Word: naval
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Worse confusion surrounded the extent and purpose of U.S. naval gunfire into Lebanon. During the battle for West Beirut two weeks ago, the New Jersey lobbed 290 16-in. shells, each weighing about a ton, into the hills behind the capital. Word spread that Weinberger had been "surprised and depressed" by the scale of the shelling and ordered it reduced. The Secretary of Defense was supposedly worried that so ferocious a bombardment would provoke hatred for the U.S. without changing the course of the battle and could possibly invite retaliation against the Marines hunkered down at the airport. Weinberger...
...Navy Secretary Lehman told reporters that the destroyer's salvos signified "a definite shift in emphasis. We are supporting [Gemayel's] Lebanese Armed Forces" in their battles with Muslim militia. As the White House speedily reminded Lehman, that contradicted repeated statements from Reagan that naval gunfire is supposed only to protect the Marines' encampment and other U.S. positions around Beirut, like the embassy compound, by silencing artillery and missile batteries that have fired on them. Less than three hours later, Lehman issued a six-line statement asserting that "the correct policy is ... as the President has stated...
...difference is much more than semantic. Naval gunfire to protect the Marines is allowed under a resolution that Congress passed last September authorizing the President to keep U.S. forces in Lebanon until April 1985; shelling to help Gemayel's forces win the Lebanese civil war is not. Reagan emphatically does not need any more trouble with Congress, where many Republicans as well as Democrats are grumbling that he got the U.S. into a no-win situation in Lebanon. Says G.O.P. Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island: "That shelling is terrible, completely contrary to what we stand for." Congress, however...
Whatever the purpose, the naval bombardments had no discernible effect on the fighting onshore. "They can shell us as much as they like," said one Druze militiaman last week. "They are just using the fleet to mask the shame of having lost." The Pentagon has not produced a "battle damage assessment" disclosing just what targets have been hit by the shells. Lehman insists that American forces track the trajectory of shells and missiles striking the Marines' encampment and other targets in the Beirut area, both visually and by a shore-based electronic apparatus, and that the ships fire only...
Western diplomats believe Iraq can carry out its threat. In October, the country received from France five highly sophisticated Super Etendard fighter-bombers, which can be equipped with lethal Exocet missiles. The Iraqis increased the pressure earlier this month with air strikes that, they claim, sank nine "enemy naval targets" in the gulf. In response, Iran has hardened its position. Only an end to the rule of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Iranian officials insist, will bring a settlement. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping if Iraq launches attacks on its oil facilities...