U.S. Routinely Updating War Plan for Iran - General

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050209/ts_nm/iran_usa_warplan_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military is updating its war plans for Iran but is not in a heightened state of planning over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program, a senior general said on Wednesday.

"I'm not spending any of my time worrying about the nuclear proliferation in Iran. I haven't been called into any late-night meetings at 8 o'clock at night saying, 'Holy cow, we got to sit down and go plan for Iran,"' Air Force Lt. Gen. Lance Smith said at a Pentagon (news - web sites) briefing.

Smith is deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command and oversees military operations in the Middle East, parts of Asia and northern Africa.

"As far as the planning efforts, we simply go through our normal mode of updating whatever war plans we have for all parts of our region," he said.


<snip>

"We have a requirement on a regular basis to update (war) plans. We try to keep them current, particularly if our region is active," Smith said at the Pentagon.

[SammyBlue]

1. As John Wooden on his site puts it

Bush needs to export American-style FREEDOM® for all people whether they want it or not. And a more FREEIFIED®, FREEDOMINATELY®, FREE WORLD® for FREETASTIC® FREED FOLKS® means more LibertyTM for the LibertyTM loving United LibertyTM States of FREEDOM® and LibertyTM.

Besides, 9/11TM proved how of a 9/11TM world we live in, so get you 9/11TM hats out and 9/11TM all day long. Who cares if some ragheads die, we're exporting FREEDOM® and LibertyTM to 9/11TM people!

www.whitehouse.org
www.chickenhead.com

[Redstone]

2. No quagmire this time! And no insurgents, either...

We have a better plan now:



Redstone

[underpants]

3. Sounds like the normal course of planning

The Pentagon regularly goes back over and updates plans SHOULD something happen or need to be done in every area of the world.

As far as I know it is generally rudimentary (except the most likely hot spots) and they only go into move developed planning if say you wanted to attack and occupy er lets just say plan to attack a country, occupation is a whole other ball game with whole other planning...usually.

[Southern Dem 2005]

4. agreed

[teryang]

5. Contingency versus war planning

There is a big difference between the two. War planning implies that there is a strategic threat to be eliminated. Contingency planning involves specific steps taken to remedy a particular situation threatening national interests or to send a strong signal when a situation encroaching on our international interests is presented by another power. The latter planning is routine.

War planning is not routine. While both involve acts of war, contingency planning is intended by its nature to be limited in application and lend itself to de-esclation. The other involves an opened ended commitment of national resources in a struggle with no pre-set limit or design for de-escalation.

I find this general's rationalizations disinformation. How does one talk about war plans in the current political climate and simultaneously deny their significance? The fact is that this loose use of nomenclature is meant be taken as both a threat of war and a denial at the same time. It is intended for foreign military analysts to pore over and worry about.

[daleo]

6. The Schliefen Plan was regularly updated.

It didn't mean a thing.