Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bombing Iran - wishing and hoping edition
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 01, 2007

Next to knocking the war in Iraq, the favorite pass-time of many on the left is predicting the bombing of Iran (and then using such an event as a basis for impeaching Bush - it all flows together folks, keep up.).

Interestingly Matt Yglesias is the one who dashes the contention of one of our favorite participants here when he tells Oliver Willis':
If Wishes Were Ponies...
... then Oliver Willis and Nick Beaudrot would be right that "[m]ilitary strikes against against Iran would quite clearly be an act of war; without Congressional authorization it would prima facie be an impeachable offense." In the real world, though, I didn't see Bill Clinton getting impeached for bombing Serbia without congressional authorization even by a congress that was eager to impeach Bill Clinton so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that one.
This precedent is well set and not even arguable under the War Powers Resolution which requires "the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days.

Said another way, if he lets Congress know he's bombing Iran (they can argue whether that is consulting Congress on another day, but note it doesn't require "approval" from Congress at that time) he has 60 days to do what he wishes and be well within the law.

So Yglesias is right when he says:
Congress' de facto war powers have been reduced to the need to get congressional approval for war-related spending. What we just saw with Iraq, though, is that according to the media, if Democrats vote for a funded withdrawal of troops, and then Bush vetoes those funds and demands that Democrats give him a blank check, then it would be a failure to "support the troops" for Democrats to refuse to cave to this demand. We've also seen that many — if not most — congressional Democrats accept this framing. So if Bush decides he wants to bomb Iran, nobody in congress is going to stop him.
Or said another way, Oliver, no ponies for you.

It was the next part of the post which most surprised me though:
Dana Priest, though, speaks for surprisingly many journalist when she says:
Frankly, I think 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 look 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 major 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?
The military would revolt? Wow.

Priest claims its only a "little bit of hyperbole." It smacks of complete hyperbole to me. And to Ygleasias' further credit, he gets it right again:
To me, though, it's important to avoid overstating the degree of military opposition to a bomb Iran policy. As best I can tell, the Army is dead-set against it. But the Army wouldn't be carrying the mission out anyway. It'd be shocking for the Air Force to suddenly come to appreciate the strategic limits of air power. In their minds, bombing Iran won't compound the error of Iraq; rather, it'll show the manifest benefits of doing things their way rather than getting bogged-down into an Army-style quagmire.
That is exactly the attitude I'd expect much of the Air Force leadership to bring to the table. They can't help it. It's an institutional attitude.

The Army wants absolutely nothing to do with attacking Iran. It also doesn't want us attacking Iran because of its position in Iraq at the moment. That is the major reason I don't buy into any of this "we're going to bomb Iran" rhetoric. It would be an act of monumental stupidity at this time, in terms of Iraq, because it would jeopardize every single positive gain we've recently seen in that country. That's not to say this administration isn't capable of acts of monumental stupidity, but I think even they recognize the truth of this point.

But putting that aside, Yglesias has the Air Force position down perfectly. The "air power rules" cabal in that service believe exactly as Matt has portrayed them. They have for quite some time, even in the wake of Serbia and "Shock and Awe". And, frankly, I believe they could indeed mount a very good and effective punitive raid, strictly done through air strikes, that would take out most of Iran's military and nuclear capability. But the results of the law of unintended consequences would treat such a move quite savagely in Iraq. It's not the right time, or even close to the right time, to be considering bombing Iran.

But if there is any contingent of the military arguing "for" such a mission, he has correctly identified them. To believe, as apparently Dana Priest believes, that they'd mutiny if given such a mission is, frankly, laughable.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I didn’t realize we were using B52’s and stealth bombers in Iraq at this late date. I mean, if we don’t have the resources to

bomb, bomb, bomb,

bomb, bomb Iran,

then those resources MUST be fully tasked with missions in Iraq.

And while I whole-heartedly support regime change in Iran, nothing says we can’t bomb them now, and let them sort their own mess. Yeah, it isn’t the most perfectly moral thing, but eliminating the near-mid term threats from their nuke program, and terrorist training camps are doable. What this brings in the long run is anyones guess.
That is exactly the attitude I’d expect much of the Air Force leadership to bring to the table. They can’t help it. It’s an institutional attitude.
Well, that attitude is what gets them (and the Navy) the dollars to fund the next generation of super-weapons to attack the enemy, faster, farther away, and as stealthy as possible.

Of course, the Army and the Marines are tied up doing what needs done, with not enough resources going into what they need now, and to much going to what they think they need to fight the next big war.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
If you want to deliver a message fast, Air Mail it.
 
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
It’s Mr. Soros’ dime. Oliver’s job is just to write whatever Mr. George wants to read. He’s not being paid to think. For all we know, Oliver’s mumbling to himself, "What a load a crap," even as he types.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Impeach - hell, it would take them a year to argue and decide if it was even a case, by then we’ll be ready to bid him fond farewell (presumably not with a Mission Accomplished banner) and swear in the new President.

What don’t these people get? It’s bascially too damn late to fix it. And guess who takes over if they DID impeach him - do they really think they could do away with both the President and VP via impeachment in less than a year?

Bomb Iran indeed, if we HAVE to bomb Iran, they may as well pack up the tents because we aren’t going to put any of the weak sisters they have as candidates in office if we’re going hammer and tongs at Iran.

I guess BDS is just too strong to allow them to permit the Bush II administration to exit in the usual fashion.
That, more than any one thing I can think of, makes me
"smile one smile that runs all round my face two times." (Thank you Mr. Kipling)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"That is exactly the attitude I’d expect much of the Air Force leadership to bring to the table. They can’t help it. It’s an institutional attitude."

And it’s not necessarily wrong.

It’s also one of the reasons that I laugh when someone shrieks, "Listen to the Generals!" Or implies that not "listening to the Generals" is the same as trying to undermine the credibility of the General in command in Iraq.

The military isn’t lock-step. Generals disagree, doctrinally, with great fervor and partisanship both between services and within them. That the Generals whose firm beliefs are not being acted on figure that the Generals who are, so to speak, in ascendancy, are wrong is not surprising. It’s expected.

Of *course* the Army wants nothing to do with Iran.

Most in the Air Force (or even the Navy) wouldn’t *want* to start something with Iran but the idea that they wouldn’t be *willing* or would be convinced that it would have overly bad consequences is wrong. Silly even. Iran isn’t Iraq. It’s actually more like an old fashioned war... the sort that happens between nation states. It’s not ideological, really, but would be over concrete concerns. Simple. We don’t want Iran to have nukes. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to treat Iran as fundamentally similar to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. For this it really *could* be that the Air Force and Air Force doctrine are best applied.

As for unintended consequences. Doesn’t that come under the concept of a battle plan not surviving contact with the enemy? Since the other side gets a vote, as they say, it’s not possible to know with certainty what the results of bombing Iran would be. It’s not possible to know what the results of *not* bombing Iran would be.

I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that. I’m half convinced it would be a bad idea. I think Iran should be pee-their-pants convinced that we’re loading the missiles and ready to go.

I think it would be... unwise... to assume that all future wars would be like Iraq and so continue the tradition of preparing for the last war rather than the next one. The Air Force and the Navy, too, have found their role to be mostly support for now. In future conflicts we could well see that reversed. We don’t *know*.

And even if the Air Force or Navy *aren’t* the best answer to Iran or to other conflicts, they are available. Not overextended or particularly stretched. Those who think we can’t respond to world events because we don’t have a whole ’nother Army sitting in reserve seem to me to be missing the elephant in the room. On purpose.

I think they just really really *like* the idea that our military is stretched to its limits. Really really *like* it.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
The missions in Iraq require very little application of "strategic" air power. For the most part there are tactical aircraft such as A-10s and F-16s being used on a regular basis. The A-10 because of the 30mm and precision guided minitions it can carry and the extended time over target it can provide (The Taliban really loves the Warthog with its 30mm in Afghanistan). The F-16 also for the precision guided munitions and the speed with which it can react, i.e. get to the target. For the most part the Army and Marines would generally prefer to use their own internal air assets - Helos for the most part and occasionally Harriers for the Marines. I don’t think you would see many B-52s, B-1s or B-2s on a regular basis. Why? Primarily we are talking about a close air support role for air power and those kind of aircraft are not used in that arena. When you do see precision guided munitions being used like the one that hose Zarqhawi, a couple of F-16s can do the job with no problems.

You want to reach out and hurt someone like Iran - different story. Then you would be using the bombers and also assets like the F-15E and the F-117 Nighthawk Stealth fighter. Over Iran you will come against radar and IR air defense SAM systems and some level of air intercept capability. A real big problem? No but you never want to take air defenses lightly. your first targets there would be to take out those air defense assets, interceptors, and communications capabilities and then you can really get down to the fun stuff.

The biggest problem is getting all of these assets in theater. B-52s, B-1s and B-2s could stage initially out of stateside bases and recover and regenerate out of places like Diego Garcia. They could fly a 12-15 hour mission to a tagget, land at DG, regenerate and be airborned again as soon as the crew got reseted up. With turnaround crews in place you can get airborne and hit another set of targets in no time. But getting stateside F-15 and F-16 assets into theater would take some time. If you want a full air campaign against Iran, you would need a lot more assets in place than what is currently there or even what 3 Fleet Carriers Air Wings would provide.

As far as any Air Force officer refusing to fly any such attacks - that is CRAP! ’Nuff said on that topic. But having said all that, I agree with McQ that the untintended consequences of such an attack could far exceed any momentary advantage gained by the attack.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Bush et al should put out a steady drum beat that they have no intention of bombing Iran, till the (I pity the fool) Democrats demand it.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I don’t think any kind of impeachment is practical, but I think an attack on Iran would be something worth impeaching Bush for. I’m expecting a Democratic president next year, so an impeachment trial is impractical, but it doesn’t mean President Bush wouldn’t be worthy of constitutional removal from office.
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Those who think he’s worthy of impeachment already think so. How would bombing Iran change that?

(And I fully expect Hillary to be capable of bombing Iran. Is there doubt?)
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I dont think Priest truly believes the pilots will revolt so much as hopes they would.

And taking the last cookie would be enough to impeach Bush as far as O-Town is concerned.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
To believe, as apparently Dana Priest believes, that they’d mutiny if given such a mission is, frankly, laughable
Substitute the word "wish" for believe actually.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I don’t think any kind of impeachment is practical, but I think an attack on Iran would be something worth impeaching Bush for.
Well you know you can’t impeach someone on a whim. If you could, Bush would have been impeached at least 15 to 20 times by now.

So, given the war powers resolution, what would be your basis for impeachment ... other than disagreeing with the act (which, btw, is something you and I would actually agree upon).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,

I read your blog regularly. About 75% of your stuff I tend to agree with. The other 25% smells to me like libertarian BS. But occasionally you make a monumentally stupid posting like this one. It truly makes me wonder if you ever wore a uniform, much less served on a joint or combined staff.

The primary strategic threat from Iran (for now at least) is to the oil line of communication that runs through the Strait of Hormuz to the refineries in Europe. Iran’s primary strategic vulnerability is the importation of some 40% of its highly subsidized refined petroleum products along that same line of communication. Do you seriously believe that the Navy and Air Force can’t deal with that?

And do you seriously believe that Iran – without local air superiority and control of the seas – can send its armies into Iraq? Petraeus seems to have gotten a handle on the QODS/al Sadr terrorist nexus for the moment, and how shooting down Iran’s air force and sinking its navy could possibly make that worse escapes me. (Or for that matter iran’s support of Hezbollah and Syria.)

2006 was clearly a bad year for the good guys in the Middle East, but things are looking up in 2007. Israel just shut down Russia’s latest and greatest air defense systems in Syria, and they even did it without stealth technology. Do you think the B-2’s, F-117’s etc. are just going to sit in their hangars if we attack Iran?

Please take a deep breath and try to remember that this is the first time we’ve attempted to establish a constitutional democracy in the Middle East. Stuff happens, trial and error, that sort of thing. And I for one won’t write off those 12 million purple fingers just yet….

Mike
 
Written By: Mike Williams
URL: http://
I think it would be a "high crime" to attack Iran without provocation, and the latest manifestation of a pattern of dangerous behavior on the part of the president.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Seems "without provocation" is entirely open to interpretation, as is "a pattern of dangerous behavior". Once again, we can predict myriad threads of unending "I question the timing" posts from the usual suspects. If and when, you know. "Drawing up plans" becomes "attack imminent", etc., et al, ad nauseum.

I, for one, welcome any and all talk of impeachment. This would serve to solidify divided gummint in ’08 by squashing any DemCong movement out of the poll crapper anytime soon. Bring that weak cheese, meat.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
I think it would be a "high crime" to attack Iran without provocation, and the latest manifestation of a pattern of dangerous behavior on the part of the president.
I think you’d have a horrible time trying to sell that with the proof available of Iran’s hand in killing American soldiers in Iraq.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It truly makes me wonder if you ever wore a uniform, much less served on a joint or combined staff.
Given your response, Mike, I couldn’t care less what you wonder.
The primary strategic threat from Iran (for now at least) is to the oil line of communication that runs through the Strait of Hormuz to the refineries in Europe. Iran’s primary strategic vulnerability is the importation of some 40% of its highly subsidized refined petroleum products along that same line of communication. Do you seriously believe that the Navy and Air Force can’t deal with that?
Did I ever indicate they couldn’t?

The point is that the timing of an attack on Iran by any means would be disastrous to the effort in Iraq especially now that it is beginning to show positive results.

Did you simply not understand that point or did your knee start jerking before you got to that part of the post?
2006 was clearly a bad year for the good guys in the Middle East, but things are looking up in 2007. Israel just shut down Russia’s latest and greatest air defense systems in Syria, and they even did it without stealth technology. Do you think the B-2’s, F-117’s etc. are just going to sit in their hangars if we attack Iran?
What in the world are you talking about?

This is probably the worst non sequitur of a response I’ve seen yet. You make Erb look good.
Please take a deep breath and try to remember that this is the first time we’ve attempted to establish a constitutional democracy in the Middle East. Stuff happens, trial and error, that sort of thing. And I for one won’t write off those 12 million purple fingers just yet….
Well this seals it ... you claim to have read this blog a lot, right?

You, sir, are a lying SOB. And anyone who has actually read this blog will know precisely why I call you that.

Do yourself a favor before you show up here and make a fool of yourself again. Do your freakin’ homework.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Hey, McQ, do you notice that Ollie’s game is somewhat degraded. Perhaps this post is the reason. Karl will be sending him a letter of thanks
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
If we bomb Iran anytime in the next two years, it will be because there is a serious, serious problem there. The President will brief the Dems and get bipartisan support. If that sounds crazy to you, how will it look if it gets leaked that we could have got the nuke that was smuggled to Hezbollah but the Dems didn’t agree in the meeting?

As 2008 approaches, the Dems will suddenly become more and more adult about Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. as they realize that if they win, it will be their problem and not "Bush’s fault."

And let’s just remember what Oliver Willis is saying now, so that if Hillary bombs some country in 2009-2010 without any Congressional authorization we’ll be able to hold him to the impeachment proceeding against Hillary.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Please note that serious, serious problem part. If diplomacy is still limping along and our intel is "grey" then NOTHING will be done. Bush is a lame duck and quite busy enough with Iraq. Plus the climate now is that you’d have to have a New York Times reporter bring back a piece of the bomb to show the public. And not Judith Miller.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I think you’d have a horrible time trying to sell that with the proof available of Iran’s hand in killing American soldiers in Iraq
Given the large % of Dems who think the govt either knew about 9/11 and just letr it happen, or actually orchestrated 9/11......do you really think that statement is viable anymore?

Kos: That evidence is made up by the Bush Admin!
KoSheep: Bush lied!
Dem Senators pandering to Kos: Bush lied!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The idea that the US Army and Petraeus flatly oppose war with Iran because it is overextended is far, far too clever. The military thrives on crunchtime, particularly when they would mop up the Iranian military and induce a major manpower and budget increase. The "day after" perspective is moot because no one is talking about occupying Iran. In this case the people of Iran will have a chance to try it again - if they screw up, the same fate awaits a second time. Its a far cheaper and more effective alternative to occupation. It’s what our military does best - defeat the military of the enemy. It’s about time the Washington Clauswitzs learn that. The ridiculous maxim offered by Gen. Powell that"if you break it you own it all" has always been nonsense and worse - paralyzing, expensive, and self-defeating.
 
Written By: whammer
URL: http://
The idea that the US Army and Petraeus flatly oppose war with Iran because it is overextended is far, far too clever.
I don’t think anyone here has portrayed our military as overextended. At least anybody who has any knowldge of the military. We are at the tail end of a very long supply line in Iraq. The troops deployed there are not manning a defensive "line" in the classic sense. And any action against Iran would mean those troops would have to drop their current activities, align themselves along or facing the Iranian border and await the Iranian response. You don’t want to be in that situation, turning from a current foe to face another. McQ is right.
The point is that the timing of an attack on Iran by any means would be disastrous to the effort in Iraq especially now that it is beginning to show positive results.
You don’t throw away the makings of a successful campaign to take on a new foe.

You are right in the sense that we are not talking about occupying Iran. But if you think Iran will just sit back and whine, you gotta another think coming. Those guys are spoiling for a fight and all they want is any excuse at all to climb over the border and face off against the evil crusaders.

Just look back a few years at the Iran-Iraq War. Iran lost hundreds of thousands of men, mostly very young, and did not think twice about the slaughter. Stalin once said "Quantity is a Quality" all on its own. Iran would not think twice about "human wave" attacks. That is something I do not want to face unless I have all my ducks lined up in a row and my back is secure - very secure!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
If somehow Iran attacks our troops in Iraq, I wonder how that plays with the Iraqis? I wonder how they feel about the Iranian nuclear program, too. If we are the ones who start the bombing I think it plays poorly. If somehow it looks like "The Persians are coming!" it would play out differently.

Perhaps a more frightening scenario would have us pull out most of our troops for whatever reason, and then Sadr invites in Iranian forces as "peacekeepers" or something (ala Syria in Lebanon.)
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
That’s not to say this administration isn’t capable of acts of monumental stupidity, but I think even they recognize the truth of this point.

I think you may underestimate the power which the myth of warmonger Cheney/dumb Bush has on the Left. They believe that 1)Cheney is the overriding influence in this adminstration, and that he’s really the Great Decider; and 2)that Cheney is fixated on making a war with Iran. In their eyes, the administration is monumentally stupid enough that under the influence of Richard Mephistopheles Cheney they don’t recognize the truth of this point.

And, actually, much of the time, they don’t depict Cheney as simply a lover of war for war’s sake; they depict him as sincerely believing that the only way to "solve" the Iran problem is to go to war ASAP.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
There’s no way Iran has a deliverable nuke in the next two years. Forget that as casus belli.

Filet-O-Fish is impeachment crazed, like a lot of my Lefty friends. It’s kind of revealing that they really can’t name the high crime or misdemeanor and never could. To them, it’s payback and nothing more. I’d like to think the Right would comport themselves a little better if those 500 votes in Florida had been cast the other way.
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
That is the major reason I don’t buy into any of this "we’re going to bomb Iran" rhetoric. It would be an act of monumental stupidity at this time, in terms of Iraq, because it would jeopardize every single positive gain we’ve recently seen in that country. That’s not to say this administration isn’t capable of acts of monumental stupidity, but I think even they recognize the truth of this point.
I believe you are right, but they should have seen the problems in Iraq as well. I hope they’ve learned from the misjudgements.

Moreover, I think there is an effort being made to try to convince Iran to do things to aid the Iraqi government. Iran’s game is to make sure that Iraq doesn’t have a pro-American government once the US leaves, and to have Iraq get the US to leave rather than establish permanent bases. If they think the Iraqi government now in power is one that will be, if not pro-Iranian, at least not overtly pro-American, they can live with that. If they think the US isn’t going to leave without making sure Iraq is governed in a way we can influence and assure supports our position, they are motivated to fund Shi’ite militias and maintain the possibility of instability which would push the American public towards ’withdrawal now.’

The premise that there will be bombing seems to be that Bush does not want "leave this problem to his successor." But, of course, bombing might leave a far greater set of problems to his successor.

I also think that military opposition will make bombing of Iran far less likely. While there may be some air force support, in general I think the message from the Pentagon will be "this is a horrible idea." For a President to ignore the military leadership on an issue like this would be monumentally stupid. And frankly, I don’t think Bush is stupid.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Hey Bruce,

I knew my mother and she wasn’t a bitch. I don’t know your parents, though.

What set me off in your posting was this comment: “That is exactly the attitude I’d expect much of the Air Force leadership to bring to the table. They can’t help it. It’s an institutional attitude.”

And this comment: “That’s not to say this administration isn’t capable of acts of monumental stupidity, but I think even they recognize the truth of this point.”

Like I thought I said, Iran poses a threat on three levels: Its support of transnational terrorism, its threat to the oil line of communication to Europe, and its push to develop nuclear weapons.

You might have missed it, but Israel recently struck deep into Syria despite the presence of Russia’s latest and greatest air defense system. The Iranians have the same system, and the guys at StrategyPage say the generals are suddenly feeling very naked.

So Iran can’t defend its airspace, it can’t establish air superiority in the theater, and it can’t take control of the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf.

You assert: Attacking Iran “would be an act of monumental stupidity at this time, in terms of Iraq, because it would jeopardize every single positive gain we’ve recently seen in that country.”

Well, why exactly? Would it bring al Sadr back into the picture and rile up his Shi’ite militias? Would hordes of Revolutionary Guards come pouring across the border and open up a second front? Could they do that without air superiority? Could the Iranian navy close down the Strait of Hormuz and bring the European economy crashing down? Would they even want to, given their own vulnerabilities with refined petroleum?

On the other hand, attacking Iran – particularly the facilities where those IEDs are produced – might save the lives and limbs of a lot of our troops. It would undoubtedly humiliate Ahmadinejad and the generals, just as Israel humiliated Assad and his Ba’athist thugs. And like Reagan did several years ago to Quadaffy in Libya, it might make the Mad Mullahs more aware of their mortality and induce some caution in their rush to resurrect the Caliphate.

Frankly, I read this post as an arrogant slap at the Air Force and Navy sorely lacking in even a rudimentary understanding of geopolitcs and joint arms, and a cheap, below the belt shot at a Bush administration which is doing the best it can to build a democracy in a tough neighborhood.

I did, however, enjoy your posting on Reid. It looks like you did your homework there for a change.

Mike
 
Written By: Mike Williams
URL: http://
I knew my mother and she wasn’t a bitch. I don’t know your parents, though.
Well then perhaps she wasn’t your mother.

Here’s a hint, dimbulb ... you can expect the same treatment from me that you dish out. Want a serious discussion? Then approach the subject seriously. Want to be treated like the idiot you seem to be? Start your comment exactly as you did the last one.
What set me off in your posting was this comment: “That is exactly the attitude I’d expect much of the Air Force leadership to bring to the table. They can’t help it. It’s an institutional attitude.”

And this comment: “That’s not to say this administration isn’t capable of acts of monumental stupidity, but I think even they recognize the truth of this point.”
And apparently you didn’t understand either of them, unless you’re going to argue that the AF leadership hasn’t and doesn’t argue for what I noted and would further argue that this administration hasn’t committed acts of monumental stupidity in its 6+ years.

If that’s your argument, then I’d have to wonder what you do know about much of anything.

And you demonstrate your cluelessness again here:
Well, why exactly? Would it bring al Sadr back into the picture and rile up his Shi’ite militias? Would hordes of Revolutionary Guards come pouring across the border and open up a second front? Could they do that without air superiority? Could the Iranian navy close down the Strait of Hormuz and bring the European economy crashing down? Would they even want to, given their own vulnerabilities with refined petroleum?
How are they effecting it now? What would a 10x increase in that effect bring in Iraq? A 20x increase?

And no "horde of RGs" has to cross the border, not a single Iranian aircraft has to fly nor does the Strait of Hormuz have be threatened once to accomplish sort of escalation and put progress in Iraq in jeopardy.

What would be the nearest American targets and how could they most effectively target them?

The fact that seems beyond your grasp doesn’t surprise me necessarily given your ill-considered and clueless previous comments.
On the other hand, attacking Iran – particularly the facilities where those IEDs are produced – might save the lives and limbs of a lot of our troops.
Yeah, no chance they’d reconstitute that or even make more, is there? They’d just quit.
It would undoubtedly humiliate Ahmadinejad and the generals, just as Israel humiliated Assad and his Ba’athist thugs.
Or, as with most attacks by a foreign power, it could actually see the country, which is now rife with internal strife, unite behind him and the Ayatollahs, which is much more likely.
And like Reagan did several years ago to Quadaffy in Libya, it might make the Mad Mullahs more aware of their mortality and induce some caution in their rush to resurrect the Caliphate.
Uh huh, and unicorns and rainbows will suddenly appear as a new era of magical peace descends on the region and our world.
Frankly, I read this post as an arrogant slap at the Air Force and Navy sorely lacking in even a rudimentary understanding of geopolitcs and joint arms, and a cheap, below the belt shot at a Bush administration which is doing the best it can to build a democracy in a tough neighborhood.
The fact that you can’t figure out the post isn’t my problem. You might want to take it up with your reading teacher. It wasn’t about who could do what to Iran. Obviously we can attack them using the AF and Navy. That wasn’t the point at all and if you had the intelligence to understand the context of the post, that would have been apparent to you. Go read SShiell’s reply. He’s a retired Air Force officer. He seems to have been able to figure it out.

And of course, if you were a regular reader, like you claim, you’d have known better than the other nonsense you were spouting above.

Given that isn’t the apparent case, "clueless" seems an apt description of your comments.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"I don’t think you would see many B-52s, B-1s or B-2s on a regular basis. Why? Primarily we are talking about a close air support role for air power and those kind of aircraft are not used in that arena.
To begin with, you’ve got three fairly disparate aircraft in the same bag, and they don’t really belong together like that in this context. They’re only conceptually united by virtue of strategic potential, but that’s not all there is to it.

In fact, the B-52’s now excel at CAS because of their loiter capability, enormous payload, and the advent of JDAM. And nothing terrorizes the battlefield like the mighty BUFF. Nothing.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
In fact, the B-52’s now excel at CAS because of their loiter capability, enormous payload, and the advent of JDAM. And nothing terrorizes the battlefield like the mighty BUFF. Nothing.
And my comment did not in any way belittle the B-52 or any other "strategic" asset or their capabilities. My point was simply the forces needed to "kick some mullah *ss" is not currently on site and you would need assets greater than 2-3 carrier air wings to do the kind of damage to Iran necessary for such an attack to be effective. I do not think anybody here is talking about a Clinton flyswatting operation but a massive, sustained air attack to cripple the Mullahs air defense, communications, offensive air capability, and the nuclear facilities.

When you see large numbers of F-117, F-15, F-15E, F-16, and A-10 type aircraft deploying in theater (i.e. the whole frigging Air force), wake me up. Until then all of this talk of facilitating a crippling attack on Iran is . . making . . . me . . . . sleepy . . . . . . .
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
"And my comment did not in any way belittle the B-52 or any other ’strategic’ asset or their capabilities."
Well, I certainly didn’t presume that that was the case. I only wanted to point out that the ’52 is in no way disqualified from the CAS role. It is distinguished now in the way that it’s adapted to that fight.
"My point was simply the forces needed to ’kick some mullah *ss’ is not currently on site and you would need assets greater than 2-3 carrier air wings to do the kind of damage to Iran necessary for such an attack to be effective.
Agreed. The sort of attack under discussion here would be far more integrated.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
During the initial part of Afghanistan, we used B-52s extensively because they could carpet bomb a large area of the Taliban’s front line positions.

Anyone else think that a naval blockade would probably be the first option on the table since it would be less violent and perhaps cause less anger among the Iranian people?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Anyone else think that a naval blockade would probably be the first option on the table since it would be less violent and perhaps cause less anger among the Iranian people?
I’m not sure what you mean by a blockade, but that is usually considered an act of war.

I’d guess that would be something we’d use if we chose to attack (by air) but I doubt if it would be something we’d employ alone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider