KATIE COURIC last night underwent her second on-air colonoscopy.
Watching the procedure was not a horribly painful event. Nor was it an experience I would volunteer to repeat any time soon.
For her very first night as CBS News diva, Katie spent a half-hour looking as if she desperately had to go potty. Her back was so stiff as she looked into the camera, pop-eyed and self-conscious, I feared it would snap.
Her face was Botoxed beyond normal human endurance, proving that even pampered, overpaid news babes possess the courage to suffer for their art.
And for the first time in history that a female was allowed to deliver a network's evening news alone, Katie chose to wear an unfortunate white blazer - the result, no doubt, of some jokester lying to her face when Katie asked, "Does this make me look fat?"
And the day after Labor Day, to boot!
For this they pay her a reported $15 million a year?
The best that can be said about Katie Couric was that she did not trip over her 5-inch stiletto heels when she toddled across the floor of the set, crossing her bare legs like some ridiculous tramp.
The worst that can be said about Katie is that she did not fall flat on her face - which would have provided a much-needed break in the tension.
Western civilization did not exactly end last night as Katie took to the anchor chair. But the changing of the guard did represent another kind of cultural change.
As of yesterday, network TV has proven it no longer feels the need to pretend that its nightly news broadcast is sober stuff, populated by earnest men and women with serious reporting backgrounds and working blow-dryers.
It was not just Katie's legs. Or her clothes. Or her unnervingly high-pitched and overmodulated voice, more appropriate for a weather girl in Tampa than a national broadcaster. It was all these things together - and more. At the end of the show, Katie struggled with how she should sign off. She played clips of Walter Cronkite intoning, "That's the way it is." And Dan Rather ending his broadcast with "Courage."
But then, she played Ted Knight as bumbling Ted Baxter in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." And Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy in "Anchorman."
It was supposed to be funny.
Trouble is, those fake guys were better anchors than Katie was last night.
Best quote I've read about Bush's speech from Mario Loyola at The Corner: "Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains."
Bottom line -- "Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes."
We're now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks -- and the families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. Some of the families are with us today -- they should have to wait no longer. So I'm announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) They are being held in the custody of the Department of Defense. As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice. (Applause.)
but I suggest you go to c-span.org and watch it -- Bush being Bush
It is true that by focusing on military missions, terror advocacy and mosque incitement has largely escaped WOT scrutiny. However, I was hoping that Congress would once again place the Gitmo internees under American Law, by trumping the SCOTUS' rights enforcement that trampled the White House' designation of Afghanistan as a "failed state," and treated territorial captives as military detainees. As for civil solutions, what if Nazis won the post World War 2 elections in Germany? Either our security is paramount over enemy liberty, or we have to treat those animals as equals. Civil, or public support of Nasrallah should hardly base legitimation of his kind of terrorist. We need to criminalize national supporters of Hamas, Hizbollah, al-Qaeda, and slaughter their allies on all military fronts.
...The United States should rethink the label it uses for what is known as the "global war on terror," the chief of strategic planning on the Pentagon's Joint Staff said Tuesday.
What is needed, said Army Col. Gary Cheek, is to recast terrorists as the criminals they are. "If we can change the name ... and find the right sequence of events that allows us to do that, that changes the dynamic of the conflict," said Cheek at the Defense Forum Washington, sponsored by the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute.
"It makes sense for us to find another name for the GWOT," said Cheek. "It merits rethinking. I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."
Which will allow the Euros not just to re-frame the argument to their liking, but allow them to shift the modality as well: to defense, not offense. In that way the Dhimmicrats have a similar philosophy: we should never 'give' or play offense, but rather employ the perfect defense. We should spend lots of time and money inspecting each and every shipping container rather than find and handle the terrorists who would put a bomb into a shipping container, as but one example.
Not that there's anything wrong with defense, but a perfect defense isn't possible (it really isn't) and it's far better to take the fight to our enemies. That, however, raises uncomfortable questions for both the Euros and the Dhimmis: it means having to confront our enemies, their rhetoric and their actions. We have to answer the question, 'why do we fight?' We have to do things, from eavesdropping on terrorist conversations to questioning prisoners, that raise the hackles of the more squeamish. Taking the offensive means making difficult decisions; it means making mistakes and causing people, including some of your own, to die.
But most of all, it forces the Euros and Dhimmis to confront the failed essence of their own ideology: socialism. The socialist, multicultural, relative philosophy that abhors absolutes, firmness and conviction can't bring itself to take a fight to an enemy. It has trouble even labeling an 'enemy' unless that enemy is one of their own. It's easier to fight the KKK than it is to fight an Islamist terrorist: the former fits within their own world view of what an enemy is, and the latter does not. Taking the offensive requires one to see, understand and define the enemy correctly. It's said that Winston Churchill understood Adolf Hitler very well, whereas Hitler never understood Churchill. That became a key reason why Churchill made many more correct decisions than Hitler did over the course of WWII. The Euros and the Dhimmis, by and large, simply don't understand who Osama is: they don't understand what motivates the islamofascists, they don't see how salafism motivates men to become terrorists, and they don't get the connection between terrorist groups and state sponsers. It's easier just to play defense. It's easier not to go to "war".
The "war" moniker elevates al-Qaida and other transnational terrorists, giving them legitimacy as an opposition force to the United States. It also tends to alienate Muslim populations in other countries, who see the war as a war on Islam, and feel they need to support al-Qaida as a matter of defending their faith.
Which rather says something about the difference between, say, Christianity today and Islam today: as a Catholic I didn't have a reflexive need to defend the IRA in its terror campaign against the Brits. I could step back and correctly understand that the IRA was a bunch of terrorist thugs who liked killing people for a 'cause'. So my sympathies were with their victims, Catholic and Protestant alike.
It also tends to frame the fight as one in which the Defense Department has the primary role, when it is becoming increasingly clear that the "long war" against global terrorism is going to be won on other fronts -- economic, political, diplomatic, financial. Other government agencies and departments must become more engaged; only they have the expertise to help other countries take the actions necessary to defeat terrorists.
This is more nonsense. In the Cold War we recognized each of those fronts, from military to financial, as important. That didn't stop us from seeing the essence of the Cold War, which was that Soviet Communism was hell-bent on dominating the globe and would do so if we didn't stop them. That's what make it a war, and the fact that we managed not to launch nukes at each other kept it cold.
Cheek's idea is not a new one, and for all the practical sense it makes to the military, it is being floated at a politically inopportune time. Both the U.S. House and the Senate hang in the balance, with a shift from Republican to Democratic control possible after the midterm elections.
To hang onto power, Republicans are returning to their strongest card: national security. And one of their chief attacks on Democrats is their alleged preference to manage terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than being serious about defeating them in a war...
National security is more than just military might, and the Republicans are strong on national security precisely because so far they've had the clearest vision of how to combine military, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, economic and political strategies to protect our country. Criticize all you like about GWB's implementation of the GWoT, but it's a coherent vision that uses each of these tools. The precise reason why the Dhimmis have ceded the argument on national security is because first, they've taken the military option off the table, and second, no one really believes they'd use the other options in any tough, bloody-minded way.
Frame this as protecting sheep from the wolves: you need a sheepdog, and you'll put up with a number of faults and failings as long as the sheepdog gets the essentials of the job right. The Republicans are by no means perfect, and in some ways their faults and failings are substantial (and noted numerous times on the Burg). But in the end a number of us think that the Pubs will do their jobs as sheepdogs, and that's why the sentiment at the Burg, best I can tell, leans towards keeping them in power. Show me some Democrats who will serve as effective sheepdogs and I'll listen to what they have to say. I've seen one lately -- Liebermann -- and he's pretty much toast as a national politican regardless of the election.
#1
Frankly, we should not be planning for long term war. War is always a hard sell in a democracy. Indecisive war is unsellable. Let me say it again: September could be one of America's greatest months ever, or worse.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This guy needs to be drummed out of the military. The law enforcement angle is stupid. How exactly do you justify cops putting a Hellfire missile into a terrorist hideout?
#5
I always wonder, when someone like this floats a turd or two, just who authorized him / her to speak on behalf of the CinC - or criticize national security policy might be more accurate. Funny, but I don't recall seeing his name on the ballot, nor do I recall him being introduced by his Boss, Rummy, or Rummy's Boss, the President, as the new NatSec policy spokesman.
The obvious stupidity of this is simply Clintoonian, IMHO.
#8
Isn't treating this whole thing (from the Embassy takeover in Tehran forward to 2001) as simply a law enforcement issue kind of what got us in this mess in the first place?
#9
The Swamp Lady is correct. Couching the war strictly in terms of law enforcement has been a failure.
I have to laugh when I read that "we" (The West) are "creating" more terrorists when we go on the offensive. That's just so much BS. The terrorists already exist. When we go on the offensive the SOBs rear their heads and can then be identified. Once identified (and located) eliminate the garbage by any means necessary.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
09/06/2006 7:19 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This guy's the "chief of strategic planning" on the Pentagon's Joint Staff? I find that hard to believe; but if he is, then God help us...
"I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."
Col. Cheek ought to take ten seconds and examine why the Euros are "more comfortable" seeing terrorism as a criminal threat: it's because their history has rendered them utterly neurotic about war-- they are pathologically pacifistic.
And so, I suspect, is Col. Cheek.
We are not going to end the problem of Islamic terrorism by treating terrorist acts as discrete crimes. We can only end it by going after the malignant ideology that propels those acts.
Islam is, and always has been, in a state of war with the non-Islamic world. And it will remain so until it is either persuaded that it must relent to avoid annihilation, or until it is annihilated.
More and more, I'm convinced that we need to expand this war-- not shrink it, as this guy would have us do-- if we're ever going to win it.
Faster, please...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/06/2006 7:23 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Law Enforcement is suppose to be cold blooded. War is suppose to be hot blooded. Thats the big disconnect between the enemy and us. They practice primitive warfare, territorial behaviors of emotion and seething and rendering. We practice law and engineering. And therein lies the inability to communicate. If American streets were filled with the seething crowds instead of the fifth column, the enemy would understand and adjust their behavior. They would grasp power plus emotion means theyre dust without question. However, the nature of the American process is basically unknowable to them as would be quantum physics. A few many understand, but not the critical mass of decision makers. So each party makes missteps leading ever more to a point of no return.
So in the end youre left with -
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
#12
Thge last thing we need is a law enforcement approach.
Case in point: Under current law this American showcased by Al Qaeda could not face any criminal charges on American soil; he is unreachable legally. But a fire team could definately reach him and should. The man didn't do anything legally we are aware of, but he has declared himserlf an armed and hostile enemy of the US.
#13
Phuech the five-sided nut and all the feather merchants and carpetbaggers who worm within it. Follows is our only hope:
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night.
the only thing clean on him is his weapon. he doesn't worry about what workout to do-his rucksack weights what it weights, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care "how hard it is"; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn't go home at 1700' he is home.
#14
By letting a COL release a thought on changing our national policy one of three things is happening. One: he has stepped out of ranks with his own opinion to the press, certainly a career killer. Second: he was authorized to release it to get a feel for the reactions, sort of Pentagon testing the waters. Or third: He was speaking to a forum posing the idea as a "What if" situation to drive a discussion on alternant points of view, and nothing more. He is probably trying to drive this discussion with the group.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/06/2006 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I suspect that this is just Pentagon CYA.
Remember that they are totally reliant on political support, and if that political support is successfully undermined by democrats and weak republicans, it is the Pentagon and all of the people in the military that will be hung out to dry. As has happened before.
So what happens if that happens? Unless the Pentagon can turn it over to international law enforcement as "their game", our military will be left in place to continue fighting, but they will "take away our guns, and issue us butter knives with instructions 'not to hurt anybody'."
That is, imagine the WoT as run by John Kerry.
(puke break)
The Pentagon would rather half the world go up in flames rather than half the world go up in flames with the US military in the middle of it, and forbidden to do anything about it, except get killed while weaklings in Washington wring their hands and say:
"Oh dear. Oh dear. What shall be done? Can't we have a committee meeting or give the terrorists what they want so they will stop being so mean to us? If they keep slaughtering Americans, we might lose the next election, and that would be horrible!"
#16
Pathetic. This is what happens when the military is not allowed to do what it was designed for - not a long war, but a short one - unrestricted warfare using overwhelming firepower.
#17
Mars, the God of War, is a mighty God, and terrible to behold. He plays with human beings as if they were dust, and he bends them to his inexorable and merciless will. He alone chooses the time and the place when he will assume once more his ancient throne, and then all men must bow and tremble. The God of War is not human. His laws are not human laws. He does not play nice and he does not play by our rules or our laws. His laws are the laws of Hell, but they are no less ruthlessly logical for all that. He gives men a choice: either they fight by his laws, or they lose their civilization and the hope of peace, and become slaves. Men have tried to wrest his power away from him - they have tried to tie him down with cease fires, arms control treaties, international laws, international criminal courts, war crimes tribunals, and transnational organizations. They have tried to wage war by human rules: chivalric war, limited war, surgical war, precision war, sanitized war, robotic war, ethical war, or laughably, war by law enforcement. Most pitiable of all are those who try to pretend that he and his everlasting dominion don't exist. For the God of War is a jealous God. He does not take kindly to these pathetic maneuvers, and on these he returns his vengeful thunderbolts a thousandfold.
The man didn't do anything legally we are aware of, but he has declared himserlf an armed and hostile enemy of the US.
By his own declarations Gadan has broken US law via the Sedition Act as well as numerous other laws regarding sedition and declaring open (and armed) revolution against the legitimate government of the United States.
He is an American citizen advocating the destruction of the US government, country, its civilians, and its culture & way of life.
* Nationalities Its odd how often its pointed out that Iraq is a state created from a patchwork of nationalities while the same is never mentioned about Iran. In truth, the situation in Iran makes Iraq look like Sweden.
Aside from the Shiite Persian majority, there exist substantial minorities of Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, Armenians, Bakhtiaris, and Turkomans, in addition to a large Sunni population comprisng 8% of Irans total (most of the Kurds, Baluchis, and Turkomans are Sunni). Persian arrogance, coupled with Shiite fanaticism, have created a pressure-cooker atmosphere.
* The Sunni States Its clear that the bulk of the Gulf states are worried about Iran. How deep all this goes can be gauged by the fact that several of these same states gave the nod to Israels attack on Hezballah in the first days of its recent Lebanon incursion.
* Gasoline It is now widely understood that Iran possesses no capability of refining the higher petroleum fractions, including gasoline. Refineries do exist in Iran, but apparently theyre intended only to separate various grades of petroleum from crude. This lack of technology is a serious vulnerability. Cutting the country off would be a simple matter of sanctions, perhaps reinforced by a blockade directed at tankers. This is probably the most straightforward method of putting serious pressure on the ayatollahs. Its difficult to impress the world with plans for conquest when your Mercedes limos are being pulled around by oxen.
* Oil Another open secret involves the actual locations of Iranian oilfields. A glance at a resource map reveals that most are located on or near the shoreline, with a smaller though still substantial fraction further inland. Most of Irans oil resources could be interdicted by naval action. But the most interesting point is that the largest fields arent located in Iran at all. Theyre offshore, in the middle of the Gulf which, since 1988, has been completely controlled by the U.S. Navy.
Not only can the U.S. cut Iran off from the bulk of its oil resources with little in the way of effort its also possible, by taking over working oil platforms, that Iranian oil could continue flowing to the outside world with little interruption, negating one of the more serious objections to such a strategy. Many fields are run by foreign third parties (e.g., the Romanian installation the Iranians attacked so inexplicably), but a number of these are either allies or else states long deserving some kind of black eye.
* The Forrest Effect We shouldnt forget that Forrest was an American (of sorts). Iran has, for past eighteen months, held the stage by its lonesome. This stuff is transparently designed to generate confusion and dismay, and to keep the diplomatic and political elites guessing.
Its about time that we started acting in turn throwing a few curves in the direction of Tehran designed to cause the same if not greater unease and foreboding. One possibility is a campaign aimed directly at the Iranian peasantry consisting of leaflets condemning Ahmadinejad and alleging to originate from the 13th imam himself, backed up by radio broadcasts and so forth. Iran remains a relatively unmodernized society and is very susceptible to this kind of stimulus. (Think Orson Welles Martian invasion broadcast though the U.S. was more advanced than Iran even then.)
Aircraft are also useful in this effort. One method pioneered by Harry Truman against the USSR involved what might be called the suggestive reconnaissance flight. Truman several times sent RB-36 recon planes, which at that time could not be intercepted, over Moscow during tense interludes to underline just how vulnerable the Soviets were. A variation involves sonic booms. In the late 80s, SR-71 spyplanes were sent over Managua to treat the Sandinistas to a good loud bang every time they began menacing their neighbors. Tehran should receive similar treatment on a regular basis.
* The Biggest BangWhich brings us to our final possibility, which can be carried out as the last action short of open war. This would involve setting off a low-yield nuclear warhead 50,000 feet over Tehran. At that altitude, a bomb of precise power would break every window in the city, blind a few unfortunates, but kill no one. This may seem a drastic proposal, but in a climate where even gentle souls like Michael Coren are suggesting far worse, drastic is a matter of debate.
A nuclear explosion is the most foreboding sight in nature it is possible to witness and survive. Many eyewitnesses of atmospheric bomb tests speak of the almost unreasoning terror that the sight creates. During the 1960s, an Air Force officer suggested that a single exception be made to the atmospheric test ban treaty: that a single bomb be set off annually with the leaders of all major powers present. Once they see it, they will never forget it.
Those are our cards. If I were sitting in on this kind of game, those are cards Id like to have. If we played any of them, they would inevitably cause difficulties for an Iranian government that is unstable and enjoys little backing from its own people. We could easily carry them out in the form of a ladder of escalation, one after the other, until we get results.
#1
* The Biggest BangWhich brings us to our final possibility, which can be carried out as the last action short of open war. This would involve setting off a low-yield nuclear warhead 50,000 feet over Tehran
Do I hear 45,ooo feet. Do I hear 35,9oo, do I hear 25,ooo. Do I hear 1200 Feet? SOLD! at 1200 feet AGL.
#3
Bad idea. Using nukes is like pulling a gun. Don't do it unless you're ready to pull the trigger for real.
Keep fighting the good fight, mojo. The "display of power" aspect of such a demonstration is quite appealing. The message it sends to the remaining world (other than Iran) is the entirely wrong one. If we use even a single nuclear weapon, it must be the vanguard of a massive nuclear attack, be it against one country or a host of them.
Iran is an incredibly fragile target. Kick out even a single leg of their economy and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. It is frustrating in the extreme that Bush cannot simply come before the American people and outline a "bootless" plan for war with Iran that involves no foot soldiers.
from the "Powerline" blog
On Thusday we noted that Jim Brown posted the link to an incredible 27-minute piece by an Israeli video journalist depicting Israel's war against Hezbollah: "To hell and back." . . .
UPDATE: James Sitlington III writes to comment:
I watched the video after your first reference to it and was struck by its candor and how it gives us an ability to take an unvarnished look into an IDF "Regular Army" Regiment.
A little background. I'm a West Point grad, and while on active duty in the 80's, had the luxury of working for exceptional leaders: Carl Vuono, Denny Reimer and Gary Luck. Vuono and Reimer became Chief of Staff of the Army, and Luck is still doing special ops stuff, though retired as a 4 star. They taught me lessons in leadership and training that are invaluable and serve me to this day.
I am a student of "leadership," particularly in the military sense, which brings me to my criticisms of the IDF as shown by this video, which I believe to be representative. This will sound harsh, but is given with the hope of being seen as constructive.
1) A Regiment was repulsed and therefore failed to complete its mission (the occupation of the village) by three terrorists.
2) Although unquestionably brave, the leaders, at all levels, in leading from the front, became consumed by one firefight, rather than focused on completing their mission.
3) After only four casualties, none of which were fatal, the commander withdrew, due solely to his participation in that firefight. (What about the flanking enemy that he was concerned about?)
4) There was a complete lack of coordination with other units, fire support, etc. after the initial pro-forma, 1800's style artillery barrage.
I could go on, but the sense I get is that the IDF is not ready for prime time. I have chatted with Yoni about my concerns as to why it took 24 hours to recover the dead following the first 531 firefight and wondered how many of those "bled out" waiting for help that never came.
In Europe, in the 80's the Soviet Army only gave radios to their leaders. Hence, you knew which tank was a leader by its having an antenna. Two antennas meant Company Commander, etc. So, kill the tank with antennas, and the rest of the tanks are leaderless. I fear the same is true with the IDF...Kill the first and second guy in, and you take out the leadership. There is no doubt the terrorists understand this.
I expect/hope that we will have some SF guys giving some urgent training on Company and Battalion level tactics and support to the IDF. I look for more OH-58 type helicopters to be purchased by the IDF, and I expect to hear of orders that Battalion Commanders will no longer "lead from the front." It is hard enough to command a battalion in combat, without adding the stress and exertion brought on by reverting to a Platoon Leader whenever the bullets begin to fly.
All the best, and God Bless Israel!
Jim Sitlington
I know there's a lot of active duty and former military people here in the 'Burg, and I'm very interested in your analysis. What do you guys think of this critique? (It seems correct to me, but everything I know about military science I learned from SPI and Avalon Hill, so I'm nowhere close to an expert.) Discuss.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/06/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Having viewed the recording, I too was struck by how the mission evaporated. My only thought in watching it was that this couldn't have been the regulars, it surely was a poorly trained reserve unit.
Let's hope the recording was not viewed by any intelligent enemy.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/06/2006 2:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
it surely was a poorly trained reserve unit.
All the israeli Army system is based on reserves (in order to compensate for the lack of manpower) so their reserves are supposed to get frequent recalls for retraining and be as good as the regular army, perhaps even better due to their greater experience and maturity (a bit like the pilots of the National Gurd who lick the guys of the USAF despite flying inferior planes and whose ground personel is able to refuel and repair the planes faster than the USAF peronel).
Something is rotten in the IDF ground army if they have let their reserves fall this low.
#3
Laurent Arthur Du Plessis, journalist, writer and contributor to the "4 vérités" mag had said in several conservative radio talk shows that the USA would probably have to carry out the needed strikes against iran by themselves (which for him will trigger the "hot" WWIII he sees as inevitable due to muslim imperialism), since his assessment of the IDF was that it had been somewhat turned into a (really effective) "police force" by the two successive intifada, and that its purely "military" aspect (western style) had been degraded by this emphasis on internal counter-insurgency.
IE, the IDF has spent two decades fighting the paleos, and has lost some of its edge regarding "full scale" military ops in the process.
Don't know if that holds water, I'll let more savvy types comment.
#4
I think Du Plessi is off the mark. The problem is teh IDF ground army who in later years has been starved of money for training as the Air Force got over half the military budget. The Air Force has got plenty of training. In fact its pilots beat the American ones in maneuveers. Unfortunately with current resstrictive rules of engagement the IAF cannot be effective against terrorists who hide between civilians (BTW, this is a war crime)
Anyway this is a moot point because strikes against Iran would not be carried neither by the ground army nor by the IAF (Baghdad is the limit it can reach unless America refuels its planes or allow them landing in Irak) but by missile-launching subs operating in the Persian Gulf.
#5
JFM - Your comment regards the range of Israeli F-15s is incorrect according to a GlobalSecurity page I've seen posted here. I don't have the link handy, sorry. They would be required overfly some hostile territory, of course, but it indicated clearly they could make the round trip without refueling. Loiter time would be minimal, of course. Just FYI.
#6
I was basing on the range of the F16s who bombed Osirak. Despite being stripped of every "unneeded" weight (like ECM) they were so heavy (weeeeeell beyond the authorized limit) they could barely take off and on return they were on their last gallons when they landed.
I don't know if F15s could reach Teheran but there are a lot of places in Iran who are out of range for F15s, at least if the F15s have to fly at very low altitude like they did in the strike against Osirak. Now if Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Irak look the other way the F15s would be able to fly high and that increases range. I still doubt that even in optimal conditions they would be able to reach Eastern Iran and that is teh place where, if the mullahs are not complete idiots where the nuke facilities should be located.
#7
I've located the GS article on the F-16 Sufa - a Block 60 with a 2100 km range (Note that's a PDF). That suffices under expected conditions.
The F-15I Ra'am model is the one I referenced, though I have to admit I'm having real trouble re-locating the link, damnit. My apologies. The F-16 link indicates the range is on par with the F-16, but it's not listed in that PDF, which is considered a definitive source for the data it contains, or so I'm told.
If 2100 km, subtracting payload and routes and altitude and maneuvers will do the trick, then they have the capability. This is not 1981 and Israel has not been sitting on its hands for these 25 years... In this Dec, 2005 article (? 12.11.05) Sharon ordered the IAF to plan the mission. Must've had a reasonable presumption it could be done. Additionally, I doubt you'd have trouble finding Israeli pilots who would execute it as a one-way trip, if needed - bailing out somewhere that they could be picked up - say with one of those subs we've heard about.
Just FYI. I happen to believe they'll get to watch Iran's takedown, not execute it, but that's just me.
"In August 2003 the Israeli Air Force demonstrated the strategic capability to strike far-off targets such as Iran [which is 1,300 kilometers away], by flying three F-15 jets to Poland 1,600 nautical miles away."
#10
F-15s have a 3500 mile (5600 km) ferry range with conformal tanks and 3 external tanks. Reaching Tehran (1600 km) with 2 LGBs isn't the problem. Getting through Syrian/Jordanian/Iraqi/Saudi/Turkish/Iranian airspace and back is.
Posted by: ed ||
09/06/2006 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
On the GS F-15I Specs page, which in my hurry to provide a link I didn't check before posting #9, it indicates a range of 4450 km... Sheesh - so they meant round-trip, but neglected to say so - or one of the pages is in error.
ed - Your posted info would give them quite a bit of wiggle room for the limiting factors. 3500 US Nautical Miles = 6482 km. Looking at the GS Map...
#14
My Old Man flew F-4s off the Coral Sea during Vietnam.
He said his squadron once had a visit from an IAF officer, who showed off some of their gun footage from the recent (Yom?) war with the Arabs.
In some of the footage, the Israeli pilot streaked past an Egyptian plane taking off from the runway, circled back, and shot him down once he was airborne.
You see, if wouldn't have counted as a kill if he were still on the runway ...
They were badasses then. But 50% of the budget?? -- "An Air Force can neither take nor hold ground .."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
