After The Admiral

I was going to say something about this, but I'll leave it to Pundita. Fallon, an Admiral, was given Centcom because of Iran and an anticipated need  for a sea-based adventure. Maybe the good Admiral is adrift, or in over his head when it comes to land-based combat.

A pox on military commanders who do not understand the meaning of war. Hello, Admiral, we're fighting a war in Iraq right now, not the projected war someplace else. If you don't like General Petraeus, if he bothers you for some reason, please don't take it out on the US troops fighting in Iraq. Please allow them all the help possible.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

Fallon wasn't put there for Iran, he was put there to torpedo Petraeus should he by some slim chance succeed. Fallon is the democrat's Plan-B.

Fallon is NOT even competent. He's a bungler and moonbatishly naive.

Fallon was responsible for the PRC sub that surfaced inside that CVBG. Fallon was responsible for giving our deepest military secrets to the PRC in that harebrained military exchange program he architected in which the PRC never reciprocated. The man is a walking disaster in the making.

[seekeronos]

"--- Fallon was responsible for the PRC sub that surfaced inside that CVBG. Fallon was responsible for giving our deepest military secrets to the PRC in that harebrained military exchange program he architected in which the PRC never reciprocated. The man is a walking disaster in the making. ---"

And that is why Adm. Fallon might be more suited for a job commanding that naval gun battery out in Montana, or counting paper clips out in Nevada until he is happily retired.

[BobInStamford]

Bungler? Haha, patriots, further confirmation that your little Iraq adventure is winding down. Boo Hoo.

Mission Accomplished, Admiral!

[rwilymz]

"further confirmation that your little Iraq adventure is winding down."

Really? I read that link this a.m. and it doesn't read that way to me. But then, I know what I'm talking about.

Now, I'm among the last to swallow the military analyses I read given by neophytes, but let's look at the superficial punditry and compare to reality.

Reality: Iraq is now a proxy battle-ground between a nacent neo-Assyrian Empire and a fledgling neo-Persian Empire. I.e., the Syrian-supplied Sunni Ba'athists are squaring off against several independent [but all Iranian-backed] Shi'a militias for control. Whomever wins will align the nation with their backer [presumably, at least for several years to a few decades].

If one of the Shi'a groups wins, there will be a classic power struggle among them for which group gets to play King of the Sand Dune. I.e., traditional middle eastern tribalist politics.

Now, then, if we are to believe the neophyte "pundita", wherein "if the US were to enter Basra" for garrison duty on the pull-out of the British that the posturing Achmadinejad will enter Iraq to put a halt to it, that will, in reality, cause a **widening** of "the Iraq adventure". Not to mention bring about the destruction of the "islamic revolution" in Iran, since even though the latter-day Immortals are formidable in parades in Tehran, they fought Iraq to a standstill for a decade; the same Iraq that we beat into nothing in 7 weeks.

But, alas, I feel compelled to drag reality back into it: the ruling Ayatollahs will never let President A'jad take on the US, barring another revolution that flip-flops the current Iranian power structure. The current power in Iran rests with idiot religionists, not the idiot megalomaniac who uses religion as a means to political power. And though the idiot religionists in Iran are indeed idiots, they are not suicidal; they know very well that their military will not stand up to the US, that a large portion of their military will, in fact, surrender before firing a shot, defect en masse, or turn their guns on their own officers -- pretty much like what the Iraqi military did in both '91 and '03; they know very well that even though the "islamic revolution" rules the country's politics, that decades of western "corruption" left over from the Shah rules the majority of their country's citizens, and when push comes to shove, the Persian in the Street will choose western jeans over hajibs every day, and twice on Sunday.

A'jad rules as Iranian President at the pleasure of the Grand Ayatollah; he is free to posture and denounce Israel [et al] as he pleases, right up until The West starts to rattle a saber. At that points, Khameini tells A'jad to change subjects. And A'jad complies, because he wants political power more than anything.

[seekeronos]

"--- And though the idiot religionists in Iran are indeed idiots, they are not suicidal; they know very well that their military will not stand up to the US, that a large portion of their military will, in fact, surrender before firing a shot, defect en masse, or turn their guns on their own officers -- pretty much like what the Iraqi military did in both '91 and '03; they know very well that even though the "islamic revolution" rules the country's politics, that decades of western "corruption" left over from the Shah rules the majority of their country's citizens, and when push comes to shove, the Persian in the Street will choose western jeans over hajibs every day, and twice on Sunday. ---"

I tend to think so as well... but the devil in the details is that the average Persian in the street might not object too strenuously to Iran gaining status as a nuclear power. And neither would the mullahs or A'jad, who would see it as leverage against the US and the margin of Europe that more or less stands with us (at any given time).

Now, I reckon it is quite plain (despite the mullah's "condemnation" of nukes as "un-Islamic") that the endgame for the acquisition of so-called "peaceful" nuclear technology is development of a fission bomb, and one which down the road, could be mounted onto any of a number of missile vehicles Iran has/will have access to. We'd be foolish to think otherwise.

However, I'm curious if Russia would allow a nuclear Iran as a counterweight to American military interests. Once Iran gets nukes, it becomes a whole different ball game as far as our ability (or Russia's) to intervene or depose the regime.

--------- The question I'd like to ask is: How will gaining nuclear weapons capability affect the status quo of power between the mullahs, A'jad (and other political opportunists of his stripe), and the willingness of the Persian on the street to act upon any impulses to see any changes in the regime? -----------

I'm not too sure how Russia (the other folks in Russia who have some say in the matter, not just Putin) feels about a nuclear Iran at its back door either. Although, if I were Putin, I think I'd sooner trust the US/NATO than some demagogue who is on a short leash from a group of apocalyptic ayatollahs who envision the imminent revelation of the (12th) Imam Mah'di. But there's no accounting for (national) egos deflated, and lost feelings of national pride and/or military capability, and so, he might think better the madman who is closer to you, who _might_ be easily manipulated, than an adversary more afar off.

The West, which had held a massive nuclear arsenal at the throat of the Soviet Union (whilst the USSR did the same to us), was subject to "MAD", that principle which evoked a cold but firm trust... base upon our mutual will to survive to the next generation.

Even post-USSR, post-MAD, Russia has had no real reason to think that the West would be irresponsible with its nuclear arms. (I wish I could say likewise for the Russians, and the various spin-off republics that rolled out of the former USSR, as to where particular bits of nuclear weapons technology might have ultimately found themselves new homes as Soviet colonels, generals, and other regional commissars found themselves suddenly out of their old jobs).

...but given Putin's aggravation at our plans to put ABMs or other anti-missile solutions on former Warsaw Pact territory (vs. a joint operation where Russia would basically be the senior partner in any arrangement to have US or NATO assets based inside Russian controlled land), would that be sufficient for him to "overlook" the potential risk of having a nuclear-tipped dagger at his back? Does he think that the nuclear armed Mullah State will cut a deal with Russia to leave her alone whilst it contends with the West, or will he later be ashamed when Islam turns her blood-drenched yet still insatiable sword against the Sons and Daughters of the Rus?

After all, Russia has had its issues with militant Islam within her own borders as well, and ideologically... "imperial", Jihadist Islam (no less the sort advanced by the Caliphate's sword, per order of Mohammed) is just as opposed to Russian non-submission to Allah nearly as much as it is concerned with toppling the "decadent, ungodly" West.