[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.

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.

[anabolicrhino]

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!

[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.

[Frank Costanza]

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."

[Jayhawkk]

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

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

An email from a Marine in Iraq on sending more troops

The troops hated Patton

[Jayhawkk]

in was in response to this picture


And them having combat patches

[Jayhawkk]

Just funny how you get so many perspectives on one issue.

[Frank Costanza]

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.

[Jayhawkk]

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.

[Frank Costanza]

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?