Random Thoughts

by: Debra

Heaven forbid that we should discuss something of substance instead of rehashing ten year old drama. This probably hasn't occurred to those whose whole life revolves around the 2008 elections, but most Americans have heard quite enough about the former President's personal life. If anything, that period showed what a classy woman Hillary is and the restraint she showed under the most trying of circumstances. If it had been me, the fact that he was President wouldn't have stopped me from exacting some type of painful and likely life altering revenge for embarrassing me in front of the whole world. But she didn't. As much as she isn't my favorite candidate, she has proved that she exhibits grace under pressure. Her husband's mistakes are his, she upheld fine Christian values by standing by her man. Isn't that what a good wife is supposed to do?

So, we aren't planning to go war with Iran. Somehow that doesn't give me comfort since the crew without a clue never plans anything. They skulk and they meddle, then they scurry back into their warrens until the next time they feel the need to destroy another country and Seymour Hersh has very informative article on that very subject. I've been a little confused by which sect belongs to the bad guys. It seems the bad guys are mostly Sunnis, but we aren't "planning" to go to war with the Shiites.

Sunni = Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Palestinians, Syria, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, insurgents attacking US troops

Shiite = Hezbollah, Bahrain, Moqtada al-Sadr, Nuri al-Maliki, Iran, a majority of Iraq and Lebanon, the militias trying to help us keep order in the current debacle

And we are rattling our sabers at who? Oh yeah, Iran. That makes sense. To someone, somewhere, but it isn't me. So, like everything else with this administration, there has to be a hidden agenda.

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

Nope, we aren't planning at all.

Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.

In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change.

Two carrier strike groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—are now in the Arabian Sea. One plan is for them to be relieved early in the spring, but there is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources. (Among other concerns, war games have shown that the carriers could be vulnerable to swarming tactics involving large numbers of small boats, a technique that the Iranians have practiced in the past; carriers have limited maneuverability in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, off Iran’s southern coast.) The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.”

Sigh. The crew without a clue has to depend on the Air Force and the Navy, because the Army, Marines, National Guard and Reserves are tapped out. But since it's about the oil, we press on.

The split between Shiites and Sunnis goes back to a bitter divide, in the seventh century, over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad. Sunnis dominated the medieval caliphate and the Ottoman Empire, and Shiites, traditionally, have been regarded more as outsiders. Worldwide, ninety per cent of Muslims are Sunni, but Shiites are a majority in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain, and are the largest Muslim group in Lebanon. Their concentration in a volatile, oil-rich region has led to concern in the West and among Sunnis about the emergence of a “Shiite crescent”—especially given Iran’s increased geopolitical weight.

Just think. If we had spent half the money on alternative methods, we wouldn't be dependent and our troops wouldn't be dying in a war that has no benefit to the majority of Americans.

Debsweb