That's what Ralph Peters says:

We should've sunk every one of them.

Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?

Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.

They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.

I suspect those American crews would have opened fire if they'd felt themselves in imminent danger. And further, I suspect it was the Iranians who were scared witless by the encounter. As Noonan pointed out yesterday, we've been around this block before with the Iranians--the result was devastating for Iran. But the Iranians have been engaging in acts of war against this country for a long time. If we are to respond in kind, wouldn't it be better to do so at a time and place of our choosing? Short of that, one trusts the Navy will take whatever steps it deems necessary to protect its forces. Their restraint in this case is almost certainly an example of their unbelievable professionalism. And there's no reason why we can't retaliate in some other form. We, too, can wage psychological warfare, and far more effectively than they can.