You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
CENTCOM drafts plans for war with Iran
2006-04-13
The U.S. Central Command is preparing contingency plans for the prospect of an American-led war against Iran.

Officials stressed that Centcom has not received orders to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. But they said the command is conducting exhaustive research as part of a process which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called 'not unusual' and discussed at length yesterday at the Pentagon.

Officials said Centcom's war planning was based on a thorough study of Iranian capabilities, threats, intentions and Teheran's presumed assessments of U.S. military power. They said U.S. military planners would base contingency drafts on the need to surprise Iran in any confrontation.

"Clearly this country, for the better part of 15 years, has had various contingency plans," Rumsfeld, who would not discuss planning on Iran, said. "That's what this department does is plan for various contingencies. And it's not unusual, and one would be critical of the department were they not to have done so."

"I remain persuaded that we would be able to do anything that our nation asks us to do," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, director of strategic policy and planning at Centcom, said. "And any nation that somehow miscalculates in that regard is making a tremendous mistake."

Kimmitt told Arab journalists in a briefing in London that the United States remains committed to resolving the crisis with Iran through diplomacy. But he said Centcom was studying a range of scenarios, including the prospect of an Iranian-sponsored Islamic insurgency campaign in wake of a U.S. military confrontation with Teheran.

"This entire issue of Iran has to be focused not simply on the specific issues within Iran," Kimmitt said on April 10. "But any time we review a situation whether it is diplomatic, economic or military, we always take into account the fact that the problem cannot be seen in isolation. But it does have ripple effects throughout the area."

In a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday, Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlined the war planning process. They said a U.S. regional military command, such as Centcom, routinely reviews threat scenarios and submits recommendations to the Pentagon.

"Then they take one of them in sequence, and they'll say, 'Here are the assumptions that we're going to operate on. How do you feel about that?'" Rumsfeld said. "Then Pete [Pace] and I and others and the chiefs will talk about the assumptions and we'll get that right. Then they'll go back out and they'll start to develop a plan based on those assumptions for that particular niche. Then we work through that — that may take six months — back and forth, back and forth. Then they'll take another piece of their responsibility and do the same thing."

Pace traced the numerous discussions that preceded the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003. He said that in late 2001 Rumsfeld — "once it became apparent that we may have to take military action" — asked then-Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks to draft war plans against Iraq.

"Over the next two years, 50 or 60 times, Tom Franks either came to Washington or by video teleconference, sat down with the secretary of defense, sat down with the Joint Chiefs and went over what he was thinking, how he was planning," Pace said "...What happened was, in a very open roundtable discussion, questions about what might go right, what might go wrong, what would you need, how would you handle it, and that happened with the Joint Chiefs and it happened with the secretary."

Pace said that Franks, who since retirement has opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq, met the Joint Chiefs before President George Bush relayed the final order for war against Iraq. The chairman said the Joint Chiefs determined that Centcom's plan was solid and its resource requirements would be fulfilled.

"We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us because the opportunity is there," Pace said. "It is elicited from us. You know, we're expected to. And the plan that was executed was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians as they should, revamped by military officers, and blessed by the senior military leadership."

Officials said Central Command was preparing to restructure and significantly reduce the U.S. military presence as part of the war against Al Qaida in the region. They said more than 200,000 American soldiers — supported by 50,000 allied troops — serve in Centcom's area of command, which extends from Egypt in the west to Kirgyzstan in the east. Since January, about 27,000 U.S. soldiers have left Iraq.

"After Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized Washington will maintain sufficient forces in the region to respond, to deter, and to prevent," Kimmitt said. "But it will be a fraction of what we have today because the U.S. does not to give the impression that we are there permanently and give weight to the Al Qaida arguments that say that the only reason the Americans are there is to permanently occupy."

Kimmitt said Al Qaida has formed a small presence in Iran and could seek to establish training bases in the country. He called on Teheran to arrest these operatives.

"It is not only in failed states that Al Qaida can find safe havens," Kimmitt said. "It is also in advanced nations as well."

Kimmitt said the United States has sought talks with Iran regarding the future of Iraq. He said the talks — suspended until the formation of a government in Baghdad — would be restricted to security issues, particularly Iranian intervention in Iraq.

"The specific brief of the talks is to discuss with Iran some of the security concerns the two countries have with regards to Iraq," Kimmitt said. "We are talking about narrow focus talks with Iran which is a geographical neighbour and there are some concerns about its behavior in Iraq."

During the briefing, Kimmitt maintained that the prospect of a civil war in Iraq remained "very low." He said the Iraqi military, unlike that in Lebanon or Yugoslavia, has remained stable despite rising sectarian tension.

"Where there has been sectarian violence you have not seen the Iraqi security forces break down and the military break down and say 'I am going to my people Ramadi or Faluja or Basra, Suleimeniya," Kimmitt said. "At this point I still believe the chances for full-scale civil war to be low, but I also believe that we must stay vigilant every day to ensure that doesn't happen."
Posted by:Anonymoose

#18  Dang it. The Iranians have got illegal satellite dishes all over the place. EVERY SINGLE NIGHT they should be receiving a "Horrors of Nuclear War" channel, filled with the most nightmarish programming we have. If nothing else, show the movie "Threads" over and over again.

Give them 40 years of nuclear terror month on end until we get it through their thick head what they are facing.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-04-13 21:44  

#17  I take Bush at his word. WE won't need fallout shelters.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-04-13 20:57  

#16  Refineries? - check
Hydroelectric generation? - check
(Remember to knock out all the other generating facilities)
Shut down port facilities and airfields. One way or another, seal air vents and doorways to underground facilities.
A sustained propaganda effort along the lines of: "The current Iranian rulers have been dedicated to terrorism since 1979. They have loudly proclaimed their intent to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror, and we take them at their word." Make sure this message gets into Iran, over and over again.
These sanctions are within the power of the US to take. Other sanctions only work if the rest of the world cooperates - ain't gonna happen. Fifth column support for Islamic fascism is world-wide, not just a problem in the west.
Be prepared for a storm of MSM confusion and discord, massive outbursts of terror in Iraq and nearby countries, and for $5 - $10/gallon gas domestically (if not outright shortages of fuel). Consider gas rationing.

The other alternative is go back to the mentality of the 50's, buy Geiger countries, stock up on food & build fallout shelters.
Not a pleasant choice.

Posted by: Snuns Thromp1484   2006-04-13 17:57  

#15  Why not open up with economic sanctions ala Paleo V 2.0? it is working so good there that in one week the seethers are down to crumbs, the same thing could be done in Iran; admittedly it might take longer. And include the "we won't sell you goods" upgrade, so even if they continue to take in dollars, euros, lira, monopoly, whatever, they can't eat it, can they?
Jus' wonderin' is all.
Personnaly I am still partial to a zero-dark-thirty aluminum overcast followed by iron rain.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-04-13 14:28  

#14  Why bother bombing nuclear facilities? Iran has only 9 refineries and a limited number of hydroelectric generation facilities. A few well placed sorties turn off the electricity for the country. It is very hard to produce nuclear weapons as you sit in the dark with no gasoline and no electricity. Of course, they mullahs may not notice the difference.
Posted by: RWV   2006-04-13 13:51  

#13  There are two General Franks. One was in command of a Corps in Iraq War I. General Tommy Franks was in command in Afghanistan and Iraq War II. I believe somebody is getting their General Franks mixed up. Everything I've read and heard General Tommy Franks say is supportive of the War. who since retirement has opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq I believe this was inserted by the writer and he's the one who has his Franks mixed up, although I've not read or heard the other General Franks point of view lately.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-04-13 13:29  

#12  Franks is retired. He commands a very high speaking fee, a VIP hotel room and a limo.
Posted by: 2b   2006-04-13 13:12  

#11  I *think* LtGen?? Frank?? Franks is still on active duty.
Posted by: lotp   2006-04-13 13:10  

#10  Fred? He's not that dumb, is he?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-04-13 12:52  

#9  The other General Franks maybe?
Posted by: 6   2006-04-13 12:48  

#8  from a 2004 Parade magazine article:

Franks did only eight media briefings during the main Afghan and Iraqi campaigns. But no one should underestimate his power and influence. His war plans all but eviscerated the military’s cherished “Powell doctrine,” articulated by now Secretary of State Colin Powell, which called for the use of overwhelming force against the enemy. Franks instead went into Iraq with just one Coalition soldier for every 2.5 Iraqi troops. Unhappy with how the heads of the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy “nitpicked” his plans for the Afghan war, Franks says he made clear to his civilian bosses at the Pentagon that the other generals’ presence at his daily satellite briefings was “not helpful” and that he wanted to be “left the hell alone to run the Iraq War.” He largely got his wish.

... After 9/11, Franks wrote a war plan for Afghanistan in 10 days. It relied on air power, Special Forces troops and Afghan militias. Not everyone in the military liked it, just as they didnÂ’t like his plans for Iraq. Franks was accused of trying to please Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, rather than holding out for what was best for the forces on the ground.

What Went Wrong

Franks now bristles at these suggestions. He maintains that, in Iraq, “having a smaller force gave the U.S. an element of surprise.” He believes that the quick rush to Baghdad saved Iraq’s oil wells from destruction, prevented total sabotage of its water supply and thwarted deadly missile attacks on U.S. forces. The only people who were surprised by Baghdad’s quick fall on April 9, 2003, he says, were the “cable news folks, like al-Jazeera and CNN.”

Franks says his biggest surprise of the campaign was the failure to find WMD—“the reason we went to war.” Every sign, he insists, from Arab leaders to intelligence estimates, had indicated that Saddam had them. “The only time a dead certainty applies is in a dream world,” he says.

While the campaign was formidable, the turbulent aftermath is likely to make Franks’ legacy more mixed. Things in Iraq went “as I had expected, not as I had hoped,” says Franks, who retired two months after formal hostilities ended. The U.S. let Americans and the world think “the post-war phase would be over as quickly as the hostilities,” he explains, “while the Iraqis expected to go from the dark ages to the prosperous middle class overnight.”

Franks clearly is disappointed in the Iraqis, who, in his view, initially chose looting and insurgency over “pulling themselves together to reform their country.” And he faults the international community, which never committed “serious numbers of peacekeepers or funds” to help Iraq after Saddam. During the planning, Franks and his team expected that 150,000 international troops would join U.S. forces in the post-war phase. They never materialized.

Could the current guerrilla war have been prevented, as critics contend? Franks says he isn’t sure. Knowing what he knows now, he would still attack with the same size force. But, he adds, he would handle the “approach and reconnaissance around key towns differently.” Yet he doubts that either would have changed the final result, although other strategists surely will disagree. Flooding the country with cash to quickly employ “angry young Iraqis” might have helped too, he adds.

What Lies Ahead

Franks believes that five years is a realistic timeline for the U.S. to be involved in Iraq, noting that the country has to dig itself out of a “30-year hole.” He says, “It takes time to solve problems when you’re talking about 25 to 26 million people.”

Looking back, Franks believes that the world is “far safer” without Saddam Hussein. And he is distressed by what he calls “the U.S.’s flogging of itself.” Says Franks: “America is not responsible for terrorism against America. Terrorists are responsible.”


Meanwhile, Franks hopes that we continue to fight terrorists outside the U.S.: “If you want your grandchildren to grow up in an open society, we’d better deal with the problem as far away from here as possible, even though that’s not easy or easily affordable.” He adds: “The blessings of this country are not by accident.”
Posted by: lotp   2006-04-13 12:12  

#7  I sent a "friendly" email to World Tribune requesting their source(s) for this.

Ha! like I think I will get an answer! But hey, it's a virtual Friday in our office! (off tomorrow)
Posted by: Sherry   2006-04-13 12:09  

#6  don't believe it
Posted by: Frank G   2006-04-13 12:04  

#5  Sherry, I had that same reaction. I haven't seen anything by Franks like that.
Posted by: Matt   2006-04-13 11:48  

#4  Franks, who since retirement has opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq

Question? Is this true? I'm having trouble finding statements by Franks to back up this theory.
Posted by: Sherry   2006-04-13 11:31  

#3  Pace said that Franks, who since retirement has opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq
?
Franks?
Posted by: 6   2006-04-13 11:31  

#2  Think of it as moving to "DEFCON 3".
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-04-13 09:52  

#1  The U.S. Central Command is preparing contingency plans for the prospect of an American-led war against Iran.

We already have one. For high threat countries, it is updated every year or less. They are just updating it with all the current intel and will updated it weekly at least now that Iran is in the crosshairs.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-04-13 09:41  

00:00