DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Targeting Tehran

7th March 2012

Read it.

The Pentagon’s senior policy official, who until recently took part in detailed war planning, said on Tuesday that U.S. military strike plans for Iranian nuclear facilities are very advanced and ready for use.

Michele Flournoy, who last month stepped down as undersecretary of defense for policy, also said the Obama administration is opposed to using force now because of worries that Iran will redouble its nuclear arms work, increase the secrecy of its program, and use proxy terrorists in the region to attack Americans.

“The United States military has very developed contingency plans for just about everything imaginable, including this scenario,” Flournoy said during her first public remarks since leaving the Pentagon. “And those plans are there, they exist, they are ready.”

Doesn’t matter, of course, with an amateur President who thinks he can talk his way to peace with religious fanatics.

(I have a question: Why do all Middle Eastern military uniforms look like they were bought on sale at Sears?)

6 Responses to “Targeting Tehran”

  1. RealRick Says:

    Why do all Middle Eastern military uniforms look like they were bought on sale at Sears?

    Because – like Sears clothing – they were all sewed by 6 year old girls in a Pakistani slum.

  2. Cathy Sims Says:

    Sorry, I don’t see Sears in those uniforms. More like a Kmart blue light special.

  3. Dennis Nagle Says:

    “Because – like Sears clothing – they were all sewed by 6 year old girls in a Pakistani slum.” But it’s okay, ’cause Old Navy stock is up 15 points. Ain’t capitalism grand?

    “…an amateur President who thinks he can talk his way to peace with religious fanatics.” Are you so ready to plunge into yet another war? We haven’t even finished the last two–which were started by an amateur President, I might add. (Question: What would be a non-amateur President look like? Someone who’s in his/her second term? I think we’d have to go back to Truman for that criterion to be met.)

  4. RealRick Says:

    I’m curious, Dennis: How comfortable are you with “O” either using his vast negotiating skills to prevent war in Iraq, or, failing that, with using his vast military skills to manage a quick and decisive victory?

    With respect to “military skills”, I’m willing to change that to “management skills”. A good leader should be able to manage the overall system and allow the experts in the field to conduct the actual shooting.

    I don’t mean this to be humorous or insulting. I’m willing to say very openly that I find no qualities to admire in the man. But I am curious as to how the ‘other’ side rates his chances at managing a situation that he cannot blame on Bush.

    As for Truman, well, it’s a damn shame that Obama chose to emulate Alinsky instead of Truman.

  5. Dennis Nagle Says:

    I am no more or less comfortable with Obama at the wheel in an international crisis than I have been with anyone since Eisenhower. He, at least, understood war and what it meant. As for the rest of them since?

    If Kennedy had allowed the ‘experts’ like Curtis LeMay to have their way, would we even be discussing this now? I suspect we would not, because we would all have been reduced to radioactive ooze.

    Johnson didn’t listen to the ‘experts’ either; Westmoreland told him in so many ways that we weren’t winning, that we couldn’t win, and that we should just get the hell out.

    Reagan was great at beating up little countries like Grenada and Panama, but was never tested with anything big. His answer to the Soviet threat was spend, baby, spend; it is still a matter of debate whether his strategy worked, but there is no debate that his administration started us on the road to the enormous debt we are saddled with today. (Not entirely his fault; he’s had plenty of helpers since.)

    Nixon was a slimebucket. Ford was a boob. Carter was overwhelmed by the job. Thank God nothing big happend on Clinton’s watch; I have no idea what might have happened, but I suspect it wouldn’t have been good.

    Bush Sr. managed somewhat competently, but stopped short of finishing the job. He’s about the best of the lot. His son, King George II, managed to get us stuck to the Tar Baby by using and deceiving the only ‘expert’ in his administration, that being Colin Powell. No wonder he (Powell) resigned and retired completely from political life.

    That’s about it. I don’t know as I can be considered representative of the ‘other side’ you speak about; I differ with the Left on so many issues that I find it hard to give my allegiance to either ‘side’.

    As for Truman, it’s amazing he enjoys so much admiration and respect in these days; at the time he left office, he was politically impotent in Congress and roundly vilified by most if not all. Such are the wages of trying to do a good job rather than pander to the masses.

  6. RealRick Says:

    Because Truman came from one of the most corrupt political systems in the US at the time, but became one of the most honest and open presidents ever. Korea (and MacArthur) put him in a tough position.

    There’s an oft-told story that Truman’s limo was returning to the White House one day and as it turned in, an elderly veteran on the sidewalk stopped and saluted. Truman had the car stopped, got out and shook the man’s hand. I can’t picture Obama doing such a thing. Clinton would only if there were photographers. The Bushes might. (I’ve met a Secret Service agent that served Bush Sr. and the family was extremely kind to staff.)

    I do find it interesting that your position on “O” is just that he sucks at foreign policy as much as the last few presidents, while I believe only history will be able to decide who surrounded himself with worse staff, “O” or Carter.