Sunday, January 07, 2007


New York Post January 6, 2007 -- Word that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.
Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?
There's a one-word answer: Iran.
Assigning a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.
While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.
Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

And--While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose.
At last some sense in the MSM in the USA, now we just need the Dimocrats to buy into the evil of Iran.
With the Israelis 'leaking' their plans to 'nuke' Iran's uranium enrichment, and now with the 'Allies' moving their big toys into position, there might just be some backtracking by those infantile wogs. This time America must complete the job - not like in Gulf War 1 and have to return.

No comments: