Seems the conjecture put forth on CGCS last September in notes like this and this that claimed stuff like "Issues are comming up in the deployment of the Eisenhower Strike Group from Norfolk. They are headed to Iran by October 20th. Officers are raising the issue of wether they should bomb Iran if Bush tells them to do it. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war not the President. Will this be an illegal order? I believe Congress should vote to clear up this issue. The military should not be put in this position." ain't come to fruition, eh? Methinks 'twould seem the EISENHOWER carrier battle group is actually windin' down a routine deployment and ain't launched a single attack on Iran as prophesied, unless 'twas done in secret and nobody noticed.

Anyone here heard anything 'bout an attack on Iran by the IKE CVBG or any other part of our military that I mighta missed? Since I don't usually read Antiwar.com, CounterPunch, CommonDreams, TruthOut, Alter.net or any of the other various sources seemingly favored by so many here 'tis possible I just might notta seen it, eh?

The 657th invasion of Iran just isn't being covered by the MSM. The devilishly clever Bush administration is distracting attention from it by saturating the media with coverage of the Gonzales and Plame hearings.

with a sprinkling of Britney's newly shaved head and Anna Nicole's lavishly dressed corpse.

We are the most over-amused and under-informed nation in the world.

Newton Minnow didn't know how good TV was in the 60s

1) An attack has been under way for some time now, dominantly on psychological and propagandistic terms, but also with very minor "actions", some of a provocative nature, and some including US boots on the ground inside Iran.

2) Opportunities for indirect attack often lie within ruses.

"In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed to secure victory. Indirect methods, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible ...like the sun and the moon, they end but begin anew, like the four seasons, they pass away but return once more." -- Sun Tzu

"... an army and a state succumb quickest to paralysis of the brain". (Sir B. H. Liddell Hart)

3) 'By persistently hanging on the enemy's flank, you can succeed in the long run in killing the commander in chief'. -- Sun Tzu
(i.e., regime change)

4) "It ain't over until it's over."

Odd that the Iranians haven't noticed anything outside the tussle regarding arms shipments to Iraq! Believe what you want, I get updates on Iran all the time from an inlaw whose family mostly still lives there.

FEATURE: US Navy: aircraft carrier for Afghanistan, not Iran
Posted on : Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:14:01 GMT | Author : DPA
News Category : US (World)
New ( News Alerts by Email click here )

The second US aircraft carrier that arrived near the Gulf in late February is focusing its operations on supporting coalition ground forces in Afghanistan and is not targeting Iran, its top commanders said. The nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis had entered the Bahrain-based US Navy 5th Fleet area of responsibility on February 19, taking position in the northern Arabian Sea.

Its arrival marked the first time since the 2003 Iraq war that the US had deployed two carriers in the region at the same time.

The deployment of the Stennis alongside the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower had fuelled speculation that the US was planning to attack Iran, a claim that top US Naval officials in the region have refuted repeatedly.

Speculations over an impending attack were intensified in recent days after British naval officials revealed that their presence since October had doubled, with a French aircraft carrier steaming towards the region.

"Our mission right now is specifically focused on Afghanistan to provide the air support for the ground coalition troops there," said the commanding officer of the Stennis, Captain Bradley E Johanson, on February 27, as the carrier launched its planes into action for the fifth straight day over Afghanistan.

"Our positioning is specifically focused to be adjacent to the air corridors that go over Pakistan into Afghanistan," he said, pointing out that coalition efforts in Afghanistan were aimed at stabilizing the country and establishing the foundation for democracy.

Johanson, saying that the US Navy could provide assistance for operations in Iraq if called upon, added he was not directly concerned with the on-going Iranian military exercises, as they were operating in international waters outside the Gulf.

"The increased presence in the area is because we have five important missions going in the region right now. There is Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the situation in Somalia, operations in Iraq, maritime security operations, and joint training exercises with regional allies," he said.

Johanson said that the presence of the second carrier helped relief the pressure on the first and at the same time ensured all operations received adequate attention.

The commander of the carrier air wing, Captain Sterling G Gilliam, confirmed their deployment was part of a routine operation to support coalition efforts in Afghanistan.

"Right now we are just focused on supporting the war on terror and providing support for our forces on the ground in Afghanistan - that is singularly what we are doing with our missions," said Gilliam, who heads the eight-squadron-strong Air Wing Nine.

"Typically, we are flying combat or close air support for coalition troops in Afghanistan," Gilliam explained, adding that having two carriers here allowed them the flexibility to conduct other missions, such as the recent mission in Somalia.

Downplaying any immediate concerns about Iranian military exercises, Gilliam said the coalition presence was to ensure stability and security.

The USS John C Stennis Carrier Strike Group started its missions over Afghanistan on February 23.

The outgoing Commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command and the Bahrain-based US Navy 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, said this was an unprecedented time of instability and insecurity in the region with tension in Somalia, Lebanon, the Eastern Mediterranean, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

He denied reports of a US naval offensive military build-up in the region, describing the added capabilities as defensive ones and affirming that the coalition was keeping a close watch on increasing Iranian naval exercises in the Gulf.

Iran's refusal to suspend work on enriching uranium had raised concerns about Tehran's intentions as well as fears that they would seek to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran and Washington find themselves in a stalemate situation as the Iranians continue to claim that their programme is peaceful.

Two carrier strike groups - the Eisenhower and the Stennis - are in the Arabian Sea. One plan is for them to be relieved early in the northern spring, but there is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources. (Among other concerns, war games have shown that the carriers could be vulnerable to swarming tactics involving large numbers of small boats, a technique the Iranians have practised in the past; carriers have limited manoeuvrability in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, off Iran's southern coast.) The former senior intelligence official says the present contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring.

He adds, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs are counting on the White House's not being "foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give Bush's Republicans in 2008", a presidential election year.

This is an edited extract from an article that first appeared in The New Yorker.

Fallon Says U.S. Defends Interests, Doesn't Seek Iran Conflict

By Janine Zacharia and Ken Fireman

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- The deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf is intended to show American resolve to defend its interests in the region, not to provoke a conflict with Iran's Islamic government, the new commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said.

``We are not looking for a conflict with Iran,'' Admiral William Fallon said in his first interview as head of the U.S. military's Central Command, which covers the Middle East. ``There's been a lot, too much, talk about this.''

In the interview, which will air on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt'' this weekend, Fallon also said that ``time is of the essence'' in the U.S. effort to bring security to Iraq and that clear goals and timelines must be set.

Fallon said diplomatic engagement with other Middle Eastern nations is essential to the U.S. effort to stabilize Iraq. He said he planned to meet with regional leaders, as he often did during his previous assignment as head of U.S. forces in Asia and the Pacific, to further that effort.

``Engagement is a key tenet of our operating scheme here,'' he said. ``I am very anxious to sit down with the military and government leaders in this region to have their appreciation of the situation and quite frankly to enlist their support to enable us to move forward, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan and in the region.''

Fallon, 62, took over as head of Central Command today from Army General John Abizaid at its headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. Abizaid, who led U.S. forces in the Middle East during most of the Iraq war, is retiring.

Centcom

Centcom covers most of the Middle East, including Iraq. The Centcom chief also runs U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and must deal with heightened tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, the sea corridor for Mideast oil exports.

Fallon's appointment was part of a broad shakeup of the U.S. military's command structure in the Middle East that coincided with President George W. Bush's decision to add 21,500 combat troops in Iraq to the 131,000 already there, with the primary goal of stabilizing Baghdad.

In the interview, Fallon declined to specify what timelines and goals he would establish for the Iraq mission, saying he needed to consult first with U.S. commanders on the ground there.

``I don't think that's my position, to go in and start banging the table, `New guy, here I am, here's the edict, nail these to the door of the church,''' Fallon said.

`Good Progress'

He said Iraqi leaders have already set benchmarks for progress and have begun to meet some of them, such as moving toward adoption of a law creating a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. He said his initial assessment of Iraqi security forces involved in the new effort to quell violence was mixed, with some ``making good progress'' while others ``have a way to go.''

Turning to Iran's role in Iraq, Fallon repeated U.S. concerns that Iran was ``not playing a very helpful role'' there and said changing that behavior was a top priority. U.S. officials have complained that Iran is supplying material for sophisticated armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed penetrators to Iraqis who attack U.S. forces.

The U.S. dispatched the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis to the Persian Gulf in January to join another carrier, the USS Eisenhower. The second carrier, along with public statements by Bush administration officials accusing Iran of hostile activity in Iraq, triggered concerns among some Democratic lawmakers that the administration might be preparing for a conflict with Iran.

Demonstrating Seriousness

``This is not a business of threatening,'' Fallon said. ``This is a business of being out and about. We are a very capable country. And we want to demonstrate to friends, and to any potential adversaries as well, that we are serious about our security responsibilities.''

Fallon, known as ``Fox,'' his call sign when he was a naval aviator, is the first Navy officer to head Centcom, whose leadership traditionally has rotated between Army and Marine Corps officers.

Fallon flew combat missions in Vietnam and spent 24 years with attack squadrons aboard aircraft carriers around the world.

As head of Pacific Command for the past two years, Fallon led a force of 300,000 from all military services, about a third larger than the personnel he will command in the Middle East.

He has limited on-the-ground experience in that region. He once served in Riyadh, the Saudi Arabian capital, and subsequently as commander of an aircraft carrier group during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

As Pacific commander, Fallon had considerable freedom to operate because U.S. policy makers were so consumed with Iraq. He was a de facto envoy to governments throughout the region and in crises was the first U.S. official contacted by defense ministers from Katmandu to East Timor.

Known as a straight talker with a wry sense of humor, Fallon said he plans to employ some of the same techniques in the Middle East. ``Our experience in the Pacific was that people are interested in security and stability, as we certainly are, because without it you can't really go forward,'' he said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Janine Zacharia in Tampa, Florida at jzacharia@bloomberg.net Ken Fireman in Washington at at kfireman1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 16, 2007 13:07 EDT

Afghanistan - USS Stennis Begins Its Air Support for Troops

# Fighter-bombers launched from the carrier are coming to the aid of coalition forces on the ground.

By Ed Friedrich, efriedrich@kitsapsun.com
March 7, 2007

Fighter-bombers launched from the Bremerton-based USS John C. Stennis are flying sorties daily to support coalition troops in Afghanistan.

The aircraft carrier and its strike group began their second week of combat operations Tuesday from the North Arabian Sea, about 100 miles off the coast of Pakistan.


<A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://adsremote.scripps.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=2042813&AdID=2052591&TargetID=2008516&Targets=2001053,2003385,2008516&RawValues=&Redirect=http:%2f%2fwww.advertisersite.com"><IMG SRC="http://images.scripps.com/1x1.gif" WIDTH=120 HEIGHT=600 BORDER=0></A>
F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers are making the 300-plus-mile run over Pakistan to landlocked Afghanistan, where they are providing close-air support to 32,000 soldiers from 37 nations participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, the Stennis’ commander, Capt. Bradley Johanson, said in a phone interview from the ship Tuesday.

The Hornets are being assisted by radar-jamming EA-6B Prowlers and E-2 Hawkeyes, early warning command and control planes.

Allied planes enjoy complete control of the skies. Targets in that area — Taliban and al-Qaida fighters — have no aircraft.

In close-air support, aircraft take a ground-attack role against targets that are near friendly forces. For example, Stennis jets will check in by radio with a unit on the ground that has asked for support. The soldiers might be in an observation post on top of a hill, peering through binoculars at a mortar lobbing rounds into a village. They’ll give GPS coordinates to the plane, and it will fly in and bomb the mortar.

Many of the Stennis’ sorties are flybys — shows of force to make villagers feel safe and keep the enemy from getting any ideas, Johanson said.

"The country has made tremendous gains, but the Taliban doesn’t like that they got booted out," Johanson said. "? There is a very strong global consensus that the current government of Afghanistan is the legitimate, proper government and we’re tying to assist them in holding back these terrorists."

The USS Eisenhower strike group is operating just east of the Stennis. Some days it splits the sorties with the Stennis, but its primary mission now is to conduct exercises with Pakistan.

The Stennis’ top priority is Afghanistan, but it is prepared to switch whenever needed to help out in Iraq or quell an uprising in Somalia. It also is inspecting cargo moving between area ports and can take part in exercises with other nations.

The Stennis’ mission truly is a joint one. It is a Navy ship supporting coalition ground forces. One of the four Hornet squadrons on board, the "Death Rattlers," is manned by Marines. The Air Force refuels its planes. Army soldiers work in the Stennis’ carrier intelligence center as liaisons to coordinate operations between the pilots and the soldiers on the ground.

"Their combat expertise, insight and ability to communicate rapidly with the ground elements have allowed our air crews to arrive on station with much better battle space awareness," said Capt. Sterling Gilliam, commander of Carrier Air Wing 9.

Johanson’s family is from Tracyton, but he grew up in Oregon.

"Never would I have imagined 30 years later having the opportunity amid a coalition of such size as one of many providers of security assistance," he said.

Stennis crew supporting ground troops in Mideast


By Sandra Jontz, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Marines with Marine Strike Fighter Squadron 323, the "Death Rattlers" out of Miramar, Calif., remove ordnance Saturday from an F/A-18 C Hornet, which had returned from providing close-air support to ground forces in Afghanistan.
Purchase reprint

ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS — The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis bypassed routine port visits on its way to the Middle East this month, aiming to rapidly bolster U.S. carrier presence in a region whose instability is heightened by Iran’s pursuance of nuclear weapons.

For the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Navy now has two carriers in the Middle East. But Iran is not the sole reason for the extra air and sea power, U.S. Navy leaders say.

“We consider this moment in time unprecedented in terms of the amount of insecurity and instability in the region,” Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, commander of Naval Forces Central Command, told reporters during a Feb. 19 news conference. “So beginning in Somalia and working our way to Lebanon and the eastern Mediterranean as well as Afghanistan, Iraq … and with regard to Iran, there are unprecedented levels of instability in the region.”

The Stennis’ Air Wing is in its first week of flying close-air support missions into Afghanistan, in addition to scouring the region’s waters for suspected weapons smugglers and pirates. The carrier, backed by a strike group, minesweepers and more than 6,500 sailors and Marines, arrived in the region Feb. 19.

The Stennis’ arrival absorbs some of the strains placed on the USS Eisenhower and gives Navy leaders more options on the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, maritime security operations, bilateral exercises and monitoring Somalia, said Navy Capt. Bradley Johanson, the Stennis’ commander.

“The presence of two carriers … gives them more assets to spread evenly for the different missions,” Johanson said Saturday.

But the mounting tension between the United States and Iran isn’t taken lightly, Walsh said, according to a transcript of a Feb. 19 media session.

“Specifically, the concern with Iran is the combination of the rhetoric and the exercises has taken on a very bellicose and pugnacious tone,” he said of recent Iranian military exercises and talk of using mines in the Strait of Hormuz to stymie commercial traffic.

“What I have described to you are the episodes that have taken place over the course of the past few months, and the trend line with Iran is one that is very concerning and troubling.”

Johanson recognizes the strain that the mission — and lack of port visits thus far — has placed on his crew of roughly 5,000 sailors and Marines. And he hopes to give them a reprieve when the ship returns to its homeport of Bremerton, Wash., later this summer.

“Typically, our deployments are six months, but we expect to go a little more than that,” Johanson said.

Next in line is the USS Nimitz.

“Preparations for Nimitz should not come as a surprise,” Walsh said. “There will be a temporary period when there is another carrier here to relieve the Eisenhower.”

He could not say whether the U.S. military intends to maintain a two-carrier presence.

“I think we would evaluate the situation at the time and see if it made sense to have an additional carrier here or not,” Walsh said.

A key mission of Carrier Air Wing 9 at the moment is to provide close air support for ground troops in Afghanistan, which taxes the crews.

Flying missions from the carrier, circling in the Arabian Sea south of Pakistan, then flying inland to Afghanistan, is a demanding, “long commute to work,” said Navy Capt. Sterling Gilliam, commander of the eight squadrons that make up Carrier Air Wing 9.

Pilots — whose training usually has them flying between 90 minutes and two hours — are adjusting, said Lt. Cmdr. Jeremy Brunn, 35, an F/A-18 C Hornet pilot.

“Now we’re flying six to seven hours and that’s tough on the body, mentally and physically.”

But, Gilliam said, “they have the mental toughness to deal with it, and we manage it, mindful of fatigue and crew rest.”

Methinks this smells an awful lot like the convoluted pseudo intelligence Sy Hersh's been puttin' in his stuff the past few years. Why do I say that? Mainly 'cause Hersh's been writin' stories fulla conjecture 'bout the "what ifs" of carrier operations in the Persian Gulf for years, always referencin' unnamed senior military and/or intelligence officials, eh? As I've said on this site before, anyone who knows the area and knows anything 'bout carrier operations knows carriers will never be sent into the Persian Gulf. Can anyone here cite a single instance in modern times when an aircraft carrier from any nation entered the Persian Gulf? Hersh couldn't when pressed on that in an interview I saw 'bout three months ago.

The Persian Gulf is just too small and restricted an area for a carrier to operate in. Most of it's too shallow, those areas with adequate depth are extremely busy shippin' lanes, there are numerous hazards to navigation, mines could easily be deployed to restrict manueverability even more and the narrow Straight of Hormuz is the only way in or out, eh? Besides that there'd be no reason for an American carrier to enter, its aircraft can reach pretty much everything they need to just fine from the Arabian Sea.

I really hate to spoil anyone's enjoyment of stories based on conjecture and hyperbole 'bout this kinda stuff, but methinks they belong more in the realm of "1001 Arabian Nights" tales than honest journalistic pieces.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1998

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2934&...ctionid=3510206
-- -- --

U.S. forces to be deployed to Bulgaria, Romania
Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:17:53
The U.S. is planning to deploy its first army brigade to Bulgaria and Romania in the summer of 2007.

Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO, Bantz Craddock, said approximately 2000 to 3000 U.S troops will be deployed to six U.S. army bases in Bulgaria and Romania, IRNA reported.

Craddock added the task of the force is to maintain the U.S military presence near the strategic regions of Black Sea and Caucasus.

U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, signed an agreement with Bulgaria's Foreign Minister, Ivaylo Kalfin, last April to deploy 3,000 to 5,000 troops to the East European country.

Under the agreement, the U.S will be able to use three Bulgarian military bases near the Novo Selo range bordering with Turkey, the Graf Ignatievo airfield in central Bulgaria and a storage facility near Burgas port in the west of the country.

Romanian and Bulgarian people have repeatedly staged demonstrations to oppose any U.S military presence in their countries.

RH/NDJ/AVA

http://english.baztab.com/content/?cid=1256
-- --- ----

News Code: 1256 Date: 14:18:07 - 2007/03/17

UFO Was Shot Down in Arak

The operation could have been part of an exercise to test the combat alertness and power of Iran’s air defense system.

A bright object was sighted in the sky of Arak, Iran’s Central Province, Friday night, and was shot down by the Iranian anti-aircraft missiles, BAZTAB reported.

The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) was completely destroyed by the country’s new air defense system, the report said. BAZTAB has learned that the bright object might have been a pilotless drone.

Few months ago, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) confirmed reports that its drones were conducting reconnaissance flights over the Iranian sky.

Some sources, however, claimed that the operation could have been part of an exercise to test the combat alertness and power of Iran’s air defense system.

BAZTAB – March 17, 2007

Ike Returns to Persian Gulf to Support OIF, MSO
Story Number: NNS070319-04
Release Date: 3/19/2007 11:20:00 AM

By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Nathaniel Moger, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs

USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, At Sea (NNS) -- The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), flagship of the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (Ike CSG), entered the Persian Gulf on March 15, accompanied by the guided-missile destroyer USS Anzio (CG 68).

Starting March 17, Ike and embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7 began conducting missions in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and maritime security operations (MSO) in the Gulf.

Providing support to U.S. and multinational ground forces in Iraq helps set the conditions for security and stability within the region and establishes an environment that allows the Iraqi people to have the opportunity to determine their own future.

Ike and CVW-7 squadrons are ready to take on the challenges OIF presents.

“The whole squadron work-up cycle prepares us for this,” said Command Master Chief (SW) Jon Echols, from the “Jolly Rogers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 103. “They’re professionals and will keep the jets flying in whichever environment they work in.”

CVW-7 had been flying missions into Afghanistan since the beginning of February. From Feb. 17 to March 14, the air wing flew more than 4,000 hours and more than 1,400 sorties providing close-air power support and reconnaissance to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops.

The Ike CSG departed Naval Station Norfolk on Oct. 3, for a regularly scheduled deployment in support of maritime security operations and entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations Oct. 30.

For related news, visit the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cusnc/.

With all the talk bein' bandied about again regardin' an imminent attack on Iran I though it might be interestin' to find old threads 'bout previous dire predictions claimin' the same. Luckily this one hadn't yet been archived, and if one reads from its very first note methinks you'll notice these recent predictions're just the latest in a stream of 'em over the years claimin' our military's all set to go any day now. Could you provide any sources of reliable data on this? I couldn't find anything from durin' the summer at all, even on Antiwar.com, CounterPunch or Alter.net, eh?

The funny thing is...
if we redeployed and reduced our footprint
in Iraq...by say 60,000...and these chumps in Iran
want to keep braggin' 'bout 3,000 centifuges...
well...are they askin' for it?

My question: At what point does Iran overplay
our mistakes in Iraq and load their boat for
a covey of stealths overhead? Missouri is waiting...

Seems the ball is in their court and they are
struttin' pretty hard. Careful, little bearded one...
the USA may be backin' up now...but there's a
kick in the dance, and we know how to deliver it.
Many of those who have fought the Iraq fiasco
still believe in the Stars and Stripes...and will bleed,
and cause you to bleed...if neccesary. Stand down.

Perhaps one could assume that an attack was imminent and/or that US forces may already be engaged with Iran from Bush's rhetoric.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan67.html

Impeach Nancy Pelosi. I bet we could get some bipartisan action going here.

Engaged where? Doin' what, eh?

Methinks someone started a thread in the Online Café to discuss this "imminent new" military scenario. There've all kinds of numbers bein' thrown about, like "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours" but none very realistic methinks. Let's discuss the realities here, where it's on topic. I'd hope no one truly interested would hold back their thoughts, as long as they stayed on topic, and methinks not ever havin' served is no valid reason to stay out of it if you'd like a real discussion.

Okay, methinks it's time to look seriously first at the logistics of what they're talkin' 'bout. Since we're most likely talkin' 'bout a campaign of air strikes only that's probably easier to do than most might think, eh?

IMHO you can completely discount any locally land based aircraft bein' used, at least initially. Methinks no country in the immediate region'd give their blessin' for strikes originatin' in their country, unless that country was attacked first by Iran. Also doubt they'd agree to overflights of their territory by USAF strike aircraft.

That leaves cruise missiles, land based long range heavy bombers and sea based strike aircraft flyin' from the Arabian Sea, eh? There're major considerations for each of these we'll look at. Remember, operational plannin' and logistics was part of what I did as collateral duties for the Navy, Marines and on joint staffs up until 11 years ago, so methinks I know a little bit 'bout it.

Methinks the bulk of the cruise missiles would be from ships and submarines operatin' in local waters (Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf) since even cruise missile overflight of sovereign territory's still a major road block. Probably no more'n 250 sea launchable Tomahawks are available and that only if cruise missile capable ships and subs were carryin' special load outs, eh? If the rest of the entire U.S. Navy's current supply of surface ship cruise missile assets were aboard logistics ships for replenishment at sea that'd be another 250 for use by the next day. Remember we normally use four to five missiles per strike target.

The heavy bomber fleet's now what, maybe 40 B-52s, 'bout 30 B-1s and less than 20 B-2s? That ain't a whole lotta assets, not all will be mission capable and they'd all hafta travel long distances. Think back to when we launched the attack on Iraq a few years back to get some idea of what I mean.

If the Brits authorized it Diego Garcia, maybe 1400 nautical miles south, is the closest base we could use (limited to B-52s & B-2s 'cause of runway and tarmac constraints, and probably only a dozen total of them kinda planes). That's five hours in the air each way, eh?

The rest could operate from Guam I guess, but that's over 4000 nautical miles away, maybe more 'cause of flight paths (that's 13 hours each way for B-52s and B-2s, 8 hours each way for the B-1). Probably one inflight refuelin' each way on a strike from Guam.

It's possible, but highly improbable, strikes would be launched from the continental United States like Indianhead mentioned happened in the Iraq War. That was what, 18 hours flight time each way? Overflight constraints'd be too much also.

After each flight you'd do normal checks, maintainance, refuelin' and reloads which'd probably take a minimum of four hour (if they was refueled in air on the way back). Even with the huge ordnance load the B-52 and B-1 can carry that's still a fairly limited strike capability.

If there're three aircraft carriers operatin' locally (that's a third of the total currently operational carriers we got) that'd be a total of 210 smaller strike aircraft total, but only if the carrier air wings was augmented with additional A/F-18s. Each might be capable of launchin' three alpha strikes (everything flyable and ordnance delivery capable goes) in an initial 24 hour period, then two additional from each bird farm per day after. Since each carrier normally only carries enough strike ordnance for 2.5 alpha strikes and underway replenishment takes 'bout 8 to 10 hours (in good weather) this schedule might be real tough to keep to for any prolonged period.

So what they're sayin's in the realm of maybe doable, but just barely and only if everything goes off perfectly. Since things tend to break at the worst times, weather don't always cooperate and mistakes happen methinks 10,000 successful precision targets hit in hours like Graham's initial note says might be askin' a tad too much.

flydangler, you obviously know more about this than GWB but lack of knowledge hasn't stoped
him in the past. Why should we assume that it will now?

In this note methinks Pie tried to refute my contention 'bout us not "operating" carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf. In fact she's absolutely correct that our carriers have entered the Gulf for short periods, normally for diplomatic purposes like showin' the flag. On this point I gotta admit she was right and I was wrong, even though these occurrences are few and far between. In those cases where they've occurred I've found out that they have to depend on shore based aircraft to fly the protective combat air patrol required for defensive purposes when ever there's a chance of unfriendly contact.

Even though IMHO there's a big difference between a carrier steamin' (transitting/moving from point to point) in the Gulf and operatin' (unencumbered launchin' and recoverin' combat aircraft) there 'twould seem some can't grasp the difference. To launch and/or recover fully loaded combat aircraft you need a lot of lift, so a carrier steams into the wind and needs a minimum of at least 30 knots of breeze comin' across the bow. We use the speed of the ship to compensate for deficiencies in wind speed, so if there's a 10 knot wind the carrier'll steam directly into it at 20 knots, eh?

As methinks I've said before the Persian Gulf is just too small and restricted an area for a carrier to operate in. It's not much over 600 miles long and most of it's under 150 miles wide. Since most of it's so shallow, those areas with adequate depth are extremely busy shippin' lanes, there are numerous hazards to navigation, mines could easily be deployed to restrict maneuverability even more and the narrow Straight of Hormuz is the only way in or out it's just not the place to have carrier battle groups operate, eh?


As the map above shows, the Gulf runs mainly from the southeast to the northwest, but methinks if you'll check you'll find the prevailin' wind direction there's from east northeast. With a shippin' lane only 'bout 40 miles wide throughout much of it that'd make normal aircraft operations impossible.

Did find one situation earlier this year where a carrier battle group did conduct normal flight operations in the Gulf as part of a hastily put together war game scenario. Seems there was a 19 knot wind from the east southeast and so they steamed right into it, launchin' from off the coast of Bahrain and doin' final recovery off the coast of Qatar. If the wind had shifted or quieted down the USAF air facility at Doha would've become the primary recovery point.

Methinks this'll help folks better understand some of the restrictions our military faces operatin' in that region. Normal carrier battle group operations in that area are in the Arabian Sea and sometimes up into the Gulf of Oman, eh?

Lookin' at all the facts, why shouldn't we, eh? Methinks even he ain't dumb enough to try this.

Where his dumbness most manifest itself is in his jr. high mentality of trying to win big concessions
by threatening war. When this strategy is over used, it usually results in having a war one is not well prepared for in terms of having popular support at home and from allies, and not having a plan for peace.

The other day I heard the admonition: "Son, don't take a knife to a gunfight." I instantly pictured GWB in my mind.

It does, eh? With the exception of the one we're stuck with now methinks I can't figure which other ones you're talkin' 'bout. Maybe you could please identify the others you're referrin' to?

By the same token methinks when a bunch of folks engagin' in wishful group think frequently proclaim war with Iran is imminent over a period of years, even goin' so far as to provide specifics (which turn out to just be conjecture and never quite seem to come to fruition) it tends to cause the public to poo poo real symptoms of a comin' conflict. So I gotta ask, is the sky really fallin' this time, or is it just another false alarm.

Found some new articles from yesterday that methinks some here might be interested in. See "US gearing up to attack Iran", "War With Iran Looks More Likely" and "Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran" for these new thoughts on the matter, eh? Thoughts on these anyone?

I read, "Why Bush can get away with attacking Iran," and agreed with the general thesis. However, I
thought he over-extended his argument by partially blaming the problem on human rights activists.
"...the dominant ideology of human rights has legetimized, specially in the left, the right of interventionon, on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time..."

Since I ain't been watchin' much news the past couple days, maybe I missed it, eh? Has the world ended already? Any nukes involved?

Since the world ends guess that means everybody loses? Methinks missin' that'd be a real bummer!

The current events which mark the end of the world, as we know it, if not reversed, may mark the beginning of the end of the world. The teaming up of dominionist christianity with the unbriddled power of multinational corporations and the unfortunate geopolitical distortions being carried
forward in the world makes human existence more dangerous now than ever before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeo0_3gN190

is this REM song end of the world as we know it?

Methinks things may not be so serious after readin' how even Sy Hersh has backed off his claims of the past few years. If you read his article "Shifting Targets - The Administration’s plan for Iran" in the new issue of The New Yorker you'll probably notice he's now claimin', based as usual on unnamed high placed sources, that rather'n a general bombin' campaign as he's been predictin' these past few years it's now to be a limited campaign of surgical air strikes on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities, eh? Who'da thunk it?

Dang MSM never even let us know how that one turned out, and yet 'twould seem we're doin' it again, eh? At least methinks what that veritable font of wisdom on all things havin' to do with us attackin' Iran (yep, Sy Hersh again) is claimin' in his latest chronicle of doom and gloom. At least this time he provides a few real hints on his sources though, I gotta give him credit for that!

It is the mind set that will eventually get us the goodie. This is the, "Mind Set" Obama speaks
of changing.

I don't know the present count but plan to sell at 1100. Strikes on camps supporting insurgents in Iraq is a non-issue (to both countries) as long as we don't get caught leaving too much proof, supporting insurgencies in Iran will turn around and bite us but we probably are being given time for a new administration to change policy (both by Iran and Turkey on this point), trying to get regime change is the best way to keep the current regime in power.

He's giving hints about his sources and finally has some facts straight but it looks like he doesn't understand any of the data.