EYEING IRAN: WHY W'S TAPPING ADMIRAL TO HEAD CENTRAL COMMAND

NY Post ^ | Ralph Peters

[slowhand520]

EYEING IRAN WHY W'S TAPPING ADMIRAL TO HEAD CENTRAL COMMAND

January 6, 2007 -- WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.

Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?

There's a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy avia tor and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.

While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects - requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)

Not only did Adm. Fallon command a carrier air wing during Operation Desert Storm, he also did shore duty at a joint headquarters in Saudi Arabia. He knows the complexity and treacherousness of the Middle East first-hand.

[silverleaf]

A more mundane answer- the command of CENTCOM is rotated among services. We had an Army General, then a Marine (or was it the other way..?

Now it is the Navy's turn at Command.

Simply check the history of command, by service, at CENTCOM.

Move along folks- nothing more to see here.

[tlj18]

We couldn't occupy Iran even if 100% of America wanted us to. It would take at least 500,000 troops to do it. For reference, that is the entire size of the Active Duty Army, most of which is now in Iraq, recently returned from Iraq, or is scheduled to return to Iraq in the future.

[arthurus]

The whole concept of counterinsurgency is an ignoring of the elephant in the room while we run around swatting at roaches.

[arthurus]

We have been doing it since 1979. Why stop now? Every time you kick that particular can down the road it gets bigger and hotter. One day it will explode and blow your leg off.

[Stultis]

There's no intention to do what's needed: an invasion, occupation and denazification of Iran.

We don't have the manpower to do any of those things. We do have the firepower to strike them painfully, however, and it may well come to that. (IMHO we already should have been striking Revolutionary Guard bases near the border as reprisal to Iranian interventions in Iraq.)

Cross border raids? Striking of nuclear facilities? Various preemptive strikes against airbases, missile sites, etc? Sure. All that's possible. But full scale invasion? Let alone occupation? Ain't gonna happen, and no way it could.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

But it will be a losing battle to keep oil below $200 a barrel [during a posited Iran-Saudi war] .

I think it is much more likely that Israel (rather than Saudi Arabia) will go to war against Iran in the near future. In the latter event--actually, in either event--should Iran try to close the Strait of Hormuz, I would fully expect the US Navy to be deployed rapidly to destroy the bottleneck, in quick order.

This wouldn't leave much time for $200-a-barrel oil--or even oil at half that price.

[jveritas]

Something related to our discussion yesterday.

[familyop]

"But full scale invasion? Let alone occupation? Ain't gonna happen, and no way it could."

If that were true, we should expect an invasion, occupation and nazification to eventually come to us. Almost everything needed for an invasion is already very close to Iran on all sides. It would be interesting to visit, Mongolia, for example, in uniform--far more interesting than places south of our own southern border (as visited so much for "humanitarian projects" during the '90s).

Invasion, occupation, and "can't we just get along" wasn't quite enough in Iraq, as we see. An effort with all of the tactical elements of denazification is lacking there. But occupation with a lot of Nazi-like problems is continuing there.

Light intensity conflict doctrine is sometimes useful, but as practiced, it won't work for every scenario. And we shouldn't base all doctrine on Vietnam social experiences.

[GOPJ]

admiral...let's see. He's in charge of carrier groups and a couple of MEU's.... yep. Iran...

Yep, dots are connected...

[familyop]

"We couldn't occupy Iran even if 100% of America wanted us to."

Under the circumstances, that's an implication that we're going to lose a war for our national survival. Implying it is no better than more directly stating the "unthinkable."

"It would take at least 500,000 troops to do it. For reference, that is the entire size of the Active Duty Army, most of which is now in Iraq, recently returned from Iraq, or is scheduled to return to Iraq in the future."

But we have about four times that in our reserve components, and they comprise most of our strength (numbers) over there.

[Inyo-Mono]

I have a feeling my son's deployment has just been extended.

My son too.

[familyop]

BTW, thank you for enlisting. And I wish I could have gone to Germany. ;-)

[jveritas]

You are wrong. The last two commanders of CENTCOM, General Franks and General AbiZaid are from the Army. I do not even think that there has been any Navy Admiral commanding CENTCOM until now.

[RobbyS]

What matters more is that more carriers are being brought to bear.

[jveritas]

Exactly.

A massive Air Campaign must be launched against the Iranian terrorist islamic regime to destroy its nuclear facilities, its military infrastructures and its control and command centers. The Iranian terrorist regime must be dealt a very hard blow and must be taught a lesson that it will never forget. The terrorists rulers of Tehran must understand once and for all that they are not going to control the Middle East, they must be broken and humiliated.

[txrangerette]

Thank you, General Petraius. /Sarcasm.

My point was, if you don't like counterinsurgency type warfare, blame the military. I am tired of the erroneous...it's the politicians (read BUSH & CO) and political correctness that dictated it. No, it's classic military doctrine.

I don't think it has been well enough applied.

And I don't think the Iraqis have read the handwriting on the wall up 'til now, but they're about to.

[El Gato]

It doesn't make much sense to put an admiral into Iraq

He's not going into Iraq, he's going to Central Command. CentCom's AO is way more than just Iraq. It includes the entire Indian Ocean Littoral, that is Eastern Africa, Asia Minor, the Indian Subcontinent, and the Indian ocean side of Southeast Asia. (And up to, but not including Australia). Other than Iraq, Afghanistan and few other locations, it's in essence a Littoral area, so it's a bit surprising that he's the first Admiral to occupy the slot.

[RobbyS]

Speaking of, I wonder why so little attention has been paid to the fact that there are very large numbers of Kurds in Iran, most of who are Sunni, and many of who are not happy with the Iranian regime. We could make trouble for the Shia government by encouraging the Kurds, although that probably would upset the Turks.

[familyop]

To correct an ironic, sarcastic comment that I wrote earlier (correction bold for emphasis),...

It's better to spend more $100s of billions of tax dollars to subsidize putting the War off until tomorrow and letting our shrinking population of kids take care of it (or be conquered).

And where you wrote:
"We have been doing it since 1979. Why stop now? Every time you kick that particular can down the road it gets bigger and hotter. One day it will explode and blow your leg off."

...agreed! We've taken a lot of harrassments with a lot of casualties from a vain enemy since then! If we continue to allow Iran to build nukes, the mullahs and all of their political puppets will do more than get our attention.

And BTW, all of the media talk focused so particularly on Ahmadinejad is an old, anti-defense propaganda trick that we saw often with Hussein. That propaganda trick is for the purpose of fooling our populace into believing that he, as an individual, is the only Iranian threat to our existence.

Some (although not all) of the many Iranian students and others in our USA who say that they are hoping to rebel against the mullahs are actually here for the mullahs' cause. And if our policy of avoiding the main source (Iran) of problems continues, watch for worse things to unfold soon in western Europe.

[El Gato]

Simply check the history of command, by service, at CENTCOM.

I did. No Admirals or Air Force Generals.

Check it out at Centcom's history page