| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Attack Iran? We're Ready |
| 2006-01-18 |
| Global strike constitutes a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, a capability that has been developed wherein the President could order an attack within hours. Since at least the middle of 2004, U.S. long-range bombers and submarines have been on alert to carry out an attack on weapons of mass destruction targets that could potentially threaten the United States. At Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha, the global strike plan has been written and refined. The choreography for bomber and cruise missile attacks has been arranged. Actual targets have been selected, and WMD activity is monitored, resulting in constant revisions of the choreography. In May, I wrote that the plan also includes options to use nuclear weapons. But the attractiveness and feasibility of the new global strike planning is that a disarming blow can theoretically be delivered with conventional weapons alone. The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed the military in 2002 to create the capability to undertake "unwarned strikes" in crisis situations. If Iran continues to defy the international community and manufactures nuclear weapons materials, and if U.S. intelligence detects peculiar movements or actions associated with nuclear facilities or, say, Iranian arming and alerting of its ballistic missile or fighter force, CONPLAN 8022 could be implemented to strike at the activity. Given that the justification for preemption and for the global strike capability is to prevent "another 9/11," this time one with WMD, it wouldn't be relevant whether the United States was confident that it knew where ever last gram of Iran's weapons were. The focus would be against Iran's ability to deliver a WMD. The objective would be to forestall another 9/11. A strike that halted preparations for attack and set back the program so that it was no longer an immediate threat would be a success under the Bush administration's plan. This is why commentators who warn that the United States does not know where all of Iran's nuclear capabilities are missing the point. Under global strike, the objective wouldn't be to "disarm" Iran: It would be to stop it. But equally those who froth that a strike is imminent don't get it. Sure, the President spoke of an "axis of evil" after 9/11 but since then many realities have sunk in: The U.S. is overwhelmed in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. allies are as skeptical as ever regarding the use of force and even the government is more modest about what it "knows" after the intelligence failures since 9/11. Someday, though, the President might indeed order a global strike. The argument on the part of the government would be that a preemptive strike on Iran was last ditch and defensive. Perhaps those who are opining about the subject should stop going around in circles about irrelevant claims and address the real program and its real justifications. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #12 "We're going to go through those Hun bastards like crap through a goose" Gen George S Patton |
| Posted by: badanov 2006-01-18 23:34 |
| #11 #8: "If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." - John Wayne Sorry, that was Gen. George S. Patton. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-01-18 22:54 |
| #10 #5 NS: "Sort of like it took 120 years for the U. S. to get over the Civil War." The US got over the |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-01-18 22:51 |
| #9 OK YS if you want to wheel out Duke quotes, I think this one may be more appropriate to the Mullahs: Life is hard, being stupid makes it harder. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-01-18 20:34 |
| #8 "If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." - John Wayne |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2006-01-18 12:05 |
| #7 No way, anon1! "it won't solve the problem or win the war" Name the one battle in WWII that solved the problem or won the war. "they will hide some and you won't find them" They don't have them yet, and we won't stop watching. You don't build uranium processing plants and thousands of centrifuges in a garage and operate them on batteries. "The war can only be won by neutralising radical islam." And WWII was only won by neutralising Nazi politics? "This is an ideological war." They're all either ideological or pure greed for power/resources (e.g., Saddam taking Kuwait). "I would spend billions training imams..." Iran is not giving us that much time. "reform islam and it's game over" Islam is not giving us that much time either. Your strategy may have had some merit a few decades ago, but that was before Islam got its hands on WMDs. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-01-18 11:37 |
| #6 anon1 In the case of Iran time is the big factor. If they weren't on the verge getting nukes, the reform route might be valid. As it is, I think patience is a vice when it comes to Ahmadinejad & co. |
| Posted by: Gloting Snumble2857 2006-01-18 11:32 |
| #5 Stopping the nukes buys more time to reform Islam. And it might discourage the Iranians form restarting the project if they realize we have 10 years to develop new technology to whack them next time. I doubt Islam can be "reformed" in less than 120 years, enough time that no one is alive who remembers the glorious days of UBL. Sort of like it took 120 years for the U. S. to get over the Civil War. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-18 11:32 |
| #4 anon1: The war is both military and ideological. We can't retrain the imams--not directly. We can and must work harder on the PR end, but we need more Arabic/Farsi/Turkik/etc speakers and a few decades. In the meantime we have a few problems that are likely to require tools that go bang. |
| Posted by: James 2006-01-18 11:26 |
| #3 you can shoot the WMD installations, and you will neutralise the ones you know about. but it won't solve the problem or win the war. and they will hide some and you won't find them. The war can only be won by neutralising radical islam. This is an ideological war. I would spend billions training imams and pressuring the mullahs to subtly move in the right direction. reform islam and it's game over. |
| Posted by: anon1 2006-01-18 11:01 |
| #2 We're overwhelmed in Iraq and Afghanistan We are overwhelmed - politically. I can already hear the comparisons to the justifications for invading Iraq and how we got it wrong. With the elections coming up soon, the GOP will not want to go down that path again any time soon. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2006-01-18 10:38 |
| #1 We're not overwhelmed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a different game, as Bush and everyone else in the Administration has repeatedly said. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-01-18 09:54 |