Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands American forces in the Middle East, was said to be troubled by results of the war game. Matt Dunham/Associated Press
For the third day in a row the New York print edition of the NYT has got a front page article focused on war with Iran. Today’s is U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran by Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker and it’s a whopper.
WASHINGTON — A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.
…..
[T]he game has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policy makers over the consequences of any Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to those in the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.
………..
The two-week war game, called Internal Look, played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by carrying out its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The results of the war game were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia….
What are the chances that Americans would be afforded a report on our military’s assessment without having it finalized/”balanced” with Israel’s opposing assessment? Not much. Note how we are being sold a bill of goods pretending there will be only mere, limited, slight repercussions. Nothing that could lead to hundreds of thousands dead like our Iraq adventure:
“Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.
“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”
And here is Israel’s chosen American ‘liberal’ mouthpiece delivering the ‘belief’ that an attack on Iran will go swimmingly. First softening the target (with four paragraphs of Uganda/Entebbe/Netanyahu’s dead bro: “Yonatan was the only Israeli soldier killed” warm up), then, after much equivocating, he goes in for the smooth landing:
The arguments I’ve outlined here — and those I’ll describe in my next column — all lead to a single conclusion: The Israeli political leadership increasingly believes that an attack on Iran will not be the disaster many American officials, and some ex-Israeli security officials, fear it will be.
These were vertigo-inducing conversations, to say the least. Next week, I’ll discuss why, from Netanyahu’s perspective, a strike on Iran, even if only marginally successful, might be worth the risk — and may be historically inevitable.
Right, surprise us Jeffrey. Or tell us again what we already know. Neocon hawks are steering the debate on how to take on Iran. This has been exposed time and again. Tell us why we need a ‘liberal’ translator to deliver Netanyahu’s narrative for war? It’s only vertigo-inducing because you’re so circular about it. We get it: Israel wants to attack Iran and they want the American public’s okay to go to war, again. Against the judgement of our own military leaders. And you are explaining that to us, gently. And ad nauseam (your drumbeat began 18 months ago). And we’re not even talking about gas prices…
During a conversation on Chris Matthews Hardball last evening about oil prices and production Congressman Markey closing statement was blaming Iran for rising prices. He said “Iran as they rattle the markets” Essentially blaming Israel’s endless saber rattling and threat to attack on Iran and oil speculation taking place as a result on Iran. Markey kissed Israel right on the ass last night.
On MSNBC’s Rachel Maddows she did a one hour show on non proliferation and Mexico agreeing to take out all nuclear weapons grade fuel. Good show. But when Rachel and her team put up a map of countries with nuclear weapons Russia, China, US, France, UK, Israel, India, Pakistan and NOrth Korea. She and her team chose to put up Iran as having nuclear weapons on the map. Talk about irresponsible, inaccurate and dangerous. Fueling the endlessly repeated and unproven claims that Iran not only has a nuclear weapons plan but they have nuclear weapons. Rachel Maddow needs to be pounded for doing this. Shameful and dangerous
“We get it: Israel wants to attack Iran and they want the American public’s okay to go to war, again. Against the judgement of our own military leaders.”
And Rachel Maddow helped with the go get Iran drumbeat last night which she has done before
The Marine Generals are usually the only ones who give a shit about the actual troops – and we always get painted as the psychos killers…ha.
Fmr Marine General Anthony Zinni on Iraq:
Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war the civilians wanted.
“I can’t speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,” says Zinni.
Zinni on the “real” culprits:
“I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do,” says Zinni.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that’s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn’t criticize who they were. I certainly don’t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I’m not interested.”
Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don’t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn’t know where it came from.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-618896.html
——————————————
The key thing to remember is that the military brass are not pacifists by any means – they didn’t object to war on Iraq, they objected to its pratical application, to include timing and so on. These aren’t arguments against war on Iran as much as they are “maybe this isnt such a great idea for the time being”; or in other words, we need to think on this a while longer.
Let’s also remember that one of Barry’s key selling points was that he was going to “use the noodle” and be a more competent manager of the war machine and so on. Story after story about dilligent preparation/study/analysis, as we have seen lately, seems like useful propaganda in that effort.
And that is what the “war” speech from Barry will be: I have exhausted all options, thoroughly engaged the military and the analyst community, used all international institutions, and have, at every turn, made clear that only after weighing/exhausting all options would i contemplate using military force – unfortunately we are now at that point….yada yada yada….
According to the national racist religion we call Americanism– only American soldiers’ lives really matter. Also pretty much any white American.
The concept that Palestinian life has any value at all? That’s nowhere on the U.S. political spectrum. I propose putting it on the spectrum by demanding boycott resolutions against Israel.
“killing 200 americans”
This must be a cheap joke! Those aircraft carriers have a crew of over 5,000 men and if Iran hits one of them with a missile, hundreds will die instantly. If the missile hits the bay where the bombs and ammunitions are, or the fuel area, the whole ship may just blow up killing most of its crew, and this is only one single missile.
What about those other hundreds fired at our ships, how many of those will hit the targets? How many ships will sink?
We also have military installation all around Iran with at least 100,000 soldiers, an easily hit by iranian missiles. Iran makes sure the Taliban go on the warpath, again.
In addition Iraq will rise again, Iran supplied them with enough weapons. How many americans must die there? We can expect that many american facilities will be hit by terrorists, perhaps our cities, such as New York. How many people will die if they explode a chemical device on Times Square?
The majority of the population in Bahrain are shiits and we have our ME fleet there. Does anyone think that it will not be hit? It is only a couple hundred miles from Iran!
Iran is not Iraq and we will pay heavily if we or Israel decides to attack them, so forget about the 200 dead americans. Add a couple 00 to that number.