Pentagon sees Iran bombing as unsuccessful

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Link to article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officers have told the Bush administration that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would probably fail to destroy that country's nuclear program, the New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday.

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

"A crucial issue in the military's dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit," according to the report.

The U.S. military's experience in Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were found and the war continues, has affected its approach to Iran, the magazine quoted a high-ranking general as saying.

"The target array in Iran is huge, but it's amorphous," the unidentified general was quoted as saying. "We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there.

"This is son of Iraq."

The United States on Friday spurned Iranian calls for more time to study an offer of incentives to curb its nuclear fuel program, insisting Tehran must reply by the Group of Eight industrialized nations' deadline on July 5.

The article, by journalist Seymour Hersh, also questioned the effectiveness of U.S. targeting potential nuclear sites.

"Intelligence has also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid," it said.

Another parallel U.S. military leaders drew with Iraq is the administration's desire for a swift and cheap intervention in Iran without sufficient regard for economic and political consequences, including oil supplies and a backlash in the broader Muslim world and in Europe.

"If you're a military planner, you try to weigh options," one senior military official was quoted as saying. "What is the capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive response like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?"

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides "really think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary," the official told the magazine.

It's not exactly surprising that Iran has spent that last few years working to ensure there is nothing to hit. So, if there's nothing to find to bomb, and we can't invade and occupy successfully (as evidenced by Iraq) what options are left on the table?

In reference to that bolded section I honestly cannot believe the man, and this administration, are poised to make the same exact stupid mistake again.
Iran will be cheap and easy like Iraq was supposed to be I guess.
My god what kind of fools are running this show?

Does anyone here, even the most ardent Bush supporters, honestly believe Rumsfield is correct?

 

[BBond]

They're poised to make the exact same stupid mistake again because WE get to pay for it while THEY profit from it.

None of their kids are going to get killed or maimed. Their kids won't be paying for these mistakes for generations. And they stand to make BILLIONS! Just look at Iraq.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: BBond
They're poised to make the exact same stupid mistake again because WE get to pay for it while THEY profit from it.

None of their kids are going to get killed or maimed. Their kids won't be paying for these mistakes for generations. And they stand to make BILLIONS! Just look at Iraq.

QFT

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: BBond
They're poised to make the exact same stupid mistake again because WE get to pay for it while THEY profit from it.

None of their kids are going to get killed or maimed. Their kids won't be paying for these mistakes for generations. And they stand to make BILLIONS! Just look at Iraq.

QFT

Indeed.

Mistakes, even critical ones, rarely teach anything to those whose asses aren't literally on the line. I shudder to think of the casualties our forces would take in an assualt on Iran. To YET AGAIN underestimate, and consequently under plan for, both the cost in dollars and lives would be beyond incompetent... it would be criminal. :|

 

[tommywishbone]

Herr bushler & his gang of mass murderers bomb Iran, oil jumps to $125 per barrel, the Killers all make billions of $$$... it worked perfectly in Iraq. Bombs away!

 

[BBond]

The war profiteering bastards worship Sunday, Bloody Sunday.

 

[Mardeth]

Casultie with occupying Iran would be at least 2 or 3 greater probably a lot more...

 

[wazzledoozle]

Iran has an actual military and capable economy to support it, it isn't another Iraq. Iran would actually put up a worthwhile fight, on the ground at least.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Iran has an actual military and capable economy to support it, it isn't another Iraq. Iran would actually put up a worthwhile fight, on the ground at least.

Whats your definition of a worthwhile fight? Personally, I don't think a fight where the outcome is already known is a worthwhile fight...

 

[the Chase]

We could flatten Iran without a problem. But let the weak kneed Europoeans worry about this for a change. They never want conflict. Well I have a feeling most of the missles capable of carrying nuclear warheads have just enough range to hit Europe. Let them deal with a couple thousand dead if it happens(which I doubt). Then have them beg us for help and we can pledge a couple thousand troops or so. Maybe next time they will back us more when dealing with the UN.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Iran has an actual military and capable economy to support it, it isn't another Iraq. Iran would actually put up a worthwhile fight, on the ground at least.

Whats your definition of a worthwhile fight? Personally, I don't think a fight where the outcome is already known is a worthwhile fight...

Some people will continue to fight for their country no matter how great the odds. Another lesson we've seemingly failed to learn from Vietnam and/or, now, Iraq.

Originally posted by: the Chase
We could flatten Iran without a problem.

Let them deal with a couple thousand dead if it happens(which I doubt).

If you doubt such an event would happen is it worth the absolutely hellish backlash involved in 'flattening' Iran?

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Iran has an actual military and capable economy to support it, it isn't another Iraq. Iran would actually put up a worthwhile fight, on the ground at least.

Whats your definition of a worthwhile fight? Personally, I don't think a fight where the outcome is already known is a worthwhile fight...

Worthwhile meaning they wont be pushovers and surrender. Iran is much better equipped than Iraq was. And if we only do air and cruise missile attacks, they can just cross the border into Iraq and attack us there, either directly with their military or increased funding/supplying of resistance groups in Iraq.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: the Chase
We could flatten Iran without a problem. But let the weak kneed Europoeans worry about this for a change. They never want conflict. Well I have a feeling most of the missles capable of carrying nuclear warheads have just enough range to hit Europe. Let them deal with a couple thousand dead if it happens(which I doubt). Then have them beg us for help and we can pledge a couple thousand troops or so. Maybe next time they will back us more when dealing with the UN.

You are the epitome of "The Ugly American".

I wonder how Americans would feel if they had a world war fought on THEIR own soil, and I wonder how they would feel if a few rich Eurpoean families made millions while funding the enemy's war effort.

I find if strange that the very people who decry isolationism as they carry out their unprovoked attacks to spread "freedom and democracy" once the WMD is nowhere to be found are the very same people who support the very worst in isolationism whenever any of our allies disagree with us. Particularly in light of the fact that our allies' disagreement has proven them right and bushler wrong.

 

[kajames]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: the Chase
We could flatten Iran without a problem. But let the weak kneed Europoeans worry about this for a change. They never want conflict. Well I have a feeling most of the missles capable of carrying nuclear warheads have just enough range to hit Europe. Let them deal with a couple thousand dead if it happens(which I doubt). Then have them beg us for help and we can pledge a couple thousand troops or so. Maybe next time they will back us more when dealing with the UN.

You are the epitome of "The Ugly American".

I wonder how Americans would feel if they had a world war fought on THEIR own soil, and I wonder how they would feel if a few rich Eurpoean families made millions while funding the enemy's war effort.

I find if strange that the very people who decry isolationism as they carry out their unprovoked attacks to spread "freedom and democracy" once the WMD is nowhere to be found are the very same people who support the very worst in isolationism whenever any of our allies disagree with us. Particularly in light of the fact that our allies' disagreement has proven them right and bushler wrong.

 

[kajames]

Originally posted by: kajames

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: the Chase
We could flatten Iran without a problem. But let the weak kneed Europoeans worry about this for a change. They never want conflict. Well I have a feeling most of the missles capable of carrying nuclear warheads have just enough range to hit Europe. Let them deal with a couple thousand dead if it happens(which I doubt). Then have them beg us for help and we can pledge a couple thousand troops or so. Maybe next time they will back us more when dealing with the UN.

You are the epitome of "The Ugly American".

I wonder how Americans would feel if they had a world war fought on THEIR own soil, and I wonder how they would feel if a few rich Eurpoean families made millions while funding the enemy's war effort.

I find if strange that the very people who decry isolationism as they carry out their unprovoked attacks to spread "freedom and democracy" once the WMD is nowhere to be found are the very same people who support the very worst in isolationism whenever any of our allies disagree with us. Particularly in light of the fact that our allies' disagreement has proven them right and bushler wrong.

BUSH'S IRAN WARPLAN IS BEING REFINED AS WE BLOG...IMPLEMENTATION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE "ROUGH ROADS" THE US ENCOUNTERED IN IRAQ...BUT IT WILL COME...

 

[catnap1972]

(From OP's quote)

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

Economic consequences--GOP doesn't care, that's why they're looting all the money from the country before the bottom falls out (then all the 99.999% of the poor suckers who are left will have to fend for themselves).

Political consequences--little or none with Diebold in charge (as well as the RW noise machine cranked up 24/7). If things get really bad, all Georgie has to do is declare martial law and officially proclaim himself King.

Military consequences--again, only for the grunts (who "don't matter anyway" and are considered "disposable") and their families. Those on the beltway aren't going to see any combat (nor anyone they're related to), and they'll likely clean up financially from the war profits as a few others had posted.

Pretty much no reason why Georgie's cabal wouldn't go and stir up another hornet's nest since they're not going to have to make sacrifices (only the rest of us will)

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: catnap1972
(From OP's quote)

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

Economic consequences--GOP doesn't care, that's why they're looting all the money from the country before the bottom falls out (then all the 99.999% of the poor suckers who are left will have to fend for themselves).

Political consequences--little or none with Diebold in charge (as well as the RW noise machine cranked up 24/7). If things get really bad, all Georgie has to do is declare martial law and officially proclaim himself King.

Military consequences--again, only for the grunts (who "don't matter anyway" and are considered "disposable") and their families. Those on the beltway aren't going to see any combat (nor anyone they're related to), and they'll likely clean up financially from the war profits as a few others had posted.

Pretty much no reason why Georgie's cabal wouldn't go and stir up another hornet's nest since they're not going to have to make sacrifices (only the rest of us will)

I think there's one reason why Dubya wouldn't. I think at this point he has to realize that half the nation would not put up with him pulling another Iraq style F-up. And quite frankly I think if he tried something like this, we wouldn't have enough military at home to prevent us from toppling his regime right here. And Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney would all be given public executions. Bush and his idiot cronies need to shut up, sit back, and prove me wrong by NOT ending the world before 2008 is over.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: catnap1972
(From OP's quote)

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

Economic consequences--GOP doesn't care, that's why they're looting all the money from the country before the bottom falls out (then all the 99.999% of the poor suckers who are left will have to fend for themselves).

Political consequences--little or none with Diebold in charge (as well as the RW noise machine cranked up 24/7). If things get really bad, all Georgie has to do is declare martial law and officially proclaim himself King.

Military consequences--again, only for the grunts (who "don't matter anyway" and are considered "disposable") and their families. Those on the beltway aren't going to see any combat (nor anyone they're related to), and they'll likely clean up financially from the war profits as a few others had posted.

Pretty much no reason why Georgie's cabal wouldn't go and stir up another hornet's nest since they're not going to have to make sacrifices (only the rest of us will)

I think there's one reason why Dubya wouldn't. I think at this point he has to realize that half the nation would not put up with him pulling another Iraq style F-up. And quite frankly I think if he tried something like this, we wouldn't have enough military at home to prevent us from toppling his regime right here. And Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney would all be given public executions. Bush and his idiot cronies need to shut up, sit back, and prove me wrong by NOT ending the world before 2008 is over.

you're assuming that your fellow anti's have the means, and balls, to do anything about it. GL with that!

anyways...
I wholeheartedly agree that we should let Europe take the lead against Iran. If they choose not to do anything for a while, we can just use that time to gather better intel on Iran. If they choose to never act, then with our better intel, we could then step up and take care of business.

My only concern is that this Admin will act on bad or inadequate intel. we need time to gather it, so we really should let Europe take the lead for now... i have no problm with that at all.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: catnap1972
(From OP's quote)

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

Economic consequences--GOP doesn't care, that's why they're looting all the money from the country before the bottom falls out (then all the 99.999% of the poor suckers who are left will have to fend for themselves).

Political consequences--little or none with Diebold in charge (as well as the RW noise machine cranked up 24/7). If things get really bad, all Georgie has to do is declare martial law and officially proclaim himself King.

Military consequences--again, only for the grunts (who "don't matter anyway" and are considered "disposable") and their families. Those on the beltway aren't going to see any combat (nor anyone they're related to), and they'll likely clean up financially from the war profits as a few others had posted.

Pretty much no reason why Georgie's cabal wouldn't go and stir up another hornet's nest since they're not going to have to make sacrifices (only the rest of us will)

I think there's one reason why Dubya wouldn't. I think at this point he has to realize that half the nation would not put up with him pulling another Iraq style F-up. And quite frankly I think if he tried something like this, we wouldn't have enough military at home to prevent us from toppling his regime right here. And Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney would all be given public executions. Bush and his idiot cronies need to shut up, sit back, and prove me wrong by NOT ending the world before 2008 is over.

you're assuming that your fellow anti's have the means, and balls, to do anything about it. GL with that!

anyways...
I wholeheartedly agree that we should let Europe take the lead against Iran. If they choose not to do anything for a while, we can just use that time to gather better intel on Iran. If they choose to never act, then with our better intel, we could then step up and take care of business.

My only concern is that this Admin will act on bad or inadequate intel. we need time to gather it, so we really should let Europe take the lead for now... i have no problm with that at all.

Why let some bad intel stop you? It isn't as it has stopped you before. And you talk about tinfoil? Italian intelligence has learnt that Angola has sold some yellowcake to Iran. Shoo shoo off to war with you.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Iran has an actual military and capable economy to support it, it isn't another Iraq. Iran would actually put up a worthwhile fight, on the ground at least.

Please, they were at a standstill with Iraq 2 decades ago, and we easily mopped Iraq then. If it's just about destroying Iran's military, we could easily do it in a few weeks, if not days. Unfortunately, if our goal was anything other than to destroy the infrastructure of the country, it would end up as bad or worse than Iraq as well. Oh, and higher gas prices for taking out a major oil producer, right? Though we could wait until with have an alternative fuel, in which case then China or Russia can just annex Iran, brutally put down any resistance, and take the oil by force.

we wouldn't have enough military at home to prevent us from toppling his regime right here.

As much as some may love to see it, we're still pretty damn far from a civil war here. Like it or not, the US is an overwhelmingly conservative country (even the average liberal US citizen would be conservative in nearly any other 1st world country). Now if Bush's successor is even worse than him, then perhaps a civil war could be in the brewing, or maybe some division of the military will get upset with how things are being run and stage a coup (which could end in huge disaster for them if they don't get support from the rest of the military). But for a civilian led coup, come on, who would be your troops? College students? Down-trodden minorities? Would there be anyone capable of raising an army and even defeating the national guard?

 

[conjur]

Here's the full article from Seymour Hersh

LAST STAND
The military?s problem with the President?s Iran policy.