The Washington affix's Dana Priest one of the country's most knowledgeable and reliable reporters about the prospects that the furnish administration would bomb Iran:
West Chester. Pa.: History seems to be repeating it self as the drumbeat for war with Iran based on accusations not backed up by any facts intensifies. Do you think the furnish administration will launch a war (perhaps sending only the bombers) against Iran and if they do what are the likely consequences for the Middle East?Dana Priest: Frankly. I evaluate the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions. This is a little bit of hyperbole but not much. Just be at what Gen. Casey the Army chief said yesterday. That the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a study crisis elsewhere. Beside it's not the "war" or "bombing" part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?
There undergo been some equally extraordinary reports about what appears to be the virtual refusal of senior military officials to permit a war with Iran. Several months ago it was reported that the CENTCOM Commander. Admiral William Fallon blocked what had appeared to be the successful efforts by Dick Cheney and administration neocons to send a third aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf and "vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as desire as he was chief of CENTCOM":
At a mid-February meeting of top civilian officials over which Secretary of Defence Gates presided there was an extensive discussion of a strategy of intimidating Tehran's leaders according to an be by a Pentagon official who attended the meeting given to a source outside the Pentagon. The plan involved a series of steps that would appear to Tehran to be preparations for war in a manner similar to the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But Fallon who was scheduled to change state the CENTCOM chief Mar. 16 responded to the proposed intend by sending a strongly-worded message to the Defence Department in mid-February opposing any further U. S naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as unwarranted."He asked why another aircraft carrier was needed in the Gulf and insisted there was no military requirement for it," says the obtain who obtained the gist of Fallon's communicate from a Pentagon official who had read it. Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his go on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an contend on Iran "will not come about on my watch".
And as Priest noted the Army Chief of Staff. General George Casey warned on Wednesday that the Army was so depleted by the endless Iraq War that no other conflicts were even possible. This is what you get when you have a Rush Limbaugh Nation -- a country filled with war cheerleaders whose insatiable appetite for new military conflicts is matched only by their steadfast refusal to inform to contend. It results in an army so weak and depleted that according to the Army's top officer it is incapable of fighting in any other conflicts (and therefore posing a meaningful deterrent threat). Casey's specific warning that they are incapable of "respond[ing] to another contrast" was obviously issued with Iran at least partially in object. For obvious reasons it is not a positive development to have the U. S military answer as the primary check on the crazed warmongers who undergo hold back of our government. In a country that lives under civilian rule that really is not and should not be the role of the military. Priest's claim that "the military would arise" if it was ordered to bomb Iran is at least in one sense disturbing. At the same time the reason this is happening seems clear. Neoconservative extremists want endless war and they are supported by the most powerful faction in our government led by Dick Cheney who has prevailed in every significant contrast over the last six years. And their radicalism has eroded not only the standing and strength of the United States as a country but is close to shattering our military forces as well. Even with Iraq draining away all of our resources they are eager hungry and increasingly impatient for a new war with the much more formidable Iranians. They desire regime dress in Iran and sitting safe and protected in the U. S. they do not care at all what the aftermath is certainly not for the 160,000 American troops sitting in Iraq. There has been a long-simmering conflict of interests between the war-crazy neocons and the U. S military -- evidenced by among other things the intense hostility of Gen. Franks towards Douglas Feith. Eventually as neocons displace their war agenda further and advance that conflict will inevitably grow since the neocons' ideological obsessions comes at the expense.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.norwegianity.com/index.php?itemid=2147
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
