"Three-Day Blitz" plan for Iran

[Lanya]

September 2, 2007
Pentagon ?three-day blitz? plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians? military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for ?pinprick strikes? against Iran?s nuclear facilities. ?They?re about taking out the entire Iranian military,? he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: ?Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.? It was, he added, a ?very legitimate strategic calculus?.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East ?under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust?. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran ?before it is too late?.
Related Links

    * Hardliner takes over Revolutionary Guards

One Washington source said the ?temperature was rising? inside the administration. Bush was ?sending a message to a number of audiences?, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported ?significant? cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran?s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. ?A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,? he said. ?They?re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a ?power vacuum? in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.

The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term ?proxy war? and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq ?increasingly under control?, Iranian intervention is the ?next major problem the coalition must tackle?.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months � ?despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq?.

It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon?s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

[yellow_crane]

 



One of the best articles that I have read in some time to explicity demonstrate the need for impeachment.

The only thing that exceeds the dishearteningly alarming possibility that George W. Bush, wastrel and entitled fool, has the buttons to launch such a nightmare is imagining Dick Cheney suddenly thrust into the presidential chair, and who then would have to become responsible in real terms for his deeds.  The two are divided in terms of intent:  Cheney would be lead bar deliberate, and George might just spin into a hookshot, instead of shooting the free throw.

Clearly Cheney should be impeached first, then the spoiled hustler.

The sad truth is that there is more than ample supply of cowboy in both of them, and that spells heedless to reckless.

They must be removed before they spoil more of our country.

[Plane]

It would take three days?

I don't know why a total destruction of Iran's military should require so long as that , they must be attempting to be restrained on collateral damage.

I don't know who keeps leaking these things but it makes no sense to cast blame , when any president asks the pentagon to tell him what options are available he should get a list  that includes all of the options that are realistic.

[BT]

So Debat at the Nixon Center is privy to Pentagon planning?


And Crane bases this hearsay as cause for impeachment?


Sounds like speculation to me.

[Lanya]

Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under; and war taxes.  I mean, if we're going to do this, why not do it right?   Why play like we're going to war only to whine and say, "But they PROMISED the bunker buster would work and it DIDN'T! Wahhh!"

Has anyone given a thought to how our 100,000+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan would get out if things went sour there?  Or are they just collateral damage?

Who do we have an obligation to---warmongers who have a hard-on for Iran, can't wait to bomb it to glass, or to our troops, or to our country, or to our allies---wait. I forgot.  All we are obliged to do is please Hallilburton, Cheney and Bush (not necessarily in that order).

And we won't have many allies left, so that won't be a problem. 

[BT]

Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under; and war taxes.  I mean, if we're going to do this, why not do it right?   Why play like we're going to war only to whine and say, "But they PROMISED the bunker buster would work and it DIDN'T! Wahhh!"

Has anyone given a thought to how our 100,000+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan would get out if things went sour there?  Or are they just collateral damage?

Who do we have an obligation to---warmongers who have a hard-on for Iran, can't wait to bomb it to glass, or to our troops, or to our country, or to our allies---wait. I forgot.  All we are obliged to do is please Hallilburton, Cheney and Bush (not necessarily in that order).

And we won't have many allies left, so that won't be a problem. 

All this from the remarks of one guy?

And yeah, bring back the draft including females . and yeah do a war tax. Just in case diplomacy fails.

[sirs]

Sounds to me like we need a draft of all males 46 and under; and war taxes.  I mean, if we're going to do this, why not do it right?   Why play like we're going to war only to whine and say, "But they PROMISED the bunker buster would work and it DIDN'T! Wahhh!"

Has anyone given a thought to how our 100,000+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan would get out if things went sour there?  Or are they just collateral damage?

Who do we have an obligation to---warmongers who have a hard-on for Iran, can't wait to bomb it to glass, or to our troops, or to our country, or to our allies---wait. I forgot.  All we are obliged to do is please Hallilburton, Cheney and Bush (not necessarily in that order).

OY          But of course, she doesn't hate Bush

--------------------------------------------------
A military draft?
By Thomas Sowell
 
There was a time when most members of Congress had served in the military, as had many people in the media. Today that is no longer true ? and it shows in many ways.

Ignorance should at least create caution but it seems to do just the opposite.  People with little knowledge about the military, and no personal experience, often have the most sweeping and unrealistic expectations, and even demands, to make on people whose lives are at risk in battle.

The military have been criticized for everything from not protecting an Iraqi museum while being shot at to not being as nice to the terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo as people in safe and comfortable editorial offices would like.

More dangerously, TV reporters broadcasting from where shells are falling blithely say such things as "the shells are landing about five miles north of here."

Does it ever occur to them that their internationally broadcast comments will reach those who are doing the shelling, who can adjust their range accordingly and then kill more efficiently?

On the home front, life goes on today as if there were no war. Consumer goods are as abundant as ever and no real sacrifices are demanded of the civilian population, who are spectators rather than even tangential participants. None of this is healthy.

Some have suggested a military draft as a way to at least create some sense of realism about war and to share its burdens more widely and equitably.

Those on the left play the class-warfare card and the race card to say that the elites are sending other people's youths into battle while their own offspring are sheltered from sacrifice. But the over-riding question is: What would be the effect of instituting a military draft?

Such questions cannot be answered as if we were talking about drafting abstract people into an abstract army. A military draft today would be very different in its consequences from the military draft in World War II.

Back in the days of World War II, the military were drafting young men who were, by and large, patriotic Americans, people who felt that they had a duty to protect this country from its enemies.

Today, a military draft would bring in large numbers of people who have been systematically "educated" to believe the worst about this country or, at best, to be non-judgmental about the differences between American society and its enemies.

The fact that we could use a larger army of the kinds of people who have already volunteered to put their lives on the line does not mean that we can get it by adding warm bodies fresh from our politically correct schools and colleges, where standards and self-discipline are greatly lacking.

Just getting such people used to the idea of duty and discipline could be a major drain on the military, not to mention a plague of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union if the little darlings were not handled with kid gloves.

More than that, so many American institutions, from the Congress to the courts, have degenerated into irresponsible self-indulgence that the military is one of the very few institutions left with a sense of purpose for which it is prepared to make sacrifices.

We dare not destroy that institution, or undermine its morale, by pouring into it very different kinds of people, who will be like sand poured into the gears of machinery.

This is not to say that there are no civilians who would be valuable additions to the military. Such people need not be drafted. Our colleges are blocking such people from taking R.O.T.C. by not allowing R.O.T.C. programs or military recruiters on campus in the first place.

Anti-military academics think they have a right to over-ride their students' rights to reach their own conclusions and make their own decisions, or even to hear a different viewpoint about the military.

Patriotic and educated young Americans who want to serve in the military are available. We need to stop academia from sabotaging national defense by blocking them from R.O.T.C. and from even hearing what military representatives have to say.


Article

[BT]

I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The draft is the closest thing to involuntary servitude that has ever been legal in the US since 1865.

If there were a draft today, tomorrow there would be demonstrations as big as anything Vietnam ever provoked.

If you look at the nightly news where the soldiers killed are from, observe that they are mostly from small and tiny towns, not the big cities.

The big city people will not enlist, and would take to the streets before going.

There would have to be an attack a lot worse than 9-11 to get any sympathy for a draft in the US today.

Not that I would put it past Dick Cheney to arrange for one if he thought he could get away with it.

[sirs]

And yet Lanya wants to facilitate such an apparent uprising.  Go figure

[sirs]

I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.

As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang.  The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society

[yellow_crane]

I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.

As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang.  The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society

Duty and honor?

LMAO

In my opinion, getting your ass blown off for Halliburton imperialism is singularly without honor.

Only a fool these days could believe he has a duty to die for corporatism and its craven imperialism.

To serve 'proudly' in America's military today is merely to hang a tag on oneself which exclaims:  "I am vain  and clueless."  People of real character would shudder at the thought of actually murdering innocent Iraqi's in order to cap their oil reserves.

I hope and pray they initiate the draft.  Truth will wake and shake the hibernation, emerging from the cave hungry and ready.

And Sowell, a self-loathing quasi-intellectual always ready to go down for a buck, dutifully earns his blood wages by bemoaning the general weakness of character of the recruited GI--our poor army is defeated before it is manifest, and shame shame shame for lacking the moral turpitude to carry Cheney's banner. . . meanwhile the Neocon drafted war in Iraq causes Clauswitz to turn over in his grave at the sheer incompetency, an incompetancy only overshadowed by the ineptness of those appointed to oversee a democracy make-over.

Duty and honor are our greatest asset; they have been on leave for some time now . . . how dare your skinny little cheeks for dishonoring them by including them as a part of this modern day military travesty.

[Mr_Perceptive]

The draft is the closest thing to involuntary servitude that has ever been legal in the US since 1865.

If there were a draft today, tomorrow there would be demonstrations as big as anything Vietnam ever provoked.

If you look at the nightly news where the soldiers killed are from, observe that they are mostly from small and tiny towns, not the big cities.

The big city people will not enlist, and would take to the streets before going.

There would have to be an attack a lot worse than 9-11 to get any sympathy for a draft in the US today.

Not that I would put it past Dick Cheney to arrange for one if he thought he could get away with it.

The draft should never have been stopped. It is positive for many reasons, including it is a great diversity tool. And it can mature young boys into men. It should be required for all able-bodied males. Voluntary for females. There could be exceptions, of course, Very limited ones.

Draft dodgers should be given a choice: either be incarcerated or your citizenship be revoked or both.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.

As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang.  The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society

I have encountered these type of misguided souls. Momma's boys. I "educated" them into the correct way of thinking and everything went well. They were better for it. And most admitted this.

[yellow_crane]

I am sure they all love you for saving them.

Now they can be bellicose, bragging, and yelling in bullyspeak too.

That's maturity, folks!