Flash Gordon Left Me The Keys

Flotilla seen as an evolution in warfare
Strike group to improve military power, versatility

When the amphibious assault ship Peleliu and four other warships leave San Diego today, they will usher in a new era as the Navy and Marine Corps adopt more innovative ways to fight the war against terrorism.

This flotilla, known as Expeditionary Strike Group One, will be able to land Marines on a distant shore, like its predecessor amphibious groups.

But this flotilla will travel with some punch – heavily armed warships capable of firing 5-inch cannons to support those Marines, launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at far-away targets, and better defending itself in enemy waters.

With a total of seven vessels and more than 5,000 San Diego-based Marines and sailors, the strike group is one of the initial ideas from the post-9/11 "Deep Blue" think tank created to revolutionize how the Navy combats terrorism and emerging opponents.

Rear Adm. Bob Conway said the first-of-a-kind flotilla is more powerful and versatile than other amphibious units.

"The spectrum of warfare is open to this group," he said.

Some defense experts think the change will increase the Navy's striking power. Others believe the new flotilla won't be right for future battles.

It can show the flag and threaten opponents, said A.D. Baker, editor of the authoritative "Combat Fleets of the World" reference book.

"It's gunboat diplomacy on a grand scale," he said.

Leaving from San Diego Naval Station at 32nd Street, the strike group is expected to deploy for nearly nine months on a cruise that could take it to the Persian Gulf, the Horn of Africa or other potential trouble spots.

The strike group is composed of three amphibious ships, a cruiser, destroyer, frigate and nuclear-powered attack submarine.

The amphibious unit includes the Peleliu, dock landing ship Germantown and transport dock Ogden – loaded with 2,200 Marines from Camp Pendleton and Miramar and Yuma, Ariz., air stations, along with Navy SEALs.

Peleliu, the group's flagship, serves as a perch for the flotilla's air power: Harrier jump jets, Cobra helicopter gunships and transport helicopters. It and the other amphibious ships also carry hovercraft and landing craft to transport Marines, tanks, armored personnel carriers, Humvees, artillery, trucks and supplies ashore.

Four warships complete the flotilla:

Cruiser Port Royal, based in Hawaii.

Destroyer Decatur, home ported in San Diego.

Frigate Jarrett, based here.

Submarine Greeneville, home-ported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Port Royal and Decatur carry dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that can fly up to 1,000 miles to hit targets with pinpoint accuracy.

The Greeneville will provide anti-submarine patrols for the group, but also is fitted to carry the SEALs' new mini-sub, which could be employed for the first time.

First discussed in May 2002, the new flotilla combines amphibious capabilities – Marines landing by sea and air – with a substantial naval combat force armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, anti-aircraft rockets and guns.

Previously, three-vessel amphibious ready groups have served as little more than floating barracks for Marines. For six-month stints, the lightly armed ships steamed off for likely trouble spots with Marines primed for combat, peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.

Now, the transports will be at the center of a heavily armed flotilla that can defend itself against enemy ships, aircraft and missiles, while able to launch long-range cruise missiles if the president gives the command.

With four heavily armed warships in the flotilla, Conway's ships can operate in more hostile waters.

"That's change. It's a hard change and some (people) have resisted because it's a cultural change," Conway acknowledged.

One innovation is the addition of a one-star admiral to head an amphibious group. Previously, command was split between a Navy captain overseeing the ships and a Marine Corps colonel in charge of the troops.

Now, those officers report to Conway.

When the second expeditionary group leaves here in 2004, command will fall to a Marine brigadier general – another first in modern naval history.

With no previous experience with amphibious warfare, the former destroyer captain has knocked down some walls, literally, to change the way the flotilla operates.

Conway gutted several compartments in the Peleliu's superstructure to install a joint operations center for senior Navy and Marine commanders. Previously, each had a separate command post on the ships.

In a high-backed roller chair, Conway will sit before a wall of video monitors that can display the latest radar display, Pentagon intelligence or news programs. To his right will be his top Marine and Navy commanders. Around the command center, officers in charge of intelligence, aircraft, cruise missiles, submarines and communications will monitor and feed information to Conway and his staff.

From their posts, he and his commanders can issue orders to other ships, troops and aircraft.

The changes are necessary, Conway added, for the sea service to transform itself into a better-suited fighting force.

But, Conway said, his command is no aircraft carrier group.

An aircraft carrier can launch up to 50 bomb-and missile-carrying jets, while Peleliu's aerial punch is six Harriers, four Cobra attack choppers and three Huey gunships.

Nor does he have the offensive power of three or four cruisers and destroyers, loaded with upwards of 200 Tomahawks, that escort a carrier.

"This strike group complements a carrier strike group. It does not replace it, nor was it intended to," Conway said.

Combining the seven ships has been challenging because it's a concept the Navy hasn't tried since World War II.

In addition to traditional destroyer duties, such as Tomahawk strikes and air and submarine defense, Decatur's crew has learned the ins and outs of amphibious warfare and gunfire support for Marines.

"We're forging new warfare concepts," said Cmdr. Cindy Thebaud, Decatur's commanding officer. "Some of it we're writing as we go."

But for the average sailor on board the Decatur, the new concept has little impact, said Master Chief Petty Officer Mike Johnston. Most sailors will continue to service equipment and complete watches.

"It's pretty much transparent (for most sailors)," Johnston said.

Analysts are split on the new strike group's estimated effectiveness.

"It's an enormous step forward," said Patrick Garrett, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., think tank.

Currently, the Navy's main strength is its fleet of 12 aircraft carriers, he said. But, with ships requiring overhauls and the vast distances from the home ports to global hot spots, the nearest available carrier could be weeks away.

The new flotillas give the Navy 12 additional strike groups, Garrett added.

"It may mean you'd have a (powerful warship) on the scene in hours or days instead of weeks," he said.

But, "Combat Fleets" editor Baker said, "It's too much force for most situations and not enough for the really critical ones."

An expeditionary group, with its battalion-sized landing force and a few short-range jump jets, isn't strong enough to fight a major conflict without help.

And the group's Tomahawks and air defense system are overkill for many peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, he said.

Military deploying new-look strike force from San Diego

Seven heavily armed warships departing from here Friday combine troops, ships and weaponry in a new-look Navy and Marine Corps strike force that military officers say will be more powerful and versatile than traditional arrangements.

The Expeditionary Strike Group One is the first of its kind and is being called a part of the military's larger effort to emphasize flexibility along with intimidating firepower and cooperation between various branches. Similar groups are planned for both Pacific and Atlantic fleets.

About 5,000 sailors and Marines overall will be deployed for eight months on the troop-carrying ships, cruiser, destroyer, frigate and attack submarine. Amphibious assault ship Peleliu will serve as the joint operations center.

Navy Rear Adm. Bob Conway said that by combining more than 100 Tomahawk missiles with aircraft and 2,200 combat Marines, "The spectrum of warfare is open to this group."

The Navy usually deploys its ships either in larger aircraft carrier groups or three-ship task forces carrying Marines but less firepower.

The new configuration will get significant Marine forces and powerful missiles to emerging combat locations faster than before, said military analyst Patrick Garrett of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based think tank.

"It's an enormous step forward," Garrett said. "It may mean you'd have a (powerful warship) on the scene in hours or days, instead of weeks."

Strike Group One will be commanded by a Navy admiral while the next group is expected to be led by a Marine general.

The Marines deploying Friday are from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton, with ships from San Diego and Pearl Harbor. Also part of the force are Navy SEALs and Marines from air stations in Miramar and Yuma, Ariz.

The strike force's destination was not disclosed but military officials said its "areas of responsibility" include the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf and Iraq.

Fort Hood unit could be tapped to take over military leadership in Baghdad
Fort Hood's III Corps, which oversaw the deployment of the 4th Infantry Division to Iraq, may be headed to Baghdad to replace the Army headquarters now leading U.S. troops there.

Several hundred soldiers would deploy to Iraq if III Corps were ordered to replace V Corps, which oversaw the invasion and now coordinates the U.S.-led peacekeeping mission.

Maj. James Woods, a III Corps spokesman, said today that he couldn't confirm the action until a deployment order is given, but a Pentagon official said the Army likely would turn to Fort Hood because three of the Army's four active-duty corps are committed to other missions.

“It's pretty apparent who's going to receive the deployment order,” the Pentagon official said, declining to be identified.

If the order comes down in several days as expected, virtually all 42,000 soldiers at Fort Hood would spend time in Iraq under a rotation system recently unveiled by the Pentagon. The 1st Cavalry Division is to deploy to Iraq this spring, with the 4th Infantry Division possibly returning at the same time, Woods said.

A Pentagon official said III Corps could do the job because of its large size and the fact that it could move into the role. V Corps, which is based in Heidelburg, Germany, has been in Kuwait and Iraq since early this year. It remains in Baghdad under Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, a Rio Grande City native, as the headquarters for Combined Joint Task Force-7, the umbrella organization for coalition forces.

I Corps, which is based in Fort Lewis, Wash., is primarily responsible for soldiers in the Pacific, including Hawaii, Japan and Korea. Its key mission in a conflict with North Korea would be to organize National Guard and Army Reserve units for combat on the peninsula — a role it played in the 1950-53 Korean War. It and III Corps would help lead any U.S.-led defense of South Korea.

The 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, N.C., contains the 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain divisions, and it helps direct the war in Afghanistan. Two of its divisions, the 82nd and 101st, have been in Iraq since the early days of the war, while the 10th Mountain has principally been in Afghanistan.

One Pentagon official, who declined to be identified, noted that the focus of the Army's efforts has been on ironing out elements of troop rotations to Iraq. He said no decision has been made on whether III Corps will lead troops in Iraq and that a headquarters could be organized from other commands.

A corps consists of two or more divisions, has a staff of several hundred led by a three-star general and is responsible for dispatching combat units to their assignments. III Corps is the command center for the 1st Cavalry and 4th Infantry Division. It helped get the 4th Infantry Division's digitized M1A2 tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Humvees, artillery, and Apache and Black Hawk helicopters to Corpus Christi in a record two weeks this year, one-third the previous time set in the 1991 gulf war.

The 4th Infantry Division’s 16,000 troops, about 4,000 of which come from Fort Carson, Colo., have been in Kuwait and Iraq since the war began in March. The 1st Cavalry Division, known for its role in the first gulf war's Operation Desert Storm, will replace the 1st Armored Division as it returns to its home in Germany.

An as yet unresolved question is whether the Army is prepared to deploy III Corps to Baghdad when it has a central role to play in South Korea, should a conflict erupt there.

With the Pentagon stating that Iraq deployments will run one year, another command would replace III Corps in Korea. Around 200 soldiers with III Corps, including its commanding general, are either now or soon will be outside Seoul as part of an annual Korean-American exercise there dubbed “Ulchi-Focus Lens,” a simulated war game running Aug. 24-29.

The Republic of Korea and U.S. Combined Forces Command lead this exercise, a simulated defense of the peninsula from advancing communist troops, according to GlobalSecurity.org. The Army declined to discuss details of the exercise scenario, but GlobalSecurity.org stated it envisions a combined sea, air and land assault by North Korean forces.

Fort Hood will have 400 soldiers working in tent command posts. An additional 200 III Corps soldiers will be in Korea under the command of Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz and working as part of the 3rd Republic of Korea Army.

If conflict were to break out in Korea, III Corps would be a major player. It could command several U.S. and South Korean divisions, but III Corps spokesman Lt. Col. Dan Baggio said the exercise would test the headquarters' versatility and isn't based on any war plan.

“It's a contrived scenario,” he said. “As a corps headquarters, we are a very flexible organization that can take on multiple division and separate brigade level elements to prosecute the conflict in just about any way we're asked.”

More Troops Needed, Analysts Insist

Amid calls for the Bush administration to reevaluate its handling of the Iraq occupation in the wake of Tuesday's deadly truck bombing in Baghdad, Pentagon officials stood by their position that they do not need more troops to ensure security.

The shift in tactics by insurgents toward attacking "soft" targets such as foreign aid workers and Iraq's own infrastructure poses a new set of security challenges by significantly increasing the number of potential sites and victims, analysts said.

Retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, former commander of U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, said the deteriorating situation called for an additional four brigades -- as many as 25,000 troops -- besides the 146,000 U.S. troops already there.

"The pattern we have seen since earlier this month shows there is a terror offensive taking place," said Nash, now with the Council on Foreign Relations. "It's not going to stop unless we put a stop to it."

Pentagon officials insist that is not under consideration. Instead, they call for involving more Iraqis in the defense of their own country.

"There are more answers to the security situation than more guards," a defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Perhaps one of the big results coming from this will be Iraqis recognizing the need to assume responsibility for their own security."

Officials in Baghdad have warned in recent weeks that the risk of terrorist attacks had climbed sharply. U.S. troops had begun erecting barriers around military and some potential civilian targets, designed to stop vehicles such as the bomb-laden cement truck that ripped through U.N. headquarters Tuesday.

Pentagon officials said that U.N. officials had not requested security from U.S. forces at their hotel headquarters.

Gamal Ibrahim, who had served until recently as the personal bodyguard of U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, who died in the blast, said his security team felt that coalition forces were not providing sufficient protection for the U.N. headquarters, and asked for submachine guns for his detail. The guns arrived at the beginning of August, he said.

"We were protecting the head of the U.N. with a 9-millimeter pistol when everybody else in Baghdad had an automatic weapon," said Ibrahim, who returned to New York from Baghdad three weeks ago and said there had been a threat against the U.N. headquarters in Iraq about a week ago.

Iraqi Face on Security
Pentagon officials contend that putting more Iraqis in charge of security -- and in harm's way -- will undercut public support for the attacks because they would endanger Iraqis rather than Americans.

U.S. military strategists envision an expanded police force, a new Iraqi army and a paramilitary civil defense force that would work with coalition troops to protect an increasing number of buildings.

But putting an Iraqi face on security will take months. The Iraqi army will number just 12,000 at year's end and 40,000 at its full force in two years, and the civil defense force is envisioned at just 3,500 fighters within the next month and about 30,000 in four years.

The United States will also step up its efforts to persuade more countries to send troops, although it was not immediately clear whether that campaign would be helped or hindered by Tuesday's blast.

"A lot of countries prefer to send troops to relatively quiet places," said Ruth Wedgwood, an international law professor at Johns Hopkins University and a terrorism expert. "This isn't going to help."

Officials have said they have commitments for up to 30,000 foreign troops, many of whom will be arriving this month and next. But they are intended not to increase overall troop levels but to replace some U.S. soldiers so they can return home. Many of the foreign troops are scheduled to begin leaving in February.

The Pentagon has pending requests for thousands more troops from Turkey, Pakistan, India and several European countries. Although some of the governments are eager to strengthen their ties to the Bush administration, they may have a tough battle overcoming resistance from their citizens, many of whom don't want their nations bolstering what they view as an occupation force.

Ultimately, President Bush might have no choice but to increase troop levels, said Michele Flournoy, a former deputy assistant defense secretary in the Clinton administration. The ratio of troops to population in Iraq is less than in Kosovo and Bosnia, she said, and should be increased.

"We don't have the overwhelming troop presence required to provide the foundation for winning the peace in Iraq," said Flournoy, now a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The bombing should raise the question of whether we need more troops to secure the environment."

The troops now on the ground are insufficient if anti-coalition forces continue going after nonmilitary targets, agreed Patrick Garrett, an analyst at GlobalSecurity.org of Alexandria, Va.

"The car bombing may mean the coalition is going to have to step up security not just for U.S. facilities but on Iraqi governmental facilities and third-party facilities like the U.N.," Garrett said.

Attacks and Sabotage
The bombing comes 12 days after a similar attack on the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad and on the heels of acts of sabotage over the last week against an Iraqi oil pipeline, a prison and perhaps even a water main.

L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, told ABC's "Nightline" late Tuesday, "Obviously, we will reexamine all of our security procedures around our forces around the country and around our civilian sites around the country.

"This we've been doing anyway because of the clear information about foreign terrorists coming in here. But we will obviously reexamine that. We'll learn what we can from this particular incident, and then we will continue, as always, to make security our first job. But I don't know, at this point, exactly, how that will play out."