Cheney: U.S. carrier to Gulf sends "strong signal"

[ckramer]

deploying a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf the United States has sent a "strong signal" that it is in the region to stay and working with allies to deal with an Iranian threat, Vice President Dick Cheney said.

"I think most of the nations in that part of the world believe their security is supported, if you will, by the United States. They want us to have a major presence there," Cheney said in an interview with Newsweek magazine, according to a transcript released by the White House on Sunday.

"When we -- as the president did, for example, recently -- deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat," Cheney said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070128/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc

[Altean Wanderer]

1. Oh Oh n/t

[fooj]

2. Wrong, DIck. You've alienated all of our "friends and allies"...

F*cking war criminal.

[neoblues]

3. Cheney: U.S. carrier to Gulf to make Big Target...

A Cautionary tale... (from a year ago...)

Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 January 2006

...

What kind of political cover would be gained from an attack on Iran, and from the diversion of attention to that attack? The answer lies in one now-familiar name: Jack Abramoff. The Abramoff scandal threatens to subsume all the hard-fought GOP gains in Congress, and the 2006 midterms are less than a year away.

Is any of this a probability? Logic says no, but logic seldom plays any part in modern American politics. All arguments that the Bush administration would be insane to attack Iran and risk a global conflagration for the sake of political cover run into one unavoidable truth.

They did it once already in Iraq.

And that was written before Iran imported even newer/better anti-aircraft missile systems AND even more unstoppable anti-shipping missiles (see the Raduga Moskit anti-ship missile).

Simply put, placing carrier groups in the Persian Sea is akin to putting large fish in a small barrel; targets, just waiting to be blasted (and Carriers carry something like 7000 sailors).

Too easy for a war to start; and a carrier group isn't much of a threat the Iran short of actual war (in which case it's mostly just a target that can't even escape; the Straight of Hormuz. If war does start, our troops actually in IRAQ will be in trouble (Syria will probably help Iran and Iran has a very large army). In any even, a war will probably require resorting to nuclear weapons; and China and Russia** (both becoming closer allies) have both made economic and arms deals with Iran (and have basically warned us against attacking Iran).

It's seeming like we'd better brace ourselves, this could get ugly. Unless we can control the madman in the White House (and those behind him; Cheney et.al.).

**A Key article.

[hack89]

4. I disagree ..

there are no tactical reasons to place a carrier within range of Iranian missiles - the carrier can steam out of range and still hit Iranian targets with strike aircraft and tomahawk missile. Plus there are land bases in Iraq that bombers can fly from.

As for the anti-aircraft missiles, they are short range missiles that can't reach the altitude that US bombers will drop JDAMS from. Plus it is highly unlikely that the Iranian air defense radars and associated command and control centers will survive very long after an attack starts - the Iraqi air defense system in both 1991 and 2003 was much more sophisticated than Iran's and it was useless against US attack.

[wakeme2008]

6. Iran has been preparing for 4 years for Bush's attack

I think you are dreaming if you really believe aircraft carriers at safe in the Gulf...

[hack89]

9. It is more likely that they will be steaming in the Gulf of Oman

where they can still reach southern Iran. Land based aircraft from Iraq will take care of the portions of Iran that carrier air can't reach. Tomahawk cruise missiles can reach anywhere in Iran from the Gulf of Oman.

How long did Iraq prepare for US attack? It made no difference.

[wakeme2008]

11. What planet are you living on

Iraq was easy the second time because they could not recover from the first gulf war. Iran on the other hand is buying the newest and best military hardware Russia and China make.

The US military is Broke and worn out ....

Iran troops will be fighting to protect their country. US troops will be fighting to protect Bush's Oil friends...

[hack89]

14. I live in reality

The Navy and the Air Force are not worn out - they have played a minor part in the war. In case you haven't figured it out it is the Army and Marine Corp that is getting worn out - and they will not be major players in a strike against Iran.

Hardware, in and of its self, is over rated - first off because without tactics, doctrine and most importantly training, hardware is useless. It is men that win wars, not hardware. Secondly Russian equipment has always come out second best anytime it has gone up against US hardware.

Don't forget the biggest advantage the US has - we will fire the first shot. You can bet that the first sign of an attack will be all that new hardware blowing up.

[Zhade]

17. Illegally firing the unjustified first shot is an advantage?

Was Germany's invasion of Poland an "advantage"?

[hack89]

21. You seriously doubt that we won't fire first?

Militarily it is a huge advantage - especially if the Iranians are surprised.

[Jawja]

36. I don't think they will

be surprised.

[Paulie]

18. It's not the crate, but the man in the crate.

John Boyd proved it time and time again.

As for us firing the first shot, if we attack ANOTHER country first, all bets are off in the region, and perhaps the world.

[hack89]

22. I am not justifying starting another war

simply pointing out that shooting first has always provided a huge military advantage.

[Megahurtz]

43. Seriously that makes No Sense Whatsoever. n/t

[hack89]

50. Care to elaborate?

You really don't think that it is a good thing to be able to set up to attack at a time and place that is most advantageous to yourself? I think you need to study military history - there are countless battles where it proved decisive.

[Megahurtz]

62. I Would Bet That

they are already well prepared for an attack. Regardless of Military History, I'm not sure if every single attacker ever has always been the Winner of a War, and there's always a first time, so it's best for a Country not to let their guard down and not be so sure of themselves.

[TheWatcher]

51. I have no doubt you know what you are talking about

And perhaps you aren't justifying starting another war, but there are too many like you who seem to be licking their lips at the idea of it.

You people need to face two facts.

1. We never should have gone into Iraq.

2. We have no fucking business attacking anyone else.

So what if our dicks are bigger than anyone else's?

Does that mean we have to be shoving them down everyone Else's throat?

Is this REALLY the kind of world you want? Honestly?

I suppose we can still beat our chests and admire our military might.

But we have no business being proud of the way it is being used.

We are a Rogue Nation.

Deal with it.

[hack89]

53. I actually agree with you about Iraq and Iran ..

As a military veteran who personally saw the results of political misuse of the military in Beirut (1983) I do not want to see our military being misused. I also take pride in my military service (as my father and brother(democrats both) take pride in theirs)and do not reflectively view the military as bad like many on this board do.

[wakeme2008]

26. You do not live on this planet... LOL

When the Iran Army starts attacking the troops is Iraq, thousands of US troops will die.

You need to go back to your Planet La La Land...

[hack89]

28. No ..

the lesson from the invasion of Iraq is that soon as the Iranian army masses their troops, they will be smashed by long range, precision firepower. You haven't been paying attention to how technology has changed warfare. Remember how a handful of special forces guiding Air Force bombers dropping JDAMS destroyed the Taliban? With persistent surveillance and precision weapons, the days of massed armored and mechanized troops is over, at least against the US military.

I know you have nothing but contempt for the US military, but don't let it blind you to how good they are. The invasion of Iraq and the capture of Baghdad by two divisions was unparalleled in military history - no other nation in the world could do it. If the Iranian army was stupid enough to attack, they would be detected immediately and attacked at long range both night and day. And if they got close to US forces, their old, obsolete tanks would be no match for US tanks - just like the Iraqi tanks were no match.

[Thor_MN]

37. Thought you said hardware was overrated?

Your getting yourself twisted in knots.

[Sherman A1]

40. Not at all...Hack knows of what he speaks

and has made a very clear presentation of his points. No one (at least here) wants a war with Iran, but that doesn't mean you cannot figure out the basic plan of how it may take place. The Iraq war was pretty clear cut, there are really only two major roads that lead from Kuwait to Baghdad. It really doesn't take that much to figure it out, if one looks at a map and has a basic understanding of the forces involved.

[hack89]

48. You misunderstand .. let me restate my views.

I said that hardware, in and of itself, is overrated. In other words, buying shiny new military equipment does not guarantee a country a credible military capability. Beside hardware you need: a well thought out and comprehensive theory of how you will wage war (Doctrine); well though and effective procedures for using your weapons (Tactics); and skilled operators who know how to use their weapons in war time conditions (training). No one does all three better then the US military and consequently, when coupled with high tech weapons, they are extremely lethal.

On the other hand, most countries can afford the equipment but not the training - it costs a hell of a lot of money for large, high intensity exercises - they use up a lot of fuel, shells and missiles. This is the situation Iran finds itself in - for example, their pilots have barely enough flight time for basic proficiency much less complex tactical training. I bet that their air defense personnel have never fired a real missile under realistic wartime conditions.

[jpak]

45. They learned those lessons very well and Hezbollah successfully employed them in Lebanon

No conventional artillery that can be located quickly by counter-battery radars (used mass and dispersed Katyusha rockets instead)

Operated freely under heavy Israeli air surveillance and interdiction (used trenches and tunnels)

Employed UAVs

Employed long range AT missiles that defeated Israeli tank armor

Employed sophisticated communications and ELINT (big surprise here)

Employed surprise (C-802 anti-ship missile attack on Israeli corvette - heavily damaged one Israel's most modern capable warships)

Iran has been developing asymmetric warfare techniques for decades - they can't lick the US Navy or Air Force, but they will get their licks in (mines, ballistic missiles, minisubs, small attack craft, shore-based anti-ship missiles, etc.)

[hack89]

47. We are not going to invade ...

I don't know where you get that idea but there is no evidence that the US is preparing a land invasion. It will be air and missile strikes - that's all we are capable of.

[jpak]

61. I agree - they are not going to invade

but Iran will surely retaliate against any air strikes against their nuclear facilities and US forces in the Gulf are going to have to deal with it.

The Navy (and Marines) will have to take and secure Iranian islands and (some) coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Revolutionary Guard attacks on shipping (and US warships).

The Navy will also have to deal with IRG fast attack boats, semi-submersibles, mines and mini-submarines.

US warships are not invulnerable - Iranian UAVs have operated very near US carriers in the Gulf (the Ronald Reagan) for significant periods of time before they were detected.

http://www.today.az/news/politics/26813.html

US bases in Iraq can be targeted by Iranian ballistic missiles (Kuwaiti and Saudi oil facilities too). Air Force and Navy aircraft will have to undertake "SCUD busting" sorties to deal with this threat. The US has a very poor track record in dealing with SCUD TELs.

If the US launches a intense sustained air campaign against Iran, all bets are off with regard to Iran's response(s).

Cakewalk???

Maybe, maybe not...

[oblivious]

52. You write "as soon as the Iranian army masses its troops they will be smashed."

1. Don't you think they know that after the Gulf War? Do you really think they will do US forces the favour of massing their troops to allow US missiles a clear shot? Dream on.

2. You write "Remember how a handful of special forces guiding Air Force bombers dropping JDAMS destroyed the Taliban?"
Five years later they're still fighting the Taliban and the Taliban, if anything, seems to be getting stronger. Google 'Taliban' in today's news. Afghan President Karzai is offering peace talks to the Taliban - a "resurgent" Taliban is the way the Western news media are putting it. You cannot call that winning a war.

3. You write that "the capture of Bagdad was unparalleled in military history".
That was against a country that had been disarmed by the international community. Yet three years later US forces are bogged down with virtually no hope of winning the war. You call that success?

4. Just wondering how you know US training is so much better than any one else's. What do you know about Iran military training to make that assumption?

All the US military needs is some dreamer like you in charge telling the president oh shit, we've got the best trained men, the most advanced technology, Iran doesn't stand a chance in hell. The war will las a week, two weeks max.

[hack89]

54. Some answers.

1. This was in reference to Iran attacking US forces in Iraq. I don't think we will invade Iran - we don't have that capability. The Iranians would have to mass their troops if they wanted to mount any thing of a significant attack against US forces in Iraq.

2 & 3. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were handled poorly after the initial stages due to unrealistic assumptions, poor planning and even worse execution by the Bush administration. I happen to think that Iraq should never have happened - sanctions were working fine. But that does not take away from the military power and skill shown in the initial, conventional phases of both wars. That is my only point - we will not invade Iran as we simply don't have the capability. And I don't necessarily think that attacking Iran is a wise move - I doubt we can hit all their nuclear facilities and I fear for the resulting economic impact in America. I just take exception to those who think that Iran poses a credible military threat to the US just because they have purchased some shiny new hardware.

4. We have been watching Iran closely for over 20 years - we have them so wired with constant surveillance that we know exactly what their military does. You cannot conduct large scale, military training in secret. We simply don't see any meaningful military training going on. As for US training, Google Red Flag, National Training Center, Top Gun, Valiant Shield, RIMPAC, Cope North, as just some examples of routine training and exercises US forces do. No one does it on the scale that we do - why do you think our military budget is so large?

[oblivious]

60. Appreciate your response.

[teryang]

59. US troops are not better trained than Iranian unconventional force

there are several reasons for this:

Reliance on reserve and national guard forces.

Conventional ground army tactics

Ground force has now become an occupation force like the IDF

Ground troops are oriented toward casuality prevention

[oblivious]

63. That's a pretty solid list of reasons.

[hack89]

65. What about US special forces?

Iran does not have a lot of real combat experience.

[teryang]

68. Iran has 120,000 unconventional troops

How many "special forces" are there? I don't doubt that they are up to high level of readiness but they are relatively small in number.

Iran has a great deal of combat experience and learned many bitter lessons about conventional and special warfare. The proof of lessons learned was observed in south lebanon recently where IDF forces underestimated hezbollah capabilities and were forced to withdraw.

Ltcol. A. Cordesman has documented the fact that hezbollah forces, trained by the IRG were better trained than IDF forces. You can find his studies on CSIS.org i believe.

[converted_democrat]

55. ...

"Remember how a handful of special forces guiding Air Force bombers dropping JDAMS destroyed the Taliban?"

-The Taliban wasn't destroyed, they're still around, and Afghanistan still isn't within our control..

"The invasion of Iraq and the capture of Baghdad by two divisions was unparalleled in military history - no other nation in the world could do it."

- And we all know how well the war in Iraq is going.. Out of the 2 conflicts we're currently in, we're losing both.. But Iran will be different, right? Wrong.. Out of the three countries, Iran is best able and prepared. We're getting our asses kicked on two fronts, why not make it three.. I mean, it's not like it's human lives we're playing with here, right? Jesus, save us all..

[Big Pappa]

31. Please.....

Are they just going to walk on over. They would suffer the same fate as did Saddam's Army and Armor in DS. Our A/C and armor are far superior to theirs.

[Megahurtz]

46. How do you really know what they have right now?

With Russia and China on their side, are you that bold?
I don't think anyone knows what they really have at their access at this time
and I don't trust that we would not get completely anhiliated if we started shooting at them.

[hack89]

49. The only weapon system that would make a difference

would be long range SAMs - the problem is that it takes a lot of training to use them properly. You can't train on them without using their associated radars - if they use the radars the US will detect them and therefore won't be surprised.

[mallard]

33. Re: You can practically taste...

... the macabre threat Iran is threatening us with in the Dick's every word.

[teryang]

29. the USN and USAF have great advantages but...

...the geography of the gulf restricts naval ops greatly and Iranian geography gives them both a defensive advantage and an offensive capability of striking back without a significant naval force. Their naval projection capability is land based primarily. The small size of the gulf prevents the optimum naval advantage to the US and does create some vulnerabilities.

Without ground forces the US is unlikely to force an Iranian capitulation. On the other hand, Iranian small arms tactics and technologies could impose serious losses on US ground forces through unconventional warfare, in which they excel. They could also impose some serious losses on the world economy by attacking western gulf infrastructure.

The US and Israel overestimate the impact of air to ground warfare. In political terms it has major blowback and is not as effective as the war profiteers suppose. This fact has been confirmed in virtually every war except the subjugation of Serbia. But Serbia is modern European state. Not long after the refrigerators and electricity went out, they gave up. I think the Iranians are a bit tougher than this and likely to withstand bombardment well. Most countries do during a war. Without ground forces to invade, a decisive conflict is unlikely. Yet, the economic implications will be diastrous for Europe and the US. Their energy will be cut off. Not only from Iran but many other sources as well.

The defender always has an advantage, particularly when the attacker is operating so far away from home with a high capital burn rate and low tolerance for losses.

[Irreverend IX]

58. I don't understand...

How a war with Iran could work. Aircraft and naval hardware alone can't force a country to submit to you; you need troops on the ground. The military could blow up a few Iranian cities and create a few million new terrorists, but there's no way they could "win" anything without occupying the country, which would be an even bigger nightmare than Iraq.

[mc jazz]

7. good point

Will the carriers be out of range, I heard the sunburn has 100 mile range
Presumably they could stay outside this, but if Iran blocks the straight...

[Stella_Artois]

8. Yes they will

They could be 300 miles away, and still be able to attack all of Iran. They can refuel out to sea and cross the coasts with full tanks.

Hell, within a week they could refuel over Tehran and the Iranians won't be able to do a thing about it.

The Iranians matched the Iraqi military pretty well. We all know how the US military matched up against the Iraqi military.

[Paulie]

20. False comparison

The Iranian army wasn't under sanctions for 12 years.

In the first gulf war, we had the moral high ground and experts assisting with the planning (even with lousy ground execution).

You can't hold ground from the air.

[rustydog]

5. It does send a STRONG signal: Bush and Cheny didn't get it

the first time when they diverted attention from Osama in Afghanistan to attack Iraq. And over 3000 dead americans later, they are still clueless.

[sakabatou]

10. Heh

I can almost compare this to guys comparing the engines of each others cars.

[lovuian]

12. It just places more troops in danger and possible trap

Cheney is crazy and yes he wants a war with Iran
Halliburton's profits have been down

[daleo]

13. It sends a strong signal

That the Bush administration is a rogue government, out of control internationally and beyond the control of Congress and the electorate.

[Nihil]

15. Ya think?

Or, more precisely, "Do you think that the rest of the world hasn't noticed this by now?"

I feel for you and the other good Americans who are about to suffer (even more) as a result
of "your" government ...

[daleo]

23. Actually, I am Canadian

But I have lots of American friends, relatives and co-workers. And it is said "when the U.S. catches a cold, Canada gets pneumonia." I feel badly for everyone affected by the war-mongerers, not least for Americans, most of whom now oppose the current insanity.

[Nihil]

32. Oops

Sorry about that! :silly:

[daleo]

41. No problem.

It's an easy mistake to make.

[Megahurtz]

44. Lucky you you're Canadian! n/t

[Zhade]

16. Dorgan was right - Cheney IS delusional.

The rest of the world sees us as a threat, not a knight in shining armor.

[USA No. 1]

19. And the Bushies say we have no plans to attack Iran?

How do you spell bullsh*t? This is how I spell it: C-h-e-n-e-y. Dick.

[Rex]

24. Okay, now 2 is a statement. What is 4?

I wonder how much we waste per hour on all those ships just sitting out there. From what people say here, it will take 4 to maintain any kind of continuous war from the air. So I guess Cheney gets to send out warnings.

[htuttle]

25. Dick, could you put our national dick back in our national pants, please?

Don't wave it around like that -- you're making us look like idiots.

[Eurobabe]

34. Correction: Cheney HAS no DICK neither does DimSon

and if they do they're flaccid. Otherwise they wouldn't be lording their Penis Diplomacy over the rest of the earth.

Little men with little penii start illegal wars ad infinitum.

[htuttle]

39. Actually, I was talking about the raging tumescence of several carrier groups...

...which seem to serve as a substitute phallus for Bush and Dick.

[struggle4progress]

27. "Bigtime Dick" wants WWIII

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. He's better send one to China then......

I guess there's not as much oil there. Cheney thirsts for all that gorgeous oil in the middle east.

[Ganja Ninja]

35. I can remember a time when a vice president was ...

a forgotten man with no power that was given little or no attention after the election.

Please Dick just shut up already.

[lonestarnot]

38. Oh now there's something short of reality. Hmmmf.

[Megahurtz]

42. Idiot.

No other Country wants us there!

[demobrit]

56. Throughout History

There have been powerful countries and empires thinking that they were invunerable and all powerful and could strike all before them and what has happened to those Countries and empires.
They have all dissappeared into insignificance.

[knight_of_the_star]

57. No, it just makes a new target

A carrier in the confined waters of the gulf will be an easy target for anti-ship missiles.

[MasonJar]

64. Hey, Cheney, strong signals from the people. Dry up or leave.

[NoodleyAppendage]

66. Is Dick Cheney a DEMON? Seriously.

I've never seen a politician so focused upon causing WWIII. It's almost as if he wants to sow death and destruction. Why would he do this? Why the focus on starting a huge regional conflict that ultimately will serve no one's interests?

Is he just wanting death for death's sake?

This guys scares the shit out of me.

J

[ryanmuegge]

67. Ha ha...no kidding.

He's very disturbed.

He has no interest in peace or what's going to help the world in the long term. It's just about flexing US imperial muscle today. Though it isn't even the expansion of US interests their concerned with. It's more about advancing the interests of the neoliberal ideology. That's the scariest thing about these guys: their allegiances lie not with the United States, but the economic/corporate elite.