Comments

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.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

KOS: "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"

2007-09-02

"I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said. "But were all just waiting for this administration to end. Things that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and theres no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. Thats really weird. Its also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran."
Another way to view this: if/when Iran strikes, our military and administration would have been negligent if they hadn't planned and prepared in detail for that eventuality. There is nothing in this that indicates we are preparing for a first strike. Though we might be, if Iran continues towards their goal.

Posted by: KBK

#17 Cyber Sarge, psssssh! Shuddup.

Posted by: twobyfour 2007-09-02 23:13

#16 well apparently, the Kos Kids don't have the ballz to leave that post up......

Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-02 21:46

#15 Those of us above age 40 remember all the stories about how Reagan had his old feeble finger on the button and one day he was simply going to push. I was in Europe at the time and you could have read the U.S. Obituary in five languages in a three month period after Reagan won a landslide election. All the while we were undercutting the Soviets at every turn. Will Bush push the button on Iran? Why should he? Iran has an ARMED internal struggle to deal with and it's just a matter of time before the Mullah wake up and find they are no longer in power. Sure it will be bloody but it will be Iranian blood and that will make their ultimate downfall that much sweeter. But hey let tehm think we are planning a strike and waste time/money trying to blunt that.

Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-09-02 21:04

#14 ...Everybody keep your powder dry - there's more than a few indications coming out that this is another Scott Beauchamp at work.

Man, these people just do NOT get any smarter, do they?

Mike

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-09-02 20:50

#13 This KOS crap is the same bilge that they are peddlign about Bush doing Martial Law and establishing a dictatorship. Its the same "replace the commanders" stuff, the same "there are secrets but I cant say who what or where" and other trash like that.

1) We do not have sufficient casus belli for a full alpha-strike. Taking out warehouses and Quds commanders is a job for SpecOps. And proper border security obviates the need for this if we are truly serious about it. All a full aiurstrike does now is rally Iran hard to Ahmadi-nejad, cementing him into power, and pissed off the whole region against us, and causes all kinds of trouble internally in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

2) such a strike would blow up ALL the work we have done in Iraq by allowing AlQ to play on nationalist and racist elements to cause huge civil unrest, riots, etc. Countrproductive and stupid.

3) Iran may fall on its own if we have the balls to do the covert work.

4) Israel is more likely to striek nuke sites with or without our being informed.

5) we simply do not have the ground troop strenght to deal with it at this time. Yes we are takling about an Air campaign, but we are also talking about a subsequent HUGE increase in guerilla activity in the whole region. Also talking about destabilizing oil supplies, shutting the gulf down for weeks, and a hell of an economic shock.

People calling for this are stupid stupid stupid! You're not thinking it through, not from a military standpoint, nor a political one, nor an economic one.

There are better ways to use the military advantages we have over there. ANd its not time (yet) for such a strike. If it were, do you think morons liek the Daily Kos nutbags would know it? That alone should tell you its BS.

Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-02 19:32

#12 "Tyrannies have no sovereign rights."

Totally on the same page you are, Zenster. Only the false wisdom of "moral equivalence", that awards virtue apart from being earned, is what prevents the above from being followed, much less enacted upon.

Posted by: Ptah 2007-09-02 18:09

#11 'Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they cant build a nuke.'

Once again, Ayn Rand's point remains:

"Tyrannies have no sovereign rights."

Western leaders need to make this explicitly clear. All tin pot dictators and theocratic despots are fair game for any free nation to topple at will. Scumbags like Mugabe, Assad and Kim force this world to tow anchor. They are a millstone around our collective necks and need to have their own stretched post haste.

Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-02 15:27

#10 Any officer who openly questions a major military operation before it is ordered is one of two types.

He either has serious tactical questions about the character of the operation that he believes must be addressed, one way or another, in furtherance of the mission; OR, he is expressing an attitude that borders on insubordination.

If he is of the former group, he may be given a limited number of responses: an answer to his concerns; a referral of his question to a knowledgeable authority for answer; the denial of an answer on grounds of security; or, at worst, an order that he comply without question. In the last circumstance, he may legitimately submit his resignation.

However, in the latter case of borderline insubordination, they are not questioning a military decision, but a political decision.

For an officer to do this is grounds for immediate removal from any position of authority for such a mission, as much as if they questioned the legitimacy of military activity based on their religious beliefs.

An officer's hold on the privilege of a commission is tenuous at best. And while in peacetime it may seem more contractual in nature, the truth is that any question at all of his abilities or willingness to carry out his mission may result in immediate relief from duties and/or discharge.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-02 14:14

#9 "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"

Works for me.

Posted by: DMFD 2007-09-02 13:51

#8 'Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they cant build a nuke.'

this is not switzerland or brazil or even frickin indonesia getting the bomb (though i would suspect the aussies would have something to say about indo..antohter rant though)..we are talking abount a regime that's been calling for the destruction of america for over 30 years (and actively engaging in war by proxy against us)...do we leave it to chance they are just spewing rhetoric for local consumption? no leader can ignore this threat. Like it or not the mil will be engaged for many years --> We will be faced with conflict or surrender of our geo/mil position in the region to iran.

Posted by: dan 2007-09-02 13:08

#7 McZ: I disagree with the assessment that the IR army will do anything. They have been too thouroghly purged and controlled for too long.

Ditto the Iranian people. They grumble, but once the ordinance starts falling they will rally against the infidel. This is demonstrated again and again by strategic bombing surveys.

It don't matter how mean the checkist is, if he's the one giving you a warm place to sleep and food after the neghbhorhood has been leveled by secondaries from the ammo dump strike. You are gonna apprecate and obey him. The IRG are too canny a bunch of politicians to not do this.

OTOH, if we can make it clear that we consider the people irrelevant by our demonstrated accuracy and restraint, they will be too busy rebuilding and sorting out who's in charge to worry abt us.

Posted by: N Guard 2007-09-02 10:33

#6 And if the post has more negative votes than positive, is the poster voted off the island?

Posted by: mrp 2007-09-02 09:24

#5 Scroll down into the comments. KKKos himself is no prize, but many of his minions are out-and-out paranoid:

Guys... does he want to (32+ / 0-)
destroy this planet and go home to Jesus? I just can't believe he will really do this.
I think it's time for the military to NOT follow orders and save this country. I wish someone (even Gates) had the balls to stop him from doing this.
Knowing that Gates didn't even know about the additional $$$ they were asking for (was it $50 billion), I think that means that Dick has taken over.
by victoria2dc on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:33:31 PM PDT

No, he wants (40+ / 0-)
absolute US hegemony in the region and Iran is the only real impediment to that. Iran, Iraq, and Syria were the three nations that needed to be "Taken out", according to Bibi Netanyahu's "Clean Break" policy, and the PNAC group supported this.
by KibbutzAmiad on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:45:00 PM PDT

PNAC (39+ / 0-)
it's all in the plan
by lisastar on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:58:21 PM PDT

That's why I (41+ / 0-)
don't consider it a conspiracy - it has not been a secret. The PNAC people - many of them - appeared in Israel for years talking about this at conservative gatherings and fundraisers. They've put it in many documents and talked about it very openly. They believe that US hegemony is the only way to "secure the region" (e.g. the oil). How can we be conspiracy theorists when they come right out and say "This is what we plan to do"?
by KibbutzAmiad on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:17 PM PDT

yes (20+ / 0-)
have seen a number of articles on Haaertz.com with Israeli military sabre rattling re Iran, and promising to force US to do so. No surprises here.
by lisastar on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:11:06 PM PDT

How can Israel (2+ / 0-)
force the US to do anything?
by Danjuma on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:23:27 PM PDT

hmmm...AIPAC maybe? (15+ / 0-)
HRC Obama and Edwards have already been "hosted" and promised not to take anything off the table as far as war goes.
by lisastar on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:30:30 PM PDT

Indeed (14+ / 0-)
AIPAC and the fact that PNAC's founder, Richard Perle, as well as many of it's members were unabashedly pro-Israel.
by brave little park on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:40:03 PM PDT

Notice the little numbers in parentheses? Kos has a comments rating system; if you're a registered member reading a thread, you can give each comment a positive or negative rating, and those numbers are reported in the comment's subject heading.

Note that the blatantly paranoid, Israel-is-running-everything comments have a bunch of positives, and no negatives.

Posted by: Mike 2007-09-02 09:18

#4 Well, nothing wrong with a discussion of orders is there? Get together, comb it over, discuss. Set up a rigorous debate, get the facts, run a few concepts up flagpoles prepare the Bucks for the Passing.

Posted by: Throper Ghibelline9098 2007-09-02 05:55

#3 If this is true, they did the right things. ==> If this is true, the government did the right by not "sharing" this information.

Posted by: gorb 2007-09-02 03:26

#2 "Really weird" to not tell everyone in the Armed Forces what is going on here? Since when were XOs and the like involved in planning strikes on ~~targets~~ countries like Iran? It would be foolish to include them bacause as this ~~tool~~ XO has so aptly proven, the ship will leak like a sieve if they do. If this is true, they did the right things. The moonbats who make up KOS have hung themselves again. Or perhaps KOS has gone fishing for evidence supporting their theories.

Posted by: gorb 2007-09-02 03:24

#1 Here we go again. Ahmadinejad peddled himself as a bridge between tradition and modernity. Most Iranians are aware that they bought a bill of goods. While he has Basij (Islamic storm trooper) support, most urban - those who matter - Iranians despise him as an "Arabist." Under that goof, Basijis have been used as strike breakers for Ayatollah owned companies. Under the oligarchy, monopolists have no incentive to purchase new and safer equipment, because they have no competition. Workers are hurting, and they are aware that incompetent economic management forces Iran to pay billions to other Gulf states, to refine their oil.

Heavy bombing of Qom - as a strategic terror center - and the nuclear sites and the Khomeini Monument in Teheran, would cause professional military elements to topple the Ayatollahs, and install a secular regime. The notion of requisite door to door fighting by hundreds of thousands of US troops, is a joke. However, the Iranian government does have an effective missile counter force, that could cause havoc in the Gulf. But, even there, military professionals would prefer to look beyond conflict.

If there is a raid - and Bush might shut it down because of the Iraq situation - then it would best be done before the Winter cold. Of course, people were predicting attacks last year. Somebody, flip a coin.

Posted by: McZoid 2007-09-02 02:12

00:00