Fox military analyst on "A campaign that will take Iran down very quickly"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604140006



On the April 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing the potential use of military action to thwart Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, Fox News military analyst retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney purported to "lay out a campaign today that will take Iran down very quickly." When asked by host Bill O'Reilly if his military strategy "would be all air, no infantry, and maybe some Special Forces trying to help," McInerney responded that was "correct." But neither McInerney nor O'Reilly mentioned that McInerney also said in 2002 that the military campaign in Iraq, which has now lasted longer than three years, would be "shorter" than the 42 days it took to complete the Persian Gulf War in 1991, adding, "It is going to be absolutely awesome, and that's why this war, if we do it properly, will go very quick, and we'll have less civilian casualties than we did last time."

During an interview on the December 20, 2002, edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, McInerney claimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would be bolstered by "air power" that is "at least 10 times more effective than it was in 1991":

GIBSON (host): If we do go to war with Iraq, some military planners are expecting a blitzkrieg in Baghdad, a war that would be significantly shorter than the 1990 Gulf War. So just what does our strategy include?

Joining me, retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, who is also a Fox News military analyst. I mean, how short can this be? The Gulf War was, what, 100 hours?

MCINERNEY: Well, the Gulf War on the ground was 100 hours. It was 42 days -- 38 in the air and then four days on the ground. So it will be a war that is shorter than that, John. We have a little different objectives, although we've got a larger terrain to cross to accomplish it. So it will be more complex.

From the April 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: The argument is -- and I understand, you don't go into a negotiation and take military action off the table, because then your position is weakened. But the argument is that the USA screwed up the Iraq conflict so bad and we are in so deep, that you shouldn't even be considering any other military action.

McINERNEY: Well, first of all, we didn't. It was a brilliant campaign done in 21 days, very similar to the campaign that General Vallely and I laid out a year before. And I can lay out a campaign today that will take Iran down very quickly. We'll do it a different way. But the fact is, we have lots of capability. We are not pinned down in Iraq, despite what people think. We are not pinned down there.

[bluerum]

1. Good grief - these guys are still smoking the blitzkrieg dope. nt

[SoftUnderbelly]

2. am i being stupid?

but surely the war is over until soldiers stop getting killed? how can he claim the iraq war was over in 21 days? sure some objectives were reached, but thats not the same as the war being over.

[Steven_S]

31. I think he's creating his own reality....

The war is over 'cause I SAID it's over. You know, Mission Accomplished and all.

[Atman]

3. Fool me once, shame on....uh...won't get fooled again!

Because I don't watch Fox.

[marylanddem]

4. What a shameless idiot.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. He is actually correct, it will be easy to take out Iran's military.

It is in much worse shape than Iraq's was. However, maintaining any semblance of civil order after formal military conflict is over will be a very different thing. That should sound very familar to us these days.

[MrMonk]

20. Why do you say that Iran's military is in worse shape than Iraq's was?

Iran has a larger population to draw on and hasn't been crippled by over a decade of sanctions.

[Solo_in_MD]

25. The have a split command structure

Regular forces and Revolutionary Guard. That includes ground and naval forces. Not sure if there are RG air units. Iraq had much better command and control and knew how to make it work. The regulars and the RG do not merge until the highest levels of the Iranian government and genuinely dislike and distrust each other. This attitude has been fostered by the mullahs to help prevent a coup.

Consider also that Saddam was a secular realist. The Islamofundies who run Iran are prone to "send in a human wave and trust to Allah. They have also been willing to let the rank and file military spend more time reading the Koran than training.

Knocking them over would be no harder than Iraq. Holding on after wards would be another story.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. A more delusional pack of bullshit I have never seen

Iraq's military was the equivalent of a hobbling old man.

You must be fucking joking.

I mean, please, how fucking dumb could you be?

[Solo_in_MD]

29. I gather you disagree, but I stand by my prior post.

Its not clear how strong you think Iran is, but the broad consensus is that they are weaker in terms of structured military forces that Iraq was. Iraq was considered to have the best IADS in the middle east outside of Israel. It also had considerable practice with it during Northern/Southern Watch as well. That is one example of many. Why do you think Iran is that much stronger a militarily?

[TheWatcher]

37. Now, Now, let him state his case.

I am SURE he can provide us with all the detailed proof, backed up with sources and links that prove that Iran's Millitary is actually WEAKER than Iraq's was.

I mean he MUST have the proof.

Because I find it hard to believe someone would DARE make an assertion so far outside of reality without die hard proof to back it up.

We're waiting.....

[Solo_in_MD]

43. Easy , Janes...

[Oversea Visitor]

38. Lets see Sunburn missile

Heard of that???

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Not applicable

In an invasion scenario, would be detroyed before anything came into range. They are also misunderstood and overated here, and have been debunked in other threads.

Bear in mind that my position is that we could easily knocked down their formal military structure, but that the follow on occupation would make Iraq look easy. I am not adovacting any sort of attack.

[Lerkfish]

45. I think what you're overlooking is the obvious strategic advantage

of knocking out support ships in the gulf. There is no reliable defense against the sunburn and its compact enough to be easily hidden in rock caves along the waterway. I'm glad you're more optimistic about the invasion success, but I personally feel, after recent speech of Iranian president, they already have in place quick retaliation methods and targets selected. For one, having all our military eggs in one basket is very tempting retaliatory objective to someone who is being attacked.

And, I think ALL military strategists overestimate command structure. Take a look at the casualties we're suffering in Iraq, and the difficulties we encountered in Vietnam. If you do not have structure, but are highly resolved, a decentralized opposition can still do an outrageous amount of damage.

[Solo_in_MD]

49. What you have hit upon is asymmetric warfare

And I totally agree with you. Formal military situations (tank battles etc) are a walk away winner for the US. Iranian air power is a joke, they have little to no IADS, and their SAM systems are old. Throw in the turmoil of the Revolutionary Guard, and from *just a military standpoint* its pretty clear what would happen in military battles.

Instead what would happen (after a few mullahs inspired suicide events) would be suicided bombers attacking outside of Iran, IEDs, and the like. It would make Iraq seem easy. The Revolutionary Guard, while clearly a detriment to the formal military structure, would make evey wadi like Falujha.

BTW, the Sunburns are overrated and there are defenses against them (FAS/Global Security, and the one guy they all cite is out of date). They are a well understood technology and can be thwarted. Threat yes, unstoppable, hardly. There is also no publicly available estimate of how many Iran has that are functional. SS missiles, particularly the Soviet ones, are not like frozen peas that you can take out of the freezer and use anytime over the next 20 years.

[OzarkDem]

46. I'm inclined to believe you

and agree, the difficult and costly part will be trying to deal with the civil population once the military has been neutralized.

That said, the idea that we are even discussing such a thing is ludicrous, its insane. Its against the best traditions of the US and its long-standing beliefs about democracy.

No doubt the Pentagon will be able to trot out some generals who agre with Rumsfeld, but in their hearts, they know better. These same generals are obviously not putting the lives of their soldiers or the best interests of the US first.

[Lerkfish]

44. yeah, I was just going to bring up the sunburn missile.

not to mention that russia has been trading with them, so their military equipment is not missing spare parts, like IRaq was from years of sanctionsa nd embargoes.

[TankLV]

32. I'd say pretty damn dumb!

Amazing.

They are really crawling out of the woodwork again, just like last time!

But WE know better, that's damn sure!

[Inland]

48. That's just crazy talk. You're going to get a rude awakening.

Iran, unlike Iraq, didn't lose a war in the last ten years. Hasn't been under sanctions. Has a bigger population. Is really one country, not three. Has a more or less elected government that doesn't spend it's time terrorizing and killing its citizens. And has sufficient nationalism that a "split command structure isn't going to mean shit when the bombs come.

And can simply use insurgent/commando tactics againt oil fields in the Gulf and Iraq.

[Opusnone]

5. I want some of what this guy's taking!

Is there a prescription?

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

12. Careful...someone's going to reply to you with...

"Guess what... I've got a fever. And the only prescription is . . .MORE COWBELL..."



:evilgrin:

[mike_c]

6. this makes sense, I mean they prove it works in Iraq, right...?

:nuke:

[saltpoint]

7. McInerny's prediction may embolden the red-meat Right but it scares and

embarrasses me.

We have no leave to attack the nation of Iran.

Casualties would be numerous and in my opinion, unpardonable.

[HereSince1628]

8. Do they make special sabers just to rattle?

Who doubts we can bomb the shit out of cities? We have restocked out supply of cruise missles and heavy bombs.

Now if he would please tell me why the problem of being an unwelcome occupier setting up a puppet government isn't going to be at least as thorny there as in Iraq?

[wookie294]

9. Iran will respond to Bush's air war with ground troops

Iran will turn Bush's air campaign into a ground war in southern Iraq where the Shiites rule. Why do people assume we can limit the war with Iran to the air? Iran has a "say" in this too. The leader of Iran would have no problem throwing his uniformed and non-uniformed troops into the quagmire in Iraq. I believe an air war on Iran will result in thousands of dead U.S. troops in Iraq.

[tridim]

10. So the goal is to "take down Iran"?

Silly me, I thought it was to keep them from developing nukes.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

13. Hey! You're getting ahead of the script.

Let the nice man read the script.

:evilgrin:

[mwb970]

11. Did you see the Fox report about how Iran getting nukes is a good thing?

I just saw it on there this morning. This joins the "Global Warming: Hidden Benefits?" and "Civil War In Iraq: Good For America?" stories of recent weeks. Are their viewers so stupid they fall for this happy-talk Polyanna BS? Wow.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

14. I saw the "Civil War In Iraq: Good For America?" clip...

I get 100% of my Fox updates from Media Matters, Crooks & Liars, and the Fox Web Site. I haven't actually watched Fox on my TV since about a week before the 2004 election.

:toast:

[Neil Lisst]

15. What Bush has not planned is this: He can't control the TV images

That will come out of Iran. There will be no on-the-ground control of events by Team Bush, no staged toppling of the statue, no friendly embedded media to show what happens. It will be the world press, the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Canadians - who will show the bomb damage and the dead.

The Muslim world will be unified against Bush, and the civilized world will consider him a truly dangerous pariah.

Bombing Iran is his last hurrah. At best, it gets him a short term uptick in polls at home.

[cliss]

34. I think so, too.

This is a completely different situation. Iran is in fact powerful; they have 68 million people. They've got a strong military. They're OPEC's #2 the world exporter of oil, for God's sake. They've got dough.

And the way I look at it is, they must know this. Otherwise, why would they be beating the war drums incessantly? Why did they need to get $85 million in emergency funding, to promote "democracy" in Iran?

If it was possible, they would have done it by now.

[Neil Lisst]

35. and their oil isn't going anywhere, and it will shoot UP in value

China and Russia and many others will be only too happy to take advantage.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Certainly the analyst is correct that we could bomb Iran

out of existence, if Bush so chose it.....

But what happens after that strike on Iran?

You see, that was the problem they had with Iraq (apart for not having any justification to invade in the first place)....

oh yeah, the military got to Bagdad in record time, but that really didn't end up meaning very much in the larger scheme of things....and that is the conversation that needs to be had.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

18. Iran's already tossed a few "post-attack what ifs" out there...

...one, which came out a month or so ago and was quoted on the CNN and MSNBC Web Sites, among others, was basically "We have MORE 'insurgents' than Iraq, and ours are BETTER ORGANIZED."

So my guess is that if Bush decides that he just can't keep his finger off the button, the "better organized" and "not-as-organized" survivors will get together, form the largest recruitment drive the world's ever seen, and we'll be facing rage that we haven't even imagined yet, with a MUCH smaller "Coalition of the Willing" by our side.

Just my guess.

:patriot:

[BillZBubb]

19. These fascists never learned the one simple lesson of war:

"It is very easy to start a war. It is very difficult to get out of one."

Sure, the US can take down Iran's conventional forces rather quickly. We can control the air. But, once they go into guerilla mode, negating our strength, our situation will become an absolute disaster.

[starroute]

21. McInerney is a member of the Iran Policy Committee

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran_Policy_Committee

The Iran Policy Committee (IPC), formed in January 2005, is a pressure group meant to influence US government policy towards Iran. IPC is made up of former White House, State Department, Pentagon and CIA officials. Several of the principals are affiliated to AIPAC and its related think tanks.

On the grounds that Iran poses a threat to US National Security, the IPC advocates that the US should favor "regime change" through a process of "destabilization" and "coercive diplomacy", while keeping the full military option open. Suggested policies include economic blockades, military support of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) or the MEK, and precision strikes of selected targets within Iran. They describe this as "providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change".

Principals, directors, and personnel

* James Akins
* Bill Cowan (CEO of private military corp the WVC3 Group, Inc.)
* Paul Leventhal
* Neil Livingstone
* Clare M. Lopez - Executive Director. Also a senior intelligence analyst at Hawkeye Systems, and a former CIA operative.
* R. Bruce McColm
* Thomas McInerney
* Charles T. Nash
* Edward Rowny
* Raymond Tanter – Founder and Co-Chair
* Paul E. Vallely

There's more on the members at http://www.nci.org/05nci/02/IPC-feb7.htm. I looked into them a little the other day. Tanter is a Neocon. Cowan, McInerney, Nash, Rowny, and Vallely are all former military men, several of whom regularly appear on Fox News. Cowan's WVC3 is the employer of Carlton Sherwood, of "Stolen Honor" fame. McColm is connected with the International Republican Institute, which has been stirring up so much trouble in Haiti and elsewhere. And Livingstone is a "terrorism expert" who spends all his time either trying to terrify people (terrorists at the Olympics! terror networks smuggling cigarettes in North Carolina! outraged Serbs attacking American tourists over Bosnia!) or recommending ethnic profiling, torture, and surveillance cameras on every corner.

It's probably no coincidence that Vallely is both the co-author of "Mindwar" and a client of Benador Associates, the PR firm set up after 9/11 to sell the Iraq War. This whole push for war with Iran is psy-ops from top to bottom, and McInerney is a charter member.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. McInerney was also the only general

who advocated invading Iraq in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Sept 02. The other generals were Wes Clark, Joe Hoar (Marine 4-star and former CENTCOM commander) and John Shalikashvili (Army 4-star and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs). All three were dead set against it.

McInerney was a neo-con then, and he's a neo-con now. He's also an Air Force 3-star. Nothing against the Air Force, but they don't know jack about what's involved in a land invasion. Bush/Rummy's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Iraq invasion was Dick Myers (another Air Force general). The results speak for themselves.

General officer appointments by Bush/Rummy, confirmed by a Repub Congress, have been consistently based on politics instead of competence. Our military will suffer for it for a generation unless we put someone in the White House with enough backbone and credibility to clean house.

I'm sorry if that sounds like I've diverted into an '08 campaign screed. I didn't mean for it to. It doesn't even have to be Clark, altho obviously that's who I prefer. But Hillary Clinton won't be able to do it, not with the reputation she has within the military. It will be difficult enough for any Democrat. Gore could probably pull it off. Feingold has the backbone to do it regardless of how he's viewed as a result. Warner could do it without too much animosity, but would he? As for the others, I tend to doubt they either could or would.

[Donna Zen]

28. I've thought about this many times.

Eric Massa commented one Sunday about how partisan the current promotions at the Pentagon have become. Merit..schmerit. I also agree with you that it will take a mighty push to move this in another direction, and most of all, someone who knows all the players, the culture, and where all the bodies are buried. For those reasons I would suggest it will take a general to knock on that Pentagon door. Although maybe Gore would try it, but any of the others would keep their distance. Plus..plus, it will take the highest credentials standing in that bully pulpit to reclaim some of that buried money.

People may balk at considering this, but consider it we must. That's our health care so much more that's secreted in those contracts to nowhere.

[Auntie Bush]

23. Yeah...just like we speedily defeated Iraq and ducked

all those flowers being thrown at us.

Now why does that remind me of the Brooklyn bridge?

[happydreams]

24. Somebody quick! Check this guys

bank account for any large recent deposits.

[KeepItReal]

36. Here's his story...this dude is neither fair or balanced

"Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret.), is director of NetStar Systems, and a Fox News pundit. He advocates military-led regime change in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and Syria, and is a member of the Iran Policy Committee. NetStar Systems is a supplier of secure intranet and knowledge base systems to the Defense and Intelligence sectors.

From March 1996, to December 1999, McInerney was Chief Executive Officer and President of Business Executives for National Security (BENS), a business association lobbying for greater commercial involvement in national defense programmes.

McInerney was quoted in the July 11, 2003, Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

"'The Bush administration may already have hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that it is not sharing with the public, said Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Thomas McInerney, a military commentator for Fox News,' reports the Jerusalem Post:

"'The administration is willing to take the heat for now,' McInerney yesterday told The Jerusalem Post, 'then release the information next August.' Doing so would put the Democrats who have been critical of the US president's policy on Iraq at a distinct disadvange in the run-up to the presidential election in November 2004." "

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_McInerney

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. CAKEWALK! IT'LL BE A CAKEWALK! GREETING US WITH FLOWERS!

CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!
CAKEWALK!

[Pachamama]

51. Don't forget the Chocolates!!!

:eyes:

[Notoverit]

30. These statements need to be recorded

I'm sorry I didn't save the "bigger than all the strategerists in history" boasts after the "shock and awe" euphoria. They would have made for good jokes now.

[NJ Democrats]

33. Hold on there

The War in Iraq was over in 21 days? WTF? Is that why we still have troops there? Troops that are getting killed? What a douche bag.

[TheBaldyMan]

39. I think he means major combat operations, GI's would still be

killed for years after this but none of that would effect the Fox fanboys and dittoheads who won't leave their Lay-Z-boys and enlist to fight in the war they are rooting for.

[BootinUp]

40. Just another "cake walk" n/t

[sellitman]

41. This is a perfect example of.....

A person about to be promoted in the * regime. Watch this turd go places now!

[Gregorian]

47. What careless goons!

Just turn the tables. Imagine Iran was talking this way, and America was waiting for the next move. These assholes would be crying and screaming and tearing their fucking hair out. Zero compassion. Zero brains. Zeroes. Big zero humans.

I'd love to see the blank looks on their faces when they have to answer to a higher power as to just why they thought they could ignore another human being's value. I say this out of righteous indignation. It sounds a lot like where they are coming from. But it isn't.

I am now clear after thirty years- I do not hate America. It's these people who have made this country a much worse place to live in and to fear.

PS- if this makes little sense, I just woke up three minutes ago. Hell of a nice world these shits are making for us.

[flyarm]

50. yada yada yada..how quick did bagdad fall fundies????????

and now?????????

fundies don't want to answer that..they still won't admit our soldiers are in the middle of a civil war..

these sickos in the white house are nothing but pond scum with bat shit floating!

fly