allied forces REALLY try to stop a Russian escorted Iranian convoy? I personally doubt it.. so it's brinksmanship.. something Cold War analysts were very familiar with.

Bio war weapons and threats? Why not? Realistic probability BECAUSE of this naval manuevering.. that's where I think he drops the ball. Then again, he may have read or considered something that eludes me right now.

Calling for people to contact their political leaders? Typical alarmist rhetoric which "journalists" professional or otherwise engage in to attract more readership or to get a response which will fuel ANOTHER article. Notice that he's already annoounced his next article is "in preparation".

Like I said, overall, I'd give him a B.

Am I going to lose any sleep or reread the article? Not a chance.

He's yet to post Mike's or my reply from what I can see. He doesn't want any negative publicity...LOL.

Lets just face it. The guy is so far out in left field that he has to watch the game on Sportscenter.

He took a few basic facts about our deployments and spun up a tall pile of BS. Give him credit though, it is well written, even if it sounds like the next book from Tom Clancy than an accurate prediction of events to come. Come on, the French, partnering with anybody? That's not even good fiction.

He doesn't much know what he is talking about; mistaking SOP for some sort of US/British/French boogeyman scheme.

Anyway, I wouldn't exactly look to this guy for insightful analysis of US global strategy.

Chris

In my opinion if he would have done a little research, he would have notice that the USS Theodore Roosevelt home page tells something different. Which I would believe the home page first, since I was on a carrier for 5 yrs.