major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (02/05/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: Yaakov Kayman <YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> > ..........................how were the planes allowed to get away? I would "guess" the following reason: First, our 'air war' is against the ground targets. Our 'air superiority' fighters protect our interdiction aircraft from enemy fighters. We want to keep the enemy air away - ergo - if they do not engage or are not threatening - why bother? Why waste resources? If they are in fact (and they did) flying away from the battle and into a "neutral" country - they are no longer a threat. I would also think that any orbiting AWACS would spot these planes unless they really skimmed the tree tops and the radar lost them in "ground clutter" (which I doubt). And, additionally if Iran keeps its word and they are "interned" for the duration - they have, in fact, been "eliminated" - without a shot being fired - without an allied aircraft and crew being damaged/hurt. All in all - I'd say a pretty fair tradeoff. I think we'd also be watching these airfields pretty closely for any 'threatening activity'. "No more Vietnam" means "No more sanctuaries/ and safe havens" - I would expect Pres Bush to allow air strikes against these airbases in Iran - if we were positive the Iraqis were going to stage combat missions out of these bases. We might call this "field expediate air superiority" - let them fly to a neutral country and be interned. mike schmitt