EYEING IRAN By RALPH PETERS - AnabolicMinds.com

EYEING IRAN By RALPH PETERS

  1. Registered User
    AGELESS's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  212 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    70
    Posts
    312
    Rep Power
    271

    Reputation

    EYEING IRAN By RALPH PETERS


    EYEING IRAN By RALPH PETERS

    January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.

    Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations? There's a one-word answer:

    Iran.

    ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.

    While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and
    trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

    In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)

    Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand. STRENGTHENING his qualifications, numerous blue-water assignments and his duties at PACOM schooled him on the intricacies of the greater Indian Ocean- the key strategic region for the 21st-century and the one that would be
    affected immediately by a U.S. conflict with Iran.

    The admiral also understands China's junkie-frantic oil dependency and its consequent taste for geopolitical street-crime: During a U.S. operation against Iran, Beijing would need its fix guaranteed.

    While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose.

    Now, pressed by strategic dilemmas and humiliating reverses, Bush is doing what FDR had to do in the dark, early months of 1942: He's turning to the Navy.

    AS a retired Army officer, I remain proud of and loyal to my service. I realize that the Army's leaders are disappointed to see the CentCom slot go to an admiral in the midst of multiple ground wars. But, beyond the need for a Navy man at the helm should we have to take on Iran, there's yet another reason for sending Fallon to his new assignment: The Army's leadership has failed us at the strategic level.

    After Gen. Eric Shinseki was sidelined for insisting on a professional approach to Iraq, Army generals did plenty of fine tactical and operational work - but they never produced a strategic vision for the greater Middle East. Our Army is deployed globally, but our generals never seem to acquire the knack of thinking beyond the threat hypnotizing them at the moment (the Marines,with their step-brother ties to the Navy, do a better job of acting locally while thinking globally). Perhaps the Army's Gen. Dave Petraeus will emerge as an incisive strategic thinker after he takes command in Baghdad, but his predecessors routinely got mired in tactical details and relied - fatally - on other arms of government to do the strategic thinking.

    The reasons are complex, ranging from service culture to educational traditions, but it's incontestable that the Navy long has produced our military's best strategic thinkers - captains and admirals able to transcend parochial interests to see the global security environment as a whole. Adm. Fallon's
    job is to avoid the tyranny of the moment, to see past the jumble of operational pieces and visualize how those pieces ultimately might fit together.

    NOR is the Iran problem the only Navy-first issue facing CENTCOM. As you read this, our ships are patrolling the coast of Somalia to intercept fleeing terrorists - and have been hunting pirates in the same waters for years. China's future development (and internal peace) is tied to dependable supplies of Middle-Eastern and African oil transiting Indian-Ocean sea lanes, as well as to shipping goods along the same routes. In a future confrontation with China,our ability to shut down the very routes we're now challenged to protect would be vital.

    Not least because of the botch-up in Iraq, there's a growing sense of the limitations of U.S. ground-force involvement in the Middle East. That doesn't mean we won't see further necessity-driven interventions and even other occupations, only that our strategic planners have begun to grasp that
    positive change in the region - if it comes at all - is going to take far longer than many of us hoped and won't always be amenable to boots-on-the-ground prodding. If we can't determine everything that happens in the Big Sandbox, we need to be able to control access to and from the playground - a classic Navy mission.

    And in the end the United States remains primarily a maritime power. As Sir Walter Raleigh pointed out 400 years ago, he who controls the waters controls the world. Gen. Petraeus is going to Baghdad to deal with our present problems.
    Adm. Fallon is going to the U.S. Central Command to deal with the future.

  2. Senior Member
    anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by AGELESS
    EYEING IRAN By RALPH PETERS

    January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.

    Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations? There's a one-word answer:

    Iran.

    It is simply a matter of phase II of the overall operation. The USA has established 30+ ground bases in Iraq. Now it is time: not to just "protect" the flow of oil, but to "control" it!!!



    And in the end the United States remains primarily a maritime power. As Sir Walter Raleigh pointed out 400 years ago, he who controls the waters controls the world. Gen. Petraeus is going to Baghdad to deal with our present problems.
    Adm. Fallon is going to the U.S. Central Command to deal with the future.
    The entire worlds commerce system is governed by "British Maritime Law" as established over 200 years ago. Look for the gold fringed flags. Any flag that is gold fringed is operating under the auspices of "British Maritime Law". So, controlling the seas is a big advantage not just strategically but also legally!
  3. New Member
    The Colonel 333's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    38
    Posts
    69
    Rep Power
    133

    Reputation

    I have to agree with Mr. Peters article somewhat. It is VERY rare to put a Navy ADM. in charge of a ground war. Hmmm makes you wonder.
    This is a bit of a stab here and a rhetorical question but if the President always listens to his Generals then why did he replace the ones that said a 20,000 troop surge would do us no good?
    I do know this, something is about to change there is a LOT of Naval activity in the Persian Gulf. Maybe Mr. Ralph Peters is right on the money.
    •   
       

  4. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by The Colonel 333
    I have to agree with Mr. Peters article somewhat. It is VERY rare to put a Navy ADM. in charge of a ground war. Hmmm makes you wonder.
    This is a bit of a stab here and a rhetorical question but if the President always listens to his Generals then why did he replace the ones that said a 20,000 troop surge would do us no good?
    I do know this, something is about to change there is a LOT of Naval activity in the Persian Gulf. Maybe Mr. Ralph Peters is right on the money.
    Because both already we're set to retire and their references needing more troops in 2005 when things we're much more stable or in early 2006 when politicians we're still protecting the militias. It doesnt make sense to increase troop levels if they can't fire.

    I suggest Democrats read the Baker_Hamilton Study group (the one they lean on) because I believe page 72? states that there might be the need to increase troops by 18-20k before you start to pull out. Why? To secure Baghdad.


    Actually the pages are wrong, but here is what it says.

    "The most important questions about Iraq’s future are now the responsibility of Iraqis. The
    United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their
    own destiny.
    The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by
    increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and
    to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military
    personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these
    actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.
    "
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  5. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,789
    Rep Power
    11678

    Reputation

    And we're going to send 20,000 more mother****ers to kick doors in Baghdad? **** that, un-ass Camp Victory and teach those twats to eat meat or get ground into it. Why the **** do mine and your kids (don't lie either ****ers...and that includes nieces, nephews, etc) have to go earn their keep in the slums of Baghdad while soft palmed *edit* command and staff military and contractor support lay back reading SIPR messages all day and writing home to their wives and families how utterly "HARD" it is over here and how they can't wait to get back home to be with them while they're either sucking a *edit* cuz they're little *big edit*that can't get along with a woman, or banging the young intel Captain cuz she's got a career ahead of her, wants to join the "agency" and doesn't want to lose her clearance for some other daliance thats known to the "made" Col who's been implicated before for rape. Its Rome, its a social experiment, its Arm-eee training! Let freedom ring. ****, get the 82nd choir to chortle some latin bull**** about faith, hope and charity while the staff generals bang Iraqi models ala Lonetree.
    An email from a Marine in Iraq on sending more troops
  6. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
    An email from a Marine in Iraq on sending more troops
    The troops hated Patton
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  7. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,789
    Rep Power
    11678

    Reputation

    in was in response to this picture


    And them having combat patches
  8. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,789
    Rep Power
    11678

    Reputation

    Just funny how you get so many perspectives on one issue.
  9. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Thats why you don't run a war with 535 congressional voices. You would never get anything done...lol

    The last time Congress took over, you had the killing fields of Cambodia.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  10. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,789
    Rep Power
    11678

    Reputation

    I agree and the same about people talking about the Generals not approving of the President's plan to invrease troop strength. Even high ranking military members will never agree on how to put a plan into action.
  11. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,911
    Rep Power
    7016

    Reputation

    Yep, and its not like Bush is doing it for political reasons. Its political suicide. The Republicans and Democrats shouting from the rooftops are thinking about reelection in 2008 so I tend to look at it from the point as who do you trust now since they areall liars to a point. The person who is committing political suicide or the ones trying to get reelected?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Step By Step Keto Diet Plan!
    By Blindfaith in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 251
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 10:46 PM
  2. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 04:58 AM
  3. Protein Squares by request
    By wardog in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-27-2003, 01:27 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-20-2003, 12:55 PM
  5. Happy B-Day Ralph!!
    By YellowJacket in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-15-2002, 08:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in