We can attack Iran, says US commander

[LiberalFighter]

Source: Telegraph

America's top military officer said the country does have the resources to attack Iran, despite the strain of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adm Michael Mullen, who took over as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff three weeks ago, said diplomacy remained the priority in dealing with Iran's suspected plans to develop a nuclear weapon and its support for anti-US insurgents in Iraq.

But at a press conference he said: "there is more than enough reserve to respond (militarily) if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do".

Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons could set off an arms race in the Middle East. "The risk of an accident or a miscalculation or of those weapons or materials falling into the hands of terrorists seem to me to be substantially increased," he added.

Read more: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/20/wiran120.xml

---

How much kool-aid does Mullen drink?

[zabet]

1. .....

:wtf:

[msongs]

2. depends on how one defines "attack" - from throw a rock to use nukes nt

[VP505]

3. I sure don't

like the sound of that, or is this just another General telling Little Boots what he wants to hear?

[scarface2004]

4. i say we lose maybe 10..

20 million tops!!!

[Strelnikov_]

13. . . Depending on the breaks n/t

[FreakinDJ]

5. At some point China and Russia are going to say "No More"

These Neocons thinking we can rush out and grab the oil fields are suffering from dementia

[Strelnikov_]

15. Putin is playing both sides in this crises

If the flow of Gulf oil is interrupted, Russia will emerge as the worlds sole energy superpower. With the wealth they gain, coupled with the partial collapse of the US economy, eventually they will be back on a par with the United States.

This is the game Putin is playing. It is obvious, starting with his doctoral thesis in the 90's through the 'diplomacy' of last week.


The leadership of China is playing a similar game, the "if the enemy is destroying themselves, don't get in the way" gambit. People seem to forget that they are still a Communist dictatorship, with the same old leadership. They will be more than willing to have their people suffer for a time to get a leg up on the US, as our ass is hanging out a hell of a lot farther than there's regarding oil flow. And, yes, they export a lot to us. Thing is, those exports can just as easily be shipped to Russia for oil, since US companies have transferring full cycle manufacturing capability.

I cannot help but think their leadership has been playing what passes for 'leadership' in this country on the long con (remember, all con games are dependant on the greed of the 'mark').


As for stealing the oil, maybe they can, but we had be ready to wait the 10 to 20 years needed to stabilize post conflict and rebuild the infrastructure.

[NYC]

27. Something I hadn't considered.

You wrote:
I cannot help but think their leadership has been playing what passes for 'leadership' in this country on the long con (remember, all con games are dependant on the greed of the 'mark').


We are in the midst of the long con.

[MadMaddie]

25. You are absolutely right...this administration is making a

huge miscalculation when it comes to Russia, China and even Iran.

[EVDebs]

33. Old Nixon era planning from '73 hasn't been updated

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times

Friday, January 2, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

and I liked the 'tweaking' of the plan from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Nice touch. Even British MI6's conclusion that at least a ten year stay (occupation) of the country would be necessary is mentioned.

We've pissed away over 30 years under conservative and neocon presidents fawning over the oil agenda rather than really preparing for the future, all to appease oil company profits. So much for the free market. Naomi Klein has it right, disaster capitalism. Underlined exclamation point.

[rockybelt]

6. Diplomacy my ass!

These psychotic demagogues in charge are no more interested in diplomacy than I am in having my nuts ripped off!

These people lust for absolute power and will kill as many people as they have to in order to gain their "new world order". Sounds kind of Hitlerish to me.:mad: :wow: :wow:

[cornermouse]

7. Can we put him, George, and Dick

in the first plane? Just wondering.

[acmavm]

8. Our military is sure being led by the dregs now that bush** & Co. pushed

all the true patriots and military leaders with brains out.

[Pavulon]

9. Devils Advocate..Can vs. Should

granted this person should not be making this comment in public.. However saying we have the capacity to take an action vs we should take that action is different.

Obviously we should not attack iran.

[ContraBass Black]

24. I hope this also means that we have the resources for an effective

Defense of our mainland.

[lpbk2713]

10. Just as long as we don't have a mineshaft gap.

:eyes:

[cartach]

11. What makes these people

think that Russia and China won't respond and forcefully? Never mind the terrorists, the arms race would be between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Besides China holds the trump card, 1.3 trillion U.S. dollars that they could flood the market with and put the country into a depression.The neo-cons and warmongers have been reduced to waving their penises around but don't realize it and I would'nt be surprised that given their arrogant ignorance, they won't try something anyway.

[hack89]

12. China and Russia have no interest in going to war over Iran

especially the Chinese. Their trump card is a two edge sword - economic war with the US would devastate their economy. The last thing the Communist party wants or needs is millions of unemployed and starving people - there would be revolution.


Russia does not have the conventional forces to confront the US military - they are shadow of their former Soviet strength after 20 years of budget cuts and neglect.

[cartach]

22. Of course they have no interest

in going to war but unless they take a stand they lose the Middle East.I don't think that China will hesitate and it won't take much of that 1.3 trillion to have a revolution in the U.S.The pressure will be on the U.S. to back off long before China feels enough pain.They're used to having it rough but Americans sure are'nt.As for Russia, you don't need conventional forces anymore and it does'nt take much to start using nuclear weapons especially when you've already developed them.I would'nt be so naive to think that they are'nt fairly well equipped right now.That's always been their first priority ahead of the wellbeing of their population.

[JohnnyRingo]

14. These Navy and Air Force brass always imply we can win a war via air strikes

and naval bombardment (cruise missiles now).

This is an argument that's been ongoing for decades, the fact is that it's never been done....in the history of warfare. There will still be Marines in the 22nd century.

An air war is always followed by foot soldiers who bleed. That blood has become more precious and rare of late, and despite this blustering by "Moon" Mullens that his carriers can go it alone, he intends to start something he can't finish. Perhaps his ego wants to show off his competence of command.

The rivalry for relevance between the Armed Forces is as old as America Herself. They compete within for pentagon dollars and status.

[Strelnikov_]

18. Yep. Lebanon '06 was just the latest example

of the overconfidence in air power.

IMHO the reason strategists never learn from the past is human nature. That is, to convince oneself that the 'easy fix' will work this time, contrary to all past experience.

[Pavulon]

19. Dresden and Tokyo

are also examples of air powers use. As is the republican guard division(s) destroyed by air power in GW1. It has its place, but has to be a part of an overall plan..

[Strelnikov_]

23. The post I responded to dealt with the recurring belief that wars can be won

with air power alone.

I am well aware of the capabilities, and limitations, of air power in strategic/combined force operations.

[whistle]

16. The Pentagon must be using Mechanism Design Theory to come to such a conclusion

...and whatever complex attack structures our Commanders come up with to obtain victory, the global guerrillas will attack at the weakest points and flaws, disrupt the structure and ultimately implode the entire attack scenario. So two, three, five years out we are right back to where we are now in our position, but trillions of dollars further in debt and thousands, maybe tens of thousand of additional lives lost and even more morally corrupted as a society. :wtf:

Just end the war now and bring our troops back to the U.S.

[EVDebs]

29. And move a new agenda: end the oil 'endgame' and move ahead w/ Plan B 2.0

Amory Lovin's Winning The Oil Endgame

http://www.oilendgame.com

and Lester Brown's online book (as with Lovin's) Plan B 2.0

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/Contents.htm

These progressive plans move ahead exponentially with a withdrawal from Iraq and speedup of alternatives to oil.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

17. The question is not, nor has it ever been "CAN WE".

The question is "SHOULD WE". And of course we all know that answer to that.

[Pavulon]

20. Exactly

as in Iraq it appears that question is not being addressed.

[EVDebs]

30. JFK asked it during Cuban missile crisis ... not many Presidents have asked since

"Then what ?".

[DrDan]

21. it sure seems to me that the nation's military capabilities should be a classified matter . . .

should he really be talking about them one way or another????

unless of course, this may be political in nature . . . could that be?

[EVDebs]

31. Let's see. South Africa disarms its nukes, then Libya, then No. Korea

all done by diplomacy and reasoning

So. Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Libya
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1220-08.htm

No. Korea
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4259128.stm

If Iran, under sanctions, has MORE gasoline rioting,

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,490984,00.html

maybe things will change.

[liberal N proud]

26. Doesn't Congress have something to say about this?

[EVDebs]

28. We can shoot ourselves in the foot too, but I don't recommend it

James Fallows and the Atlantic Monthly wargamed an Iran strike awhile back (as I'm sure the DoD has already) and found it to be folly,

Will Iran Be Next ?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQ0XHX28Cc

"...unprecedented recklessness..." if US preemptively strikes Iran.--Fallows

Mullen appears to either be a bootlicker of Petraeus proportions or one of the biggest fools since Adm. Lemnitzer (Operation Northwoods) on the JCS who may have a revolt in the military to contend with if an order to attack is given,

"Kolko: Many in the US military think Bush and Cheney are out of control. They are rebelling against Bush and Cheney. Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently said in an interview that she believed the US military would revolt and refuse to fly missions against Iran if the White House issued such orders."

Many in the US Military Think Bush and Cheney Are Out of Control
der Spiegel Interview with Gabriel Kolko
der Spiegel, Germany
Monday 15 October 2007

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101607B.shtml

[mark414]

32. we can attack a lot of places, that doesn't mean we should