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.

[boogblaster]

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.

think he's done bout all they'll let him do without total commitment .....

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by boogblaster

think he's done bout all they'll let him do without total commitment .....

Who is "they'll" you speak of?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't kid yourself. America will act preventively to prevent Iran developing a nuclear warhead or bomb.

Stuxnet bought us a couple years of delay but that clock still continues to tick.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Don't kid yourself. America will act preventively to prevent Iran developing a nuclear warhead or bomb.

Stuxnet bought us a couple years of delay but that clock still continues to tick.

I realize that is what Obama intimates. I suppose we might see (unfortunately) if he has the stomach for it.

[mlyonsd]

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.

Don't be ridiculous. The BL decision was the least politically dangerous one he could make. If he doesn't order the strike and the intel leaked that we were pretty sure they had him tracked to 1 building it would be Obama's biggest disaster. That was a no brainer. Anyone would have made it. Ron Paul would have made it.

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

I'll give you the Israel one.

The rest were pretty much Bush policies. Other than Obama continuing those policies is proof Bush did an excellent job of protecting the country, the only political fallout would be with his own base.

And since Obama's base has proven to be nothing more than livestock being led around with rings in their nose I fail to see much political danger.

There is nothing you've posted that proves Obama would ever order an independent mission big enough to strike Iran's nuclear capability. He doesn't have it in him. He's probably afraid Putin would kick his ass.

[BWillie]

If we go to war with Iran I will exponentially be more afraid of death than if we didn't. If someone bombed the US, don't you think you would be motivated ten fold to retaliate? The goal is to make Americans safer. Going to war and poking the fire in Iran will ssurely not accomplish this

[BigRedChief]

Ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said on a 60 minutes rebroadcast something that we should take heed:

An attack on Iran would be the stupidest thing ever.

This is the guy who was in charge of stopping Iran's nuclear program. Who most say is responsible for the sabotage, the killing of the Iranian scientists etc. He has a reputation as a killer of Arabs world wide in war and covertly. When he says it would be the stupidest thing ever........ we should listen.


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...ran-meir-dagan

[go bowe]

pffffft!

ny daily news?

where do you kieep com8ing up with thiese communist rags, anyway?

[patteeu]

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

Good lord, you're really in the tank.

[go bowe]

maybe so, but it's a big tank...

[RNR]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Don't be ridiculous. The BL decision was the least politically dangerous one he could make. If he doesn't order the strike and the intel leaked that we were pretty sure they had him tracked to 1 building it would be Obama's biggest disaster. That was a no brainer. Anyone would have made it. Ron Paul would have made it.

He also along with Holder threatened to prosecute those who helped gather the Intel that led him to this nobrainer call~

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Good lord, you're really in the tank.

Seems like a list that you would approve of. Looks like a Cheney inspired list.

[Extra Point]

Let's be polite about this war-with-Iraq thing:

"Israel, after you. Way after."

[PornChief]

they have dread weapon!