open Democracy News Analysis - The Persian Gulf: a war of position, Paul Rogers - Comments

nandmbanks on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

nandmbanks — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:23:01 +0000

Nathaniel_1 (482) might wish to note that CENTCOM is a unified combatant command where leadership positions are shared, or rotated, between the joint services. Whilst recent leadership has seen consecutive Army Generals in overall command, their predecessors were always rotated with Marine Corps. Of note, the Deputy Commander, and more importantly the Commander�s senior Flag and General Officer ranked advisers are also evenly divided between all the services and have always included US Navy officers in influential leadership positions.

That a very capable naval officer is commanding the HQ, albeit a first in this HQ construct, is in no way an indicator of the likely nature, or environment, of any subsequent military posture or potential conflict.

nathaniel_1 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

nathaniel_1 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:56:31 +0000

Another enormous clue into this impending mess is the fact that the U.S. Senate on Feb. 8 confirmed a new commander of CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command.) CENTCOM is in charge of both fronts in the Middle Eastern theatre (Iraq and Afghanistan.) It is quite odd that the man chosen for this new position, replacing Gen. John Abizaid, is a Navy Admiral.

What exactly is a career naval aviator and carrier commander going to know about fighting a decentralized, limited engagement, house to house, ground based insurgency ?

Personally, I think the fix is in. Four ESG groups, at least two carrier groups, a new wave of accusations from the Pentagon about Iranian involvement in Iraq, new deployments of Patriot missile batteries along the Arabian peninsula, and the cherry on top - A Navy Admiral now running the show.

Not logged in on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

Not logged in — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:17:54 +0000

mysticsailor

Thanks for these details- anything else you come across do pass along to dan@danplesch.net

tkymagble on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

tkymagble — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:59:08 +0000

It beggars belief that after the world wide condemnation of the totally unnecessary war in Iraq, the awful loss of life and the resultant turmoil into which the Iraqi nation has been thrown, that the US could be contemplating another invasion of a country for reasons other than self defence. What exactly is the use of the UN? Is America under George Bush and Cheyney to be allowed to set the world ablaze, unchallenged?

Yolande M. Agble

justicequest2000 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

justicequest2000 — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:28:45 +0000

Scott Ritter: Scott Ritter - "We're on the edge of the abyss...." (must listen audio of a recent presentation by Scott Ritter in the USA about coming war with Iran):

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/154/1/

mysticsailor on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

mysticsailor — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:15:26 +0000

I would also like to point out a couple of other interesting facts in addition to the excellent posts and article here.

A very small article from Radio Australia mentioned that VP Cheney was showing up in Guam on the 22nd of February. Of all the places on earth this guy could be 2 days after the UN deadline on Iran...

A second very interesting piece that everyone seems to be missing is that in a local, small paper in Pearl Harbor, the headline reads "Two Pearl Destroyers Head for Persian Gulf". The problem is that one of the 2 is the USS Russell which is slated to be with the USS Ronald Reagan.

The question therefore is who is headed where? The Reagan to Japan or to the Gulf with the Russell? My bet is on the small, hometown paper with the crying wives and children who probably know the truth..... Here are a few links:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1841554.htm

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=6035178

tony ryan on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

tony ryan — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:15:25 +0000

Is Paul Rogers being academically obtuse, flamboyantly nonpartisan, or simply naive? These are not exercises in military diplomacy, but the calculated prelude to ongoing war. Everyone knows this except, it seems, Paul Rogers. The attack on Iran will simply be the 42nd aggressive invasion by the US since 1946; with the usual motive: resource hegemony. Syria will be the 43rd victim, as punishment for resisting. Although Israel may actually fire the first missile, only the blind and the stupid would not perceive this relationship to be anything other than a hegemonic symbiosis.

Rogers then goes on to doubt the logistic capacity for the US to maintain a strike capacity. Has he never heard of conscription? Remember Vietnam?

And finally, he implies we must huddle helplessly in the audience while these war crimes unfold. Hell no! Now is the time for every citizen on this planet to demand loudly that their government suspend trade and diplomatic relations with the US and Israel until they learn to respect other nation's sovereignty, and desist from breaches of the Geneva Convention and international law. As far as I am concerned, any citizen who fails to make his disapproval loudly known to his or her elected representative, can later be presumed to have supported the US. The post WWII punishment of Germans was based on this premise, yet most Germans feared to protest. There is no such element of intimidation in this media-driven war; at least not in Europe or other western nations. And as a media-supported war, loud protests will be its undoing. Or we can wait until the time for words is over and the western bloodshed begins.

douglas-jones on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

douglas-jones — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:53:18 +0000

I,indeed perhaps most, hope this is saber rattling.

The sooner Bush Blair and hangers on are indicted and placed in limbo the better. Moves are afoot in America Britain and in a minor way Australia.

Equally one might hope that the media having experienced, indeed been an active part of the lies for Iraq which proved to be the dreams of the few will become less partisan returning to news reporting or to these days the more common trivia passing for news embedded in entertainment.

justicequest2000 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

justicequest2000 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:51:28 +0000

A former consultant with Janes Defense Weekly (according to what he mentioned via email) sent the following as a possible consequence of a coming attack on Iran:

Ramifications of a coming war with Iran for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=66184

Donald Jones wrote:

What would Bush do if 250,000 Iranian troops joined with 60,000 Iraqi Shiite troops to attack the US forces in Iraq ? There is no way the USAF could deal with such an attack. Perhaps Bush should consult with Col. Custer about that. More and more army officers are coming out against any attack on Iran . They say it would be catastrophic. Because he is a psychopath I bet Bush doesn�t care. I can�t wait to see the outcome. It might cause the American sheeple to wake up.

justicequest2000 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

justicequest2000 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:19:12 +0000

Stop the Iran War (for Israel) before It Starts:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=67774

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

ken_1 on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

ken_1 — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:41:03 +0000

The aircraft carrier "Ronald Reagan" is having a "biggest loser" competition as it heads for the Gulf. This does actually seem to apply to typical American obesity but it does reveal their irony deficiency.

Not logged in on "The Persian Gulf: a war of position"

Not logged in — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:14:51 +0000

In addition to the Marine aircraft carriers Paul mentions, it appears that there are two or more additional Expeditionary Strike Groups in, or on the way to the Gulf. These are the Kearsarge- which should have returned home a while ago and has not, and the Bonhomme Richard which left San Diego a few weeks back. Others (Wasp, Nassau, Pelelieu) are also only a few weeks away.

As to the big Navy carriers, a Japanese military source informs me that the Kitty Hawk is in dock till April. However the Truman is underway in the Atlantic. More important, the post-9/11 Navy can put six carriers into battle in a month.

These forces are now integrated with the far larger firepower of the US Air Force. Rumsfeld placed a Marine General in charge of all these strategic conventional and nuclear bombers and missiles- for the first time in US history. This General Cartwright has created a force that stands on 12 hours notice to attack 10,000 plus targets with "smart" bombs in a single raid. This, and unreported Air Force and special force deployments in Iraq and the "stans", are the more important parts of the US build-up. They merely await the starting pistol.

The Persian Gulf: a war of position, Paul Rogers

Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0000

The logistics of the United States military build-up off Iran's coast are ominous. Read the rest of this post...