Attack on the Liberty
Some years ago I read the book Attack on the Liberty
by James Ennes, an officer of the USS Liberty,
a vessel which was attacked by the Israelis 53 years ago on June 8, 1967 and who
was aboard during the attack that resulted in the deaths of 34 U.S. service
members and the wounding of many others; according to him and every other
member of the crew that survived, there was no way the Israelis could have
mistaken their ship for an Egyptian destroyer or freighter as the Israelis
claimed. The ship does not resemble a destroyer or any other type of warship in
any way, and besides a couple of .50 caliber machine guns, it carried no other
weapons.
The Liberty
itself was cruising at five knots until it was attacked, which is very slow
even for a civilian freighter. As far as I know, unless they are going through
a minefield, treacherous waters, etc, warships on the open sea typically go
much faster than that, even when cruising, and especially when in a war zone.
After saying that, the ship, being as vulnerable as it was, should have
never been so close to the war zone in the first place. A message was
transmitted ordering it to move out at least 100 miles from the coastline, but
the message wasn't received by the Liberty
until after the attack was over. The U.S. had a habit of placing highly
vulnerable spy ships dangerously close to hostile areas, as we found out again
in 1968, when the North Koreans seized the USS Pueblo. Although the attack on the Liberty was bad enough, the North Koreans (and the Soviets) got an
intelligence and propaganda windfall from the seizure of the Pueblo. The Pueblo is held by the North Koreans to this day.
Back in 2001, a U.S. spy plane was forced down on Hainan Island (a Red
Chinese territory), which, although not comparable to the Pueblo incident, once again underscored the risks of exposing
ships, aircraft, and their crews on intelligence-gathering missions in such
close proximity to their targets.
In 2011 the Iranians captured a top-secret (not anymore!)
stealth drone that apparently had a mechanical failure and essentially glided
right into their hands a couple of years ago, which they undoubtedly learned
much from.
In fairness, it is not uncommon for neutral ships to be attacked by one or
more warring parties when they are in a war zone, or ships being attacked by
"friendly" aircraft or ships by accident. One of the reasons the U.S.
entered WW1 was the re-introduction by the Germans of unrestricted submarine
warfare which resulted in numerous American ships being sunk or damaged, and
several U.S. Navy ships were attacked and sunk by the Germans prior to a formal
declaration of war (by Germany, on December 11, 1941).
The USS Panay, a small river
gunboat, was sunk by the Japanese in 1937, and the USS Stark was nearly sunk by the Iraqis in 1987, with the loss of 37
lives. However, neither of those incidents remains nearly as controversial as
the attack on the Liberty, and both
the U.S. and the Israelis have been less than forthright in providing
explanations for a seemingly obvious and egregious attack on a vessel that was
in no way engaged in hostile action or trying to conceal itself.
If the Israeli intent was to sink the ship, they actually performed very
poorly; 30mm cannons, rockets, and napalm are far from ideal anti-ship weapons,
and their torpedo boats fired five or six torpedoes, with only one hitting the exceedingly
slow and vulnerable ship, although that one tore a huge hole in the ship and
caused the majority of the deaths during the attacks. The burning question
remains: Why did the Israelis attack the Liberty?
Why was it covered up by both sides? Who benefitted from this and why? What was
gained by this attack?