US pre-emptive strike ability said not hurt by Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21351337.htm

WASHINGTON, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Despite questions over the accuracy of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, if the United States launched another pre-emptive strike there would be no question about its ability to do it, a senior Pentagon intelligence official said on Friday.

"To the extent that there would be a decision by the president ... to direct military action of whatever kind in anticipation of grievous harm being done to the United States, its interests, its allies, I don't think that there is any question or will be any question of our ability to do it," said Stephen Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence.

"There are always going to be issues of whether or not there is sufficient confidence on the part of the decision makers to take that decision, or is there a level of assurance about what we know and what we think about what we know," Cambone told defense reporters.

"And a recognition that there is a limit to how much assurance can be given as a function of intelligence in the kind of world that we're living in."

more

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Our moral authority has been forever lost because of Iraq...

Besides, when Japan struck us "pre-emptively," it was called dastardly. Funny how definitions can change in a mere 60 years...

[pdove]

6. We can strike again soon.

So wonderful for the loving of peace and democracy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Bush doctrine:

Hulk see, Hulk smash.

[teryang]

3. Very dismissive

There are always going to be issues....

What about fraud and illegality? In other words, this Rheinhard Heydrich type can always fabricate a reason for another pre-emptive strike.

Poland has attacked Germany for the last time!

[weldon_berger]

4. I'd say having 400,000 troops committed to the Iraq rotation

might put a bit of a dent in our ability to go flatten someone else. That we're sending kids who test positive for drugs into a war zone indicates we're maybe a tad short on troops.

[bpilgrim]

11. MINI NUKES

solves that problem according to rummy...

peace

[weldon_berger]

15. Yeah, but that's years down the road

and you still need bodies on the ground afterward. Fred Kaplan has a good article on the subject of mini nukes in Slate.

[DivinBreuvage]

5. I agree with him, in the sense...

that the US armed forces retain the ability to send enough smart bombs and air strikes into the populated areas of a country to really screw things up.

Only a Republican would believe he means the US armed forces could do the job properly, because they've already proven unable to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, knowing that your military, communications, transportation, and utilities infratsructures could be entirely wrecked in a matter of hours must be a considerable deterrent to any sane leader.

Françoise

[NNN0LHI]

10. Wish we had a sane leader n/t

[DivinBreuvage]

12. Yes, but unfortunately the 800 pound gorilla

can be as kooky as he wants.

Françoise

[cliss]

7. i don't think Steven Hambone is telling us

anything we don't already know. We know the US has more weapons of mass destruction stockpiled. We know they're more than willing to use them on the "next in line" to be blown to Kingdom Come. They are probably using all their restraint not to "go for the gusto" in Iran or Syria.

So I believe Hambone is saying here, as if to quell any suspicions that we don't have the manpower to continue with our military adventures; "it might look like we are short on troops, but don't be fooled". "We'll take you out". Rums-filled has also made the ballsy statement that we can "fight a war on two fronts, if need be".

These guys understand one thing only: aggression. This is the real reason why there were no post-war plans for Iraq. Rums-felled was in charge of the whole planning process, and he does not understand reconstruction. All he understands is warfare.

[DivinBreuvage]

13. Good analysis, Cliss.

The only thing that I wonder about is why they even feel the need to make these statements at all. I doubt Germany, France and Russia are too worried about getting shocked and awed, and I'm not sure the Axis of Evil will modify its behavior much anyway, as I'd assume they have to be fairly sure they're going to be hit at some point no matter what they do. I suppose it's more an eruption of their inherent bravado, machismo, cock-of-the-walkness or whatever you want to call it, than any kind of honest-to-goodness policy.

(BTW, did you get my email?)

Françoise

[bpilgrim]

8. same logic the terrorist use

interesting...

wonder if N. Korea uses the same logic, or any other country :nuke:

peace

[goforit]

9. LOL!!!.......So they say!!!

Their cocky attitude may be just what they get in return!

[teryang]

14. It's a lot of whistling past the graveyard

...very hollow reaffirmation of an obviously failed policy which has become an achilles heel. Now let's try to pretend it isn't happening.

[aquart]

16. Intelligence is clearly not his forte.

[this_side_up]

17. Tuesday night I could

watch only about a minute of the tv show. I didn't
know it was on and wasn't psyched up to watch that shit
and just came across it while channel surfing.

And I don't remember what channel because I freaked out.
It was either FSTV or one of the other channels in that
section.

UCAV is the abbreviation for what looks like a
remote-controlled small airplane that holds 2,400 grenades
that can lay down a path 100 feet wide and 2 1/2 miles
long.

Then there was a quote from (shudder) Rumsfeldt saying
(paraphrasing) said something about Afghanistan and then
saying if I (or we) had this UCAV, then we wouldn't
have to worry about the International Crime Court
because I could be in my home in New Mexico and all
I would need is a modem.


Edit to add: I think the show was called Senseless War something
something.