Parking a U.S. aircraft carrier right off your shores is only a "REMINDER"? Bollocks...!

yeah, yeah... "they" "say" a lot of things, but since when does what "they" "say" have anything to do with what "they" "do"...?

The U.S. Navy has temporarily added a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf as a "reminder" to Iran, but this was not an escalation of American forces in the region, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters during a trip to Mexico, Gates flatly denied a suggestion that the presence of two U.S. carriers in the Gulf could be a precursor to military action against Tehran.

"This deployment has been planned for a long time," Gates said. "I don't think we'll have two carriers there for a protracted period of time. So I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder."

He declined to elaborate on his remarks and provided no details about the deployment.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the second carrier arrived in the Gulf on Tuesday to replace one on duty that was expected to depart the region in two days.

for one thing, the gulf is a small area... even ONE carrier plus all the ships that comprise a carrier battle group parked in the gulf where there's an honest-to-god transit point that's so narrow that it doesn't even contain any international water* (see below), takes up one hell of a lot of space...

* Strait of Hormuz

Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median.

To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all states have ratified the convention,[4] most states, including the U.S.,[5] accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.

stop and think about this for just a minute... check out the google earth image of the bay of fundy below... now, imagine a russian aircraft carrier on station in the middle, complete with all the ships that make up a carrier battle group... got that...? what do you think the canadian government would think of it...? what do you think the u.s. government would think of it...? how about the residents of nova scotia...? of new brunswick...? of maine...? what do you think of the possibility that it could ever happen before the first snowfall in hell...?



what's endlessly fascinating to me is that we in the u.s. don't stop for a second to think about the over-the-top arrogance of our own country sending an aircraft carrier and an entire carrier battle group to park right in the middle of half a dozen other countries as though we owned the entire chunk of real estate ourselves... imagine the shoe on the other foot...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

When the possibility of war looms, the jargon flies and the weird turn pro

shamelessly borrowing from my hero, hunter s. thompson: "when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..."

more war preparations...

The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together.

Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran.

Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare centre in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has big bases. It is modelled on the US Air Force warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada.

Jordan and the UAE have both taken part in combined exercises designed to make sure their air forces can fly, and fight, together and with American jets.

naturally, the jargon was flying thick and fast...

Bruce Lemkin, the American air force deputy under-secretary for international affairs, said: "We need friends and partners with the capabilities to take care of their own security and stability in their regions and, through the relationship, the inter-operability and the will to join us in coalitions when appropriate…

'scuse ME, but WTF did you just say...?

"On its most basic level, it's about flying together, operating together and training together so, if we have to, we can fight together."

oh... ok, then...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

USS Enterprise to be target of false flag operation?

here's something that hadn't crossed my mind... certainly i had thought of the possibility of a staged "incident" sparking a u.s. attack, but with the enterprise due to arrive in the gulf soon (earlier post here), this bears some consideration...

It was suggested a year ago, that the USS Enterprise was a likely “false flag” target to provide the Bush administration with an excuse to attack Iran. The ship’s last spell in the Gulf passed without incident (let’s hope it will again), but it is now returning to apparently replace the USS Nimitz.

The USS Enterprise is due to be decommissioned in 2014-2015 and is the oldest aircraft carrier in the fleet (launched in 1960), so one could say it is “expendable” on the grounds of age. But what other reasons are there to believe that a carrier might be a possible target for a “new” 9/11?

[...]

A great deal of pressure has been placed on Iran (because of its nuclear program etc) and it is often accused of having links with Al-Qaeda and supporting insurgents in Iraq, a view that the Bush administration would like the world to adopt. But after the lies told before the invasion of Iraq, something more convincing would be required before any action is taken against Iran.

The sinking of an old aircraft carrier (with a crew of 5,000) might be sufficient, especially if we are told that Iran “allegedly” had some involvement in it (maybe a missile attack?). But who could say for sure whether such a missile was launched from Iran, or some remote area in Iraq?

an "incident" of that magnitude, the sinking of an aircraft carrier and the incredible loss of life that would go with it, would surely fulfill the dire predictions of paul craig roberts... i'm sure it's also the wet dream of folks like santorum, cheney and chertoff... the country would descend into total and complete shock, the dogs of war would immediately be unleashed, and any skeptical or dissenting voices would be silenced and probably arrested for treason... just one more item to add to the list of horrifying possibilities posed by our criminal president and his compadres...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why a Navy guy? Cuz Rummy thought the Army was irrelevant.

or, could it have something to do with the massive naval flotilla hanging out in the persian gulf awaiting orders to attack iran...?

"There's no obvious reason a Navy guy would be put in charge of Centcom, or why we would have two sea service people replacing two other sea service people at the top of the Joint Chiefs," said Loren B. Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based military think tank. "But the reality is that they seem to be able to work with big ideas and big political leaders better than the other services."

ah-HA...! so, working with "big political leaders" is a major requirement... hmmmm... i wonder who they have in mind...?

Asked what accounted for the lack of Army officers in high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said simply: "Rumsfeld bias."

Rumsfeld and his civilian aides "set in motion for five years a series of decisions that discredited Army leadership," McCaffrey said. "It strikes me as extremely unusual that the principal load-bearing institution of national defense is the U.S. Army; Rumsfeld thought it was irrelevant at best."

lovely... interservice rivalry has always been an issue, so leave it to rumsfeld to make it worse...

Asked what accounted for the lack of Army officers in high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said simply: "Rumsfeld bias."

Rumsfeld and his civilian aides "set in motion for five years a series of decisions that discredited Army leadership," McCaffrey said. "It strikes me as extremely unusual that the principal load-bearing institution of national defense is the U.S. Army; Rumsfeld thought it was irrelevant at best."

and, naturally, the navy asserts a strong claim to occupying a loftier perch than those stupid ground-pounders...

Navy officers say their worldview is uniquely fitted for the current environment, in which threats are global and understanding foreign cultures is critical. Because Navy officers must constantly patrol the world's seas and regularly interact with international governments in ports abroad, they say, the Navy has developed a culture that is more open to a broader view of American power.

does anyone else find that phrase - "more open to a broader view of American power" - slightly disturbing...?

here's the breakdown...

Of the U.S. military's top seven high-profile interservice, or "joint," commands, five are held by Navy or Marine Corps brass.

Joint Chiefs

Current:
• Chairman: Gen. Peter Pace (Marine Corps)
• Vice Chairman: Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani (Navy)
Next in line
• Chairman: Adm. Michael G.Mullen (Navy)
• Vice Chairman: Gen. James E. Cartwright (Marine Corps)

Regional Commands

• Northern: Gen. Victor E.Renuart (Air Force)
• Southern: Adm. James G.Stavridis (Navy)
• European: Gen. John Craddock (Army)
• Central: Adm. William J.Fallon (Navy)
• Pacific: Adm. Timothy J.Keating (Navy)

no mention of any relationship between the choice of mullen to this news item from may 24...

The U.S. navy began war games on Iran's doorstep on Thursday, navy officials said, a day after a large flotilla of U.S. ships entered the Gulf in a dramatic daytime show of military muscle.

The group includes two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, whose presence adds to the pressure on the Islamic Republic to abandon its own nuclear ambitions, which the West says are an attempt to develop atomic weapons.

and, when you have an official source making a comment like this to a simple yes or no question, you can safely assume the answer, in this case certainly, is yes...

Asked if any of the American ships carried atomic weapons, a U.S. navy spokesman said the United States routinely did not comment on whether its warships were equipped with nuclear arms.

so, here we are, waiting for the navy guy to come aboard... oh, yay...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Is Mike Mullen replacing Pace because of his support for a strike against Iran?

nico pitney, posting originally on think progress, shares some insights on pace's replacement, mike mullen, none of it particularly comforting...

Some insight on Mullen can be gained from a speech he gave to sailors in Pearl Harbor in Feb. 2007:

In his opening remarks, Mullen, a Vietnam War veteran, told Pearl Harbor sailors: "I honestly believe this is the most dangerous time in my life.

"The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war."

From a Feb. 2006 interview with Mullen:

You use the term 'Long War', and it's important to understand that and really grab this issue because it is going to be around for a significant amount of time. I call it generational. That said, there are still traditional capabilities that are very much required.

When [Adm. William J. Fallon] was appointed in January to lead CentCom, analysts noted the choice of a Navy officer reflected "a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf." In announcing the nomination of Mullen this afternoon, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said that Mullen "watches Iran closely."

so far, there are several reasons why pace was replaced that are floating around... one is my speculation that he might have become tired of simply being a mouthpiece for bush administration talking points... larry johnson is convinced that he was axed for the supporting letter he wrote concerning scooter libby... most disturbing was the opinion offered by leveymg at daily kos, that pace was shown the door for opposing an attack on iran, a view which seems to square with mullen's quotes above... after reading that, i searched back to my post on the article in the new yorker from its april 2006 edition written by seymour hersh... remember, what he was writing about took place well over a year ago...

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

[...]

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

[...]

“The planning is enormous,” the former senior intelligence official said, referring to the activity at the U.S. Central Command headquarters, in Florida; the Joint Warfare Analysis Center, in Virginia; and the U.S. Strategic Command, in Nebraska. “Space assets, SLBMs”—submarine-launched ballistic missiles—“tactical air, and sabotage, coöperation from the Turks and the Russians.” He added that the plans include “significant air attacks on their countermeasures and anti-aircraft missiles—a huge takedown.” He depicted the planning as hectic, and far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. “These are operational plans,” the former official said.

[...]

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

all of this led to an astounding revelation by hersh...

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’”

that brings us to just this past february where possible resignations were again in the news, this as reported by the times of london...

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

[...]

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.

lots of puzzle pieces here, but the biggest and most critical one to keep an eye on concerns mullen and iran, because it appears as though george is, once again, stacking the ideological deck...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bush keeps his promise

inflaming world tensions, trashing any semblance of u.s. foreign policy, grabbing for absolute power, and shredding the constitution seem to be the only promises he's capable of keeping...

A second US aircraft carrier has arrived in Middle Eastern waters as promised by US President George W. Bush in January amid an escalating crisis with nearby Iran over its nuclear program.

[...]

Bush on January 10 unveiled his new strategy for Iraq which included deploying a second aircraft carrier group and a Patriot anti-missile defense system "to reassure our friends and allies."

WHY, for god's sake, do we allow this man to remain in office...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

I don't believe Tony Snow, and I CERTAINLY don't believe YOU!

tony snow from yesterday...

"I think that there have been attempts, with all due respect, in the press to try to whip this up -- 'is the administration going after Iran?'"

"I'm glad you raised it again, because we're not," said Snow.

george bush from today...

US President George W. Bush has warned of the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran but dismissed talk of a likely US attack on Iran as "noise" from his critics.

The comments came after the Pentagon said a US military buildup in the Gulf represented a message to "potential adversaries" in the region, and Bush himself has vowed to crush any Iranian networks fueling violence that claims the lives of US soldiers in Iraq.

"I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, 'he wants to go to war,' is -- first of all I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it's political," Bush told CSPAN television in an interview Tuesday.

"On the other hand, I hope that the members of Congress, particularly in the opposition party, understand the great danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon," the US president said.

Referring to the nuclear dispute, Bush said he had "a comprehensive policy aimed to solve this peacefully" and vowed to "press hard" for Iran to freeze sensitive nuclear work that could be a key step towards an atomic arsenal.

george, there is absolutely NOTHING you can say any more that i will believe... it makes no difference what it is, positive or negative, or, indeed, whether it proves to be truth or yet another lie... words coming out of your mouth have about as much meaning to me as hot air issuing from a hand dryer...

in fact, you'd be a lot better off if you just kept your mouth closed for the rest of your term... it would save your speech and talking points writers a lot of needless work, would save tons of printers ink, untold amounts of bandwidth, and probably keep millions of pixels in monitors, tv sets, and cameras from prematurely wearing out... whaddaya say...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Please, Mr. Snow, could you tell us why we should believe you?

on the one hand...

A former top Bush administration official for Persian Gulf affairs has said in an interview this morning on CNN that the US may be trying to spark a conflict with Iran.

Hillary Mann is the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs. She warned in the interview that the recent flare up between Iran and the US over the former's alleged assistance to Shi'a militias results from a US desire to provoke conflict with the Iranians.

"They're trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," Mann said.

and on the other hand...

The White House, its credibility damaged in invading Iraq, vouched for charges that Iran has been arming insurgents there, but denied ramping up such rhetoric as a prelude to military action.

Asked whether Washington was confident in the accusations, spokesman Tony Snow replied "Yes."

Asked whether the United States was confident that the weaponry was coming into Iraq with Tehran's approval, Snow replied: "Yes."

But he said that the allegations made by US defense officials in Baghdad Sunday that Iran is supplying potent munitions to Iraqi fighters is not a shift in US rhetoric.

"I don't think there's a change of tone on our part," he said. "I think that there have been attempts, with all due respect, in the press to try to whip this up -- 'is the administration going after Iran?'"

"I'm glad you raised it again, because we're not," said Snow.

and the white house believability quotient...?

-0-

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

An impassioned plea to remove George and Dick

when you've got a bad case of iraq deja-vu going on...

craig unger in vanity fair...

Whatever the administration's master plan may be, parts of it are already under way. In mid-January, the U.S. sent a second aircraft-carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf. According to Gardiner, by the end of February the United States will have enough forces in place to mount an assault on Iran. That, in the words of former national-security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, would be "an act of political folly" so severe that "the era of American preponderance could come to a premature end."

The Bush White House has already built the fire. Whether it will light the match remains to be seen.

and congress is debating less critical issues as the u.s. swirls the drain...

kidneystones in daily kos...

Forget peace, international coalitions, global warming and universal healthcare. If Dems don't start screaming now about the need to remove Cheney from power now, it's going to be too late. In December, a few of us pooh-poohed all the cheering and predicted an Iran attack in March. Looks like Craig Unger and a few other folks figure March is about when it happens, too.

Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the law, the will of the American voters or any force of nature beyond his own rapacious greed and belief that he and only he understands what's right for America.

Cheney and his sock-puppet are moving all the pieces into place for an attack on Iran. Dems will not have much time to act, surely no more than 30 days.

what options do we have left...?

Will the IMPEACHMENT debate provide every Dem with the opportunity to speak up on another invasion, some feel is guaranteed to turn the world against America once and for all? Yes!

Will the IMPEACHMENT debate FOCUS America's attention on the illegal war on Iran just about everyone seems to believe is unfolding before our eyes?

Will Americans forgive Dems for doing nothing again to stop the attack, when folks come forward with Tehran and America's reputation in ashes with the sorry-ass excuse?

bush and his criminal posse have to go...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments