Pace Out ! Mullins in ! Watch Out Iran

Pace out- Pace gets the boot, Navy to command -This has never happened before during a war in the US. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Friday he has recommended Adm. Mike Mullen, currently chief of naval operations, to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

US. Defense Secretary Robert Gates with Bush

Does anyone like the surge?
(hat tip to Carpetbagger blog: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11069.html)

With Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Mullen replacing Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Wall Street Journal noticed an interesting trend among top military officials.

Adm. Mullen, like many of his four-star colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was skeptical of the decision to send additional U.S. troops into Iraq.

This comes on the heels of Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute’s admission that he, too, registered his opposition to the president’s surge policy.

And that came on the heels of Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressing his own opposition to the surge.

In other words, Bush will have a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a “war czar,” and a Pentagon chief — arguably the three most important war-related posts in Washington — who are at least skeptical of the central strategy underlying the president’s Iraq policy.

Odd.

John Kerry

John Kerry today issued the following statement on the announcement that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will be replaced rather than reappointed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this afternoon that he would recommend Adm. Mike Mullen to replace Pace.

“It is a sad state of affairs when this Administration withdraws a general they believe is qualified simply to avoid having to publicly defend their failed Iraq policy,” Senator Kerry said. “Congress has an obligation to ask tough questions about Iraq, and the architects of this war have an obligation to answer them openly and honestly. We will continue to hold this Administration accountable on Iraq. The next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must tell Congress and the American people the truth about this war.”

Is Mike Mullen replacing Pace because of his support for a strike against Iran?

Nico Pitney, posting originally on Think Progress Blog, shares some insights on pace's replacement, Mike Mullen

Some insight on Mullen can be gained from a speech he gave to sailors in Pearl Harbor in Feb. 2007:



In his opening remarks, Mullen, a Vietnam War veteran, told Pearl Harbor sailors: "I honestly believe this is the most dangerous time in my life.

"The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war."


From a Feb. 2006 interview with Mullen:

You use the term 'Long War', and it's important to understand that and really grab this issue because it is going to be around for a significant amount of time. I call it generational. That said, there are still traditional capabilities that are very much required.


When [Adm. William J. Fallon] was appointed in January to lead CentCom, analysts noted the choice of a Navy officer reflected "a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf." In announcing the nomination of Mullen this afternoon, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said that Mullen "watches Iran closely."



What did Pace do to get the boot?

So far, there are several reasons why pace was replaced that are floating around... Larry Johnson is convinced that he was axed for the supporting letter he wrote concerning scooter Libby... most disturbing was the opinion offered by leveymg at daily kos, that Pace was shown the door for opposing an attack on iran, a view which seems to square with mullen's quotes above... after reading that, i searched back to my post on the article in the new yorker from its april 2006 edition written by seymour hersh... remember, what he was writing about took place well over a year ago...




The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

[...]

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

[...]

“The planning is enormous,” the former senior intelligence official said, referring to the activity at the U.S. Central Command headquarters, in Florida; the Joint Warfare Analysis Center, in Virginia; and the U.S. Strategic Command, in Nebraska. “Space assets, SLBMs”—submarine-launched ballistic missiles—“tactical air, and sabotage, coöperation from the Turks and the Russians.” He added that the plans include “significant air attacks on their countermeasures and anti-aircraft missiles—a huge takedown.” He depicted the planning as hectic, and far beyond the contingency work that is routinely done. “These are operational plans,” the former official said.

[...]

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.


all of this led to an astounding revelation by Hersh...

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’”


that brings us to just this past February where possible resignations were again in the news, this as reported by the Times of London...

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

[...]

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.


Is George Bush, once again, stacking the ideological deck?



As a U.S. Marine officer in the Gulf War, Ritter served as a ballistic missile advisor to General H. Norman Schwarzkopf and then became a high-up UN weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998. Now he is a vociferous, controversial critic of the Bush II administration and the Iraq War. In his latest expose, Ritter trains his inspector's eyes on Iran, meticulously analyzing the rhetoric about Tehran beginning with the first Bush presidency when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, then skeptically parsing the protracted, politically tangled wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and vehemently objecting to what he sees as excessive American alignment with Israel. The most interesting figure to emerge from Ritter's flinty yet invaluable inquiry is John Bolton, current U.S. ambassador to the UN and a neo-con instrumental in pushing for regime changes in the Middle East "at any cost." In closing, Ritter offers shrewd observations about why things have cooled off regarding Iran as the midterm elections loom and cautions that war with Iran would be catastrophic and must be averted. Donna Seaman
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Skepticism about Iranian ties to weapons in Iraq

Paul: "As the administration is beginning it's justification for a war on Iran, the beginning of skepticism begins.

In this skeptical article, we are told that fact that Iran is supplying weapons for the terrorist in Iraq is suspect. Of course one must take into account the possibility that 1. The weapons are possibly not coming from the Iran Government itself and 2. The government, if it is supplying these weapons would not want the connection to be obvious - so as to further incite the already aggressive US.

Are the claims of weapons coming from Iran a lead up to an invasion? If so, who will invade - Israel with US backing? Or US on it's own?"



CBS, Fox News did not report Gen. Pace's skepticism about Iranian ties to weapons in Iraq

Summary: Reporting on allegations by anonymous U.S. military officials that Iran is supplying explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) to Shiite fighters in Iraq, neither CBS' David Martin nor Fox News' Bret Baier mentioned that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reportedly said that he has seen no evidence directly linking the Iranian government to the EFPs in Iraq.

Reporting on Iran's alleged ties to the supply of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq on the February 12 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, national security correspondent David Martin uncritically reported what he said was CBS News consultant Reza Aslan's belief that "supplying the devices is Iran's way of saying, 'If you want us to stop, let's talk.' " Similarly, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier reported on the February 12 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume that some have asked if "the weapons are coming into Iraq with the approval of the Iranian government." Neither Martin nor Baier told viewers that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has reportedly said he has seen no evidence directly linking the Iranian government to the supply of EFPs.

A February 12 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that Pace said "he hasn't seen any intelligence to support the claim" that "Iran's government [is] shipping powerful explosive devices to Shiite Muslim fighters in Iraq to use against American troops." Also, according to a February 12 Washington Post report, the U.S. military's briefing that sought to link Iran to EFPs in Iraq was "notable for what was not said or shown," adding that the military officials who briefed reporters "offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops." The Post article also noted that "the military briefers were not joined by U.S. diplomats or representatives of the CIA or the office of the Director of National Intelligence."

The only criticism of the administration's briefing that Special Report aired -- aside from that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- came from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who said: "I'm getting uneasy that they're trying to create a premise, set a premise for some future broader military action in Iran." The report also included comments from President Bush and White House press secretary Tony Snow characterizing opposition to the U.S. military's briefing as merely "political." Baier did not report Pace's comments despite noting that "Snow was asked directly if the administration is confident the weapons are coming into Iraq with the approval of the Iranian government."

From the February 12 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

MARTIN: These specially shaped charges have triggered an increasingly high-stakes standoff between the U.S. and Iran. Today, Iran denied accusations by U.S. officials in Baghdad that these deadly devices were manufactured inside Iran. A State Department spokesman responded with some decidedly undiplomatic language.

SEAN McCORMACK (State Department spokesman): The Iranians are up to their eyeballs in this activity.

MARTIN: The diabolic genius of the device, which has killed 170 coalition soldiers so far, is the concave lid. When a vehicle triggers an infrared motion detector, the explosive charge propels the lid, which changes shape in flight into a molten slug able to penetrate the thickest armor. It is a sophisticated killing device, which makes a cruel mockery of the term U.S. officials first used to describe roadside bombs -- improvised explosive device, IED for short.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just one by itself is enough to cause catastrophic damage. They're the most lethal form of IED that we've encountered here in Iraq so far.

MARTIN: Iranian expert and CBS News consultant Reza Aslan has no doubt it comes from Iran, and no doubt Iran is capable of much worse.

ASLAN: If Iran truly wanted to see Iraq become a failed state, it could unleash a level of violence in that country unlike anything the United States has seen before.

MARTIN: Aslan thinks supplying the devices is Iran's way of saying, "If you want us to stop, let's talk." Despite rumors of war heightened by sending a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, Aslan says chances of a diplomatic solution are not dead.

ASLAN: The great irony of all this is that this ratcheting-up of the militant rhetoric from the United States may actually lead to an opening of negotiations.

MARTIN: But officials say one of the arguments against holding talks with Iran is that with the war in Iraq going badly, the U.S. would be negotiating from a position of weakness, Katie.

COURIC: David Martin at the Pentagon tonight.

From the February 12 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:

BAIER: In an interview with CSPAN, a day after senior military officials in Baghdad laid out what they called firm evidence of Iran shipping explosives into Iraq, President Bush shrugged off suggestions that the presentation is a prelude to war.

BUSH: I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, "He wants to go to war," is -- first of all, I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it's political.

BAIER: The president was asked what he would say to lawmakers calling for specifics on how he'll deal with all the problems Iran is causing.

BUSH: I say we've got a comprehensive policy, aimed to solve this peacefully.

BAIER: This after a detailed briefing in Baghdad Sunday, where senior military officials said highly sophisticated weapons, known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs, can be directly tied to Tehran from serial numbers and markings found on the roadside bombs. Senior officials said these EFPs have killed more than 170 U.S. and coalition troops by penetrating even the newest armored vehicles, sending hot, molten metal through Humvees.

The official said the supply trail of the EFPs, Iranian-made mortar shells, and rocket-propelled grenades began with Iran's revolutionary guard's Quds force in Tehran, and led directly to Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army, loyal to radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

White House officials stood firmly behind the report.

SNOW: You cannot deny that these weapons exist. You cannot deny that there is presently no manufacturing capability within Iraq able to produce those kinds of weapons.

BAIER: Snow was asked directly if the administration is confident the weapons are coming into Iraq with the approval of the Iranian government.

SNOW: There's not a whole lot of freelancing in the Iranian government, especially when it comes to something like that.

BAIER: While Iranian officials Monday strongly denied sending explosives into Iraq and accused the U.S. of fabricating evidence, in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly danced around the question.

AHMADINEJAD: We are asking for peace. We are asking for security, and we will be sad to see people get killed, no matter who they are.

SAWYER: Would you like to see the pictures? Because they say they have the serial numbers and they are from Iran. It's a fact, they say.

AHMADINEJAD: We don't need such things. The U.S. administration and Bush are used to accusing others. We are opposed to any kind of conflict in Iraq.

BAIER: Sunday, top Democrats expressed their own doubts about the administration's charges.

DODD: This administration has tried, in the past, to sort of doctor the numbers, to cook the books to serve their policy goals. We've seen that in the Iraq conflict. I'm getting uneasy that they're trying to create a premise, set a premise for some future broader military action in Iran.

BAIER: Which prompted a firm response from the White House.

SNOW: These guys are trying to create an issue maybe for their own political fortunes, and they need to stop it. This is clearly a case where people are hyping something up. I don't know how much clearer we can be. We're not getting ready for war in Iran, but what we are doing is, we're protecting our own people.

BAIER: Meantime, on the nuclear front, European Union leaders today agreed to implement United Nations sanctions on Iran for not suspending its uranium enrichment, but those same EU leaders said that Iran is now, quote, "showing new ambition to negotiate." Bush administration official reaction: We'll see. Brit.