John Bolton ordered the Pentagon to come up with an “updated” plan for getting more American troops into the Middle East to fight a war against Iran. The plans are in now, according to officials, who say that the options envision 120,000 US ground troops in the Middle East.
Officials were unsure if Trump had been informed of the plan. Trump dismissed everything as fake news.
Incredibly, this option appears to just be the start of the war, as officials say that the 120,000 plan does not include a US ground invasion of Iran. Officials concede that the ground invasion would require far more troops.
Instead, the 120,000 is just the next step in the ongoing US escalations toward war, and is envisioned as a response to any Iranian threat on US forces or interests, or any hint of acceleration of its nuclear program.
US officials quoted in the media about the plan are everywhere and always supportive of the idea, and the underlying narrative of an “Iranian threat.” Some argue that the fact that the Pentagon would send 120,000 troops and not even invade proves how big the threat is, while others say that the 120,000 troops would be a “scare tactic” to warn Iran off any aggressive moves.
This is quite contrary to Europe’s take on US policy, with European officials calling on the US to exercise some restraint, and expressing concern that US moves are liable to miscalculate and start a war through sheer accident.
Students of WW2 often know about the turning point battles for Guadalcanal. Few are aware of the details of a huge US buildup in the islands to the south of Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal would not have been possible without the build up in New Caledonia, for example, which was complete with a guard force of old battleships and escort carriers, and land based fighters.
A huge buildup around Iran means to me a huge logistic effort starting, for a huge fight moving onward from it. This is not instead of invading Iran. It is how to invade Iran, Step One.
Yup. This was the huge hole in the Iraq wmd fraud. If Saddam had em, he would have used them as the US staged to invade, that is how they are designed to be used.
The turning point for the War in the Pacific was Midway.
I’ve said it before and here I say it again, it takes beans, bullets, and band-aids to run any kind of army.
Interesting observation. For all that MacArthur and his acolytes sniffed at Eisenhower as a “supply clerk,” MacArthur’s own operations (and the Navy/Marine campaigns in the Pacific) were also based almost entirely around logistics. No matter how desperate a fight might seem in the march north from Australia, that fight never started until Doug knew he had the means in place to ultimately win it. It’s just that that happened in smaller chunks than in Europe.
And faltering supplies was the bane of Hitler’s invasio0n of the Soviet Union. Preparations for logistics include a large intelligence component. If that is poor as it was for the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union and for the Allies when the Germans attacked in the winter of 1944, bad things ensue.
Interesting point of view and interesting point of history. But I’m of the opinion that the buildup, at present, isn’t sufficient to support an invasion.
It may come soon. But today, at least, it seems like a relatively small show of force.
I would agree, except, the US has no desire to occupy Iran. At least in the near future. 2 or 300 spec ops can bring greater firepower than existed in the Pacific theater ww2.. This is what was not understood when Obama sent “only” a couple hundred troops to Syria. Those guys have access to all the Navy and Air Force assets in theater. The Iraq massacre went like this…massive air campaign, destroying capable military assets, and Iraqi civilian infrastructure. Brief drive to Kuwait. Pull out, then air superiority over Iraq for a decade, spies to mark anything of value left, and, another drive thru the countryside to Baghdad, stopping only to gas up. Interesting how few air assets were lost during this period.
If Trump goes through with this, all Trump voters should march to the White House and wring his neck.
Haven’t you heard? Trump has nothing to do with this, it’s President Bolton’s war.
Permit me to correct your typo–it’s PM Bibi’s war, and not a single Israeli soldier would die. Now that’s chutzpah.
You mean TRAITOR Bonkers Bolton’s war. Indeed, Trump has nothing to do with this nonsense. I read an article some days ago that Trump’s considering dumping Bonkers. if that’s correct, he’d better do it NOW, before this all gets out of hand.
Bolton works for Trump.
If Bolton does something, it’s because Trump told him to.
Bolton has made no secret of his decades-looking hatred of Iran. Trump then hires Bolton to a position where he can act on this hatred. Bolton begins preparations for attacking Iran. How is Trump blame-free?
Trump shouldn’t have to be in a position to fire him. He was an awful hire in the first place.
And let’s not forget that Bolton wasn’t any kind of surprise. Trump publicly named him as a possible Secretary of State during the presidential campaign (and, according to Bolton, considered him for that position during the transition).
Trump wasn’t pressured into hiring Bolton as National Security Advisor by Netanyahu, or by the Deep State, or by anyone. He’s been a huge Bolton fan since long before he was president and was never shy about saying so.
You don’t grasp sarcasm very well. It’s Trump’s war because Trump is president. Anything his subordinates do is his responsibility. And he didn’t say anything about dumping him. He did say Bolton was doing a good job and he has to temper him.
Yup, Trump voters having their cake and eating it too. Trump is the best thing ever! He can do no wrong, so if something does go wrong, it must not be his fault. This is starting to sound like parents whose kids do no wrong, actually…
Isn’t this EXCITING ? MAGA ::popcorn::
Yup, it’s Bibi’s wet dream. And also bin Salman’s.
US have been fighting these people for generations and have been thwarted every step of the way.
If the ‘bomb bomb Iran’ sabre rattling is to scare them it hasn’t in the past and the Iranians just called Trumps bluff. The mysterious sabotage of the Saudi oil tankers in Straits of Hormuz could be a gentle reminder that US and cohorts are in deep water and things won’t go according to US/Bolton’s plans.
Israeli nation anthem = Onward Christian Soldier.
And Bibi will say,, “Veni, vidi, vici.”
Minimum wage will need to be adjusted to $25/hr and pegged to inflation in order to generate a modern war fighting nation tax base.
War fighters will need to bring back bountiful booty to help pay for this.
Tulsi Gabbard today 9:30 AM:
“Trump says he doesn’t want war with Iran, but that’s exactly what he wants, because that’s exactly what Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, al-Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other NeoCons/NeoLibs want. That’s what he put first–not America.”
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1128291372375707648/video/1
I like every word she says. She is my favorite Presidential candidate of my lifetime. I wish she was doing a lot better.
Tulsi is being crucified by the MSM. But she predicted this. The top priority of her campaign was qualifying for the first debate in June. If she can get 3 to 5 minutes air time on the big stage, she may be able to break from the pack.
She’d have to get in the pack first. Right now she’s way behind the pack.
She is the best we have right now–by a country mile.
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
― H.L. Mencken
Russia and China must step in here and protect Iran from Murder Inc.aka: Uncle Sam. Russia was able to thwart the US ISIS and Al Queda supported insurgency in Syria and must do so here. Period.
Why would they? More fun to watch Murder Inc. bleed and go broke.
Jace McAdams, I wholeheartedly agree. Russia and China must step in and protect Iran from Murder Inc. aka Uncle Sam. As you rightly said, Russia was able to thwart the US, ISIS and Al-Qaeda-supported insurgency in Syria and must do here. Since they’re allied with Iran, Russia and China wouldn’t hesitate to protect the Islamic Republic from any attacks by Uncle Sam and its proxies.
120,000 more targets.
Bolton has lost his damn mind, even for John Bolton.
Relax everyone, U.S. will not be attacking first. They are creating a situation for Iran to make the first move. China will not lose its trusted oil vendor because of U.S.
Yes, any attempt to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East in addition to what is already there is clearly an intent to invade Iran – at some point. The other most likely intent is either 1) Lebanon in concert with Israel once Israel can convince the US to join it in attacking Hezbollah, or 2) extend the Lebanon war into Syria and occupy Syria, or 3) both.
The Pentagon has been smarting over the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut for decades. They would love to get “payback” for that. And even with US strategic bombing used to destroy Hezbollah bunkers and missile caches in Southern Lebanon, Israel would find it hard to occupy Southern Lebanon by itself since most of Hezbollah’s fighters would like survive and be able to wage a even better guerilla war against Israel than it did in the 90’s. Having thousands of US troops in country would be a help.
Of course, the US doesn’t really want to “occupy” Lebanon for any length of time. But having thousands of US troops solidify Israel’s control of Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley would be a help to Israel, not to mention making it much more difficult to for Hezbollah to operate against Israel.
But it wouldn’t take 120,000 US troops to do that. A considerably smaller number would suffice – say, 10-25,000.
Where 120,000 would be necessary would be in Syria if the intent is to occupy and hold Syria until a puppet regime could be installed – as was done in Iraq. The problem there is Russia, of course. Extending the war into Syria from Lebanon or initiating one directly against Syria would risk WWIII with Russia.
Where 120,000 troops absolutely would be necessary would be to seize the Iranian coast line in order to keep the Straits of Hormuz open by preventing Iran from launching mines into the Persian Gulf.. And it’s not even clear that 120,000 would be enough. Because those troops would be under constant attack by whatever is left of the Iranian military, the IRGC, and at least one million Iranian militia (the Basij). But I can see the US finally realizing that there is no way they can keep the Straits open by US Navy power alone. The last time the US conducted a mine clearing exercise in the Gulf, they only found fifty percent of the dummy mines used.
The real problem is that the US doesn’t have 120,000 troops to send to the Middle East. The US is spread so thin in bases and operations around the world that getting that many together as was done in 2002 is going to be much harder than it was then.
Also, keep in mind that most of the troops in the US military are support troops, not combat troops. Getting together 120,000 actual combat troops would be next to impossible. Most US support troops only have basic training in firearms and next to no training in “fire and maneuver” or tactics. I once mentioned to Colonel Pat Lang that the US would need to send this
sort of number or more to South Korea to aid in a war with North Korea
and he dismissed that as next to impossible.
So we can dismiss a certain amount of this as “Bolton bluster.” But it does indicate that the US is intent on pushing the Iran war closer. But as I’ve said before, Hezbollah has to be defanged first before Israel will allow the US to start a war with Iran. So I view Lebanon as the real target for now.