Top US Officer (Mullen): Force Must Be Option for Iran

[tekisui]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON — Military force would have only limited effect in stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons but must remain an option, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Tehran shows no signs of backing down in the standoff over what the United States and other countries say is its drive for a nuclear bomb, Adm. Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military officer, told his staff in an annual assessment of the nation's risks and priorities.

"My belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security and that military force will have limited results," Mullen wrote. "However, should the president call for military options, we must have them ready."

Iran denies that its nuclear program is aimed at producing a weapon. The Mideast nation says it is developing nuclear energy.

In the past two or three years the United States had all but ruled out an attack on Iran's known nuclear facilities as too risky, because of the backlash it might unleash.

more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZfgLuKrg3QBRltJ0qQMIzgIohdQD9CNNK5G3

[Skidmore]

1. Well, I'll be gobsmacked! A military guy jonesing for

a fight and a chance to blow up things.

[liberal N proud]

2. WAR IS THE ONLY ANSWER

He is a fucking war monger!


On edit,

And this Christmas he will stand in some church and sing Peace On Earth. :wtf:

[MadBadger]

11. Did you bother to read his quote at all?

"MY belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security"

If you read that, how could you possibly think he thinks "WAR IS THE ONLY ANSWER"?

[sendero]

3. Yet another military leader..

... who is willing to spend your kid's lives and the entire treasury to stop a perceived threat.

How is your last big adventure, Iraq, working out for you? Last I heard, just a couple weeks ago there was a bomb that killed over 100 people.

All along you morons have claimed we can train and leave, but the time we can leave just never quite arrives. And as soon as we stop paying various factions off with money we don't really have, chaos will ensue and if you don't know it you are stupid.

Fuck you and your military answer to every problem.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is also an option

but it's not a notion that rational individuals or entities entertain seriously. I saw the word 'backlash' mentioned in connection with an attack on Iran, but that innocuous word doesn't begin to describe the shitstorm of apocalyptic proportions that would be unleashed. I understand that a gratuitous dick-waving contest must occur from time to time in order that military leaders can feel secure in their ability to 'get up' a war, but Dog help us all if this attack actually occurs.

[gratuitous]

7. If this was a genuine, gratuitous brand dick-waving contest

I'd win in a walk.

But betting against military action as the only solution to a problem, here in the Land of the High Church of Redemptive Violence? Sucker bet for sure. Even though it doesn't work time after time, the faith in violence to redeem a situation runs true and deep in the United States.

[optimator]

5. He learned from McChrystal that Obama will give them anything

just whine to the press , and Obama will pretend to contemplate, then give 99% of what was requested.

[atreides1]

6. These clowns are war mongers

In WWII the generals and admirals knew better then to take their problems to the press, especially when doing so was a guaranteed way towards retirement.

Our military would do better with real commanders not the political clowns that they handed stars to.

One would think with all of the technology at our disposal that a commanding general would never have to leave the theater of operations, but these clowns are in reality nothing more then REMF's! With all the lip service they pay, in reality they could care less about the troops under their command. The men and women serving in the military are nothing more then a means to pad the resumes of people like Mullen, McChrystal, and Petraeus!!!

Just think of the great example they set by running home to the states every so often while the troops are lucky if they get to call home, or log onto to the internet!

REMF=Rear Echelon Mother F**ker

[potisok]

8. MUCK FULLEN

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Erect bogeyman, wave flag, give money to the Pentagon, send in the cannon-fodder. Works every time.

Of course, our motives are pure and have nothing to do with oil. :sarcasm:

[hayu_lol]

12. These guys never quit...

Lets see, we are engaged in fighting in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now Yemen. When oh when will we engage the Saudis? Before or after Iran perhaps?

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to take on the Saudis first? They, after all, funded Bin Laden and had suicide troops on the aircraft that destroyed the WTC.

Makes one wonder.

[MadBadger]

10. "MY belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security."

He's just saying that you can never really take all options off the table. The quote just says if the president calls for a military option, they need to be ready. But he is advocating political approaches.

[gratuitous]

14. Oh, well that's a relief

I was worried for a second that the United States might forget that it's bristling with armaments, doesn't cavil at using them for any slight or injury (real or perceived), and that it "remains an option." Because it totally slips our collective mind all the time, and we engage in a bunch of useless negotiations when we could be raining bombs down all over an area.

Mullens remarks are nothing short of war mongering and saber rattling, basically a terrorist threat.

[MadBadger]

15. Wow, a terrorist threat. No point in arguing with you.

[gratuitous]

16. Then let's discuss, instead of arguing

My proposition is that it is highly unlikely that Mr. Mullen is getting his words into print as a gentle reminder to the rest of the government that the military exists and has the capability of launching an attack on Iran. So, his words are meant for someone else. The American people? No, for the same reason; we're quite aware of the existence of our military. Our allies? Possibly, but still unlikely. The Iranian government? I think they're the target audience (you should forgive the adjective).

So, what is being communicated to the Iranian government? Nothing less than a threat, in my opinion, as they can hardly be ignorant of the American wehrmacht. Iran hardly needs reminding that the United States doesn't hesitate to project its military power, seeing has how Iran's immediate neighbors to the east and west are currently occupied by the U.S. military. Now, what is the intent behind the reminder? "Change your ways or we will invade you, too." Well, maybe not "invade," but surely use force of some kind, a very credible threat. Now, who uses credible threats of force to influence other countries? Well, if they're al Qaeda, it's easy to recognize as terrorism.

What should we call the exact same behavior out of the U.S. military? Is there an exception? Is it because we're so moral, upright and good? Is it the snappy uniform Mr. Mullen wears? What distinguishes the U.S.'s credible threat of the use of force to change another country's policy from the same tactics as employed by al Qaeda? Or the Irish Republican Army? Or Hezbollah? Or the Israeli military?

[Javaman]

13. "Military force would have only limited effect...but must remain an option"

because, as we all know by now, the military industrial complex basically runs the economy now. So if we piss them off and not let them have a war now and then, our economy goes into the shitter.

Weeeeee....

[Bluebear]

17. I'm sure he will get whatever he needs from Washington.