Dissension among the ranks?

[TPS]

Generals threaten to quit over Iran?

The continuing saga between Cheney's neocons and the lifers.

[yall]

This part seemed a bit fishy to me:

 

“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

 

Effective? Maybe not. I'm not a military/political/economic strategist, so I couldn't prognosticate the long term effectiveness of a strike on any Iranian interests.

 

But "possible"? That's a joke. I doubt there is any "source" within the Pentagon who thinks a strike on Iran isn't possible.

 

Articles like these really make me wonder what qualifies as a source these days. Does "source inside the Pentagon" mean they spoke with the janitor?

 

"Off the record, these guys can't even hit the urinal, so how would they bomb Iran?"

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah, there's news. Dissenting opinions over strategy/policy amongst high ranking military guys? That's just never happened before. [/sarcasm]

 

More piss poor reporting of pretty much nothing.

[VRWC]

"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them."

 

 

"All the generals?" That's bull S#@$T. We might not have the capacity to put in troops in Iran like Iraq, but we sure as hell have the means to bomb the living crap out them. That's what we're talking about here. The U.S. has the capability to deploy various platforms to acheive this goal. What the political and other military fallout would be if we did bomb Iran is something entirely different. I'm sure the "world body" would condem us and would cause other attacks across the region but it could be done. Plus, the US military already has plans and targets preplanned for a many of our adversaries around the world. It makes me laugh when the press reports that the US military are planning attacks on Iran when we've had plans to attack Iran since 1979.

[Wacka]

"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them."

"All the generals?" That's bull S#@$T. We might not have the capacity to put in troops in Iran like Iraq, but we sure as hell have the means to bomb the living crap out them. That's what we're talking about here. The U.S. has the capability to deploy various platforms to acheive this goal. What the political and other military fallout would be if we did bomb Iran is something entirely different. I'm sure the "world body" would condem us and would cause other attacks across the region but it could be done. Plus, the US military already has plans and targets preplanned for a many of our adversaries around the world. It makes me laugh when the press reports that the US military are planning attacks on Iran when we've had plans to attack Iran since 1979.

 

Hell, we have plans to attack Canada and every other country on the face of the earth

[molson_golden2002]

Hell, we have plans to attack Canada and every other country on the face of the earth

[DC Tom]

"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them."

"All the generals?" That's bull S#@$T. We might not have the capacity to put in troops in Iran like Iraq, but we sure as hell have the means to bomb the living crap out them. That's what we're talking about here. The U.S. has the capability to deploy various platforms to acheive this goal. What the political and other military fallout would be if we did bomb Iran is something entirely different. I'm sure the "world body" would condem us and would cause other attacks across the region but it could be done. Plus, the US military already has plans and targets preplanned for a many of our adversaries around the world. It makes me laugh when the press reports that the US military are planning attacks on Iran when we've had plans to attack Iran since 1979.

 

Most people can't distinguish between "having plans to..." and "planning to..."

 

And "all the generals" is most certainly bull sh--. There's maybe five countries in the world that the US couldn't completely take apart from the air. People think that, because we invaded Iraq, attacking Iran means invading Iran. It doesn't. It won't. Completely different mission, destroying their air defense network and nuclear industry (as opposed to regime change, as in Iraq).

 

Not that I'm advocating in any way attacking Iran (I'm most certainly not; it would be a blisteringly stupid thing to do). But we most certainly have the capability.

[VRWC]

Hell, we have plans to attack Canada and every other country on the face of the earth

 

If Canada becomes our "adversary", I certainly hope the U.S. would start planning targets and have an attack plan if necessary. What did you NOT understand about the word adversary?

 

I’m sure the Bills just go out the day of the game and play without “a plan” of attack also. Well, I take that back. It seems we didn’t have a plan the past few years anyway.

 

DC Tom has it about right also. Nice post.

[DC Tom]

If Canada becomes our "adversary", I certainly hope the U.S. would start planning targets and have an attack plan if necessary. What did you NOT understand about the word adversary?

 

I’m sure the Bills just go out the day of the game and play without “a plan” of attack also. Well, I take that back. It seems we didn’t have a plan the past few years anyway.

 

DC Tom has it about right also. Nice post.

 

I study this sh-- more than is healthy. Anyone know the actual capabilities of the B-2 bomber with the newest software upgrades? It can independently target JDAMs in-flight on different targets. Basically, in simple terms, it can hit 64 targets simultaneously, without being seen. By the time the Iranians knew they were being bombed, they wouldn't have any nuclear sites left to defend. That is, frankly, a ridiculous capability. As far advanced as the US military in general - and the US Air Force in particular - is above the rest of the planet, they may as well be space aliens.

 

And the war planners know that. I know they know that. One of them used to be a good friend of mine.

[TPS]

I study this sh-- more than is healthy. Anyone know the actual capabilities of the B-2 bomber with the newest software upgrades? It can independently target JDAMs in-flight on different targets. Basically, in simple terms, it can hit 64 targets simultaneously, without being seen. By the time the Iranians knew they were being bombed, they wouldn't have any nuclear sites left to defend. That is, frankly, a ridiculous capability. As far advanced as the US military in general - and the US Air Force in particular - is above the rest of the planet, they may as well be space aliens.

 

And the war planners know that. I know they know that. One of them used to be a good friend of mine.

 

You'll note the dissenters are believed to be army/navy; it said the air force was in favor.

[DC Tom]

You'll note the dissenters are believed to be army/navy; it said the air force was in favor.

 

Actually, it wasn't nearly that specific. It said "five generals and admirals". Only five? Which ones? Out of how many generals and admirals currently active? How senior are the five? The story's so vague, anyone could read into it what they want.

 

Though it did basically say that the army has the same concerns I expressed. Unsurprising.

[TPS]

Actually, it wasn't nearly that specific. It said "five generals and admirals". Only five? Which ones? Out of how many generals and admirals currently active? How senior are the five? The story's so vague, anyone could read into it what they want.

 

Though it did basically say that the army has the same concerns I expressed. Unsurprising.

 

 

The quote:

"The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month."

[smokinandjokin]

Actually, it wasn't nearly that specific. It said "five generals and admirals". Only five? Which ones? Out of how many generals and admirals currently active? How senior are the five? The story's so vague, anyone could read into it what they want.

 

I believe Bobby Knight was the General and David Robinson was one of the admirals. Captain Morgan also voiced his disapproval.

[Alaska Darin]

The quote:

"The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month."

That is so stupid. Unbelievably stupid. This is why I hate the fukking media and refer to most people as lemmings.

 

Here's the deal:

 

The Air Force isn't more "willing" to attack Iraq, they simply have fewer things to worry about. Iraq has virtually NO capability to stop the United States Air Force, as Tom pretty much already stated. The "article" is simply sh(i)tty journalism. As if the Air Force is somehow consulted on their "willingness" to engage targets. It doesn't work that way and it NEVER has.

 

Would the Army have more to worry about? Duh. See Iraq. And any other conflict where the objective is to simply hold ground while minimizing collateral damage. The Army knows they've been screwing up for the last 3 decades in how they prepare. What they don't know is how to fix it in any sort of short order.

[X. Benedict]

That is so stupid. Unbelievably stupid. This is why I hate the fukking media and refer to most people as lemmings.

 

Here's the deal:

As if the Air Force is somehow consulted on their "willingness" to engage targets. It doesn't work that way and it NEVER has.

 

- knock on door-

 

Oh, Air Force, good to see you, it has been a while since we talked. How are the wives and NCO's?

 

Splendid.

 

Just wanted to talk to you a little today to gauge your willingness to bomb things. You know,

just a little chat. I think this could be a great opportunity for you, so we have put a little package together here, and

along with a cost of living adjustment we are going to throw in repatriation insurance for any of your pilots landing

in enemy territory. It really is the best we could do, but we think you are the military service for this. Oh, yes, we talked

to the NAVY but they are really our second choice.

 

Think it over, have a chat with the officers and let me know your feelings by Monday.

If your willing it'll all be a go, then we'll do dinner.

[Alaska Darin]

- knock on door-

 

Oh, Air Force, good to see you, it has been a while since we talked. How are the wives and NCO's?

 

Splendid.

 

Just wanted to talk to you a little today to gauge your willingness to bomb things. You know,

just a little chat. I think this could be a great opportunity for you, so we have put a little package together here, and

along with a cost of living adjustment we are going to throw in repatriation insurance for any of your pilots landing

in enemy territory. It really is the best we could do, but we think you are the military service for this. Oh, yes, we talked

to the NAVY but they are really our second choice.

 

Think it over, have a chat with the officers and let me know your feelings by Monday.

If your willing it'll all be a go, then we'll do dinner.

 

Thankfully someone gets "it".

[/dev/null]

- knock on door-

 

Oh, Air Force, good to see you, it has been a while since we talked. How are the wives and NCO's?

 

Splendid.

 

Just wanted to talk to you a little today to gauge your willingness to bomb things. You know,

just a little chat. I think this could be a great opportunity for you, so we have put a little package together here, and

along with a cost of living adjustment we are going to throw in repatriation insurance for any of your pilots landing

in enemy territory. It really is the best we could do, but we think you are the military service for this. Oh, yes, we talked

to the NAVY but they are really our second choice.

 

Think it over, have a chat with the officers and let me know your feelings by Monday.

If your willing it'll all be a go, then we'll do dinner.

 

Yeah, Air Force we're putting TPS cover sheets on all our After Action Reviews. Did you get that memo? So if you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that will be great. And Uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another

copy of that memo Mmmkkay?

 

Oh and um, I'm gonna need you go ahead and bomb Iraq some more on Saturday. So if you could start around nine, that would be great.

 

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I'm gonna also need you to bomb Iran on Sunday too. We, uh, lost some popular support this week and we need to sorta catch up. Thanks.

[DC Tom]

That is so stupid. Unbelievably stupid. This is why I hate the fukking media and refer to most people as lemmings.

 

Here's the deal:

 

The Air Force isn't more "willing" to attack Iraq, they simply have fewer things to worry about. Iraq has virtually NO capability to stop the United States Air Force, as Tom pretty much already stated. The "article" is simply sh(i)tty journalism. As if the Air Force is somehow consulted on their "willingness" to engage targets. It doesn't work that way and it NEVER has.

 

Would the Army have more to worry about? Duh. See Iraq. And any other conflict where the objective is to simply hold ground while minimizing collateral damage. The Army knows they've been screwing up for the last 3 decades in how they prepare. What they don't know is how to fix it in any sort of short order.

 

Actually, I said Iran. Same point, though. Point holds for the Navy, as well; a CVBG has more combat power than most countries.

 

 

Plus...the service chiefs have little say in the operational matters. (Yeah, I know you know this, Darin, I'm speaking to the hoi polloi). Military operations are planned and executed by unified regional commands; service assets are assigned to them to perform the missions. The Army doesn't command any operations in Iraq, CENTCOM commands operations involving Army troops assigned to them. Ditto a strike on Iran: the Air Force or Navy aren't going to be ordered to bomb, CENTCOM is going to be told "Bomb Iran, here's the strike assets."

 

So the "willingness" of services to perform a mission means sh--. The unified commands execute the missions.

[Alaska Darin]

Actually, I said Iran. Same point, though. Point holds for the Navy, as well; a CVBG has more combat power than most countries.

Plus...the service chiefs have little say in the operational matters. (Yeah, I know you know this, Darin, I'm speaking to the hoi polloi). Military operations are planned and executed by unified regional commands; service assets are assigned to them to perform the missions. The Army doesn't command any operations in Iraq, CENTCOM commands operations involving Army troops assigned to them. Ditto a strike on Iran: the Air Force or Navy aren't going to be ordered to bomb, CENTCOM is going to be told "Bomb Iran, here's the strike assets."

 

So the "willingness" of services to perform a mission means sh--. The unified commands execute the missions.

Mistype on my part. Plus, I was agreeing with you. I'm glad you actually take the time to explain things because I get so sick of the stupidity that I'm not wasting my time with it.

[DC Tom]

Mistype on my part. Plus, I was agreeing with you. I'm glad you actually take the time to explain things because I get so sick of the stupidity that I'm not wasting my time with it.

 

But...but...but...I don't know what I'm talking about.