(my deepest apologies for interrupting all the discussion about blog civility, which, given the state of things these days is absolutely crucial.)
Fresh from covering Hillary’s flank with his endorsement, War-is-Wes jumps guns to lay out his Sec’y of Defense duties.
There will be war!!!!!!!!!! Count on it. Know why?
“Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader — and would-be president — has said that it simply won’t be permitted to reach that goal.”
Wes and Hill can just state it more eloquently than bushco.
Watch Wes rub his hands—it reminds me a lot of my brothers when they were kids–they’d take their bedcovers and arrange them into fighting terrain for their plastic soldiers–and woe to the one who messed up the keen set-up!:
“The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let’s say you’re planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint Chiefs. Your list of targets isn’t that long — only a few dozen nuclear sites — but you can’t risk retaliation from Tehran. So you allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you’d aim to strike every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices from soaring, you’d have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and the big ports and load points. You’d need to use B-2s and lots of missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned air reconnaissance. And don’t forget the Special Forces, to penetrate deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that’s understandably skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the brink of getting the bomb.”
But here’s the real height of arrogance:
“The U.S. public is more likely to sour on a conflict when it sees the military losing blood, not treasure.”
You editorialize in the Washington Post, yet refer to the U.S. public as if they might not be people reading it. Yes, you are talking amongst yourselves.Hillary is in to win and Wes is the best in destruction.