Posted on 10/22/2007 11:49:27 PM PDT by freedomdefender
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff plans to press Congress and the public to sustain the current high levels of military spending — even after the Iraq war — arguing for money to repair and replace worn-out weapons and to restore American ground forces he described as “breakable,” though not yet broken.
The new chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, expressed deep concerns that the long counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have so consumed the military that the Army and Marine Corps may be unprepared for a high-intensity war against a major adversary.
He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.
With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.
But Admiral Mullen warned any nation, including Iran, not to “mistake restraint for lack of commitment or lack of concern or lack of capability.” He described the Air Force and Navy as America’s “strategic reserve,” ready to carry out a full range of combat operations beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.
“We’re in a conflict in two countries out there right now,” he added. “We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world.”
Keep in mind that that is from the New York Times, so it has dubious credibility.
Given the civilian command structure of our military, I have a hard time believing that any current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would take a position on whether we should attack a certain country or not.
When they print a retraction, saying this was not a real quote, you let me know. Otherwise, it stands as what the man said. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn't want us to invade or bomb Iran, that's pretty clear.
You say you don’t believe he said this? They have a link to the press conference; click it and see for yourself.
Sure enough, true to form, the NY Times misrepresented his answers to their questions.
Here's what they asked him about attacking Iran:
So taking the nuclear question off the table, is there some other kind of military steps that should be taken to save the lives of American troops from Iranian weapons in Iraq?
And this is his complete answer:
A. I think we can do some things. Clearly, there is a need to stop the — to stem the flow of that technology into Iraq and into Afghanistan. There is a very important focus on that right now on the borders on where it flows and on how to stop it, or how to make sure that once it’s in the country that it doesn’t kill Americans. That said, that doesn’t get at the source of it. I’m not — I think that the question you pose is still out there. And the question of should we in fact do that, and given the risks that are associated with that. And the implication is that should we in fact strike targets in Iran if we knew that’s where the, you know, if we had specifics about where that was coming from. That’s a, obviously, a very, very difficult question to answer because of the risks that are associated with doing something like that. It’s also one well above my pay grade, even in this job.
So you see, not only did he not reject attacking Iran, (As I posted before, that's not his decision to make), the reporter specifically asked him not to comment on the Iranian nuclear question. Yet the reporter still said this in the article:
He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops
Kind of a neat trick, isn't it? Ask him not to comment on the nuclear question, and report the answer as if he did. (And of course, misrepresent the answer.)
Once again, the NY Times lives up to its reputation for slanted reporting.
As for waiting for a retraction before I pass judgment, given the Times' notorious slowness in issuing retractions, I don't think I can wait that long.
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.