Navy Admiral (water) set to lead US troops in Mid East (sand)

Let me get this straight, we are fighting a war in the desert of Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan and we are having Senate confirmation hearings for a Navy Admiral to take control of our fighting forces in the region- wha.

I bet this has absolutely no connection to the , soon to be, three carrier fighter groups off of the coast of Iran.

Hello McFly, please tell me that someone has thought about this, and please tell me why the MSM has neglected to mention this weird circumstance.

. . . from carriers.

As for the MSM, business as usual. Protecting their corporate masters. Sigh.

:shrug:

...Or they're planning to execute airstrikes on Iran, take your pick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=80484&mesg_id=80484

Gee, ya think it all has to do with Iran???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

When this s hits the fan iran will try to block this off.

He started out as the back seat guy in a photo-reconnaissance jet. His next flying billet was Bombardier-Navigator in the Navy's A-6 Intruder. His primary business from day one has been dropping ordnance on presumed bad guys. The idea that he is there to straighten out a botched ground war makes no sense. He will be in charge of the rapidly increasing naval force that will launch strikes against Iran. Aircraft carriers, guided missile surface ships and submarines will help the US avoid the prickly matter of launching strikes from neighboring countries. There is nothing in the current situation in Iraq that calls for the amphibious assault ships that are headed into the zone.

The forces being put in place are meant for a sustained air war followed by a ground invasion and occupation. The constitutional clock is ticking and I see it happening before the end of March. Get read for "Shock and aw shit".

nt

And it is not without relevance to the fate of human life in the Middle East, and, indeed, to the fate all life on earth. What kind of war can be waged against Iran, a country prepared to defend itself, with a fully equipped army, and a large and young population not willing to yield up their country's sovereignty? A cowardly war, that's what. A war by an all-powerful bully with his hands on weapons of mass destruction. Where Saddam failed, in his war with Iran, Bush thinks that he can succeed, because....?

(Read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," for the impacts on earth's atmosphere of even a limited use of nuclear weapons. Hint. Bad, very bad.)

We know that the monkey couldn't care less about the fodder- I mean troops. Will he have the decency to let the commanders know that they need to have the soldiers' "duck and cover" when they launch the "tactical" nukes? Or will the bastard just double to US body count in one fell swoop?

...and also on the global front, I don't see how Bush/Cheney can get away with this (bombing or nuking Iran). The criminals may THINK they can. And I've no doubt they have some toady commanders willing to trump up a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident or two. But consider: China gets a lot of its oil from Iran. China is a nuclear power. Bombing or nuking of Iran, followed by occupation by U.S. troops (what troops?, by the way--it's a big stretch just to get 20,000 more into Iraq, on multiple tours of duty, using untrained or poorly trained people, including National Guard and reserves!), with what can only be expected to be a pitched battle between what dregs of the army go into Iran and its enraged citizenry, will impact all surrounding countries--two of them with nukes (Pakistan and Israel)--Turkey, Russia, southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain), and north Africa. It will be a war and a catastrophe like no other that has been seen in that region, since WW II, and could turn into a conflagration of immense proportions, impacting--and even destroying--all life on earth.

Does prosperous China, with its booming economy, want its oil to fall into U.S. hands, or major disruption in the region? Does Italy want to be downwind of nuclear fallout, or does anybody in the region? Does Turkey want a million refugees pouring over its border? Think it through. Bombing/invasion/occupation of Iran is in NO ONE's interest. It is NUTS.

And, last but not least, do the American people want to be dragged into a Mideast-wide war, with a $10 TRILLION debt already staring us in the face? Would we put up with a Draft in order to wage a war that 70% of the people already oppose--with a whopping 84% opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war (poll posted here at DU last summer)? There would be an insurrection.

Bush/Cheney, with their 28% approval rating--or whatever it is (and whatever the corporate news monopolies say it is, you can be sure it's LESS)--CANNOT do this. They have NO support, at home or abroad. All they have is firepower, and that is not enough.

So, consider another possibility: That the assembling of the naval forces is cover for withdrawal from Iraq--and in particular to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq, when US troops are pulled out. This scenario also makes more sense as to Bush/Cheney's primary motive (in all they do)--greed. They've been holding US soldiers in Iraq to get the oil contracts signed, and, once that is done, then Exxon-Mobile & brethren will deploy their own mercenaries (trained and funded by US tax dollars) to defend the oil fields, and US naval gunships, etc., will remain there as a threat, to defend the Iraq puppet government and the contracts. US ground troops will be withdrawn, while the fascist political forces at home regroup, and get themselves another kind of "war president"--one with the political capital to achieve a Draft, and maintain the military budget at high levels--by throwing a few sops at the poor and middle class (minimum wage, etc.). Thus, a War Democrat (Hillary?) will ride into the White House on the strength of the anti-war movement (troops out of Iraq, victory for peace), but, like LBJ in 1964, with a hidden war agenda for the future: control of Iraq oil, and prevention of an Iraq/Iran alliance (also defense of Israel). Once the U.S. is in a better position--financially, troopwise and politically--to continue the war against self-rule* in the Middle East, THEN we will have "Gulf of Tonkin II"--the trumped up incident with Iran that sparks the Big War.

*(Note: We're not fighting the kings and fatcat sultans of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE--we're fighting the people with the most secular and democratic ideas, of which the "Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran" is now the icon. It may have a religious component--Islam cements shattered communities together--but what was happening in Iraq, and what is happening in Iran, is far closer to notions of self-determination, the sovereignty of the people, and the welfare of the people (sharing of the oil wealth), than what is happening in the monarchies that the Bush Cartel is allied with. And that is the saddest irony of all. The Iraqis and the Iranians are the most potentially progressive people among Israel's neighbors!)

Bush and Cheney are nuts and drunk with power. They have openly said it doesn't matter to them what the people or congress thinks, they are going forward anyway...

The original Operation Dynamo is also commonly called "Dunkirk", when over 300,000 British soldiers were evacuated from France and the Nazi onslaught by sea in 9 hectic days by a scratch force of naval and civilian ships. Fighing the Luffwafte, the ships and boats (with RAF support) managed to evacuate some 338,000 French and British troops. They had to leave all of their heavy equipment on the beach, though. Tanks, trucks, artillery, etc.

So when we finally have to leave the mess in Iraq, who better than a Navy Admiral to save our bacon? Of course, the distance between the Norfolk and Basra is a mite bit more than between London and Dunkirk, but, hey, details, details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dynamo

That's why it has a convoluted quality.