Experts to Bush: Back Off, Iran is "Not a Crisis"...

[Imagevision]

Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 11:34:47 AM PDT

Apprehensive that Bush's "hard line" toward Iran is a "prelude" to a U.S military campaign against Iran, 21 former U.S. generals, diplomats and national security officials will release an open letter to the president tomorrow, demanding, according to the Los Angeles Times, a "a complete overhaul of U.S. policy toward both Iran and Iraq."

The letter comes as President Bush has made a series of appearances and statements, including a visit Tuesday to the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., seeking to promote the administration's record on security issues in advance of November's midterm congressional elections.

Elections-Elections, don't you just feel the GOP fear growing, they will not fail to mention the continued war on terror but make no mistake, they will not mention the word IRAQ!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-generals16aug16,1,3111561.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. King george To Experts...."Go To Hell, I'm Still The King Here." nt

[killbotfactory]

2. Didn't listen to them before

won't now.

[warrens]

3. Is it getting to TREASON time yet?

This guy is out of control, killing our kids, spending money like a drunken King Louis. And spitting in Congress' face while he's at it. At some point, this guy has to be brought down and sent to a nice quiet SuperMax.

[Iwasthere]

6. Enough is E f*&%$ing NUFF

I wrote a guest opinion for my local paper 4 years ago and stated then that this madman is trying to bankrupt the country in order to privatize evrything, and he plans to start several wars for political gain (and the masses will let him). I wrote that the administration is laughing at us from behind closed doors. Now, 4 years later, they don't even try to hide their laughter. Bush is a sick, twisted and dimwitted punk. WAKE UP AMERICA!! Before it is too late...

[tbyg52]

15. Exactly! It's *been* treason time for a *long* time. nt

[babylonsister]

4. Sounds great! Can't wait to read that letter! nt

[goforit]

5. 21 US Generals? Yah gotta do more than write a phuckin letter!

[leftupnorth]

7. Yeah - Like how 'bout a bloodless coup?

Or a bloody one...

I mean, c'mon, 21 generals, now all we need is a ring of tanks outside the whitehouse.

Umm, just kidding to the NSA. :hi:

[LSK]

8. that will be placed in the circular file

Right with the 18 page letter sent by the President of Iran.

[caligirl]

9. One step before the active duty generals get some balls.

Just hopoe they find theirs before Bush launches on Iran.

[evox]

10. Bush would say

"but Iran is an enemy and they are trying to develop nookelar weapons, we should bomb the shit out of them, and syria, or how about we start with syria since Iran is not a crisis?"

[Canuckistanian]

11. You're probably not far off

And I'll bet he even uses those exact words in private.

[seafan]

12. More important info from this article:

The rhetoric has increased since last week's Democratic primary in Connecticut, in which antiwar political newcomer Ned Lamont defeated three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman to become the party's Senate candidate — a victory that senior administration officials are describing as a sign that Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left.

:eyes:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.

Gard said the signatories — who included retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, head of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, and Morton H. Halperin, a senior State Department and National Security Council official during the Clinton administration — did not believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue.

snip

He noted that Iran had sought to open negotiations with the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries, efforts that the letter-signers said were worth exploring as a means of defusing tensions in the region.
But Gard said the administration appeared to be going in the opposite direction, adding that he was particularly concerned by recent warnings from former Israeli military officials that a strike against Iran may be needed to disable that country's nuclear program.

He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments.
"This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said.

snip

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-generals16aug16,1,3111561.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

[unblock]

13. bush to experts: it will be when I'M through with it!

[Strelnikov_]

14. If This Paper Is Indicative Of Military Thinking 'At The Top' We Are Going

Does the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Support America's Ability To Ensure Access To Saudi Arabian Oil

Emmett Schaill, US Army War College

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449338&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf (.pdf)

Abstract : In February 2006 terrorists attacked the Abqaiq oil production facility in Saudi Arabia, the largest of its kind in the world. This attack is just the most recent in a string of attacks pointing out the growing insurgency in the Kingdom and its potential to drastically cut oil supplies to the West.

In 2005 Americans were reminded of their vulnerability to sudden price spikes in the price of fuel as prices rose dramatically. America's economy recovered quickly but the evidence of vulnerability to oil supply interruptions remains. These events cause concern that oil supplies are vulnerable to insurgent attacks, and that Saudi Arabia's large reservoir of oil may one day be under the control of extremists. Can the United States prevent this from occurring?

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) establishes a future force structure that brings into question America's ability to ensure access to Saudi Arabian oil given the threats to the regime and in the region. Will the 2006 QDR forces be sufficient? This paper addresses this question identifying several areas of concern for further analysis and consideration.


Basically, Iran is not a major threat unless it gets the bomb, then the balance of power does a tectonic shift.

I especially like the part where the Marines invade Saudi Arabia to secure the oil fields in the event of a Saudi insurgency.

. . and where we will need a ground force to invade Iran 'probably larger than in Iraq simply due to the greater population of Iran.'


We aren't there for the oil, though.


Madness.