April 26, 2008
Onward Christian Soldiers, Onward Yet Once More

The excerpts below come from a disturbing story in today’s Washington Post. What possible reason could Iran have to be “hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons?” Possibly because the warhogs in the White House, having demonstrated that our existing military is either too small or too mismanaged to pacify a hostile nation of 28 million, are now hell-bent on invading a hostile nation of 65 million?

As for Mullen, what is he, nuts? Navy and Air Force reservists are no doubt capable of killing large numbers of Iranian civilians from a safe distance, but not all 65 million of them. Who’s going to keep the survivors subdued once the shock and awe are over? Read the papers, Mullen. Suicides, epidemic stress disorders, revolving door troop rotations, recruiting felons. On and on. Get real, Mullen. Tell our pigmy president the truth for once, and then retire with honor.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be “extremely stressing” but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.

“It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability,” he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran’s intentions, Mullen said: “They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power…”

In a speech Monday, [Defense Secrtary] Gates said Iran “is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” He said war would be “disastrous” but added that “the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat.”



Posted by Jerome Doolittle at April 26, 2008 10:02 AM
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):


Not to forget Syria, also hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons (from the North-Coreans).

Heck, where did I hear this crap before ...?

Posted by: Peter on April 26, 2008 11:28 AM

get real....a plea that falls on deaf ears if ever there was one

Posted by: slothrop on April 26, 2008 4:42 PM

I would argue that Mullen is exhibiting excellent political skills.

I note that the JCS chairman must by definition claim that the military can do whatever job it's given. But he announces the true nature of the problem by pointing out where our reserve capabilites lie, namely not in ground forces.

I also note that his statements about Iran are not particularly war-like, or even controversial. Of course Iran, still suffering from the war with Saddam, would prefer a weak Iraq, and of course they want to be a regional power. Persian power is not a new occurrance, nor does the desire for it necessarily threaten us.

Perhaps I'm hearing what I want to hear, but the Joint Chiefs were said to be big supporters of former CENTCOM honcho Fox Fallon, which means they agreed with his privately stated position about war against Iran: Not on my watch. Are they afraid of losing their jobs, like Fallon? Or are they afraid they might have reached a moment like that decribed by H.R. McMaster in Dereliction of Duty, where the Chiefs should have followed the example of the CIA director and resigned over the conduct of the Vietnam war?

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on April 28, 2008 1:21 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?