Posted on 01/06/2007 4:34:24 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It's just downright groovy that they've now given a more English name to guerrilla warfare.
...what El Gato said. Also, and admiral would have more experience in overall (big picture) operations that include the Navy. ...could make for better naval fire support when needed, too.
Two if by sea....ping
The Army Reserve and Guard together are only 555,000, Marine Reserve adds 50,000 more. Total active duty for all services is 1,362, total selected reserve is only 849,000. These are FY06 numbers, Army and Navy are slightly up, Navy slightly down, and Air Force down quite a bit for FY07.
The reserves, while heavily committed, are not the majority of the deployed forces.
To get larger numbers than those above you have to go to the Individual Ready Reserve, folks with time left on their service commitment (8 years total) after their active duty commitment is over, basically recently separated first enlistment types, and the standby reserve.
Make that 1,362,000
The table I was getting the data from was in thousands, and I forgot to add the trailing zeros.
Thanks, and that's interesting. Our strength is apparently much lower than I'd been led to believe. Around 1991, our first President Bush said that he could mobilize 2 million reserve component bodies and keep them in the Middle East for up to two years.
So how do we go about getting enlistment numbers up in a mostly fatherless nation?
Good point. Same with Bin Laden. How many speeches has President Bush given to try to correct this superficial thinking, and it still goes on as if the solution to 9/11 is to catch OBL, and anything else (like Iraq) is some off-the-wall distraction.
Kurds are Kurds, they are neither Sunni or Shia. Sunni and Shia are Arabic.
I suspect Europe is gone. In another 20 years, no matter how we resolve or don't resolve this Islamic War, Europe will be a declining market for American production because Sharia produces and maintains an utterly lethargic population of producers. Because war is the only activity sanctioned in the Koran as a legitimate outlet for zeal and ambition, the economy of Europe will fade rather quickly. If we manage to fend off the saracens or even destroy Iran, the other power in the world will be China. Japan is disappearing and,though it is not being colonized by the paynim, it will be colonized eventually by the Chinese. The subsidence of the Chinese economy over the next decade will give us some economic respite from that quarter for a time but as China's economy seems to be failing- it will not be failing but it will contract and it will feel like it is failing- China will become more bellicose and will start grabbing off some islands and trying to hem in Viet Nam and Thailand. If we do not deal effectively with Iran now, China will be much more dangerous in the fairly near term.
Why do you say that? I'm really interested, not just arguing. I don't know much about the stock market, but am thinking about buying some stock other than our 401K.
Carolyn
Iraq is quite irrelevant to this war except as frontline basing for our forces and it serves that purpose in turmoil though it would be better if it were pacified.I believe that was the understanding when we went in but I think that has got lost as we got all involved with hearts-and-minds. And, after trumpeting our learning of the lesson of Viet Nam, here we are micromanaging a war from Washington again.Iraq is not even The War; it is a campaign in THE war, just as Afghanistan is a campaign in that larger Islamic War. The proper justifications for Afghanistan were two, to knock out the organized Al Quaeda and to hem in Iran. Both goals have been attained. AQ is a category now, not an organized force. There were two justifications for going into Iraq. One is Revenge which, as unCorrect as that sounds to modern enlightened folk, is very important in the Arab world and establishes to the Arabs our absolute right to be there. The other is, again, to hem in Iran and to have our forces just over the border from Iran. The winning of the war is not in any way dependent on whether we "win" or not in Iraq. Pacifying and democratizing Iraq is a sideshow that has got us by the short hairs politically and, to the Democrats and more and more to the Republicans, and is, it seems, the issue that will get us taken off the case altogether and allow Iran to become the enemy that will severely damage America before Uncle Sam can get up the nerve again to do the job that should have been done already.
He says that because compared to what he believes is coming, the price of oil is cheap now. It's somewhere in the 50s and 60s (dollars) per barrel range lately, and he was foreseeing 200 dollars per not far down the road (no pun intended). And he thinks the oil company profits will go like gangbusters as a result.
Problem: the didn't mention that the Democrats will do all they can to get their mitts on that money "on behalf of the sick, the elderly, the children, health care, homeland security spending, financing political campaigns, global warming", you name it, every government funded scheme you can think of and many you can't.
So I would add that caveat. The Dems in Congress and it looks like probably the WH will not rest until they "wrest" that money away from "Big Oil".
Carolyn
It isn't a sideshow. It's front an center because failure there after we have done so much and made it so important is a disaster.
Was Vietnam central to our security? Of course not.
Today we still pay for that disaster. Pulling out in front of the whole world, refusing even to support the government on our side, and letting an inferior enemy slaughter them and round them up into mind control camps...the refugees, the Pol Pot slaughter in Cambodia, the needless loss of and maiming of so many young American men, the disdain for war among our populace because apparently we are now expected to LOSE WARS, so lets just not get into one.
Osama bin Laden and all Islamofascists and yes, Iran, China, Russia, NK, the Euroweenies, the lot of them believe they have us pegged. It is DANGEROUS.
And unlike you, some of us care about the actual people of Iraq. But I digress.
Exactly.
I was in CENTCOM. I even served briefly under "Barbwire Bob Kingston" (commander of Jimmy Carter's failed raid into Iran)- Barbwire Bob got his nickname at CENTCOM when he wanted to surround his Tampa headquarters in concertina wire to simulate a hostile deployment and keep his staff in military mindset.
Command of CENTCOM was agreed to be rotated among services when the Command was formed. Local understanding was that the agreement gave the Marines a big boost in prestige- and an excuse to have an extra 4-star billet. When the CENTCOM commander is from one service, the deputy is from another. I believe the CENTCOM Director of Ops may also rotate service depending on balancing the joint command staff.
If the army and marine rotation of CENTCOM command got out of sync in the last several cycles it was probably because we are AT WAR and you don't change horses in the middle of the stream. When the command was formed, few planners envisioned several hundred thousand US ground troops deployed in the AOR. In the early days, CENTCOM was pretty much a paper command.
You're right the Navy has not yet been in Command. But not by design. But I'm sure the Navy has been pushing to get its turn at Command of CENTCOM.
Joint Service Command jockeying is an interservice power thang. I would bet giving up a rotation in CENTCOM command gained the Navy an extra command billet in another joint service arena, probably the Pacific with all the crap emerging from North Korea. Each service jealously guards those 4-star billets, you know.
The Navy hand at wanting command of CENTCOM would be strengthened if there are plans now to chop two carriers to the CENTCOM AOR for extended period of time. So perhaps there is a contingency basis for selecting a Navy Admiral at this time. Used to be the Navy scoffed at ever sending carriers into the Persian Gulf or even using carriers in CENTCOM AOR exercises. DESERT STORM 1 sure changed their deployment doctrine.
Best wishes in your future alarmist fantasizing.
What type of dummy puts the lead commander in charge of a most important resources a operation that will utilize rather than someone who doesn't have the expertise to run the operation
What a dummy !!!
The media needs a chair at the joint chief table to make sure our military operations are being run correctly
L
This is a serious question, (not posted as an attack or attempt at sarcasm): In the recent history, is there a case where the insurgency was defeated, completely, and for some time?
I have been thinking about this for some time, but I cannot come up with any.
Can someone give me a mil history lesson here?
Carolyn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.