Mlitary and Diplomatic Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War

[BigRedChief]

http://gma.yahoo.com/report-us-strik...023148627.html

You posters on here wanting to attack Iran had better consider the consequenses of military action. I'm on record as believing that Iran cant be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But we really, really, really need think and consider the ramifications of a military strike.

Some excerpts:

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or U.S. — on Iran," retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective — shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.
"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked."

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you are wrong. He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense.

Name one.

The guy asleep under the overpass by my house would have said to shoot Osama or some teenage Somali pirate

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you are wrong. He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense.

Errr, when?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Name one.

The guy asleep under the overpass by my house would have said to shoot Osama or some teenage Somali pirate

The Bin Laden decision wasnt an easy one.

We only had 50% confidence that Bin Laden was there. We were invading another countries space. Attacking in their West Point town. Some powerful Generals family or friends could have got caught in the crossfire. Some little girl could have got killed. A helicopter could have been shot down or crash and its Carter all over. They get into a full fledged fire fight on the way out. And they dont even get evidence that Bin Laden is dead.

It revisionist history to think all Republicans would have doen the same thing. McCain and all the Republicans were calling Obama a nutcase for calling on using drones to attack Al-Quaeda inside of Pakistan without Pakistani permission Including Romney. He is unbalanced, the Pakistani's are our friends.

Stopping the trial in NY for Zewbai cost him politically.

Not closing Gitmo cost him politically

Keeping renedition cost him politically

Pushing to keep the Patriotic act cost him politically

Increasing the defense budget instead of cutting the budget cost him politically

Not withdrawing from Afghanistan immediately cost him politically

Not letting Israel dictate an Iran line in the sand cost him politically

Using a drone to kill an American citzen who hadnt been convicted of being a terriost twice cost him politically

Using drones to kill terriosts in other countries that he knows will cause colleteral damage cost him politically

Continues the NSA wiretaps of Americans

[BigRedChief]

I wrote this about Obama:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you are wrong. He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense.

So you guys went all FU prove it

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Name one.

The guy asleep under the overpass by my house would have said to shoot Osama or some teenage Somali pirate

Originally Posted by Donger

Errr, when?

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Yeah whatever.

So, I didnt give you one, I gve you many examples below

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The Bin Laden decision wasnt an easy one.

We only had 50% confidence that Bin Laden was there. We were invading another countries space. Attacking in their West Point town. Some powerful Generals family or friends could have got caught in the crossfire. Some little girl could have got killed. A helicopter could have been shot down or crash and its Carter all over. They get into a full fledged fire fight on the way out. And they dont even get evidence that Bin Laden is dead.

It revisionist history to think all Republicans would have doen the same thing. McCain and all the Republicans were calling Obama a nutcase for calling on using drones to attack Al-Quaeda inside of Pakistan without Pakistani permission Including Romney. He is unbalanced, the Pakistani's are our friends.

Stopping the trial in NY for Zewbai cost him politically.

Not closing Gitmo cost him politically

Keeping renedition cost him politically

Pushing to keep the Patriotic act cost him politically

Increasing the defense budget instead of cutting the budget cost him politically

Not withdrawing from Afghanistan immediately cost him politically

Not letting Israel dictate an Iran line in the sand cost him politically

Using a drone to kill an American citzen who hadnt been convicted of being a terriost twice cost him politically

Using drones to kill terriosts in other countries that he knows will cause colleteral damage cost him politically

Continues the NSA wiretaps of Americans

And I get crickets. Really, crickets? WTF dudes, you tell me to prove it and I do and I get crickets? Whats up?

[Hog Farmer]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm all for regime change, supported by us, overtly or covertly. Better than open war.

Yep , the Mullahs need to go and so does Imanutjob. A peaceful regime will cure the problem. That is if there is such a thing in that part of the world. The population of Iran could enjoy life much more without all the sanctions.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I wrote this about Obama:


So you guys went all FU prove it






So, I didnt give you one, I gve you many examples below


And I get crickets. Really, crickets? WTF dudes, you tell me to prove it and I do and I get crickets? Whats up?

You claimed this:

"He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense."

Most of what you wrote above aren't even military missions. The ones that are (bin Laden and more drone attacks) are hardly unpopular.

So, no, he hasn't done what you claimed.

[tiptap]

The drone strikes are unpopular with liberals. I am certainly ambivalent. So it is Obama's base that questions these strikes whatever support arises from the right. So don't take your appraisal as representative of those who usually support Obama, HIS base.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

You claimed this:

"He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense."

Most of what you wrote above aren't even military missions. The ones that are (bin Laden and more drone attacks) are hardly unpopular.

So, no, he hasn't done what you claimed.

Yeah, sure just deflect the evidence that he has been a good commander in chief. He has kept us safe and out of new wars.

McCain would have sent troops into Libya, maybe into Georgia.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by tiptap

The drone strikes are unpopular with liberals. I am certainly ambivalent. So it is Obama's base that questions these strikes whatever support arises from the right. So don't take your appraisal as representative of those who usually support Obama, HIS base.

no, I'm not a lock/step liberal. Most on the left will recoil in horror at that list. And they have legitamate concern.

Some on here would like everyone who doesnt think that them put into this dissmissive little box to reaffirm their own personal views.

If you would have shown me that list in 2008 of things that Obama needs to stop. I would have applauded.

My views on the items that I listed have changed. I guess I'm more realistic than idealistic on those issues.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

I think that is why many want us to hit them hard. So they cant get back up.

Tough to wipe out so many lives, but if it would save American lives and get rid of the largest exporter of terrorism it is necessary.

Yea, that is how that works...

....

...

[Donger]

Originally Posted by tiptap

The drone strikes are unpopular with liberals. I am certainly ambivalent. So it is Obama's base that questions these strikes whatever support arises from the right. So don't take your appraisal as representative of those who usually support Obama, HIS base.

Bush started the Predator strikes. Obama has merely continued (and increased) the policy.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Yeah, sure just deflect the evidence that he has been a good commander in chief. He has kept us safe and out of new wars.

McCain would have sent troops into Libya, maybe into Georgia.

Huh? I'm not deflecting at all. You are moving the goal posts now. He hasn't done what you claimed his has.

I think his CiC positions have actually been pretty good.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

Bush started the Predator strikes. Obama has merely continued (and increased) the policy.

More history revisionism. did he ever use drones, yes. But, they were rarely used and the main military push was still old school, boots on the ground. Obama changed that strategy and its paid off.

The Republicans in the 2008 campaign said to use them in other countries without their permission was irresponsible and most R's on here agreed.

The use of drones to take out almost every Al-Quaeda leader is the largest contributer to the reason we have remained safe.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

More history revisionism. did he ever use drones, yes. But, they were rarely used and the main military push was still old school, boots on the ground. Obama changed that strategy and its paid off.

The Republicans in the 2008 campaign said to use them in other countries without their permission was irresponsible and most R's on here agreed.

The use of drones to take out almost every Al-Quaeda leader is the largest contributer to the reason we have remained safe.

I'm not revising any history. Exactly what I said happened, as you bizarrely acknowledge in your post.

Bush green-lighted the Predator strike and Obama has continued and expanded the policy. Simple. And, I agree with and approve the policy.

[Donger]

Anyway, it's silly to argue that what Obama has done (bin Laden and increased drones attacks) means that he'd start a pre-emptive war against Iran.