How crazy are they?
With the news of a second aircraft carrier group possibly being deployed to the Persian Gulf, should we reconsider the "surge" as some sort of precursor to action on Iran?
My gut says no, but I think this was leaked specifically to create that impression.
This deployment leak is merely posturing designed to cow Iran before the "surge," because this "surge" is a huge gamble of overextension.
However, having not seen the idea elsewhere that the extra US troops are being sent to Iraq to brace for an Iranian response after a US bombing campaign, I thought I should introduce it.
I don't think it's true, but it needs to be out there.
(On the other hand, according to CNN, the AEI “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking.” The AEI is advocating an 18-24 month escalation of at least 30,000 more troops, and has advocated action on Iran for quite awhile.)
My gut says no, but I think this was leaked specifically to create that impression.
This deployment leak is merely posturing designed to cow Iran before the "surge," because this "surge" is a huge gamble of overextension.
However, having not seen the idea elsewhere that the extra US troops are being sent to Iraq to brace for an Iranian response after a US bombing campaign, I thought I should introduce it.
I don't think it's true, but it needs to be out there.
(On the other hand, according to CNN, the AEI “has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking.” The AEI is advocating an 18-24 month escalation of at least 30,000 more troops, and has advocated action on Iran for quite awhile.)
posted by mikevotes at
2:25 PM
5 Comments:
Yeah, I think it's a stupid show of force to try and intimidate Iran.
By
Handsome B. Wonderful, at 5:50 PM
I agree.
Especially because leaking the consideration of a deployment is a very cheap way to try to increase pressure.
And, how often are deployments under consideration leaked without political motive?
This is top level Pentagon stuff, not orders that have been sent out to sailors.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:05 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
-epm, at 7:27 PM
I find the notion that the AEI -- a private, partisan "think" tank -- has the President's ear, but a bi-partisan, congressionally ordered panel is ignored (no, make that ridiculed) to be stunningly monarchical.
Just a futher example of the privatization of governance and fixing the "facts" to match the desires.
By
-epm, at 7:29 PM
Well, If Baker had told Bush what he wanted to hear, he would've been listened to. That's the secret to the right wing toadies, they press the president on his interests. "We can win, Mr. President. You can still go down in history as a great man. All you have to do is....."
Whereas everyone else expects to be able to influence him through reality and rational argument.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home