Reading between the lines

Don't believe everything you read, like this article "Pentagon rules out ground attack on Iran". The title is very misleading, because no one I know expects the United States to conduct a ground attack on Iran.

The tag line of the article says 'Officials find rugged terrain makes invasion virtually impossible' and the first sentence of the article says 'Democrat leaders in Congress vow they'll move to block President Bush from invading Iran, but Pentagon officials say that won't be necessary, because they have no active plans for a ground attack.' Let's pick this apart, shall we?

First, the Pentagon officials say they have no active plans for a ground attack against Iran? That a misleading statement if I've ever heard one. The Pentagon always has contingency plans for everything. Perhaps the officials who were questioned were not at liberty to share any information. They are probably not inclined to go around saying, "Yep, we've got some super duper plans to destroy Iran ....". Ya think?

Second, the Pentagon says a ground attack 'won't be necessary'. That statement is probably true. The most likely plan would involve precision strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Third, Democrat leaders vow to block President Bush from invading Iran. They probably would not be able to block the President. They don't have the ability or right to block the President. And more important, the President has not even hinted that he would 'go into' Iran.

The article discusses the 'towering mountains, salt flats, high desert wastelands, dry lake beds that ooze a black sticky mud that's a lot like quicksand, that won't support tanks and artillery, lack of any sizable rivers...' You can read all the topographic information in the article yourself. Then there's this:

"Congress should make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president to go into Iran," warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

But even strong promoters of the war in Iraq are not talking seriously about going "into" Iran.

"I do not think anyone in the U.S. is talking about invasion," said Josh Muravchik, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute who has argued for air strikes on Iran. [snip]

Officials say the Pentagon has outlined a plan using satellite and laser-guided missiles to attack targets inside Iran in a preemptive action to destroy Iran's dual-use nuclear facilities or punish Iran for arming Shiite militias in Iraq, or both.

Some of Iran's installations are underground, however, and protected by hardened bunkers, which may require nuclear-tipped "bunker-busters" to knock them out, officials say. [snip]

There are several signs the U.S. is preparing to launch an air campaign against Iran, including:

* Ordering a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. A third carrier may also be on the way.

* Shipping additional Patriot missiles and minesweepers to the Gulf.

* Ordering more oil reserves to be stockpiled in the U.S. strategic supply.

* Deploying more troops on the other side of Iran in Afghanistan, which would help guard U.S. and coalition bases there against a flood of Iranian suicide bombers.

* Cutting a surprise deal with North Korea to cool tensions on that front in the "axis of evil."

At the same time, Bush has nominated an Iranian expert to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan native, has worked with Iranian dissidents on plans to bring about regime change in Tehran.

President Bush has said that all options are on the table and "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops, we will respond firmly...".

So exactly what are we to glean from this article? Perhaps it's a message to Democrats, Republicans AND to Iran. The message is this: We will not sit back and do nothing while Iran kills our soldiers in Iraq and threatens democracy there. We do have plans to stop Iran's nuclear program and we are not afraid to carry out those plans. And last but not least, the President is still the Commander in Chief, even though Mzzzzz. Pelosi seems to think she is in charge.

Linked with:
Blue Star Chronicles, Iranian Interference: It’s About Protecting Our Troops!
The Scratching Post, I Missed my own Blogiversary!
Planck's Constant, Dinner, Tuxedos, and the Eiffel Tower

Comments

[K T Cat]

Thanks for the shout out!