Vice Adm. Patrick M. Walsh Is Unreliable
It's unfortunate to learn of the Admiral's misperceptions about the laws of war and Iran.
Walsh is claiming that the Iranians are the source of instability.
Walsh appears delusional. The US, not Iran, has illegally waged combat.
As commander of the 5th fleet, Walsh should not have to be reminded about the 5100.77 laws of war program; or the requirement of Commanders to not support illegal warfare.
___ Where is Walsh's explanation to his sailors why the US is waging illegal warfare in Iraq?
The US government through intimidation and fear, is illegally waging combat, and oppressing American citizens.
The US government has illegally deprived American citizens the right to speak out, and has illegally detained them. These are serious offenses.
Your sailors are spending their time in the Gulf. However, their service is not what it should be when you tell your sailors incorrectly that the problem is with Iran.
No, the problem is with the President. This President, using illegal methods, is violating our Constitution.
This President is not working with the Joint Staff. The President is ignoring combatant commander concerns.
Perhaps Admiral Walsh may wish to discuss why he was promoted, and the conditions upon which his predecessor was removed out of fear that he knew too much.
It's a problem when the Congress cannot rely on Combatant commanders to lead.
Admiral Walsh, I would prefer that you confine your comments to Iraq. It is not appropriate for you to enter the political debate about lawful Iranian actions to oppose illegal combat operations in the Gulf.
Iran has every reason to be concerned with the US NAVY presence in the gulf.
Rather than dismiss their fears, I would appreciate it if you would kindly look at the situation from their perspective:
___ The US is waging illegal warfare in Iraq;
___ The US has violated the NPT treaty; Iran is not required to comply with an agreement it did not approve;
___ The US has violated the Geneva Conventions in waging an illegal war without an imminent threat from anyone;
___ The Iranians are lawfully developing nuclear power, which the Vice President supported in the 1970s;
___ The US leadership has not explained why the Iranians cannot legally oppose the unlawful war of aggression in Iraq;
___ The US leadership inconsistently is silent on Russian support for Saudi nuclear power; but does not give Iran the same respect.
___ Saudi Arabia has oil reserves, but is developing nuclear power; yet, the Iranians who do the same are getting accused of wrong doing.
The way forward is to accept that the Iranian military has a legal right to do what it is doing: Defending its land, borders, and coasts from what it views as expanding illegal US activity.
Your sailors need to be reassured why the US is not doing what the Japanese did in WWII. The troops need to be convinced that the US is not acting illegally.
The problem is that you cannot credibly distinguish the US actions in 2007 from the Japanese illegal war of aggression in 1941.
The prospect of combat at sea is eternal. The enemy is not Iran. The threat to instability is from the President.
Iran is only one nation. Others, including Russia and China, are legally able to come to the Iranians defense, especially when the US wages illegal warfare.
It may be true that you have been ordered to do something; but you are not required to obey unlawful orders, nor may you support an illegal war of aggression.
All war crimes you and your sailors commit may be used as a basis for others to commit the same violations. Where there is no imminent threat of attack but your or others attack Iran, other fighters may legally do the same against your President and the District of Columbia.
Thank you for considering my comments.