U.S. reportedly held Iran war simulation

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=676dbc50203035f5

U.S. reportedly held Iran war simulation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Tuesday 14th December, 2004

The U.S. Defense Department reportedly held simulations to determine the effectiveness of an attack on Iran, the Middle East Newsline reported Sunday


more...

Its in the plans thats for sure!!!

[Trajan]

1. Sheeesh .....

The idea that this White House is planning a 'war in Iran' should scare the bejeesus out of any sane person .....

Their Iraqi War plan has been a HUGE success ..... right ? ....

[fairyduster]

2. I'm not surprised

The drum beat for war against Iran has been sounding for a while.
Wake up people!!!!

[acmavm]

3. Yeah, little Dougie Feith crawled out from under his rock the other day

and said that there was a possibility.

You know when that bastard surfaces, nothing good happens.

[billbuckhead]

6. I heard the Iran war simulation didn't go well but the Iraq one didn't....

either and that didn't stop them.

[UpInArms]

14. they'll just have "do-overs" and manipulate

the outcome so that a "less armed and defenseless" enemy loses to our military superiority :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

4. Where are the troops for this invasion of Iran?

Or is the Pentagon making decisions based on their fantasy video games?

[leftchick]

9. I am sure this plan is based on....

the impending US Military Draft!

[Florida_Geek]

10. Good God man, Rummy does not worry about small matters

like troops.... He will take his spares from Iraq and Afghanistan and move them in on his big coloring board game.

[fairyduster]

11. bushie said

that there wouldn't be a draft. SURPRISE!! He lies.

[Porcupine]

26. No troops, no trucks, no guns or ammo...

tell me how attacking Iran is supposed to work again? They have had a year and a half to study the weak links in the U.S. military up close and personal.

Don't think they aren't wargaming a disperse and defend strategy. Bury your guns, let the U.S. Army get good and tangled up with your populace and take them out. We don't seem to be getting any smarter in Iraq.

[Bouncy Ball]

32. They won't need many troops

they'll just do air strikes. There's NO other way, short of a draft.

[Occulus]

34. But- doesn't Iran have a good size, well-trained air force? n/t

[Lone Pawn]

46. Nothing compared to the US.

We could enforce "they fly they die" from the end of the first week. Realistically, even our F14s--which we're retiring due to age--can see, fire, and kill any Iranian planes before the Iranians even see the Tomcat.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Except that Iran does have WMD and has missiles to deliver them

with enough range to hit targets in the region. If some people have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq, perhaps they need another war to complete the obliteration of our own military. By the time they are done, the only way they will be able to get anyone to join the military will be at gun point.

A military weakened by Iraq and Iran won't be able to defend the US!

[atreides1]

60. But Iran has Russian built AAA

The Iranians have been upgrading their AAA with purchases from George's good friend Pootey, and Russian AAA is good. And no matter how good US aircraft are, it's kind of hard to target an incoming jet when you're trying to dodge an incoming missile.

Besides, with the first sign of an attack I'm willing to bet that the Iranians will launch SSM against all US military targets in Iraq, which by now they have already targeted.

[lovuian]

35. It can't just be air strikes It will have to be Ground forces too

the Pentagon has been building up defenses on the Iran Border for months and this is the best time of the year to do it!!!

Merry Christmas!!!

[T Bone]

42. Good time - right before the mid-term elections in 2006

Anyone surprised that the GOP will be out whoring fear and war before the 2006 mid-terms? I knew you wouldn't be. Start the draft this summer, ramp up from then until the 2006 mid-terms, whore it to pick up seats in Congress. Attack right after the mid-terms. This train is never late for these fascists.

[Guarionex]

49. wrong...troops needed

airstrikes won't make a dent on Iran...they are expecting that....and if the U.S. attacks without troops, the Iranians will launch missiles against troop formations in Iraq...and just destabilize the whole region.

The United States cannot win a war against Iran. It does not have the troops to invade Iran and conquer it, and lead the anti Iranian insurgency tactics that would happen later. Two insurgencies at the same time, with an Iranian insurgency more well-armed, and organized? It's not gonna happen...

and if someone forgets, the Iranians have the dreaded Russian Sunburn missile, which is better than anything the Americans have in their arsenal...it can bypass the Aegis Navy shield.

I kinda hope the U.S. WOULD make that mistake...that would be the straw that broke the camel's back, and would signal the moment in history (if Iraq hasn't) that the U.S. was humbled by the world community...

[peacebird]

56. the same troops now in Iraq - once the elections happen

bush declares victory then proclaims "freedom in on the march", and proceeds to send the troops across the border to attack iran. i mean hell, since they're in the neighborhood and all....

[MuseRider]

5. Why not?

The simulation for Iraq worked out well didn't it? :cry:

[frogfromthenorth2]

7. My question is : Did the US win? MISSION ACCOMNPLISHED???!!!

[fairyduster]

16. Our government (and I'm using that term losely)

didn't accomplish anything. Except making the whole world pissed off at us.

[Deja Q]

8. A computer's output is only as good as its input.

Given the last 4 years, who else does not believe that the simulation is going to equate with the ultimate of bugbears known as reality?

[lovuian]

12. I went to Atlantic Monthly and the Simulation didn't GO WELL

I think reality is hitting the Pentagon now I wonder if it will hit the NeoCons!!!

[central scrutinizer]

21. did the showers of flowers and candy

thrown by the grateful populace gum up the rifles again?

[jimshoes]

28. Nah

They're really heavy into make believe. If they don't like something, they just lie about it.

[Liberal Grant WI]

13. Time!!

time to go to the military surplus store and find boots that will fit...wait a second..time to get that French 101 book out now.

[Occulus]

36. Better consider south instead.

South... America.

[whistle]

15. More preemptive aggression coming up, but let's drop the . . .

. . . manifest destiny crap and lies as to what the reasons are for going to war with Iran. I know this much, if Bush approves the invasion of Iran on whatever grounds he had better be prepared to respond to world outrage and the real possibility of escalating the entire middle east conflict into a world war and a likely nuclear exchange. Our leaders have apparently gone insane!

[meisje]

17. Catastrophic Success!!!

I can't imagine going against an enemy who can actually defend itself.

[fairyduster]

18. The "christian" fundies dream

n/t

[Guarionex]

50. actually...the Iranians can...

The Iranians have a very large army...and Persian Unity is not Kurdi,Sunni, Shiite division in Iraq...it won't just be Sunnis defending themselves while the Shiites greedily wait for elections...Iranians are gonna fight...and they got WMDs my friend.

Although some crazy neocons think they can go in there and have been calling for an invasion, you don't see the majority of the "chattering classes" calling for an invasion of Iran. They know it's untenable to wage that war AND wage the Iraq war...however, perhaps AFTER troops leave Iraq?

Even so...two dragging insurgencies one after the other...it won't happen. I mean, I wish it would...I can't wait until I can look at the demoralized faces of right-wing Americans, in shock at a military loss, but, it's not going to happen. They know better than do that.

[kineneb]

65. Don't underestimate them...

The Iranians have several advantages, one being home turf: Iran is for the most part high desert plateau. Tehran is over 5,000 ft elevation. Fricking cold in winter, hotter than snot in summer. Second is a large percentage of the population (some where around 25%) is under age 25. Third, they have those fun missiles than can take out our ships in the Persian Gulf.

Lived there a year...and that was enough.

[NEOBuckeye]

19. Can anyone say Waterloo? Another war will mean the end of the U.S.

Just as Afghanistan drained the Soviet Union to its' defeat and total collapse. So will the Iranians bring the United States down to its' demise.

And it may not even get that far. All the rest of the world has to do is stop financing our debts and call them due. No more money? No more superpower U.S.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

31. Psy ops bluff. They can't invade so scare'em into negotiating.

Nuclear poker with civilian populations as the chips.

These very public exercises are 'sending a message'-
"Hey, let's do this the easy way. Y'all just give up your nukes and we crazy aggressive neo-cons won't do something as stupid as Iraq again. Even though we're going for broke. In fact, we are broke.

But we still have oodles of missiles to fuck you up. Fun, ay?"

[whistle]

20. Hey, here is what was reported in Atlantic Monthly. . .

...last four paragraphs:

<snip>
The Atlantic Monthly | December 2004

Will Iran Be Next?

Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results

by James Fallows


<snip from end>

Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed. Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals—and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment.

Most of our panelists felt that the case against a U.S. strike was all the more powerful against an Israeli strike. With its much smaller air force and much more limited freedom to use airspace, Israel would probably do even less "helpful" damage to Iranian sites. The hostile reaction—against both Israel and the United States—would be potentially more lethal to both Israel and its strongest backer.

A realistic awareness of these constraints will put the next President in an awkward position. In the end, according to our panelists, he should understand that he cannot prudently order an attack on Iran. But his chances of negotiating his way out of the situation will be greater if the Iranians don't know that. He will have to brandish the threat of a possible attack while offering the incentive of economic and diplomatic favors should Iran abandon its plans. "If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran," David Kay said after the war game. "If the Iranians believe they will not suffer any harm, they will go right ahead." Hammes agreed: "The threat is always an important part of the negotiating process. But you want to fool the enemy, not fool yourself. You can't delude yourself into thinking you can do something you can't." Is it therefore irresponsible to say in public, as our participants did and we do here, that the United States has no military solution to the Iran problem? Hammes said no. Iran could not be sure that an American President, seeing what he considered to be clear provocation, would not strike. "You can never assume that just because a government knows something is unviable, it won't go ahead and do it. The Iraqis knew it was not viable to invade Iran, but they still did it. History shows that countries make very serious mistakes."

So this is how the war game turned out: with a finding that the next American President must, through bluff and patience, change the actions of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited. "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

<link> http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/am3.htm

Holy shit, does that sound like the kind of dyplomacy and clear headed, intelligent decision and negotiating prowest that our beloved "Chimp-resident" is capable of executing?

[lovuian]

22. There is NO Way Chimp can or Wants this solution!!!

I bet they go play the game another way and try to cheat!!!

[daleo]

41. It reminds me of an old move - maybe The Rockets Red Glare?

Anyway, the premise was that Viet Nam was meant to be an irrational quagmire, just to show the Russians during the cold war that the U.S. was capable of insane behavior, and thus MAD was really assured, because the power structure really was mad.

[Barkley]

43. David Kay: "The Iraqis knew it was not viable to invade Iran" = WRONG!

Once the U.S. and its allies put economic and military sanctions on Iran for taking U.S. hostages, Iran became 'viable'.

[Guarionex]

51. ummm...

""If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran,"

They know that...it's not the Iranians actually think the Americans are going to invade...they know they got the Americans by the balls in Iraq...it's like when you see a kid promising all hell on you if he could get his hands on you...but you know he's tied up...same factor...Iranians have access to all the information we have...they know the U.S. is overstretched, underfunded army, and cannot take another war.

[Guarionex]

57. Interesting article...

It pretty much confirmed my thoughts...that we have no viable military option with Iran, although they all agreed that an invasion of Iran, if it wanted to, was feasible.

but, there was one blaring subject that didn't seem addressed....could the United States fight the Iranian resistance that would engender...there was no mention of casualties, of the consequences to the American army, economy, etc. nothing....that's where I think this study did a disservice...it focused on the AFTER-EFFECTS of the smaller strike military options, but didn't examine the after-effects of an all-out invasion...my opinion is that ANY military option against Iran will provoke them into all-out war, and destabilization of Iraq's Shiite areas...I also found it interesting that they say, "unlike Iraq, Iran can harm America"...an admission that Iraq was no threat, and that's why it was picked first? I wish right-wingers would read these policy documents...they are more honest about why America targeted Iraq.

I think this war-game was missing that component, but even without it, it's obvious that Iran still has America by the balls...they got no options to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions

[leveymg]

68. Projected After-Effects Likely In Classified Annex

The longer-term political, diplomatic, and economic effects of such scenario playing are routinely addressed in classified annexes. Fallows didn't get a copy, but I'm sure the military non-viability conclusion included those factors, and they were considered.

- Mark

[rooboy]

23. Did they simulate throngs of Iranians throwing flowers at the troops? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

29. I am sure there were many cyber dancing in the streets.

Bush has given democracy a bad name.

[lovuian]

24. MidEast News Line more detailed news on Simmulation

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/december/12_13_1.html

U.S. STAGES SIMULATED ATTACK ON IRAN


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Defense Department was said to have completed simulated war games to determine the feasibility of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran.

The simulation envisioned a three-phase war against the Islamic republic. The first phase was composed of air strikes against bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, believed to control Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
more...

I guess the other two phases is ground troops and navel strikes too

[Rapcw]

33. Was this a computer simulation, or a tabletop thing?

If it was a computer simulation I'm sure they liked to watch the pretty effects of the bombs going off.

[Whoa_Nelly]

25. BushCo and gang is hell bent on starting WW III

:mad: :nuke: :mad:
fuckers!

[TexasChick]

38. Unfortunately, the world would not have to go to war with us physically,

per se, but do what a DUer said above, pull out of our markets, China call in our debts and boom, the good 'ol USofA is ruined economically! You thought the Great Depression sounded tough, well...

These PNACer/neocons are hellbent on bankrupting this country!

[bluestateguy]

27. Did they do a simulated draft too?

It might look something like this...


YOUNG MAN: Well, I have always opposed preemptive war as a form of foreign policy, and the policies of this Administration. I am a Quaker and I will not fight....

DRAFT BOARD: OK, thank you. You are to report for induction in two weeks at...

[TexasChick]

39. Shoot! Do you know who I would love to see suited up in camouflage,

having her ass sent over to Iran? That little right winger, fundie chick in the town hall debates, adoring the Chimp and his every move, dissing Kerry about having her tax dollars pay for abortions! Do you think abortions will be the first thing on her mind when this happens?

[rockedthevoteinMA]

55. I agree TexasChick - that girl made me ill

But the reality of a draft, freaked me out (and still does - I'm only 26, so is my boyfriend and all of my friends).

Then I thought about it - 57+million Dems are against Iraq, they won't let their kids go

And then there's all the Repukes who voted for this dumb*ss - do you think they'll let their kids go fight?

I think if they try and implement a draft, it will be the one thing that unites us. (Keeping my fingers crossed about this one)

[wabeewoman]

63. I wish it were so

but i don't think so. I was talking to my nephew last night and he was spewing right wing talking points. His daughter is going in the navy and he is proud and getting his yellow ribbons ready. He said 'you can't deny the good we are doing for civilization in Iraq'. I have no faith left there is rational thought processes in at least half of the American people. That half will proudly send their children off to die for "their country." Maybe if they do, we can keep our kids.

[agincourt]

30. If we americans, or the electronic chips,

keep voting these floating ass-wipes into power year after year, they will launch an attack on France, just like Hitler would.

[Tight_rope]

37. Damn...are they throwing stones at Iran again...Glass house will break!

[Tinoire]

40. 69 million people compared to Iraq's 25 million

Average median age is 23.5 years. (Can that be right?! http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/10388679.htm)

We'll be in for a world of hurt. Jeez. What are these idiots thinking?!

[whistle]

64. But Iran has that really good sweet light crude oil...

...and a number of ready off-springs from the former Shaw's dynasty to step in and take charge, isn't that correct?

[Barkley]

44. And they wonder why Iran wants nuclear weapons?

According to Global Security.Org:

“In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran …air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.”

“Target Iran - Air Strikes.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

[Lone Pawn]

45. This isn't even close to news.

Hell, we also hold PRC-ROC-US war simulations, DPRK-Japan-China-ROK-US war simulations, Syria-US war simulations, India-Pakistan-US war simulations, China-India-US war simulations...

Basically, we try to plan for every single possible potential conflict. Certainly preferable to having the one-in-a-million-odds conflict erupt and being flat-footed.

[Swamp Rat]

47. Rapture time!

[Owsley]

52. Hold up here...

I may be wrong here, but...

I read the Atlantic article when it came out a couple of weeks ago, and it was patently clear that the "war game" was being conducted by the Atlantic Montly, not the pentagon.

Here's a snip from the article:
--
"As a preview of the problems Iran will pose for the next American President, and of the ways in which that President might respond, The Atlantic conducted a war game this fall, simulating preparations for a U.S. assault on Iran."
--

The article continues:
--
"The scenario he set was an imagined meeting of the "Principals Committee"—that is, the most senior national-security officials of the next Administration. The meeting would occur as soon as either Administration was ready to deal with Iran, but after a November meeting of the IAEA. In the real world the IAEA is in fact meeting in November, and has set a deadline for Iran to satisfy its demands by the time of the meeting. For the purposes of the simulation Iran is assumed to have defied the deadline. That is a safe bet in the real world as well.


And so our group of principals gathered, to provide their best judgment to the President. Each of them had direct experience in making similar decisions. In the role of CIA director was David Kay, who after the Gulf War went to Iraq as the chief nuclear-weapons inspector for the IAEA and the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), and went back in June of 2003 to lead the search for weapons of mass destruction. Kay resigned that post in January of this year, after concluding that there had been no weapons stockpiles at the time of the war.


Playing Secretary of State were Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, of the American Enterprise Institute. Although neither is active in partisan politics (nor is anyone else who served on the panel), the views they expressed about Iran in our discussion were fairly distinct, with Gerecht playing a more Republican role in the discussions, and Pollack a more Democratic one. (This was the war game's one attempt to allow for different outcomes in the election.)


Both Pollack and Gerecht are veterans of the CIA. Pollack was a CIA Iran-Iraq analyst for seven years, and later served as the National Security Council's director for Persian Gulf affairs during the last two years of the Clinton Administration. In 2002 his book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was highly influential in warning about the long-term weapons threat posed by Saddam Hussein. (Last January, in this magazine, Pollack examined how pre-war intelligence had gone wrong.) His book about U.S.-Iranian tensions, The Persian Puzzle, has just been published. Gerecht worked for nine years in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, where he recruited agents in the Middle East. In 1997, under the pseudonym Edward Shirley, he published Know Thine Enemy: A Spy's Journey Into Revolutionary Iran, which described a clandestine trip. He has written frequently about Iran, Afghanistan, and the craft of intelligence for this and other publications.


The simulated White House chief of staff was Kenneth Bacon, the chief Pentagon spokesman during much of the Clinton Administration, who is now the head of Refugees International. Before the invasion Bacon was closely involved in preparing for postwar humanitarian needs in Iraq.


Finally, the Secretary of Defense was Michael Mazarr, a professor of national-security strategy at the National War College, who has written about preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, among other countries, and has collaborated with Gardiner on previous war games.


This war game was loose about requiring players to stay "in role." Sometimes the participants expressed their institutions' views; other times they stepped out of role and spoke for themselves. Gardiner usually sat at the conference table with the five others and served as National Security Adviser, pushing his panel to resolve their disagreements and decide on recommendations for the President. Occasionally he stepped into other roles at a briefing podium. For instance, as the general in charge of Central Command (centcom)—the equivalent of Tommy Franks before the Iraq War and John Abizaid now—he explained detailed military plans."
--

Again, I may be missing something here, but I read the article with the understanding that this was not a Defense Department sponsored war game, rather it was conducted under the impetus of the Atlantic Montly.

Owsley

[Cat Atomic]

53. Jesus is leading the reinforcements.

I wonder how they simulated a million angels coming out of the sky and Jesus with a flaming sword?

[lovuian]

54. I beginning to think the NeoCons are going to HAVE to go to WAR

they will never have a peaceful Iraq unless Iran is subdued and thats what Saudia Arabia wants and Israel too. And if they let Iran go Nuclear its to dangerous to the NeoCons Interests.

I see no other choice but going to War for the NeoCons!!!

[PATRICK]

58. Have to put put two cents in on this one

You have to believe EVEN if they thought they could do better this time OR do something mammoth by air with some or no provocation, that the thing they really want to perfect is an internal coup.

This is really murky in Iran since the very people one wants to supplant the ayatollahs would be similar to the socialist Baathists we just dethroned in Iraq. It's about the lure of money plain and simple. To get the power and the money they have to share(oil and the whole economy) with the US. I don't think their new allies or puppets will ever be the pampered pals the Saudis are. I think they will be strung along and then hung out to dry as we secure the property for ourselves, letting the peasants kill each other extravagantly for Buscho's cultured amusement. Greed and pride make a superabundance of such ambitious clods as are jockeying to be corporatist dictators for the New American Zero Intelligence worldwide party.

I think most of the eggs- again- will have to be in one basket alone. And they will be as scrambled as the brains that begat them. Already the Iranians seem to be playing games of their own, dangerously baiting and gaming the dumb bear. Lord knows if they really think that they and the Iraqi Shia are going to win by out-thinking Bushco. ANYONE can out-think them but the raw power of the Grand American Pipeline Army acting as missionaries for Halliburton is not something you want to tease.

Usually we think of clever malicious strategies and ignore the telegraphed simplicity of the Bush onslaught. Roil, boil and shock and awe after the grotesque ineffectiveness of Homeland Security lets us get riled and slaughtered- again. In essence the Iranians are acting predictably themselves and playing games with the nuclear card. They had better be thinking more unconventionally and get some real(non-Arab)allies between themselves and us instead of getting isolated and targeted so easily.

[ckramer]

59. Four more wars! four more wars!

[DFWJock]

61. Hey

Why not? The one in Iraq has gone just as planned.

[DoNotRefill]

62. Ummmm....we routinely plan and game....

invading just about everybody. That's what General Staffs DO.

I'm sure we've got plans to invade Canada and Mexico. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[Zerex71]

66. Did we start with a troop deficit of about one million?

After all, that's how many have been deployed in Little Georgie Bush's Misadventures in the Middle East.

[CatholicEdHead]

67. Reasons for going in

are probably more economic. Iran I think is 1 or 2 in worldwide Natural Gas supplies. Plus they are the 2nd largest worldwide oil producer.

http://www.bisnetworld.net/bisnet/countries/iran3.htm

Remember the 1950's? We put the Shah in their because they nationalized their oil industry.

No matter what the given reason is (freedom, nuking, army of darkness, terrorism, etc...), the REAL underlining reason is ALWAYS ECONOMIC!!!

[arwalden]

69. *** DID THEY HAVE A SIMULATED DRAFT?? ***