Pentagon is planning ‘contingency’ for Iran and North Korea

[jai231179]

---

---

The U.S. military is discussing significant changes in its war plans to adhere to President Obama’s new strategic guidance that downplays preparing for conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and counts on allies to provide additional troops.

War planning for Iran is now the most pressing scenario, or what the Pentagon calls a contingency.

U.S. Central Command believes it can destroy or significantly degrade Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks using air and sea strikes, according to a defense source familiar with the discussions.

Such strikes are an option in a response to Tehran’s striking U.S. and international ships in the Persian Gulf and attempting to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil is transported.

The Pentagon now is conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf. It is maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and is increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters.

Aviation Week reported the Air Force recently dispatched its premier penetrating strike fighter, the F-22 Raptor, to a base in the United Arab Emirates, across the Gulf from Iran

A smaller, more agile force

Army Lt. Col. T.G. Taylor, a spokesman at U.S Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Gulf, said the command does not discuss war planning.

“We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president,” Col. Taylor said. “We take our guidance from the secretary of defense and from our civilian bosses in D.C. So any kind of guidance they give us, that’s what we go off of.”

The defense source said the U.S. would respond to an invasion of South Korea by the North primarily with massive air and sea power. It would be up to the South Korean army to do most of the ground fighting, and it would have the lead in stability operations for a defeated North.

Overall, the U.S. military is reducing the planned number of U.S. ground troops that would be needed in a major conflict and is counting on allies to fill the gap.

It also is expanding the number of days it would have to begin fighting one war and blunt an aggressor in another region.

Mr. Obama presented his eight-page strategic guidance in January as his vision of a smaller, more agile armed forces that would focus on air and sea power in two regions — the Pacific and the Persian Gulf.

He presented the document a month before the Pentagon announced how it would grapple with $487 billion in budget cuts over the next 10 years. The hallmark savings: reduce ground forces by 90,000 soldiers and Marines.

The Obama guidance lists 10 “primary missions” for the armed forces. The guidance for counterinsurgency missions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, is significant as much for what the military will not do as what it will do: “The United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations,” it states.

“U.S. forces will nevertheless be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible.”

‘Doing less with less’

“U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations,” it says. “Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives.”

Conservatives have called the Obama plan too risky in its assumptions that the U.S. will not face a protracted ground war and can rely on significant numbers of allied troops if it does.

“I think it’s just rubber-stamping the budget cuts,” said James Carafano, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “Basically what they are doing is dumping any scenarios that require long-term commitment of forces on the ground.

“The problem is the enemy gets a vote. I don’t think this will mean much in the long-term on doctrine, but it will speed hollowing out the force.”

A analysis by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of Congress, states: “On the surface, the guidance appears to call for doing less with less. … It includes willingness to assume some greater risk, without specifying the scope and scale of that risk, to accomplish simultaneous missions.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta says the strategic guidance will lead to a “smaller and leaner” force that “will be agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced. … The joint force will be prepared to confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world.”

A spokesman for Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the general is holding a series of strategic seminars to discuss the Obama strategy and how the force will be postured over the next five years to carry it out.

Gen. Dempsey has held two such meetings with the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders and will hold another this month.

“We made some assumptions about changing capabilities, technologies and policies of both adversaries and allies in 2017, and to take a rough look at the supply and demand for our forces worldwide in 2017,” said Marine Col. David Lapan.

“We’re testing our assumptions and testing our ideas. As expected, we’ve come up with many questions to explore in future seminars. We’ll keep doing that.”

Pentagon is planning 'contingency' for Iran and North Korea - Washington Times

Things are definitely not looking good for Iran right now.

[Harry_Thomason]

They can dream about it

[somebozo]

only if US wants to take a complete economic suicide.

[tvsram1992]

I want to see F22's in action and a few getting shot by Russian SAMs in Iran .

[Abii]

I want to see F22's in action and a few getting shot by Russian SAMs in Iran .

Go watch your Pokemon

[tvsram1992]

Go watch your Pokemon

Not being telecasted here .
Scared of attack? I thought you are brave and would receive US Jets with warm welcome .

[p(-)0ENiX]

These moves the United States is making in my opinion is simply meant to scare & threaten. The message they are trying to give Iran is "Back Off". Let's face it though, it's not like they have any choice, if Iran does block the Strait of Hormuz many nations' economies could suffer big time. So the US is simply looking after its own interests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/bu...he-strait.html

HOUSTON — If Iran were to follow through with its threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a vital transit route for almost one-fifth of the oil traded globally, the impact would be immediate: Energy analysts say the price of oil would start to soar and could rise 50 percent or more within days.

In any case, as the article says; it's a contingency plan. I doubt the US would be willing to start another war in the region, we have enough of those already specifically in Iraq & Afghanistan.

[Hasbara Buster]

Not being telecasted here .
Scared of attack? I thought you are brave and would receive US Jets with warm welcome .

What is it with all these Indians who are in love with the U.S.? What happened to you?

[jai231179]

These moves the United States is making in my opinion is simply meant to scare & threaten. The message they are trying to give Iran is "Back Off". Let's face it though, it's not like they have any choice, if Iran does block the Strait of Hormuz many nations' economies could suffer big time. So the US is simply looking after its own interests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/bu...he-strait.html



In any case, as the article says; it's a contingency plan. I doubt the US would be willing to start another war in the region, we have enough of those already specifically in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Agreed. Too much is at stake here if the US does go to war with Iran, including Israel. Iran for sure would be able to deal out massive levels of damage to Israel before going down. War is certainly a very costly option over here.

[tvsram1992]

What is it with all these Indians who are in love with the U.S.? What happened to you?

Its not we its you who are in love with US Doing business with US doesnt mean we are their supporters .

[Hasbara Buster]

Its not we its you who are in love with US Doing business with US doesnt mean we are their supporters .

I'm too righteous and educated to be a supporter of evil.

[FaujHistorian]

....I doubt the US would be willing to start another war in the region, we have enough of those already specifically in Iraq & Afghanistan.

My dear p(-)0ENiX, Iraq war has been over for a while at least for American troops. They pulled out of that country a while back. Hope the news has reached all the caves of tora bora ( I just hope).

Afghan war is in holding mode. Talibotics will be jumping with joy and thank the USA if some of the American troops stationed in Afghanistan are directed to Iran-Afg border.

So from logistics POV, Iraq war is no longer in the mix and to a large degree even the Afghan war.

I hate to see a war in Iran. But emotions should not drive Pakistani analysis (just cold hard logic).

peace

[SOHEIL]

I want to see F22's in action and a few getting shot by Russian SAMs in Iran .

Him ! RQ-170 ... enough ?

[p(-)0ENiX]

My dear p(-)0ENiX, Iraq war has been over for a while at least for American troops. They pulled out of that country a while back. Hope the news has reached all the caves of tora bora ( I just hope).

Afghan war is in holding mode. Talibotics will be jumping with joy and thank the USA if some of the American troops stationed in Afghanistan are directed to Iran-Afg border.

So from logistics POV, Iraq war is no longer in the mix and to a large degree even the Afghan war.

I hate to see a war in Iran. But emotions should not drive Pakistani analysis (just cold hard logic).

peace

I know they pulled out of the country a while back, however Iraq is still in a extremely fragile state in my opinion. Oh yeah nice try with that "tora bora" comment; it wasn't that funny.

I never asked for your opinion on the Afghan war either, when you say "Talibotics" you mean "Taliban" right? I have never heard of that word before & I don't give a crap about Taliban either. At the moment I just want these damn terrorists & other corrupt morons to be out of Pakistan.

I guess when I said "we have enough of those already specifically in Iraq & Afghanistan" earlier I should have changed it to "we have had enough of those already specifically in Iraq & Afghanistan" seeing as that is what I actually meant.

[AHMED85]

---

---

i think their mission is to destroy the most of armed area of the country and than make grip on country natural sources..

Israel will use high-tech Air craft for sustain in mission and weapons provided by alliance forces.

After this event of War the America will be most influential force in South Asia.. But they always face China as great Hindrance to sit every where like Al-Quaida..