Posted on 01/06/2007 4:34:24 AM PST by slowhand520
EYEING IRAN WHY W'S TAPPING ADMIRAL TO HEAD CENTRAL COMMAND
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 avia tor 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Thanks for the article. I thought that was weird when I read it the other day. Makes sense - if - that's what they have up their sleeves. Our resolve is something else I wonder about...
I wonder if this means that they will be bringing in more Navy officers to work on the ground in Iraq?
I have a feeling my son's deployment has just been extended.
Anything - as long as the show is run by military men and the pols are shut out.
The US navy will need to keep the oil flowing during the upcoming Iran-Saudi war.
But it will be a losing battle to keep oil below $200 a barrel.
Future fortunes are awaiting those who buy oil shares at these fire sale prices.
BUMP
D'oh! As obvious as the nose on your face if you only bother to look down. Of course!
This one's for you, baby! Happy New Year!
I thought it was part of "W"s scheme to weaken the Pacific Command as a favor to communist china.
Why do you believe this?
Not arguing, just asking.
There was just an article posted yesterday that stated Britain's Parliament had agreed to mothball half their fleet.....
Perhaps this will be wrapped up prior to mothballing.
admiral...let's see. He's in charge of carrier groups and a couple of MEU's.... yep. Iran...
Makes sense to me. Time to dismantle Iran's military in its entirety. Reduce it to rubble. Long overdue. They invaded the United States in 1979 under Jimmah Carter and we did nothing in response. And that's ultimately what caused 9/11 because of our perceived weakness.
Yowsir, sweetie. And President Bush is gonna announce his 'new' strategery next week, too!
Looks like the w/o Jan 8 is gonna get interesting. I'll lay-in supplies at Firebase-Gonzo. Bring yer own ammo - that way you'll know it fits ................. FRegards
It is military men who've been trying to run a counterinsurgency campaign. That is military doctrine, not political doctrine. If you are of the "bomb them all back to the stone age" ilk, your issue is with the military. A key part of counterinsurgency is to clear a difficult area, hold it, establish connections to the local establishment, and bring in public works and economic development. It has absolutely nothing to do with bombing or shooting up everything and everyone in sight. I don't think the counterinsurgency has been run well enough. And I think that is what is going to change. That, and the Iraqis are gonna get their stuff together, or else.
This guy isn't just an admiral, he was head of the Pacific Command. This was my first reaction, too, on hearing the news. It doesn't make much sense to put an admiral into Iraq unless you anticipate some sort of multi-service effort coming down the pike. Then it makes perfect sense, because he would be the logical person to coordinate carrier groups, air force bombers from Diego Garcia, possible amphibious forces, etc., etc.
There's no intention to do what's needed: an invasion, occupation and denazification of Iran. The intent is to spend a few more $100 billion dollars to post more guards around the oil routes in order to try to protect the oil for our importers. There are also obviously efforts underway to make nice with the mullahs in exchange for their taking their lapdog (Ahmanutjob) out of office and replace him with more of a smoothie terrorist.
Why get in a fight and pay more for import freight fuel and domestic labor today, when we can let the Islamist regimes build-up their military/nuclear forces more for an attack against us tomorrow? It's better to spend more $100s of millions of tax dollars to subsidize putting the War off until tomorrow and letting our shrinking population of kids take care of it (or be conquered).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.