According to retired USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner, as interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday, Bush has received from the Pentagon its plan to attack Iran. Read the transcript (courtesy Think progress):
(cont.)
BLITZER: How likely is the U.S. strike against Iran? And would it lead to all-out war? Joining us now is retired U.S. Air Force colonel Sam Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, the Air War College, and the Naval War College. Colonel thanks very much for coming in. He just prepared a paper for the Century Foundation entitled “Considering the U.S. Military Option For Iran.” You speak to a lot of people plugged in. What is your bottom line? How close in your opinion is the Bush Administration to giving that go ahead.
GARDINER: It’s been given. In fact, we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming
BLITZER: Wait. Wait. Let me press you.
GARDINER: Sure.
BLITZER: When you say it’s been given. The president says he wants diplomacy to work to convince the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium, not go forward. “I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict.” He told David Ignatius of the Washington Post the other day. So what does that mean, the order has been given?
GARDINER: We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming. From both the Iranians, Americans, and from congressional sources.
BLITZER: What is “military operation?” Define that.
GARDINER: Sure. They probably have had two objectives going back 18 months. The first was to gather intelligence. Where is the Iranian nuclear program? The second has been to prepare dissident groups for phase two which will be the strike, which will come as the next phase, I think.
BLITZER: Preparing intelligence, that’s understandable using all sorts of means. They want to know what the Iranians are up to in terms of their nuclear program. But are you suggesting that U.S. military forces, special operations forces, or others are on the ground right now in Iran.
GARDINER: Yes, sir. Certainly. Absolutely clear the evidence is overwhelming from lots of sources, and, again, most of them you can read in the public. Seymore Hersch [sic] has done good work on it. There are lots of other people who have done that. I have talked to Iranians. I asked an Iranian ambassador to the IAEA, what’s this I hear about Americans being there? He said to me, well, we’ve captured some people who worked with them. We’ve confirmed that they’re there.
BLITZER: Yeah, but, you know, these guys — the Iranians, you can’t necessarily believe what they’re saying. They could arrest some dissidents in Iran and say these are American spies. They do that all the time.
GARDINER: Sure. Sure. The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to have a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of State and Defense to come and answer this question because it’s serious enough to be answered without congressional approval, and they didn’t come to the hearing. There are sources that I have talked to on the Hill who believe that that’s true and
that it’s being done without congressional oversight.
BLITZER: Look, I was once a Pentagon correspondent many years ago, and in those days and in these days, as Jamie McIntire just reported, and as you well know from your time in active duty in the Pentagon, in the U.S. military, these guys are planning contingency operations for almost everything. If Canada goes to war against the United States, they have a contingency plan.
GARDINER: Okay, two differences. Number one, we have learned from TIME Magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step. That’s first. Second thing is the sources suggest the plan that’s not in the Pentagon. The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state.
BLITZER: You think it’s possible there is a little psychological warfare being played on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to rattle him. To spread the word. To put out this kind of information. To get him nervous, perhaps a little bit more agreeable to the diplomatic option.
GARDINER: It’s possible. It’s also possible that this path was selected a long time ago. You recall that even before Gulf II that a time when the president said we have no plan. I have no plan on my desk. In the summer of 2002 we began bombing Iraq. Operation Southern Focus, without congressional approval, without the U.N. sanctions, we went ahead and began bombing.
BLITZER: The argument at that time is if there were violations of the no-fly zone, U.S. war planes were flying in the north and the south and there were rockets or anti-aircraft fire going up, they could take those out.
GARDINER: Yes, but it was a campaign to begin the war before the war began. You know, I would suggest the evidence is there.
BLITZER: You see a similar pattern right now.
GARDINER: Exactly.
October Surprise, baby. Or, as was the case with Fallujah in 2004, just after the mid-term elections in November, regardless of the outcome. Either way, this is no longer a drill.
Steven,
This may be a silly question, but does Bush have congressional approval based on whatever the hell Congress passed before Iraq or would he need additional approval for this new pre-emptive war?
Two things:
He can claim to be acting under the Congressional Authorization to Use Force (AUMF) passed in 2001. Here’s the applicable language:
You might remember my post the other day about past claims that Iran aided or assisted Al Qaeda members responsible for the attacks, and allowed them to pass through its territory en route to Afghanistan, and of claims that Iran knew of the attack plot, and/or assisted Al Qaeda in some fashion with the 9/11 plot. Bush could use those “connections” to justify an attack under the provisions of the AUMF. Umder the War Powers Act, Bush can engage US forces in hostilities if he has statutory authorization to do so. The only source for that authorization at the moment is the AUMF, so I suspect that is what he and White House lawyers will rely upon.
Second, he may simply rely on his authority as Commander in Chief under Article 1 of the Constitution to act to prevent an imminent threat to America’s security.
Either way, I doubt he will seek a Congressional Declaration fo War, unless he does so after the bombs are already in the air.
of the Iraq War Powers Act from 2002: link .
Every clause very carefully says “Iraq”.
So, to use this legislation to attack Iran, Bush would need some justification to tie Iran to Iraq.
At least, that’s my reading of it. 🙂
Steven D’s comment above is more relevant than mine.
Not that it matters. Bush always sees that the rule of law is fixed around the policy anyway.
Your are right about that.
Thanks for the answer.
I missed your earlier diary. : (
I wonder if the “repenters” who voted for the Act initially will feel the responsibility to take the lead in stopping the next debacle?
I wonder if the “repenters” who voted for the Act initially will feel the responsibility to take the lead in stopping the next debacle?
What can they do? You either impeach Bush or not. If you don’t he’ll just continue doing what he wants (or what Cheney wants). Once the missiles fly and the booms go boom, Cable TV will no doubt rally everyone (or too many everyones) around the flag.
I’m all for Impeach.
But in the meantime,Clinton, Kerry, Edwards et al have enough clout to get some news coverage. They can reach out to their constituents to advise them of the impending crisis and asking for public support to oppose it. They can set their legal staffs to work to see if they can find ways to undo the damage of the Act they passed. They can lead marches. They can do something.
Will they succeed in stopping the insanity? Probably not, but I believe they have the responsiblity to try — as do we all.
If you are talking about Steven’s story from yesterday about U.S. Navy, you can still read it. Click on Steven’s name (in green). When his user page pops up, click on stories, it’s the third one down from the top.
Thanks. The site still holds treasures I haven’t figured out how to use yet.
I guess that Bush will be showing up in his flight suit any time now.
If I have to look at Mr.Codpiece again, I may spontaneously combust.
You may have a hard time spontaneously combusting if your body is full of flame retardants. 😉
Steven, I appreciate your relentless reporting on this. You’re starting to break through my denial that this could actually happen. I just don’t want to believe it because I get so scared.
One thought I had about it all was to wonder if all the kerfluffle about torture and the Geneva Conventions is really a diversion so that people won’t notice that this is underway. After all, the major combatants in that particular disagreement all seem to be Republicans.
Hey, I didn’t want to believe it either. But these people do not bluff. They go all in everytime.
And yes, its beyond scary. Especially if they intend to rely on nukes a force multiplier.
This could be a disaster for the military.
If we attack, what’s to prevent Revolutionary Guard units from pushing into Irag and Afganistan? Would air power, alone, be enough to stop the advance? I’m not so sure, especially when you consider that the Irani army is likely to find many allies among the populations of those two countries. To say that we’ve, “worn out our welcome,” is an understatement.
And then there’s those Chinese missiles that (allegedly) travel mach three, as well as the (alleged) super-cavitating torpedo that can travel two-hundred-plus miles per hour, etc.
I really fear for our men and women in uniform. While I know that they will always give it their best, they’re already stretched very thinly, and are in no position to deal with tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Irani troops pouring over the borders.
This could turn into Stalingrad writ large.
And then, of course, this illegal, immoral action will cement in the minds of those who live in the sane world, the fact that the United States of America has become a rogue nation, as many countries already think. The entire international system could break down, as it did in WWI.
Oddly, I can’t help but feel that this has been the administration’s goal, all along.
You can’t conquer the world when silly little things like international law get in the way, now can you?
Many people say I’m too cynical. Well, every time I look at what the administration is up to, I think of the most cynical possible reasons for why they do what they do, and even then they surprise me. This time will be no different. No one is that blitheringly incompetent. There is design in it. They see the constitution as an impediment? No problem; ignore it. They don’t like how the UN stymies their plans? No problem; ignore that as well.
Then there’s the fact that they’re wrecking the economy, all while redistributing our wages upward into the pockets of cronies and corporations.
Again, there is design in all of this. They hate the United States of America and all it stands for. They want to replace it with . . . who knows. They’ll chuck the fundies overboard the second they don’t need them anymore, trust me.
You have to destroy the old system if you want to replace it with a new one.
I wonder how that alleged Vatican research turned out as to whether Bush was the anti-Christ? I’m beginning to think we should take the “over” on that one.
wiIl not BE a surprise.
“SURPRISE!!!”
What if they threw a surprise party and no one came?
NEWSTRIKE!!!
MEDIASTRIKE!!!
VAYA!!!
AG
Guys, this is getting more than scary! Just in time for the Nov elections as well. U.S.A. Today has a story about GW’s popularity taking an upswing also. What else can go wrong today?…wait don’t answer that!