Planning for Iran war since 2003.
Bill Arkin today. He doesn't foresee a war in Iran, but he does see real planning for one in the "near term." Apparently operations planning for war in Iran began in earnest in May 2003.
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."....It's long and detailed, but it's not fully clear if this operations planning signals intent or is just the next step along the precautionary line. Whether you agree with his judgements or not, at this point, Bill Arkin is offering the best window onto military planning.
As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran....But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.
posted by mikevotes at
8:55 PM
3 Comments:
That's a pretty good catch, Matt.
There has been some evidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld were pushing for Iraq from the day they came into office. Cheney told the briefers that Bush's first briefing should be Iraq and only Iraq, and I've seen some mentions that one of Rumsfeld's first acts was to order a rework of the Iraq plans(before 9-11.)
One counter argument might be that he was referring to Rumsfeld's defense review to "reshape the US military" to be "smaller, quicker, and more agile." Shinseki was strongly and fairly publicly against Rumsfeld's plan. Shinseki believed that we needed to maintain more conventional forces for land war, armor, artillery, heavy weapons, like those we had developed for war against the Russians. The battle with Rumsfeld had led to his inevitable retirement before he made the statements on troop levels in Iraq. And Shinseki was just the front of the military/civilian conflict on the army side, so those comments might have been referring to that.
But again, there is circumstantial evidence that Iraq war planning began almost the first week of this administration.
That's a really good catch.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:43 AM
Mike, I think you're offering a very optimistic reading of Arkin.
Key graf:
"As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone.
But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."
I read Arkin daily. His column seems to be shifting daily from "nah, it's all hype" to "hmmmm, I wonder?" It's as if the more he investigates, the more convinced he is that somethings afoot.
I'm thinking successful enrichment is a tripping point. Bush is not going to wait until they have weapons.
Never underestimate Bush's messianic tendencies ......
By
Greyhair, at 12:02 PM
You're right. I'm judging this through his declarations. And, please don't take his opinions as mine.
I just feel obliged when I'm citing him to make clear what his stated position is, because generally, I've been cutting out the pieces from his column that make the case that we are going to war, so I feel obliged to make mention that he holds a different opinion.
And, I always have trouble with that word "messianic" because it connotes Christianity so strongly. It's apt, but I don't believe Bush's desire to attack Iran is based in his Christianity(although he does use it for support) I think his desire to attack Iran is based upon his "place in history" thinking.
Sort of a political messianism. Certainly, religion factors into it in that he does believe he was put in place by god, but....
Maybe I'm making a distinction without a difference.
It's just that word puts a Christian connotation on what I see as delusional megalomania.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home