The militaryâ€™s problem with the Presidentâ€™s Iran policy.
Article by Seymour Hersch ( don't throw out the baby with the bathwater), that is pretty lengthy and points to some of the logistics and military concerns about going after Iran. I really fear this conflict, as due to its size, any effort to go after this country would morally and financially bankrupt this nation.
I know GWB and DC will do whatever they want to do, but I hope before they do anything they listen to all sides, particularly the military who is better versed on the the tactics and logistics needed for this effort. If we go into Iran, not sure how America will feel no matter how much it is justified, the issue will then become the credibility of the argument a la Iran. The backlash of the mideast will only spurn more terrorists and attacks on our military.
The bottom line is there is no intelligence, heard this from several sources, regarding what Iran is doing and where it is doing it. Very sad to think that we cannot get info on this in this day and age, particularly as we seem to have the greatest intelligence gathering technology the world has ever known. Any rush to judgement will lead to very dire consequences for this nation, personally I believe in unleashing the Moussad or CIA to do some behind the scenes chicanery.
Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the Presidentâ€™s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iranâ€™s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.
A crucial issue in the militaryâ€™s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. â€śThe target array in Iran is huge, but itâ€™s amorphous,â€ť a high-ranking general told me. â€śThe question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?â€ť The high-ranking general added that the militaryâ€™s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. â€śWe built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,â€ť he said.
A senior military official told me, â€śEven if we knew where the Iranian enriched uranium wasâ€”and we donâ€™tâ€”we donâ€™t know where world opinion would stand. The issue is whether itâ€™s a clear and present danger. If youâ€™re a military planner, you try to weigh options. What is the capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive responseâ€”like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?â€ť Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior aides â€śreally think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary,â€ť he said.
One of the jobs of the military is to prepare contingency plans for the civilian authority. This information is added to the mix in developing policy. These reports should point out problems that could be encountered. The sources for the article are making a political point that assumes the president wants to persue a particluar policy approach. There is currently no evidence for that.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.
This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC