Nuclear Iran
There's been tons of stuff in blogs, on the web, and in the news about the new "Nuclear Iran", and what to do about them.
Of course much was made of the supposed US planning that included the use of tactical nukes as bunker buster bombs to destroy their weapons program. Anyone with military planning experience, even on a fairly small level understands the "fishbone diagram" method of planning.
Using cause and effect scenarios that go from most likely to least likely, you end up with anything from diplomacy and minor saber rattling working to the idea of full scale fighting. And on the far right, under "least desirable", tactical nukes taking out enrichment and R&D facilities.
People who don't understand the military, planning, and the "how's and why's" are appalled to think that we'd be working on something like this. The one's suffering "Bush Derangement Syndrome" think this is the first administration to have DOD working on such plans.
The truth is since the Cold War we've had plans in binders somewhere for such conflicts with a number of countries. There is a group at the Pentagon who's sole purpose in life is to keep them up to date, based on our new weapons, technology, and force structures, and those of the folks the plans are designed to be used against.
William Arkin at the Washington Post has an interesting article in the paper today concerning such planning, and how it's been working since 2003. The truth is the plans go back farther than that, some probably as far back as the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. They were undoubtedly updated in the 1980's during the Iran Iraq war, and the tanker wars in the gulf when we provided escort ships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Arkin brings up an interesting subject near the end of his article, the lack of openness about this planning. He thinks we should be more forthright and admit it's going on. I think in different times we might actually do that, however it's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
The Bush administration is to hamstrung by current critics to and "gotcha folks" to admit anything of the sort openly. Everyone saw the reaction to Seymour Hersh's accounts of the US planning, and it was nothing less than stunningly silly. The moonbat left went crazy, the media was full of stories about it, with little if any thought to the "why" end of it.
If folks with saner heads were more prevalent in the opposition to Bush, dropping hints about what we are planning would be a reasonable idea. Given that Iran has made sure to fill the airwaves over the last month with their newest weapons and war games it should have been expected. Except saner heads aren't prevailing in the US, the folks that are getting the most airtime are the folks with a bone to pick, so saying anything is tantamount to admitting that Bush wants to expand "Imperial America" even farther.
The not funny, but ironic thing is that these same folks will be wondering why we didn't prevent Iran from nuking Israel, or shutting down the Strait of Hormuz if and when either happens. Bush will then be an "ill prepared President" who didn't see the obvious.
Riehl World View and California Conservative both call out Diane Feinstein on her position on dealing with Iran.
Technorati Tags: Iran,politics, nuclear,mullahs ,war, strategic planning,Security, leadership, oil, George Bush
Of course much was made of the supposed US planning that included the use of tactical nukes as bunker buster bombs to destroy their weapons program. Anyone with military planning experience, even on a fairly small level understands the "fishbone diagram" method of planning.
Using cause and effect scenarios that go from most likely to least likely, you end up with anything from diplomacy and minor saber rattling working to the idea of full scale fighting. And on the far right, under "least desirable", tactical nukes taking out enrichment and R&D facilities.
People who don't understand the military, planning, and the "how's and why's" are appalled to think that we'd be working on something like this. The one's suffering "Bush Derangement Syndrome" think this is the first administration to have DOD working on such plans.
The truth is since the Cold War we've had plans in binders somewhere for such conflicts with a number of countries. There is a group at the Pentagon who's sole purpose in life is to keep them up to date, based on our new weapons, technology, and force structures, and those of the folks the plans are designed to be used against.
William Arkin at the Washington Post has an interesting article in the paper today concerning such planning, and how it's been working since 2003. The truth is the plans go back farther than that, some probably as far back as the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. They were undoubtedly updated in the 1980's during the Iran Iraq war, and the tanker wars in the gulf when we provided escort ships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Arkin brings up an interesting subject near the end of his article, the lack of openness about this planning. He thinks we should be more forthright and admit it's going on. I think in different times we might actually do that, however it's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
The Bush administration is to hamstrung by current critics to and "gotcha folks" to admit anything of the sort openly. Everyone saw the reaction to Seymour Hersh's accounts of the US planning, and it was nothing less than stunningly silly. The moonbat left went crazy, the media was full of stories about it, with little if any thought to the "why" end of it.
If folks with saner heads were more prevalent in the opposition to Bush, dropping hints about what we are planning would be a reasonable idea. Given that Iran has made sure to fill the airwaves over the last month with their newest weapons and war games it should have been expected. Except saner heads aren't prevailing in the US, the folks that are getting the most airtime are the folks with a bone to pick, so saying anything is tantamount to admitting that Bush wants to expand "Imperial America" even farther.
The not funny, but ironic thing is that these same folks will be wondering why we didn't prevent Iran from nuking Israel, or shutting down the Strait of Hormuz if and when either happens. Bush will then be an "ill prepared President" who didn't see the obvious.
Riehl World View and California Conservative both call out Diane Feinstein on her position on dealing with Iran.
Technorati Tags: Iran,politics, nuclear,mullahs ,war, strategic planning,Security, leadership, oil, George Bush
posted by Crazy Politico at 5:08 AM
8Comments:
You would have to be a complete fool to think we don't have a plan for dealing with every semi hostel nation on the planet. There is something preplanned and ready to put in action for everything. This planning started shortly after WWII. The Cuban missile crisis made this even more important.
What the left doesn't get is that any nation on the globe could choose to start a conflict with us. That nation could have worked out a deal with any number of other nations. It doesn't matter the why. We have defense to attempt to stop this action before it can do major damage and then take out the source of the conflict. This is not war mongering folks. This is defensive sanity.
Oh, and you don't open your play book to anyone. Let them dream about how we will choose to deal with them. The element of surprise still exists when they don't have time to develop a plan to counter yours. Telling them your coming will not allow them to plan for every contingency, but it will allow you in todays high tech world to see how they choose to position themselves. Hence giving you further advantage.
Ablur, all of your points are correct, to the rational thinkers. Unfortunately, some 'other than rational thinkers' seem to get all the air time.
Well, they can plan all they want, but it would be a huge mistake to pre-emptively use tactical nukes on Iran. That's something that could concievably ignite a full scale nuclear war. Fact is, we won't do a thing to Iran or North Korea and everybody knows it. China will not allow it. They hold all the cards and have huge oil and natual gas deals with Iran, and Russia is also benefiting from our sanctions on Iran by doing business with the mullahs without having to compete with better American goods and services. They have two of the "big three" world powers in their corner, and are having a great time sticking their thumb in Uncle Sam's eye. Don't expect anything there to change. They will eventually get their own bomb and we can't change that. All of this talk is just mental mastrabation.
Slow down there Tim. Both China and Russia have already come out against Iran getting the bomb. You are right about them having a hard time dealing with putting sanctions on one of their best customers and suppliers. They realize they are playing with dynamite and don't want it to go off in their lap. These two big boys may step in and deal with this themselves. If they want to keep what they got they will have too. The big question is when? They don't want get short changed like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wrote a "letter" to the left yesterday regarding Iran. It is very simple and is based off 4 brief "talking points." It is basically the 4 arguments used to say "keep off Iran" and I briefly reference Iran’s response to each.
Dear Liberal....
Politico, thanks for trying to explain the idea that plans for everything is drawn up. Ground troops, no troops. Nukes, no nukes. There is a whole range.
Raining Nukes...
Maybe if you read that Tim you will reconsider your belief in the fact that we are about to nuke things.
Tim, I don't disagree that the use of nukes wouldn't be in the best interest of the US, or probably anyone.
However, as soon as you start removing options, you start working from a weaker and weaker position.
There are also not totally far fetched reasons for China and Russia to quietly hope for a US attack. They've both sold Iran a lot of fairly new weapons that they wouldn't mind seeing tested.
At the same time, if it becomes clear Iran is close to a nuke world pressure will end up on both of them to deal with it too.
I actually don't think anything will happen before the next election, and we'll get to see how the next President plans to deal with them.
MDcon- Nice post on your blog. I commented on it.
Like I said, all of this talk of doing ANYTHING to Iran is just that. Useless gumflapping. Nothing is going to happen there.NADA.ZILCH.ZIP.
CP, I disagree. I am not going to say that an action WILL take place. However, I do think there is a good chance it will prior to '08. Depending on what goes on with the IAEA this month, the action might even be prior to '06.
I understand that unless everything is 100% proved prior to action with the UN signing off etc, the republicans might take a huge hit in '06. Politically it stinks, but I am glad our CINC will make his choice based on security not politics.
"No good deed goes unpunished."
If needed take the action Mr. President. I would rather be punished by hand of elected democrats than a nuclear Iran. Giving the bomb to Hamas and who knows what would come of Israel or the US.
Post a Comment
<< Home