from mainstream professional journalistic sources,
with colorful and occasionally cranky commentary.
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough," from mainstream professional journalistic sources, with colorful and occasionally cranky commentary. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some U.S. carrier groups withdrawn from Gulf
Something is up, but I haven't put my finger on it yet. It would be intriguing if US troops in Iraq were to be redeployed and further concentrated in defensive positions. Very strange. I wonder ...
No, I do not think Cheney is backing away from war plans. What I am thinking is this... The leaders of Syria and Iran saw what happened to Iraq even though Saddam complied with the UN. It is known that the leadership of Iran and Syria are convinced that a US/Israeli strike is inevitable and that it may occur as early as this year. Is it possible that they would think to strike first at specific targets in the hopes of catching their adversaries off-guard and attaining the upper political hand? Perhaps they would strike using proxy forces or perhaps using proxy forces and some of their own expendable units? I think an obvious target for the Syrians would be the Golan Heights. Syria has always stated that the Golan was rightfully theirs and that this land was temporarily taken from them by the Israelis during the 6 day war in 1967 and permanently taken away during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. As such they would spin this war as a war of land repatriation rightfully belonging to Syria thereby giving Syria a "moral hand" to play. If Syria were to take the Golan quickly, they could then "sue for a mediated peace", via the UN, as a pretext for preventing a "larger war" from occurring. World oil prices would sky-rocket adding pressure from other nations to settle the conflict. For Iran, the Straight of Hormuz. If Iran were to target the Straight of Hormuz, the impact on world oil prices would so negatively affect the world's economies, many nations would voice a demand to end the fighting in order to stave off economic chaos. The only wild card in all of this is the scale of the US' reaction. For the past 5 years, the US' leadership has not given a damn about world opinion. But... What if the US suspected Iran and Syria would take the first shot? Would they want three of their most powerful carrier fleets to be potential targets in the Gulf in a scenario where the US does not have control of the military and political spectrum? The Gulf is not a large sea/air combat theatre and anti-ship missiles travel very fast. No, I think they would prefer to let the ME unravel for awhile following an Iranian/Syrian hit, determine a defensive response militarily and politically, on their own terms, and then deploy their assets accordingly. Operation Valiant Shield 2007 is currently taking place off the Coast of Guam and is specifically designed to test the integrated operational capability of 3 carrier groups along with long range fighter bombers and their fuel-tanker support. I don't think such a complex operation can be mustered again within the remaining time frame of Bush's Presidency. Now I ask you, Helen & Harry, where might such a war game, specifically designed to practice close sea/air combat operations, be used for real? For some time now, Iranian and Syrian military forces have been on their highest alert status. Think of it as their version of Defcon 1. But, as I do not have the gift of foresight, these ideas represent my musings of late. I hope for peace, but doubt it will transpire.
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication. When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever. We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong. You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>. But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else. Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want. If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread. If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address). |
                 
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
we'd love to hear from you. |
of recent Unknown News |
| 1234567890 |
