By Fester:
One of the areas of frequent disagreement between myself and Cernig is the probability of an overt US military strike against Iran. Cernig believes that this is a possible (p=>.10) event while I think it is a highly improbable event (p<=.005). I agree with Cernig that there are significant elements of the Bush Administration that would like to invade/bomb Iran as the false macho-ism of 2003 was "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran" but the capabilities do not match up to desire, and furthermore significant constraints on action have been added.
The biggest one is force availability. The US is tapped out of ground forces to the point that any reinforcements for Afghanistan are coming out of Iraq or from extending tours, and air power is insufficient to actually achieve anything permenent while further isolating and de-legitimatizing the United States. Furthermore there is not a whole lot of combat power forward deployed at this time. Right now there is one carrier group in the western Indian Ocean/Arabian Pennisula littoral and that group is supporting operations in Iraq.
Unless something absurd occurs in the next six months, I just do not see overt air strikes targetting Iranian targets as the US forces are not there, and there is too much internal to the Administration opposition combined with significant political opposition that knows it will pay a price from its base if it supports Bush bombing Iran.
Hi Fes,
ReplyDeleteWatch The Carriers notes:
The newest of our carriers, the RONALD REAGAN, left San Diego on May 19th for the
Persian Gulf.
That gives us two carriers with an overlap of three months. This is out of the norm even though some lusting for an Iranian strike claim it is not unusual.
But the author there doesn't think 2 carriers is enough to launch a strike either. I think that everyone's watching the big ships and not paying enough attention to fuel transfers and what the Air Force are up to.
Regards, C
Fester,
ReplyDelete"and air power is insufficient to actually achieve anything permenent while further isolating and de-legitimatizing the United States."
- do you really think that these morons have not bought the Myth of the Supremacy of Air Power, lock, stock, and barrel?
- do you really think that they have any idea of what is required, he work that is required, and how long it takes to create a permanent change, vs. a lousy patch job at best?
- do you really think that these guys are not at all interested in knocking down a wasp nest and leaving the mess for subsequent Administrations to have to clean up?
Keep in mind, one of their core principals, is that it is better to break Government, to prove that Government cannot work, no matter how much damage it causes to the Republic, or the public, that to allow a program to provide effective relief to citizens.
Two carriers out at the same time is not unusual. The only thing that's unusual is that both are West-coast-based ships. Since the early 1990's, the Navy has pretty consistently had at least two carrier groups deployed at all times - one from the east, and one from the west - along with two more "ready" carriers getting ready to deploy. This long-standing cycle is now disrupted because the active carrier force dipped to 11 and will dip to ten once kitty is gone.
ReplyDeleteJimbo --- I see what you are saying but I think the internal balance of power within the administration does not lean towards the break to prove that government can't work faction at this time. This is a bit of a SWAG.
ReplyDeleteAndy --- I don't think the 2 West Coast carrier deployment is too weird as the Navy has been significantly changing their carrier deployment pattern away from a 25% of the fleet on standing patrol and towards a forward presence and high surge capacity model with fewer carriers on long cruises.