I hadn't paid much attention to the recent naval deployments to Somalia-- it didn't really seem like it added up to much. But a comment by a well-connected editor of a conservative news service makes me wonder if the deployment of the USS Eisenhower will be used as a political precedent by Bush for attacking Iran without Congressional consent.
First, Some Background
On January 9, the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, which had been conducting missions in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, arrived off the coast of Somalia to join three other Navy vessels. The day before, a US Air Force AC-130 gunship attacked suspected Al Qaeda elements in southern Somalia. The same day as the Eisenhower arrived, US helicopters launched further attacks. The Eisenhower did not play a role in either of these attacks. Around January 24, there was another AC-130 attack. Again, the USS Eisenhower was not involved.
On Tuesday, January 30, the carrier departed for the Persian Gulf. During the three weeks the Eisenhower was stationed off Somalia, it patrolled the coast and provided close air support to Ethiopian and Somalian forces. Its jets never fired their weapons or participated in an attack.
A Bit of Speculation
As far as I know, repositioning an aircraft carrier is a pretty serious decision-- especially when it is the only carrier in a war zone. Why was the decision made to bring in the Eisenhower? The stated reasons are:
1. Stop Al Qaeda gunmen from escaping by sea. The argument was Somalia's 1,800 miles of coast was too vast to patrol by the three vessels already stationed there. There are several problems with this reason though. First, the gunmen were in southern Somalia, concentrated in certain villages, not spread along the entire coastline. Second, Ethiopia invaded in December, so any mass escape was long over. Third, the other Navy ships had been stopping vessels before Eisenhower's arrival, but hadn't found any suspected Al Qaeda.
2. Provide close air support for Ethiopian and Somalian forces who were working with US special operations forces. This sounds like make-work considering the presence of USAF aircraft in the region. Were F-18s really necessary to provide close air support to foreign units? Couldn't that support have been better provided by, say, the AC-130 gunships based in Djibouti?
Using Somalia as Precedent
All of this left me nonplussed-- it seems like an extravagant use of an aircraft carrier for a battle that was mostly over. But I got a little creeped out when I saw this clip from an interview of Arnaud de Borchgrave by Tucker Carlson on MSNBC.
Now, normally, I wouldn't put much stock in the words of either Tucker or the Editor-at-Large of UPI and the Washington Times, but no matter how dippy his credentials, de Borchgrave does have a lot of connections in Winglandia. So when he starts spouting details about airstrikes in Iran, there is a good chance he got them from somewhere. But it was the unexpected reference to Somalia that really got my attention. Here they are talking near the end of the interview, after de Borchgrave says attacking Iran is a done deal:
Tucker Carlson: Do you think Congress will stand by, the Democratically-controlled Congress will stand by and not attempt to prevent that?
Arnaud de Borchgrave: Well I don't understand how they can prevent it, because as President Bush has indicated it is one battle space. Whether we are bombing in Somalia or bombing in Iran, in his mind, that is all part of the war of terror. And clearly Congress will be very upset and try to stop it. But as I understand it, it's a three-night campaign of bombing, some 700 aim points throughout Iran, including 58 that will require deep-penetration bombs. Of course there would be a lot of shouting, but that would be over rather quickly.
So, will "one battlespace" become the Neocon talking point as we approach a three-day bombing of Iran? The administration has used similar argument in the past for operations all over the world, but those operations are almost always conducted by special forces-- escalating to aircraft carrier strikes without Congressional approval is another step entirely. Will they argue that the Democratically-controlled Congress acquiesced to strategic airstrikes in Iran by not objecting to Somalia? If I were a Senator or Congressman, I would start making a distinction between the two RFN.