Bush Iran War Plans - 4 Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf

wrote:

Finally, it occurs to me that a hot war in the Middle East would
provide ideal cover for sweeping flawed or rigged midterm election
results under the White House carpet and denying calls for
investigation of election irregularities. As I diaried last week, 'The
president fully intends to maintain control of the House and the
Senate'. A hot war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon would certainly give a
pretext to "maintaining control".

Exactly how would a hot war with Iran influence voters to vote
Republican? I would think it would enrage Democrats and increase their
voter turn-out, thus causing the GOP to LOSE control of Congress.

Bad news. Very bad news. Another expeditionary strike group will
imminently enter the Persian Gulf where it will join the Enterprise,
Eisenhower and Iwo Jima strike groups.

-I assume the ESG you are referring to is the Boxer amphibious group.
They are there to relieve the Iwo Jima group per the normal cycle. Even
so, neither group can conduct offensive strike ops. Between them they
carry six Harriers, eight Cobras, and a whole bunch of transport
helicopters. All of which would be pretty useless for air strikes in
Iran. Good for landing Marines though.

-The Eisenhower isn't in the Persian Gulf. She is at a port call in
Cyprus. It would take about 2 days for her to get into position to
launch strikes into the Northwestern corner of Iran, from the
Northeastern Med, but that would require permission to overfly Turkish
air space and would also require USAF Tanker support, also via Turkey.

-The Enterprise is in the Arabian Sea as per the normal deployment
cycle.

No other carrier is close.
-Nimitz and Reagan are in the Eastern Pacific between Hawaii and CA
conducting work-ups
-Kitty Hawk is in the Philippine Sea
-All others are in their yard/maintenance period.
This represents the standard deployment that the US has maintained in
these areas since the 1960's. All of it was scheduled about six years
ago as the carriers go through their normal maintenance, work-up, and
deployment cycles.

In order to conduct strikes in Iran, we would need at least two
carriers in the Med and two in the Arabian sea. That isn't going to
happen anytime soon.

"Airyx" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Finally, it occurs to me that a hot war in the Middle East would
provide ideal cover for sweeping flawed or rigged midterm election
results under the White House carpet and denying calls for
investigation of election irregularities. As I diaried last week, 'The
president fully intends to maintain control of the House and the
Senate'. A hot war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon would certainly give a
pretext to "maintaining control".

Exactly how would a hot war with Iran influence voters to vote
Republican? I would think it would enrage Democrats and increase their
voter turn-out, thus causing the GOP to LOSE control of Congress.

Bad news. Very bad news. Another expeditionary strike group will
imminently enter the Persian Gulf where it will join the Enterprise,
Eisenhower and Iwo Jima strike groups.

-I assume the ESG you are referring to is the Boxer amphibious group.
They are there to relieve the Iwo Jima group per the normal cycle. Even
so, neither group can conduct offensive strike ops. Between them they
carry six Harriers, eight Cobras, and a whole bunch of transport
helicopters. All of which would be pretty useless for air strikes in
Iran. Good for landing Marines though.

-The Eisenhower isn't in the Persian Gulf. She is at a port call in
Cyprus. It would take about 2 days for her to get into position to
launch strikes into the Northwestern corner of Iran, from the
Northeastern Med, but that would require permission to overfly Turkish
air space and would also require USAF Tanker support, also via Turkey.

I think the original poster is a whack job but I have to splash a little
cold water here


In 7-10 days could Eisenhower be in the Arabian sea through Suez?




-The Enterprise is in the Arabian Sea as per the normal deployment
cycle.

No other carrier is close.
-Nimitz and Reagan are in the Eastern Pacific between Hawaii and CA
conducting work-ups

I think practice makes perfect but having thuse carriers in two weeks in the
arabian sea launching strikes is doable.

All training/certifcation requirements can be waived by the president and
the SecDef if the military situation requires it.


-Kitty Hawk is in the Philippine Sea

And in the Arabian sea in a week if ordered


-All others are in their yard/maintenance period.
This represents the standard deployment that the US has maintained in
these areas since the 1960's. All of it was scheduled about six years
ago as the carriers go through their normal maintenance, work-up, and
deployment cycles.

In order to conduct strikes in Iran, we would need at least two
carriers in the Med and two in the Arabian sea.

I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

That isn't going to
happen anytime soon.

I don't think so either but not because we can't deploy 4-5 carriers off the
coast of Iran if we really had to.

I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, they prefer not to
transit the Strait of Hormuz choke point and to stay out in the Arabian
Sea. As such, their strike aircraft would have a difficult time getting
to targets in NW Iran, including Tehran.

They would HAVE to have two carriers in the NE Med, with in-flight
refueling over Turkey to cover that area. This is the same thing they
did during the Iraq invasion.

We also have a functioning Air Force base at Kirkuk, Iraq. There is a
squadron of F-16's based there.

Of course, they can conduct a single heavy strike at any time with what
is currently on-station.

In that scenario, the CAWs and F-16 squadron would just provide force
protection (CAP, BARCap, SEAD). The carrier's escorts would conduct
cruise missle strikes with their BGM-109's, in coordination with
AGM-86Cs from B-52s out of Diego Garcia. Then you'd have B-1s and B-2s
conducting precision strikes using GAMs and JDAMs.

This can be done at any time within a couple of day's notice, which is
why those patrol stations are always maintained, it just can't be
sustained without additional assets.

Airyx wrote:


We also have a functioning Air Force base at Kirkuk, Iraq. There is
a squadron of F-16's based there.

Of course, they can conduct a single heavy strike at any time with
what is currently on-station.

In that scenario, the CAWs and F-16 squadron would just provide force
protection (CAP, BARCap, SEAD). The carrier's escorts would conduct
cruise missle strikes with their BGM-109's, in coordination with
AGM-86Cs from B-52s out of Diego Garcia. Then you'd have B-1s and
B-2s conducting precision strikes using GAMs and JDAMs.

This can be done at any time within a couple of day's notice, which
is why those patrol stations are always maintained, it just can't be
sustained without additional assets.


Any strike on Iran from an Iraqi base would simply be politically
suicidal. We would weld the Shiite lunatics into a single anti
American force

"Iran, which President Bush dubbed one of three nations in an "axis of
evil," has become Iraq's closest ally after the United States, and the
countries' new relationship is a dramatic turnabout after decades of
tension, highlighted by the 1980-88 war that resulted in more than a
million casualties. It is a major shift even from the tentative ties
established last year by the U.S.-appointed interim government of Prime
Minister Ayad Allawi, which often charged that Iran was meddling in Iraq."

Iran, Iraq Herald 'New Chapter' in Shiite-Led Alliance
Former Enemies to Forge Closer Ties On Security, Economy, Leaders Say
By Andy Mosher and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 17, 2005; Page A21

Of course we routinely demonstrate our contempt for our puppet
government in Iraq, but attacking Iran from Iraq would force our puppets
to attack us or flee the country in the last helicopter flying out of
Baghdad

Bush made the Shiite alliance
Now we have to live with it

Vince

Airyx wrote:
I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, ...

Thay have in fact been doing so on a regular basis since 1990.

MW

Mike Weeks wrote:
Airyx wrote:
I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, ...

Thay have in fact been doing so on a regular basis since 1990.

I know that they have, but most of the time they stay out in the
Arabian Sea, and in a conflict situation with Iran, transiting the
strait would be asking for trouble, when it isn't necessary.

Airyx wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:
Airyx wrote:
I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, ...

Thay have in fact been doing so on a regular basis since 1990.

I know that they have, but most of the time they stay out in the
Arabian Sea,

Only when they shift to lend direct support for OEF (such as what
Enterprise has been doing recently [she's back in the Gulf, having had
a port call at Jebel Ali, departing on Oct. 23]) -- otherwise when they
enter the Fifth Fleet area of operations, they proceed into the Gulf.
It's more a case of occasionally not being in the Gulf.

and in a conflict situation with Iran, transiting the
strait would be asking for trouble, when it isn't necessary.

That depends on the ROEs ... g

In article .com,
mumbled

Exactly how would a hot war with Iran influence voters to vote
Republican? I would think it would enrage Democrats and increase their
voter turn-out, thus causing the GOP to LOSE control of Congress.


Exactly why we keep seeing liberals touting the idea a war is
imminent...

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:16:56 GMT, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article .com,
mumbled

Exactly how would a hot war with Iran influence voters to vote
Republican? I would think it would enrage Democrats and increase their
voter turn-out, thus causing the GOP to LOSE control of Congress.


Exactly why we keep seeing liberals touting the idea a war is
imminent...

Bull****, and you should know it. The folks touting war with Iran
are the nutcases at both ends of the spectrum. You get the nasty
Bush starting another useless war posts (I suspect he's learned
his lesson), in about equal numbers to the we gottta bomb them
now in about equal proportion, depending on the week. The posters
aren't liberals, or conservatives by any rational definition.


Peter Skelton

In article ,
mumbled
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:16:56 GMT, Tankfixer
wrote:

In article .com,
mumbled

Exactly how would a hot war with Iran influence voters to vote
Republican? I would think it would enrage Democrats and increase their
voter turn-out, thus causing the GOP to LOSE control of Congress.


Exactly why we keep seeing liberals touting the idea a war is
imminent...

Bull****, and you should know it. The folks touting war with Iran
are the nutcases at both ends of the spectrum. You get the nasty
Bush starting another useless war posts (I suspect he's learned
his lesson), in about equal numbers to the we gottta bomb them
now in about equal proportion, depending on the week. The posters
aren't liberals, or conservatives by any rational definition.


Hit a sore spot eh ?