Skip to main content

Dick Cheney is at it again. He is trying to force the intel brain trust into doing to Iran what he managed to do to Iraq. In September of 2002, Cheney assigned the newly created Office of Special Plans to Doug Feith, a man accurately described as the stupidest fucker on the face of this planet.

Feith stove-piped intel, removing anything contrary to Cheney's wishes. By mangling, changing and ignoring all data that did not fit the desired goal, along with the help of the criminal Ahmad Chalabi and a nutcase code-named "Curveball",  a sense of fear and insecurity was created by the White House. Condi Rice, then Nat. Sec. Chair, Cheney, and others beat the pavement, leaked false intel, and used and abused  the media harder than an overworked hooker at a frat-based bachelor party.

What Bush and Cheney don't like to talk about is how Iran offered to help eradicate the Taliban and Al Qaida, to recognize Israel,  and to open up diplomatic dialogues on every issue that was causing strife between Iran and the US.

One month later, Bush called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. History is about to repeat itself.

Before we invaded Iraq, our country was nervous, kept so by incredibly timed color coded terror alerts, announcements by AG Ashcroft of new arrests of the #3 man in Al Qaida, and the previously mentioned P.R. scheme by Rice, Bush and Cheney.  At the same time, we were willing to take risks to safeguard our nation. Almost every  pol, from Bush 1, Clinton, Gore, and many  currently in congress, had called Saddam Hussein a danger to Israel and the US.  In retrospect, setting the stage for Iraq's invasion was easy. The execution? not so much. TO make things worse, Kyl-Lieberman is now law. And our congress appears to have no need for a spine, making many in America think that they had them surgically removed.

Just how badly served America has been by Cheney remains at issue. Feith's "office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was 'mature' and 'symbiotic,' marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.  (the CIA concluded in mid-2002 that there were few substantiated contacts with al-Qaeda operatives. Feith's erroneous (deliberately?) conclusions  were leaked to the Weekly Standard magazine, possibly by Dick Cheney himself. (Source - Washington Post)

Chalabi was trotted out repeatedly, just as Curveball leaks were given to key people in the MSM, ready, willing and hungry enablers of Bush/Cheney war policies.  Israel, through AIPAC and other contacts, also pushed for war with Iraq, thinking that our vastly superior army could change the character of Iraq in weeks. Neither Israel nor our Administration seem to have learned anything since the resulting disaster.

There were other lies, deceptions, and bungling by Cheney/Rumsfeld. Every single admiral or general who dared stand up to the push for war, or who realistically assessed the issues they would face in a nation of 26,000,000, was unceremoniously pushed out of office and replaced by military, ass-kissing toadies who could be manipulated more readily by Rumsfeld.

Lastly, the Office of Special Plans was not the only offensive attack on pre-war intel. Cheney personally visited the CIA possibly six times, until their reports were rewritten to suit his needs. I am not aware of any other circumstance where an executive forced an intel body to cook the books the way Cheney did. He also effectively shut down the wonderful little intel agency run by State, and made sure that no contrary facts or opinions got out.

Unfortunately, Israel, AIPAC, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and the president are at it again, this time with Iran in their sights.

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

Shifting Targets Seymour Hersh

Until calmer heads prevailed in the Navy, Cheney personally demanded that three carrier groups stay parked on the edge of Iranian waters. This was a very bad idea, for reasons that will be discussed below. Cheney also ordered the CIA to train, arm and provide intel to tribesmen north of Iran, who since 2005 have been murdering Iranian citizens and attacking military posts and village centers.

Cheney is playing the same intel game that he played with respect to Iraq. He is refusing to allow the NIE (Intel's method of communicating with Congress) release its report on Iran.  Not a day goes by without someone in the Administration pushing for war, even though there is absolutely no evidence that Iran has WMD or is building a nuclear weapon.  The IAEA repeatedly stated that Iran is cooperating with all anti-proliferation laws and statutes, and is abiding by all international agreements with respect to nuclear power, unlike Israel. (Israel, with little prodding from Cheney, just called for the firing of the head of IAEA, El Baradei)

There are many reasons why we should not invade Iran, and no good reason why we should. Iran, unlike Iraq, has not been under crippling economic sanctions for ten years. Instead, Iran has traded for, purchased, and trained its army and navy in the use of some of the highest tech tools, some of which we don't even have in our arsenal.

In an effort to intimidate Iran, the Bush administration has regularly placed two aircraft carrier group formations in the Persian Gulf . In the naval exercises that began on Novembers 2, the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and a helicopter carrier, the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), are in the Persian Gulf simulating “a quick response to possible crises” .  The size and timing of possible U.S. military attacks on Iran’s nuclear and/or military facilities, will influence the speed and scale of an Iranian response. Iran’s response will predictably result in a military escalation that culminates in Iran using its arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles on the U.S. Fifth Fleet and closing off the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. Iran’s ability to hide and launch cruise missiles from mountainous positions all along the Persian Gulf will make all Fifth Fleet ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable. The Fifth Fleet would be trapped and unable to escape to safer waters. The Millennium Challenge wargames in 2002 witnessed the sinking of most of the Fifth fleet. Less advanced Silkworm cruise missiles, when compared to Iran’s stock of Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles, were used in a simulated asymmetric warfare that would resemble what would occur if Iran and the U.S. went to war. The sunk ships included an aircraft carrier, two helicopter carriers in the total of 16 ships that were ‘refloated’ in the exercise to produce a scripted outcome.

If an attack on Iran were to occur before the end of 2007, it would lead to the destruction of the USS Enterprise with its complement of 5000 personnel on board. Further losses in terms of support ships and other Fifth Fleet naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be catastrophic. An Iranian cruise missile attack would replicate losses at Pearl Harbor where the sinking of five ships, destruction of 188 aircraft and deaths of 2,333 quickly led to a declaration of total war against Imperial Japan by the U.S. Congress.

The New Pearl Harbor

The instant that we attacked Iran, hundreds of missiles would fall not only on US ships, probably causing the deaths of 10,000 or more, but they would also fall on all oil production sites in Iraq. Americans have simply not been told just how advanced Iran's missile forces are, and how depleted our military option has become.

Wait, you might be saying. Our military just announced the simultaneous kill of a bunch of Scud missiles! Surely our Patriot defenses, our close support weapons on ships, and our famous  AWACs will protect us.  Ahem. Wake up.

Yes, the US military did have a  recent SIMULATED AEGIS exercise. I repeat, simulated. And against 30 yr old technology.
U.S. stages 1st dual-missile intercept test in space

Unfortunately for us, Iran is not relying on Scuds or Exocets (Our last US navy ship seriously damaged in action was done in by an aging Exocet). The Iranian missile armory is far more advanced, and better than anything the US has on offense or defense. Many of their anti-ship missiles are supersonic, too fast, flying too low to be detected, and impossible for the US to stop.


The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr [SS-N-7 Starbright]. The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, is 0.71 m in diameter. The firing range reaches 300 km (162 nmi.) when flying along a combined trajectory and 120 kg (265 lb.) when following only a low-altitude trajectory. Flight speed varying over the range from M=2.0 to M=2.5 is provided by the kerosene-fueled multi-mode liquid-fuel ramjet. The P-800 Bolid is the encapsulated, submarine launched version of Yakhont. An air-launched version of the missile with the take-off weight of 2,500 kg (5,507 lb.) is also being developed. The closest American counterparts, the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, are subsonic; the best French antiship missile, the Exocet, has a range of only 45 miles.

Iran's latest purchases from Russia

If Cheney succeeds in starting a "limited, well-directed, attack on certain assets", is there any doubt that a country armed with thousands of unstoppable missiles, would use them to against an invader?

Just three weeks ago, President Bush talked about World War III starting against Iran. Despite our joking about his slips of tongue, Bush is anything but stupid. Misguided, dissembling, detached from reality, and untrustworthy, absolutely, but stupid he is not. His use of WWIII was deliberate, planned and a signal that another war is about to start.

Today, an Israeli deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, said after a US visit that "all options are on the table" to halt Iran's nuclear energy program. That does not bode well for our country or theirs. Some of the missiles in Iran's closet can reach Israel, and carry a far bigger punch than a Scud.

Two more things to consider: Our military leadership has been less than honest on a number of issues. They don't call him "betray us" for nothing. As a self-promoting, political hound dog, he probably is the best that America has to offer. As a military leader, just remember who promoted him.

More than a decade ago, we failed to stop a single Iraqi Scud. Despite the military self-congratulations about how capable our Patriots were, the opposite was actually true. Only now, under simulated conditions, on a computer screen, can we supposedly stop the ancient Scud.

Iran has the Shahab 2, 3, and 4, far more advanced, faster, larger, and mobile.  Not only have we NOT tested our equipment against their top of the line weapons, our defenses aren't even designed with those capabilities in mind.

This was not the first time that the US military has misled Americans about the reality we face. There is also the disturbing issue of the Millenium Challange.

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major wargame exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost 250 million dollars, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more powerful weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, denoted "Blue", and an initially unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red". Most of the people on the U.S. side assumed that the adversary in the game would be Iraq, but according to a Nova show on PBS, it was later revealed that the other side was simulating the military forces of Israel, since U.S. military officials felt it was the only state in the region that would be a worthy adversary for American military power.
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps general Paul K. Van Riper, used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops, evading Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. They also used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's ships without being detected. In the early days of the exercise, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles, overwhelming the Blue forces' electronic sensors, destroying sixteen warships. Soon after that offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats carrying out both conventional and suicide attacks, able to engage Blue forces due to Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
At this point, the exercise was suspended and Blue's ships were "re-floated." There were many within the upper echelons of the Department of Defense that found the results displeasing, and it was decided that the wargame should be started over. The rules of the exercise were essentially changed shortly thereafter, with the different sides ordered to follow predetermined, scripted plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted" [1]. General Van Riper resigned soon after, concerned that the wargame would serve to merely reinforce an increasing notion of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience. He was quoted in the BBC/Discovery Channel documentary A Perfect War as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same attitudes taken on by the Department of Defense of Robert McNamara going in to and during the Vietnam War, namely the idea that the U.S. military could not and cannot be defeated. Despite these results and criticisms, some within the Department of Defense and the Bush Administration claim that MC02 still provided an important real-world test of many of the systems used by the current U.S. military

Millenium Challange 2002 - Wikipedia

Feel better now?

Originally posted to agnostic on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:00 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  war jar (16+ / 0-)

    for kicks.

    In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

    by agnostic on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:00:31 PM PST

  •  I wonder if that Impeachment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, docangel, agnostic

    Bill lying in wait will have any effect? Iran has done nothing to deserve this treatment. They can't really use nuclear weapons because that will stop the flow of oil out of Iran. Everything would be contaminated.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:08:47 PM PST

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    I appreciate people keeping an eye on the drive for war with Iran, there is a bit of hysteria here.

    Just on a single point, what is your source that says Iran has acquired the SSN-X-26?

    Also, your report on the US missile interception test is wrong.  It actually was a real interception, not a "simulation."  What was "simulated" was that this was a multiple missile salvo.  Instead, it was two missiles launched from two different places close in time.

    •  from the article. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, snoopydawg, planetclaire4

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military destroyed a simulated salvo of two short-range ballistic missiles more than 100 miles over the Pacific Tuesday night in the first such simultaneous test in space.

      simulated means simulated.

      as to the sale of the Yakhonts and Sunburns, both are now in the arsenal of Iran

      The SS-N-22  or ‘Sunburn” has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia’s SSN-X-26 or ‘Yakhonts’ cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to attack. .
      More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on the international arms trade.

      Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers.  . . . .
      So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon’s weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defense was developed. . Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

      In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

      by agnostic on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:28:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You misread and dodged the question.

        On the missile test, read it again.  I admit it's confusing, but you need to read closely.  Other stories make it clearer:

        In what engineers called a first, the U.S. military destroyed two ballistic missile targets simultaneously in space 100 miles (161 kilometers) above the Pacific Ocean in a test.

        The "simulation" was of a missile salvo.  But the interception appears to be real.

        On the SS-X-26, you didn't post a source, you just posted a gray box.  The Bloomberg story (which is old, by the way), says:

        The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran.

        It notes there is no evidence that Iran actually has the missile.

        •  sorry, I did not do so intentionally. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          do you prefer chess or poker?

          Americans are notorious as being poker players, and Bush is the prime example of huff, puff, and bluff, while forgetting to tell his wife about his losses, while bragging about his great wins.

          unfortunately, that kind of hubris is not really effective on the world stage.

          Iranians play backgammon and chess. They understand the great surprise and advantage that an unexpected move can create. They constantly think about the great Maginot Line that our carriers have created, albeit in a mobile fashion, and they know that our strength can be turned against us, much like a judo wrestler can easily disable a larger, stronger, heavier player. They have never attacked us, and won't until we make the first move. We have already made several.

          Our intel failed to detect Pakistan's nukes. Our intel failed to predict the fall of the USSR. Do you really think that, with no on ground intel, we really know the state of readiness and capabilities inside Iran? I submit that we will be in for a very painful, deadly shock.

          In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

          by agnostic on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:01:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And, we MIGHT have known what Iran has, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, docangel, agnostic

            if Valerie Plame hadn't been outed and the Brewster-Jennings operation blown.  Of course, they were collecting facts that may have contradicted the Cheney Administration's allegations in its case for war with Iran and, thus, were obviously expendable.

            Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

            by sxwarren on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:20:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  how true. Val's story (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sxwarren, docangel

              will not be fully known until we and all the scoundrels are long dead. even with the power of the intertubes.

              In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

              by agnostic on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:35:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  didn't we massively overestimate (0+ / 0-)

            soviet's military capabilities?  and plz, you are slobbering iran's knob pretty hard here.

            •  actually, I only repeat (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee, Tropical Depression

              what others have researched.

              Russia perfected the asymetrical response to US trillion dollar investments. Instead of matching our investment, boat for boat, nuke for nuke, they looked for a cheaper, better way to expose weaknesses in our armor. Their missile technology is far more advanced than ours, AND they are actively trading with Iran, China, and others. Not only are these goods affordable, they work.

              The US used to practice this, before the days of military-industrial whoring. In fact, we used it against the brits when we were still a bunch of backwards colonies with no industry to speak of.

              We used it in WWI, because we simply had not geared up production enough.

              IN WWII, mass production of food, arms, planes, and boats to deliver it all with (not to mention the big two, rubber and oil) meant that we outbuilt the Nazis and Japanese.   Since then, our military has become a historical entity, fighting the last war. At least we got rid of the battleship.

              Not all of our military is like that, in some fronts, we have no match. Stealth technology in manned craft is pretty awesome, although the idea of using the F-22 Raptor in supercruise mode seems rather pointless when our enemy in Afghanistan has no radar, uses few anti-aircraft missiles, and pricks us until we bleed to death in other ways. Damn those afghans. They refuse to fight our battles as we planned them. The Iraqis too!

              In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

              by agnostic on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:49:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  this is just like the soviets (0+ / 0-)

                w/ the inanely uninteresting "do you play chess or do you play poker" stuff.  tons of crappy analyists talked about the russians played chess.  and now the soviet union is gone.  I assume the next enemy the US has will also by some magically coincidence play chess.

        •  how about this? (0+ / 0-)

          Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. The best defense the Navy has against Sunburn and Yakhonts cruise missiles has been the Sea-RAM (Rolling Actionframe Missile system) anti-ship missile defense system which is a modified form of the Phalanx 20 mm cannon gun . The Sea-RAM has been tested with a 95% success rate against the 'Vandal' supersonic missile capable of Mach 2.5 speeds but does not have the radar evading and final flight maneuvers of Russian anti-ship missiles. Naval ships are having their anti-ship missile defense fitted with the new Sea-RAM However, the Sea-RAM has not yet been tested in actual battle conditions nor against the Sunburn or Yakhonts missiles which out-perform the Vandal. The Vandal is currently scheduled for replacement by the 'Coyote' which replicates many of the evasive maneuvers of the Russia anti-ship missiles necessary for developing an effective defense.

          So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon's weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defense was develope. Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

          Not just another grey box

          that seems fairly clear.

          In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

          by agnostic on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 06:18:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not only that but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      docangel, planetclaire4

      no American ship has ever been sunk by a cruise missile. The Stark was hit by an Iraqi exocet but did not sink. And I also object to the assertion that the SS-N-X-26 is some sort of unstoppable super weapon. And the SS-N-22 is still based on almost 40 year old Soviet technology. You cant hit what you cant find and the Iranians have a reconnaisance deficit. Countries have realized that in combat with the United States, turning on a radar set is a death sentance and the primary Iranian aerial reconnaisance platform remains the same P-3 Orion that is our main aerial maritime reconaissance platform. That is if the Iranians actually manage to get any aircraft in the air in a shooting conflict.

      Truthiness? You can't HANDLE the truthiness!

      by calipygian on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:43:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        docangel, planetclaire4

        I saw that too.  Again, the drive toward war is extreme worrisome, but we shouldn't spread false stories.  Iran is NOT more technically advanced than the US military.  That is a simple fact.  But a war would be extremely bloody for both sides DESPITE our technical advantage.  What Iran appears to be very good at is asymmetrical warfare: using their low-tech (speed boats, mines, infiltrators, unguided rockets, suicide bombers) weapons effectively against a high-tech opponent.

      •  yet. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the USS Cole was almost sunk by a rubber craft with a Mercury engine.

        Since the 1970s, our ships are lighter, un-armored, faster, and filled with really delicate electronics. When these puppies get hit with a big missile, one hit is enough to make them useless. The ships of WWII were heavily armored, acting like tanks of WWI. lumbering, heavy, slow, and fuel hungry. Big guns that could flatten a city block. And always at sea, worried about other boats, subs, and for the first time, planes.

        I think the equation has gone off the scale. The more complex and sophisticated stuff is ever more susceptible to the most irrational and surprising things.

        Did you know that our great, superb, unsurpassable, stealthy F-2 Raptor is so complex, that its computer system was unable to deal with crossing the 180 Meridian? a whole squadron was almost lost at sea. Luckily, one of them was able to spot their refueling tankers, and followed them back to Hawaii. Their whole Nav and Comm systems simply crashed.

        The F-15 had a different problem. There was a story, told second hand by a retired navy admiral that was a friend of the family, that a whole flock of them were using internal nav programming, and when they crossed the equator, every plane flipped upside down.  It freaked out the military brass something awful.

        my point is, the "enemy" that bushco has created, is both smart enough to out fox us with technology, and smart enough to outfox us with really simple stuff. that we simply did not think about ahead of time.

        In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

        by agnostic on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 03:05:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  An echo for this in Battlestar Galactica. (0+ / 0-)

          The Galactica survives the Cylon Suprise attack because Commander Adama is a bit of a Luddite and refuses to network the computers aboard ship or link them to the (compromised, as it turned out) defense grid.

          Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

          by sxwarren on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 04:27:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  A truly great diary! (5+ / 0-)

    This content would make for a major Newsweek article.

    The only setback for Cheney (and good news for us) is that recent polling shows that the American people have become opposed to any sort of attack on Iran by us.

    Poor Rupert Murdoch; he has been running shows on Fox News about the evil Iranian empire ad nauseum, but to no avail.

  •  I'm sure you have given the consequences of war (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, docangel, snoopydawg, agnostic

    with Iran much more thought than Bush has.

    Shurb likes his predigested intel home cooked and conveniently delivered from a stovepipe.

    It cats could talk, they wouldn't.

    by crystal eyes on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 01:32:03 PM PST

  •  Faux Youtube video advocating terrorism (5+ / 0-)

    Its common knowledge or assumed that certain groups are being funded by the US TLAs to do terrorism in parts of Iran, very illegal and very immoral.
    But most likely very deniable due to the chain of people involved, and the laundering of funds.
    But when a Faux TV pundit openly states that we should do car bombs in another country for revenge or kicks, Isnt it breaking the law to advocate terrorism and terrorist acts these days...
    Some retired mil type got his video feed cut off (by one of the adults at Faux maybe!) before he made an arse of himself and Fox and before the hole got dug deeper, but Brian carried on dutifully.
    Wonder if he will get a visit from the FBI?

    FOX Anchor Brian Kilmeade calls for Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran.

    Fox and Friends' Brian Kilmeade openly calls for US support for acts of terrorism—such as car bombings—in Tehran. His criminal remarks are a direct offense to victims of terrorism all around the world and render Kilmeade morally equivalent to terrorist groups like al Qaeda which he ostensibly denounces.

    Republican economic skillz... 'Soon to be able to buy $10 for $1 at the Dollar store...'

    by Ferrofluid on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 02:31:41 PM PST

  •  at the risk of getting all realistic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sxwarren, docangel, agnostic

    The military gaming-out à la Tom Clancy is all good and fun, but in the end it's not about that.

    Anyone who has followed it all has pretty good idea that the game began with the absolute knock-out goal of wanting to topple the ayatollahs. Then with the strategic knock-out, of preventing them getting nukes in the future. Both initiatives have failed, obviously.

    In coercive means, the efforts are down to the level of tactical knock-out, trying to contain Iran in the present via conventional military attack.  The road to that was supposed to be the Revolutionary Guards thing, but on which Bush/Cheney/Olmert have not dared act.  Or maybe it's truly winding down to the lowest level now, of attempted logistical knockout, via the so-called economic sanctions aka embargo.

    The reason for things not happening is domestic politics, I'm willing to bet.  Cheney et al. have been pushing the anti-Iranian propaganda for half a year and just aren't finding buyers outside their 32% base, nor real willingness to take a political beating for such a thing inside that set.

    Politically, fighting Iran has been like Social Security privatization.  Bush and Cheney keep on trying, but keep on smacking into walls of cold public indifference/resistance whenever they try to go outside the small and narrow - and now expended- mandates of the 2004 election. (Likewise for Democrats trying to go beyond the narrow but standing mandates of the 2006 elections- but the 2008 elections will extend and enlarge the mandates.)

    For all the grand geostrategic/Great Powers and military technical schemes much elaborated upon, I suspect it's all much simpler for Cheney and the rest than imagined.  Iran offended "us" in 1979-80, so it "deserves" punishment.  And like Nixon attacking into Cambodia in 1970 out of frustration at stalemate/slowly losing inside Vietnam, Cheney is imho mostly taking on Iran because he can't bear the stalemate and slow failure of his designs in Iraq.  Like Nixon, he's essentially dragging out the defeat and running up the number of casualties.  Iran is the helper of the opponent in Iraq as was China in Vietnam.  Attacking China would have been futile then, attacking Iran is slightly less futile but not much.

    The thing Cheney hates and fears is Baghdad in 2009 or 2010 becoming his personal repeat of Saigon 1975.  People like him work by analogy, on experience.  Not that I can see how continuing on this course will ever avoid collapse of his design- these days no colonial dependency can survive for long.

    That's how "far" we've really come.  As for all these fun considerations of aircraft carrier-vs-tactical missile warfare, I'd look for their relevance around the Taiwan Strait rather than Strait of Hormuz.

    Renewal, not mere Reform.

    by killjoy on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 03:36:18 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site