The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.
The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.
This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system.
While such an attack could be expected to unleash a wave of military violence all over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere against American forces and interests and against oil wells, pipelines and loading vacilities, as well as a mining of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, with a resulting skyrocketing of global oil prices, the real goal of this new war by the U.S. would be ensuring Republican control of the House and Senate.
It seems increasingly clear that the Republican Party is going to lose its grip on the House of Representatives, and that it may even lose control of the Senate, barring some dramatic October Surprise by the president. So far, the surprises have been working against Republicans, with the Foley sex scandal, the evidence that Abramoff's bribery reached right into the inner sanctum of the White House, and the deteriorating U.S. position in Iraq.
With the number of House seats reportedly "in play" now rising from 15 to 30 and now 50, President Bush is looking at the possibility of a blow out Nov. 7 that could see him facing a Democratic Congress bent on revenge for five six years of systematic abuse.
Bush has committed a long string of impeachable crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the American people--everything from lying to the Congress and the 9-11 Commission, obstructing an investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, abuse of power, violation of federal laws like the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, dereliction of duty and criminal negligence, and war crimes. He can expect a Democratic Congress to call him to account for at least some of these crimes, whatever House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may say today.
This means that the worse things look for Republican chances in November, the greater the likelihood that a desperate President Bush will order a disastrous attack on Iran--one that would have the country enter into a third, even worse, war even as it is currently busy losing two others. But Bush and his gang of cronies don't care about initiating a disaster. They're focussed on the disaster that will hit them if they don't turn around the November election. Sacrificing the country or its young men and women in uniform, or the lives of innocent Iranians, is not a concern, any more than it was when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.
Clearly such a war would be an act of madness, and yet we know that the plans, already drawn up, are being updated and fine-tuned now by generals and admirals whose twisted sense of patriotism has them giving primary loyalty to a demented commander in chief instead of to the Constitutional and the people of the United States, to both of which they swore an oath to protect.
I hope I am wrong about all this, but the sailing of the Eisenhower, which had been pushed forward recently by about a month by the Pentagon for clearly political reasons, makes me think I'm right. A key will be what happens with the Enterprise carrier strike force, which has already been on station in the Arabian Sea for six months, where it has been launching air strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq targets. Ordinarily, such deployments last six months and then the carrier group returns to base for resupply and for R&R for the crew. If the Enterprise is held over for a longer deployment, after the arrival of the Eisenhower, we will know that something serious is planned.
Meanwhile, journalist Larisa Alexandrovna, in the online publication Raw Story, reports that top military leaders are already engaging in "branches and sequels" planning for an Iran attack, which her sources tell her is the kind of planning that is done "after an initial plan has been decided upon."
What is deeply troubling here is the total silence on the part of the Democratic Party opposition. Not one Democrat in Congress, and as far as I know, not one Democratic candidate for Congress--not even anti-war insurgent Ned Lamont in Connecticut, has demanded an answer from Bush and the Pentagon for the obvious military buildup around Iran, or about published reports that the U.S. already has special forces in side Iran backing the terrorist organization MEK, and selecting targets for U.S. bombardment.
If and when the U.S. attacks Iran, leading to a predicable--if temporar--rallying around the flag by the American public, and to an upset win by incumbent Republican congressional candidates, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for the debacle.
But it will be the American people--and especially the people of Iran--who will be the victims of this treacherous deed and this treasonous failure of will.
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave, can you please respond to the post by Navy Public Affairs?
This seems to be part of recent policy by the military to involve themselves in blog commentaries, but it certainly deserves a response or clarification on your end.
Could you cite your sources for the claim that the USS Eisenhower deployed earlier than scheduled?
Thanks!
by
Shorebreak (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Friday, October 20, 2006 at 8:25:06 AM
A lot of sources have been predicting an Oct. 21st
date for the bombing of Iran.
Although there seems to be some disagreement as to whether Iran will be bombed by the U.S. or by Israel, it looks like this year's "October surprise" won't be very much of a surprise at all.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 7:35:38 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Much of the American public might not care if 15,000 Iranians are killed. Or even if we lose a few planes and maybe even a destroyer. But let's see how they feel when the price of oil goes up to $115 a barrel, the economy goes into a death spiral, and huge numbers of them lose their jobs.
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 9:20:18 PM
Just to correct the record, the information provided by your sources regarding Navy operations in the Gulf region is not correct. While we do not discuss details of future ship movements for security reasons, and operational schedules are of course subject to change, the information you've included about the expected schedule of the USS Eisenhower is factually incorrect, as is the reference to a "second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships." For several years the U.S. Navy has had two minesweepers and two mine countermeasure ships operating in the Gulf. The two minesweepers will be decommissioned later this year, and they are expected to be replaced by two mine countermeasure ships.
If you are interested in what naval forces are operating in the Gulf region, we routinely announce when carrier groups have arrived or departed on our Web site, www.cusnc.navy.mil.
Thanks. –Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, Public Affairs
by
LCDR Charlie Brown (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 9:24:17 AM
Why don't the Democrats in Congress or the Senate bring up a resolution to forestall any attacks against any country, except in self-defense, until the elections are over? Even knowing beforehand that it won't fly, it would put the issue on the table so that the American people would see their plans and the supporters of the resolution could go on talk shows and news interviews and inform the public of what the administration might do to turn the tide of the mid-term elections.
To sit there, and hope that this Foley Scandal win "win the day" for the Democrats, will certainly fall apart when the guns start going off in Iran. The citizens will go back into their "war mentality" and back their president as a matter of principle during wartime. If the Democrats expose them BEFORE they do this, then the American people can see how this administration uses war as a political tool. This is a time that the Democrats need to stand up and make a great deal of noise...or be forced to sit down and shut up, maybe for forever.
President Bush will have defeated the Democrats again, because of the Democratic Party's inaction. The Democrats will have nobody to blame except themselves. When Bill Clinton ripped into Chris Wallace, he didn't "lose" his temper. He is the consummate politician. He was sending the other Democrats a message. You are not going to win elections by playing "nice" with your opponents. The majority of Americans don't look at it as anything except weakness. They are the opposition party. They should stop acting as if they are "partners" in this two-party system. At this point in our country's history, we are not "partners" with the Republicans. They don't stand for what we stand for. Until the Democrats in Congress stand up like they did during the Patriot Act renewal debate, when they shut the Senate down, they will get no respect, and if Bush plays this Iran War card, we will lose these mid-term elections.
I really don't make this stuff up.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 9:43:25 AM
We should have learned our lesson from Vietnam. You cannot win any war unless you can successfully occupy the country.
You cannot occupy any country when the majority of the people do not want you there.
by
Matthew Peters (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 98 comments)
on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 11:27:02 AM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
