Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Wed

29

Aug

2007

Stopping the New War Before It Starts
Wednesday, 29 August 2007 09:12
by Larry C. Johnson

America and the world are entering an extremely dangerous and volatile period and it will be up to senior U.S. military officials and members of Congress to stop the rush to a new war with Iran. The evidence is alarming and disturbing and today’s speech by President Bush before the Veteran’s of Foreign War should not be dismissed as mere political posturing. According to AFP:
US President George W. Bush branded the Islamic Republic “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” citing its backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Shiite fighters killing US troops in Iraq.

“And Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” he told the American Legion veterans group.
Bush’s claims are disingenuous and dishonest.

The causus belli for the war in Bushworld consists of terrorism, attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Let me address these in order.

Terrorism

It is true that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. However, while Iran has American blood on its hands, Al Qaeda – a Sunni movement – not Iran has killed more Americans in terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, Iran pioneered the use of terrorism as an extension of its foreign policy towards the United States. Iran, at a minimum, had a direct role in two attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon in the 1980s, the kidnapping and murder of CIA Chief William Buckley, the kidnapping and murder of U.S. Marine Colonel Rich Higgins, the execution on board TWA 847 of U.S. Navy Diver Robert Stethem, and the bombing of the U.S. military housing complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia in June 1996. And it paid what price? Nothing of any consequence. President Ronald Reagan, President George Bush Senior, and President Bill Clinton failed to mount a credible response to these attacks. One could argue that Iran could assume it can attack the United States without fear of retaliation.

But what is Iran doing in Iraq? Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, Iran has used its contacts with prominent Iraqi shia – including the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Abdul Aziz al Hakim – to build intelligence networks, train and arm militia, and collect intelligence. Iran is not the primary driving force for the terrorism that wracks Iraq. Which raises the question of whether Iran is helping direct attacks against U.S. soldiers?

Attacks on U.S. Soldiers

The Bush Administration and the U.S. military commanders in Iraq need to answer one basic question. Who is responsible for most of the violence directed against U.S. forces? The answer is simple – Sunni extremists. It is not Iran. But hey, when you are whipping up war fever why worry about facts.

That said, Iran is responsible in some fashion for the production and use of what is now known as Explosively Formed Penetrators aka EFPs. EFPs are really nothing more than platter charges. Platter charges were employed first by U.S. Army special forces in World War II. They are simple, deadly, and capable of taking out a bridge (follow this link and search the term, “platter charge”). EFPs have been used against U.S. forces in Iraq. They are employed by Shia extremists and Shia militia. They have killed U.S. troops. But these devices are not responsible for most of the U.S. fatalities and wounds. That is a basic fact.

I do not believe for a minute that President Bush is ignorant of this fact. Neither is his National Security Advisor or his Secretary of Defense. They know the truth. But instead of telling the truth to the American people the President and his minions are busy propagandizing the masses in order to justify an attack on Iran.

The Nuclear Question

So, we have a state keen on supporting terrorism, who is attacking U.S. soldiers, and, for the icing on the cake, is busy trying to build a nuclear weapon. Here the Bush Administration tries to play the same card they did in Iraq. We ostensibly have a zero tolerance for rogue states with nukes. Yet somehow we have been able to accept that North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, and India have nukes without going to war.

Here is the canard. Even if Iran has twenty nuclear weapons they do not have the wherewithal to attack and destroy the United States. Hell, not even China can pull that off and they have a hell of a lot more nukes than Pakistan, India, and South Africa combined. Just getting a nuke decreases your chances of being invaded. However, producing a nuke does not mean you have the means and capability to effectively deliver those devices.

Nonetheless, don’t be surprised that we will be told repeatedly that Israel’s future will hinge on taking out Iran. At least that’s the message that will be blared unrelentingly for the next few months by this Administration and its media lackeys. Remember, only anti-Semites do not want to protect Israel from Iranian nukes. So, if you try to argue the opposite point, that the threat can be contained without resorting to a pre-emptive strike, just accept the fact that you are an unrelenting jew hater and one step removed from the Gestapo. (If you don’t understand sarcasm go read something else and exit this blog.)

So What if We Launch a Preemptive Strike?

Once again we are being promised a painless, bloodless conquest of an evil doer. In a paper published today in the United Kingdom, Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament offer this claim:
Under the command of Marine General James Cartwright, US Global Strike planning has the potential to destroy over 10,000 targets in Iran in one mission with “smart” conventional weapons. That number assumes only 100 strategic bombers with 100 bombs each. The actual number of planes/bombs and missiles is far larger. US government documents obtained by Hans Kristensen and analysed by William Arkin has described the development of this Global Strike capability.

Awaiting his orders, George Bush has more than 200 strategic bombers (B52-B1-B2-F117A) and US Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles. One B2 bomber dropped 80, 500lb bombs on separate targets in 22 seconds in a test flight. Using half the total force, 10,000 targets could be attacked almost simultaneously. This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all major Iranian political, military, economic and transport capabilities.
Scary thought indeed. Now let’s try some reality. The U.S. has tried twice in the last 16 years to use air power to eliminate threats and enemies on the ground in that region – Gulf War 1990 and the Iraq War 2003. In fact, in the lead up to the war in Iraq several, including the late General Wayne Downing, argued that Iraq could be taken over with a shock and awe air campaign and only 50,000 U.S. special forces. Well, we all know how that turned out. And have you forgotten that the highly touted U.S. air power failed to destroy a single SCUD missile during the 1991 military action?

Pat Lang and I discussed some of the likely consequences that would occur if the U.S. launches a preemptive strike on Iraq in an article in the 2006 issue of the National Interest. We updated our assessment in the March-April 2007 issue. Both are worth your time.
Beyond the points we made in those articles there are some other critical facts to consider:
Iran is not flat like Iraq. Iran has vast mountainous regions and can easily hide production facilities and weapons inside mountains that we cannot easily attack.

Iran has more robust air defense systems than Iraq ever had. We are likely to lose some pilots and aircraft in an attack on Iran. We can hope for the best, but if the worse comes to past – the shoot-down of several aircraft and the capture of several pilots – the Iranians will have some additional leverage that will constrain President Bush.

U.S. tankers required to refuel aircraft involved in any attack on Iran will force a reduction of military operations inside both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. Army and Marines are incapable of being employed in any significant numbers to support an operation in Iran. Generals are already warning that they cannot (I REPEAT) cannot sustain the current surge in Iraq beyond the Spring of 2008. Who in their right mind would undertake a new military adventure when we cannot handle what we are currently doing? George Bush? But the question of his state of mind is another story.

The withdrawal of British forces from Basra now leaves Shia militia, who have direct ties to Iran, in complete control of the supply routes used to ferry beans, bullets, water, and toilet paper from Kuwait to U.S. troops in Iraq. An attack against Iran will likely see a cut off of this supply route. That will require a diversion of air assets and ground forces to southern Iraq to reopen the lines of communication.
What Should be Done?

If the President orders U.S. Generals and Admirals, specifically Admiral Fallon at CENTCOM, to attack Iran then senior officers will face a choice. If they follow the order they will share responsibility of leading the United States into a new military disaster that has the potential to bankrupt this country. Officers confronted with this choice must resign and go public immediately with their opposition. We cannot afford any more belated mea culpas (General Gregory Newbold comes to mind) of military leaders with doubts about an insane policy.

It is also the obligation of members of Congress to refuse to give the President a blank check for a new war. So far the Democratic controlled Congress has refused to lay down the marker requiring Congressional approval before Bush launches on a new preemptive strike. Senator Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi must speak with a clear, united voice on this.

While Iran offers a potential threat that we must take seriously, this does not lead to the conclusion that we have no other option but to attack Iran. Expanding the war in the Middle East at this time would be an act of madness and strategic suicide. Are the American people willing to push their leaders to stand up to Bush and refuse to go down this dark path? I hope so.
 
More from this author:
Gee Whiz, Iran Training Militia, Who Knew? (7234 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Well, the New York Times just got sucked in again to help the Bush Administration make the case for starting a war with...
Swearing on the Quran? (6219 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Normally I ignore religious controversy, but the latest flap surrounding incoming Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, a...
A Soldier's Story - MAJOR BILL EDMONDS (8061 Hits)
by MAJOR BILL EDMONDS [Note from Larry Johnson: A CIA buddy forwarded this article. It is a must read. It is consistent...
The Iraq Catch-22 (5714 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Regardless of your feelings or beliefs about sending more U.S troops to Iraq, you must accept the painful truth that...
Three Must Reads (4854 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson The mainstream media has finally caught up and fleshed out some important issues regarding Iraq that I wrote about on...
Related Articles:
Read This Before You Vote (12209 Hits)
If one were to believe the hype, nothing less than the fate the civilized world is riding on the results of the upcoming midterm elections....
Some Things You Need To Know Before The World Ends (16771 Hits)
" Thank you for not putting a bomb in your luggage." "President Bush said the United States is still under the threat of attack ...
The Anti-Empire Report - Some things you need to know before the world ends (11450 Hits)
by William Blum The jingo bells are ringing "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace: Iraq, North Korea or the United...
Midterm Elections 2006: It's Always Darkest, Right Before ... It Goes Completely Black (10457 Hits)
by Phil Rockstroh If voting could change the system, it would be illegal. --Theodore Adorno "I can't go on. I'll go on....
Hugo Chavez Holds Commanding Lead Eight Days Before Election (6999 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Hugo Chavez holds an insurmountable lead in two late November polls - one by Ipsos Venezuela/the AP-Ipsos Poll and the...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (8)add comment

a guest said:

0
YOU'LL FIND OUT
Firstly wonder if this reaches you.............and there it goes.....so UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS are as of the current in a secret war with Islam....funny things (not so funny) Pakistan is on the israeli side.....while royal saudis (BUT there at least ONE exception and probably many....however) AND MANY MANY ROYALS/LEADERS have primarily taken the US side possibly even if it means attacking...Islams holiest sites...however they focus primarily on the media a strategy called succumbing and stagewise demolition.....I guess you must HAVE SEEN THE KISSES King Abdullah of Saudi gave to G. Bush US P, they IN THEIR concept are preaching the right religion.......however THINGS HAVE RUN INTO A SERIOUS """"""SNAG"""""" it came out that the INTERNAL STRENGTHS of Islam have physically come into "existence" (debate this word).........and the NON-MUSLIM WORLD is now faced WITH POSSIBLE COMPLETE "extermination" and they have "at least right now" no way to stop it...........thereby many attempts are being made to prevent a WAR in likely it would start from Israel and to the shock of everybody "Plaestinians" may win.it is really a very long history ut i guess for now this is enough.
 
August 29, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
I think you focus on Bush too much. It's likely that the DemocRats will hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency after the 2008 elections. Nothing will change respecting American policy toward Iran. There is a silent bi-partisan American policy which says no nukes for the mullahs. Bush does have the image of being "off the chain", so the DemocRats are willing to let Bush have the honor of pulling the trigger on Iran. This is why you hear nothing absolutely nothing from the Democrats about Iran in the liberal media. Bush provides cover for the DemocRats and the DemocRats tacitly support Bush's destruction of Iran.We now have Sarkozy and the "new" French of "old" Europe signing on for the destruction of Iran. Have no doubt that American fire power is more than capable of destroying Iran's nuke program even if every vestige of Iranian industrial production capability must be destroyed. There will be no need for American troops, just the international Red Cross, Red Crescent and a few U.N. troops to monitor the rebuilding effort after the rain of destruction by American air power. The Iranians can pay now and submit and the mullahs loose. The Iranians can pay later and the Iranian people loose, death and destruction big time. The American people hold a grudge against the Iranians for the sacking of our embassy. Every time we see Jimmy Carter's face we remember the embassy. For the average American the destruction of Iran is only the just denouement of of a long running American morality play.
 
August 29, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
War Has Started
'I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.'
There were those who complained that the problem with Iraq was that there was not enough military power exerted to subdue the people. This 'confront' that the president instructed be commenced will be done in a manner to avoid that criticism.
 
August 29, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
What "American blood" on their hands?
Seriously, the only Americans killed by iranians are the ones assassinated by the MEK in the 70's who are now bankrolled by the CIA. Let's not "take for granted" Bush propaganda.
 
August 29, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
2 - American Embassy
"The American people hold a grudge against the Iranians for the sacking of our embassy. Every time we see Jimmy Carter's face we remember the embassy."

And the Iranian people hold a grudge against the Americans for overthrowing their democracy in 1953, propping up the Shah and training SAVAK in the murderous oppression of the Iranian people, not to mention aiding Saddam's murderous war against Iran. Sacking an embassy is insufficient justice for the crimes the US has committed against the Iranian people.

Fcuk the US and its racist hypocrites.
 
August 30, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
President Bush has dragged the US into a political and military mess in the Middle-East. In an effort to avenge his presumed attempt on the life of his father, Bush Snr., by Saddam Hussein, he blindly led the US into a wrong and very unwise and selfish war without due consideration for the consequences. Those consequences are what we are facing today. Bush's agenda in leading the US to war in Iraq could be seen as ousting Saddam and his fellow Sunnis from power in Iraq. To achieve that objective he took sides with the friends and agents/stooges of America's sworn enemy, Iran. The Bush's war in Iraq intentionally blindly empowered the Iraqi Shiite militarily, politically and economically and stripped the Iraqi Sunnis of all milirary, political and economic power. All the allies of the US among the countries in the Middle-East/Arab world are majority Sunnis and they are all wary of Shiite Iran and its influence in the region. Yet the US has deliberately installed the Iranian-backed Shiites into power in Iraq. It hard to explain or understand how a nation like the US can commit such a blind strategic international blunder, undermining its allies and knowingly helping and strategically strengthening its sworn enemy. All that at the cost of thousands of young American service men. And the number of US casualties continue to rise day by day as efforts continue in the same direction of strategic blunder of maintaining the pro-Iranian Shiite regime at the cost of American lives. Surely, there can be no easy way out of such big blunder. The US must get out of Iraq if it wants to seriously engage Iran which everyone can see as a very serious threat to international security. The earlier the Iranian nuclear issue is addressed and stopped the better for everyone. The longer the delay in taking EFFECTIVE ACTION to stop Iran from acquiring the nuclear capability, the greater the danger of stopping it later, the greater the risk of allowing it to blackmail the international community to let it do whatever it chooses to do without hinderance. That would be disastrous!
 
August 30, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
And Japan, China and SE Asia will be short of oil due to USA promoted war. Guess what will happen to the LOPWLY US $?
 
August 30, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
CONQUERING THE WORLD
The Bush regime is all about world domination through false beliefs fed to its followers.

The event on 9/11 was not by any terrorists bur within our own ranks as an excuse for war.

I had this proof within the first two weeks ..... question is why does everyone but amerikans know this? (not a misspelling)

Through false religious teachings and governmental politics the nation has become too numb of mind to had known this from the beginning....another Nazi Reichstag has been recreated.

Our present goal is world dominance and a one world government....and also the reduction of human life, now grown to an extent that mother earth can no longer sustain us as it presently is.

The end goal is to keep honest people from taking over as we did in the days gone by and through the military and death we shall be slaves in a baron future to the elites of the world....and this also means that all our guns will be taken from us as well as any rights.

My intentions are to die with honor in battle.
 
September 02, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top