Friday, January 05, 2007

Iraq: The Naval War?

WTF? I could have sworn I have heard a gazillion times how Dubya "...listens to his Generals on the ground in Iraq". I guess when he doesn't like what they say he just changes the generals (and the intelligence tsar, and the White House Counsel). Except this time he switching to an Admiral. Smooth move ex-lax. Last time I checked Iraq has a sliver of coastline you could spit across. Not exactly where I would choose to launch a naval invasion. But then I'm not "The Decider". Also, I'm not a dick with asprirations on Iran. Laura Rozen of "War & Piece" has a good take on the sitch. Give her a read. As does Froomkin on the "musical chairs" in th WH.

In anticipation of his appointment, Fallon has already begun to moblize for the surge:Graphic and caption courtesy of Mary.

Jack Cafferty has a thing or two to say about the "Surge".


Eli said...

He can't *find* any generals willing to take responsibility for this disaster.

op99 said...

More sinister, Eli. From the Laura Rozen link, NYT published, then disappeared this:

Military officers and Pentagon officials said that Admiral Fallon would represent a shift in focus for the Central Command, as he would bring expertise in maritime security operations more than land operations. As the Iraq security operation matures, the focus for Central Command is expected to shift toward countering the threat from Iran. In that capacity, the military's role focuses on maintaining regional presence through naval forces and combat aircraft and conducting maritime security operations like interdiction of vessels believed to be carrying banned weapons materials or suspected terrorists, in addition to preparing for combat contingencies.

So Bush's choice for the new CentCom Commander for the Middle East makes frightening sense if you consider his next target. This is another data point giving a bombardment of Iran more and more the appearance of a done deal.