Pentagon tells Bush "bombing Iran won't work"; Rumsfeld ignores them

**Grimmlok** · July 2nd, 2006, 11:28 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officers have told the Bush administration that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would probably fail to destroy that country's nuclear program, the New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday.

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

"A crucial issue in the military's dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit," according to the report.

The U.S. military's experience in Iraq, where no weapons of mass destruction were found and the war continues, has affected its approach to Iran, the magazine quoted a high-ranking general as saying.

"The target array in Iran is huge, but it's amorphous," the unidentified general was quoted as saying. "We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there.

"This is son of Iraq."

The United States on Friday spurned Iranian calls for more time to study an offer of incentives to curb its nuclear fuel program, insisting Tehran must reply by the Group of Eight industrialized nations' deadline on July 5.

The article, by journalist Seymour Hersh, also questioned the effectiveness of U.S. targeting potential nuclear sites.

"Intelligence has also shown that for the past two years the Iranians have been shifting their most sensitive nuclear-related materials and production facilities, moving some into urban areas, in anticipation of a bombing raid," it said.

Another parallel U.S. military leaders drew with Iraq is the administration's desire for a swift and cheap intervention in Iran without sufficient regard for economic and political consequences, including oil supplies and a backlash in the broader Muslim world and in Europe.

"If you're a military planner, you try to weigh options," one senior military official was quoted as saying. "What is the capability of the Iranian response, and the likelihood of a punitive response like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?"

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides "really think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary," the official told the magazine

http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...REPORT-DC.html

It's insane that they're even contemplating any kind of military action outside of Iraq. You think Iraq is a gulag now? Iran is twice the size, twice the population and has a modern, well equipped and well trained military. Good luck.

**DirtyPool** · July 3rd, 2006, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Iran is twice the size, twice the population and has a modern, well equipped and well trained military. Good luck.

Yes and?? When it comes down to military operations, bring it, because we sure will.

**Grimmlok** · July 3rd, 2006, 12:39 AM

*eyeroll*

Dispense with the rah-rah "we're the best!" crap. You don't have the capability to take that nation on. You don't have the numbers, nor the equipment, nor the will. They would bleed you horribly.

You're overstretched and exhausted in Iraq, wtf makes you think you can take on something about 10 times as powerful and twice as large?

hello? sanity, are you in there?

**DirtyPool** · July 3rd, 2006, 12:45 AM

^Your number one problem is that you don't understand the nature of the real American. You understand more about the enemy- why is that?

**Delphinium** · July 3rd, 2006, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by DirtyPool

Yes and?? When it comes down to military operations, bring it, because we sure will.

We could easily as long as the idiot politicians keep out of it and allow our military to do what it is designed to do, defend and protect America and it's interests around the World.

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

*eyeroll*

Dispense with the rah-rah "we're the best!" crap. You don't have the capability to take that nation on. You don't have the numbers, nor the equipment, nor the will. They would bleed you horribly.

You're overstretched and exhausted in Iraq, wtf makes you think you can take on something about 10 times as powerful and twice as large?

hello? sanity, are you in there?

Again, if the press and the politicians would get out of the way and let Americans fights for America without all the monday morning quarterbacking and treasonous newspapers printing classified information we absolutely could stop Iran BEFORE they use their nuclear arsenal. What makes you think they will stop with America? They would just find another "great satan" to attack.

**Grimmlok** · July 3rd, 2006, 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by DirtyPool

^Your number one problem is that you don't understand the nature of the real American. You understand more about the enemy- why is that?

No, your problem is you're hung up on the notion of invincible america, instead of the REALITY OF NUMBERS AND LOGISTICS.

Are you seriously going to debate the Pentagon on strategic warfare? Are you serious?

**Delphinium** · July 3rd, 2006, 01:28 AM

^^I think you are really not realizing what the American military is capable of, if they were simply allowed to do their job!

**Grimmlok** · July 3rd, 2006, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Delphinium

We could easily as long as the idiot politicians keep out of it and allow our military to do what it is designed to do, defend and protect America and it's interests around the World.

No, you could not easily. Are YOU arguing with the pentagon as well?

You have an exhausted, almost broken military bogged down in another country. You're contemplating blowing another few hundred billion on taking on Iran, without sufficient troop levels, equipment, or popular support at home. This doesn't even take into account supply lines, vehicles...

Iran is ten times as powerful, twice as big, and very well trained. You simply DO NOT have the resources to do this, the pentagon agrees, and most military generals conclude your forces are on the breaking points in Iraq as it is.

How the hell do you hope to accomplish this, wishful thinking?

Again, if the press and the politicians would get out of the way and let Americans fights for America without all the monday morning quarterbacking and treasonous newspapers printing classified information we absolutely could stop Iran BEFORE they use their nuclear arsenal. What makes you think they will stop with America? They would just find another "great satan" to attack.

Well the Pentagon, the center for all military control of your nation, disagrees with your hilarious assessment. Do you think you're better informed than they are?

Originally Posted by Delphinium

^^I think you are really not realizing what the American military is capable of, if they were simply allowed to do their job!

1+1 = 2. If you don't have the troop numbers, and the ones you have are exhausted from lack of rotation and support, you're a few hundred billion in debt because of Iraq, and you're stretched to the breaking points...

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THEY WIN? Seriously. Fighting a war with no numbers?

**DirtyPool** · July 3rd, 2006, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Are you seriously going to debate the Pentagon on strategic warfare? Are you serious?

I'll bust down that ivory tower door with a 6 inch high heel if I have something to say- whether you like it or not.

**Grimmlok** · July 3rd, 2006, 03:30 AM

*laughs at you*

Why is it every person who disagrees with you is some kind of ivory tower elitist?

**Peach** · July 5th, 2006, 06:53 AM

And the Joint Chiefs told Baby Bush his war plan was FAULTY in 2003; he stayed on the campaign party circuit instead of WORKING ON IT. This administration resists LEARNING, that much we know.

**Mr. Authority** · July 5th, 2006, 10:09 AM

The American military is not capable of fighting a war with Iran and Iraq. Our troops are spread real thin in Iraq right now fighting against insurgent groups. Not to mention that most of the morale within the army is really low due to all the sucide bombings and general disorganization of the plan in Iraq. Knowing this, how the hell would a army that's tired of a guerrila war with a small country with low morale and a faulty command center possibly fight against a stronger enemy with it's own military and nuclear power? It can't be done! Not only would it seriously damage our army, it would be a big blow to the United States as a whole.

The US army is of course there to defend America and it's freedom, but they should not be used to conquer and destroy at will by politicians. They're used to protect the US and freedom, not put it in MORE DANGER!

**Grimmlok** · July 5th, 2006, 10:18 AM

They could start defending America's freedom by putting the present administration in front of a firing squad, and restoring all the civil liberties that have been hacked up.