Posted on 08/31/2009 4:07:19 AM PDT by kingattax
WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney hinted that, in the waning days of the Bush administration, he had pushed for a military strike to destroy Iran's nuclear-weapons program.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Cheney described himself as being isolated among advisers to then-President George W. Bush, who ultimately decided against direct military action.
"I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues," Mr. Cheney said in response to questions about whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack prior to handing over the White House to Barack Obama.
"I thought that negotiations could not possibly succeed unless the Iranians really believed we were prepared to use military force," Mr. Cheney said. "And to date, of course, they are still proceeding with their nuclear program and the matter has not yet been resolved."
Mr. Cheney's views were at odds with those of other top officials at the time. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said repeatedly during those final months that a strike against Iran would make the Middle East more unstable and would raise the risk on American forces in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable," Adm. Mullen said in July 2008
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
in the waning days of the Bush administration, he had pushed for a military strike to destroy Iran's nuclear-weapons programIt's good that it didn't take place -- otherwise Obama would have another front to retreat from.
i don’t agree with a shrike on iran. Its not proportionate to anything they have done and to assume they will use their nuclear weapons is like charging someone with thought crimes
"This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable," Adm. Mullen said in July 2008Military commanders make foreign policy?
i’m glad you commented on that. i thought that was a very curious statement to say the least.
You know nothing of the groups they fund, what they currently do, and what they aim to do. Smart people, like many FReepers and Mr. Cheney, do.
You got guts my friend. And brains.
I can see him saying something like “WE don’t need more instability in that region”... but he said “I” don’t need more instability.
I hope Cheney’s off-the-record reaction was: “Who the F* elected you?”
You know nothing of the groups they fund, what they currently do, and what they aim to do. Smart people, like many FReepers and Mr. Cheney, do.
JFK was prepared to start nuclear Armageddon over Russia’s attempt to give Cuba nuclear missiles. Israel struck Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Dubya went to Iraq in order to stop Saddam from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel might yet destroy Iran’s nuclear reactor. What proof do you need of Iran’s intentions to use the weapon it’s working so hard to make? One such proof would be Iran using it, and by then it would be too late. For small, totalitarian fiefdoms like Iran, the act of developing a nuclear weapon is sufficient provocation IMHO. Cheney was right, but wrong about the timing. The opportunity to strike would have been any time prior to 2008. After that, you’re making choices for the next administration, and manipulating the election. In 2007, however, that would have, contrary to the joint chief’s assessment, stabilized the region by demonstrating to one of the most malicious interlopers in Iraq, Lebanon and Ghaza, that the jig is up and they’d better stop. Syria would get the message, too.
“. Its not proportionate to anything they have done “
Dozens, if not hundreds, of Iranian Special Forces were documented to be captured in Iraq, doing everything from providing weaponry and support to Shiite terrorists, to actually taking part in attacks on American and British troops...
Evidently, the Bush Administration agreed with you, however, as they did everything in their power to hush-up and de-emphasize these acts-of-war.....
And you are right; a military first strike against Iranian nuclear facilities using conventional weapons is "not proportionate" to Iran's stated objective to "wipe Israel off the map". Yes, you are correct in that assessment.
That wasn’t the only reason, but it was an important part of the rationale to invade, a major part of the WMD equation.
Do you have a link to the reports of the capture Iranian special forces in Iraq?
Well, perhaps Iraq should be a good cautionary tale about the dangers of preemptive military action. Whether it was ultimately successful or not, the invasion was launched because of a set of assumptions that turned out to be false. It’s a tricky game...I say let Israel make the strike.
According to this strange new doctrine of proportionality, the only response allowed to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would be to attack one naval station somewhere in the Pacific, and then sue for peace. “Proportionality” means what is necessary in order to thwart their intentions. The Axis intended world conquest. All-out war was all that could stop them. Iran intends to “wipe Israel from the map,” using nuclear weapons. The destruction of their nuclear reactor as a means of stopping them is preferable to all-out war between Iran and Israel.
Iraq is a cautionary tale of the dangers of prolonged occupation as part of a preemptive war. But it’s also an inspirational tale of staying on a cold trail and refusing to accept the “inevitability” of defeat. It might just turn out all right, in spite of Obama’s presidency, because the US broke the “Vietnam” paradigm. I have little hope of the “surge” strategy working in Afghanistan, though. Whatever might work there, that’s not it.
I LOVE CHENEY!
LLS
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.