Tweet
U.S. General: Iran, Saudi Arabia Will Become Nuclear Powers
Everyone:
I found this rather interesting article while perusing the raw news wires at work earlier this week and, per my occasional custom, have posted it for your review and thoughts.
While I do find the story to be a bit alarmist in nature — after all, I think it'd really take a lot for the United States to *initiate* a nuclear strike — I think it does have some relevance simply because it's a four-star general talking, and not some right- or left-winger whose words must automatically be read with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Another part of the story that caught my interest was the Pentagon's response WRT what the U.S. would do if a third foreign crisis erupted, with the military stretched thin as it is. They basically say they'd put the U.S. on full war-footing, which it currently isn't. WELL, IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW. This is a "global" war on terrorism, isn't it?! Hell, you wouldn't know it stateside aside from the military families and occasional parades and somber funerals.
One last thing to note: Robert Gates, the defense secretary, tells of how good the military has been at retaining its troops. What he doesn't conveniently mention is the fact that, in order to keep our volunteer soldiers from leaving the armed forces, the Pentagon has had to start paying bigtime bonuses. So, yes, that helps retain some soldiers but, please, sir, the next time it comes up, do feel free to mention the cost of doing so. I'm not saying the good men and women don't deserve it — I'm saying the taxpayers deserve to have the full picture of what this war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is costing them.
OK, with no further ado, here's the article in question:
I found this rather interesting article while perusing the raw news wires at work earlier this week and, per my occasional custom, have posted it for your review and thoughts.
While I do find the story to be a bit alarmist in nature — after all, I think it'd really take a lot for the United States to *initiate* a nuclear strike — I think it does have some relevance simply because it's a four-star general talking, and not some right- or left-winger whose words must automatically be read with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Another part of the story that caught my interest was the Pentagon's response WRT what the U.S. would do if a third foreign crisis erupted, with the military stretched thin as it is. They basically say they'd put the U.S. on full war-footing, which it currently isn't. WELL, IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW. This is a "global" war on terrorism, isn't it?! Hell, you wouldn't know it stateside aside from the military families and occasional parades and somber funerals.
One last thing to note: Robert Gates, the defense secretary, tells of how good the military has been at retaining its troops. What he doesn't conveniently mention is the fact that, in order to keep our volunteer soldiers from leaving the armed forces, the Pentagon has had to start paying bigtime bonuses. So, yes, that helps retain some soldiers but, please, sir, the next time it comes up, do feel free to mention the cost of doing so. I'm not saying the good men and women don't deserve it — I'm saying the taxpayers deserve to have the full picture of what this war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is costing them.
OK, with no further ado, here's the article in question:
McCaffrey says Iran will have nuclear weapons
By Tod Robberson
The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS — In a harshly worded critique of U.S. national security policy, retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey said this week it is too late to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and that Saudi Arabia is likely to follow. Furthermore, he said the U.S. is woefully unprepared to handle new threats, let alone the ones it now faces.
Gen. McCaffrey, interviewed during a Dallas visit, sharply criticized the Pentagon’s handling of the Iraq war, saying the military is debilitated and on the verge of disaster as it confronts up to 100,000 armed insurgents and militiamen there.
The four-star general suggested that another major crisis, such as a military threat from North Korea or Iran, could force the U.S. to respond with nuclear weapons because it lacks the resources and staffing to fight another conventional ground war.
Did his homework
McCaffrey, formerly head of the U.S. Southern Command and once the Army’s most highly decorated general, made his assessment after completing trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the invitation of the U.S. Central Command in February and March.
In separate reports prepared for the U.S. Military Academy, where he serves as an adjunct professor, McCaffrey cited dozens of sources for his assessment, including U.S. ambassadors, top U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials, and senior members of the Saudi, Pakistani and Afghan governments.
Although the Pentagon said his remarks do not reflect official policy, McCaffrey’s stature and the fact that he consulted officials at the highest military and political levels lent significant authority to his assessment.
"The fact that Gen. McCaffrey provided his thoughts and comments to Centcom does not then make them Centcom’s position. The military commanders provide their recommendations to the secretary," said a Department of Defense spokesman who asked not to be identified.
In remarks at the Pentagon on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Army continues to have high recruitment and retention rates, belying the dire assessments offered by critics.
"I think that if the Army were ... ‘broken,’ you would not see these kinds of retention rates and our ability to recruit," Gates said. But he recognized "that our forces are stretched. There’s no question about that."
Iranian nukes within five years
On Iran’s nuclear research program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes, McCaffrey warned that the Persian Gulf country will have a nuclear bomb within the next five years. "It’s too late, without question. They’re going nuclear," he said.
The general said U.S. and other intelligence services willfully underplayed the magnitude of the danger while political leaders in Washington "tried not to look at it" when the multibillion-dollar program began 10 years ago.
"The sad part is ... they (the Iranians) are not going to be any safer. The region will be less stable, and they will be acutely at greater risk," he said. If Tehran were to threaten the U.S. with a nuclear attack, it should expect the severest possible response, he said.
"They’d have to take into account our declaratory nuclear policy. We never said we wouldn’t use nuclear weapons. We never said we wouldn’t pre-empt," he said. "If we ever saw a threat to our key allies or ourselves, there’s no question in my mind: We would, if required, deploy a nuclear weapon."
Whither Saudi Arabia?
He added that Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim kingdom, would not sit idly by if its Persian Gulf Shiite neighbor acquired nuclear weaponry.
"For sure, if the Persian-Shia bomb becomes a dominant factor in the security of the Middle East, there will be a Sunni-Arab bomb to counter it," he said.
McCaffrey said that the Saudi government feels neglected and mistreated by Washington and that the effects of a growing fear of isolation could add to tensions.
In a written report to the U.S. Military Academy, he wrote Feb. 26: "The Saudis are correctly concerned about Iranian long-term imperialism backed by a powerful armed forces and nuclear weapons. It is my personal judgment that the Saudis will go nuclear within 10 years — if we do not repair the bi-national alliance."
Extended troop deployments
He responded harshly to Pentagon announcements during the past week about extended troop deployments in Iraq and a recall of Texas-based troops who have had as little as seven months at home since their last combat tour.
"These completely inadequate ground combat forces cannot sustain that level of deployment unless we ask them, essentially, to stay in near-continuous combat" far beyond the one-year deployment target set by the Pentagon, he said.
The Pentagon declined to comment on McCaffrey’s estimate that up to 100,000 insurgents and fighters are now armed in Iraq, saying it does not discuss intelligence matters.
The estimate presents a stark picture of the challenge U.S. troops face. Military analysts say a ratio of 10 troops per insurgent is the minimum required to win a guerrilla war. With President Bush’s current troop surge, the U.S. hopes to have 170,000 troops in Iraq by the summer — still far short of what is needed.
'Strategic peril'
"Their equipment is shot. It’s coming apart. We are in a position of enormous strategic peril," McCaffrey said. "What happens if the other shoe drops?" he asked, listing a possible major natural disaster or a direct military confrontation with Iran or North Korea.
The military "is grossly under-resourced. ... It’s a flippin’ disaster," he said. "You have to have generators, tents, trucks, helicopters just to sustain troops in a natural disaster. The question is: Can we put four divisions (70,000 to 80,000 troops) into Korea in 90 days? The answer is, of course we can’t."
As a result, he said, "we’d probably have to use nuclear weapons before we lost 30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. If they’re getting their asses kicked, we’d probably go nuclear."
In response, the Pentagon spokesman noted remarks Feb. 15 by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who indicated that other options are available.
"Our potential enemies around the world should not miscalculate ... that we would not be able to respond elsewhere in the world to another threat," he said. "Because if there was another threat, we would freeze the units that are in Iraq and Afghanistan in place and mobilize our reserve and bring on line the enormous capacity of the United States that in a day-to-day war we don’t have to tap."
Rumsfeld blamed
McCaffrey said he blames "the arrogance and misunderstanding" of the former Defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, for the military’s plight.
"The ground-combat capability is seriously damaged by five years of combat, where it was grossly under-resourced throughout the period — deliberately," he said. "I just think we’re in serious trouble."
Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at www.dallasnews.com
By Tod Robberson
The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS — In a harshly worded critique of U.S. national security policy, retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey said this week it is too late to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and that Saudi Arabia is likely to follow. Furthermore, he said the U.S. is woefully unprepared to handle new threats, let alone the ones it now faces.
Gen. McCaffrey, interviewed during a Dallas visit, sharply criticized the Pentagon’s handling of the Iraq war, saying the military is debilitated and on the verge of disaster as it confronts up to 100,000 armed insurgents and militiamen there.
The four-star general suggested that another major crisis, such as a military threat from North Korea or Iran, could force the U.S. to respond with nuclear weapons because it lacks the resources and staffing to fight another conventional ground war.
Did his homework
McCaffrey, formerly head of the U.S. Southern Command and once the Army’s most highly decorated general, made his assessment after completing trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the invitation of the U.S. Central Command in February and March.
In separate reports prepared for the U.S. Military Academy, where he serves as an adjunct professor, McCaffrey cited dozens of sources for his assessment, including U.S. ambassadors, top U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials, and senior members of the Saudi, Pakistani and Afghan governments.
Although the Pentagon said his remarks do not reflect official policy, McCaffrey’s stature and the fact that he consulted officials at the highest military and political levels lent significant authority to his assessment.
"The fact that Gen. McCaffrey provided his thoughts and comments to Centcom does not then make them Centcom’s position. The military commanders provide their recommendations to the secretary," said a Department of Defense spokesman who asked not to be identified.
In remarks at the Pentagon on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Army continues to have high recruitment and retention rates, belying the dire assessments offered by critics.
"I think that if the Army were ... ‘broken,’ you would not see these kinds of retention rates and our ability to recruit," Gates said. But he recognized "that our forces are stretched. There’s no question about that."
Iranian nukes within five years
On Iran’s nuclear research program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes, McCaffrey warned that the Persian Gulf country will have a nuclear bomb within the next five years. "It’s too late, without question. They’re going nuclear," he said.
The general said U.S. and other intelligence services willfully underplayed the magnitude of the danger while political leaders in Washington "tried not to look at it" when the multibillion-dollar program began 10 years ago.
"The sad part is ... they (the Iranians) are not going to be any safer. The region will be less stable, and they will be acutely at greater risk," he said. If Tehran were to threaten the U.S. with a nuclear attack, it should expect the severest possible response, he said.
"They’d have to take into account our declaratory nuclear policy. We never said we wouldn’t use nuclear weapons. We never said we wouldn’t pre-empt," he said. "If we ever saw a threat to our key allies or ourselves, there’s no question in my mind: We would, if required, deploy a nuclear weapon."
Whither Saudi Arabia?
He added that Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim kingdom, would not sit idly by if its Persian Gulf Shiite neighbor acquired nuclear weaponry.
"For sure, if the Persian-Shia bomb becomes a dominant factor in the security of the Middle East, there will be a Sunni-Arab bomb to counter it," he said.
McCaffrey said that the Saudi government feels neglected and mistreated by Washington and that the effects of a growing fear of isolation could add to tensions.
In a written report to the U.S. Military Academy, he wrote Feb. 26: "The Saudis are correctly concerned about Iranian long-term imperialism backed by a powerful armed forces and nuclear weapons. It is my personal judgment that the Saudis will go nuclear within 10 years — if we do not repair the bi-national alliance."
Extended troop deployments
He responded harshly to Pentagon announcements during the past week about extended troop deployments in Iraq and a recall of Texas-based troops who have had as little as seven months at home since their last combat tour.
"These completely inadequate ground combat forces cannot sustain that level of deployment unless we ask them, essentially, to stay in near-continuous combat" far beyond the one-year deployment target set by the Pentagon, he said.
The Pentagon declined to comment on McCaffrey’s estimate that up to 100,000 insurgents and fighters are now armed in Iraq, saying it does not discuss intelligence matters.
The estimate presents a stark picture of the challenge U.S. troops face. Military analysts say a ratio of 10 troops per insurgent is the minimum required to win a guerrilla war. With President Bush’s current troop surge, the U.S. hopes to have 170,000 troops in Iraq by the summer — still far short of what is needed.
'Strategic peril'
"Their equipment is shot. It’s coming apart. We are in a position of enormous strategic peril," McCaffrey said. "What happens if the other shoe drops?" he asked, listing a possible major natural disaster or a direct military confrontation with Iran or North Korea.
The military "is grossly under-resourced. ... It’s a flippin’ disaster," he said. "You have to have generators, tents, trucks, helicopters just to sustain troops in a natural disaster. The question is: Can we put four divisions (70,000 to 80,000 troops) into Korea in 90 days? The answer is, of course we can’t."
As a result, he said, "we’d probably have to use nuclear weapons before we lost 30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. If they’re getting their asses kicked, we’d probably go nuclear."
In response, the Pentagon spokesman noted remarks Feb. 15 by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who indicated that other options are available.
"Our potential enemies around the world should not miscalculate ... that we would not be able to respond elsewhere in the world to another threat," he said. "Because if there was another threat, we would freeze the units that are in Iraq and Afghanistan in place and mobilize our reserve and bring on line the enormous capacity of the United States that in a day-to-day war we don’t have to tap."
Rumsfeld blamed
McCaffrey said he blames "the arrogance and misunderstanding" of the former Defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, for the military’s plight.
"The ground-combat capability is seriously damaged by five years of combat, where it was grossly under-resourced throughout the period — deliberately," he said. "I just think we’re in serious trouble."
Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at www.dallasnews.com
Comment