Obama's Plan B

[1943Izzy]

Never happen. The great one attacking his "brothers" in a Muslim country? Not Likely. I could see him trying to suspend the election somehow, especially since he looks to be losing!

The last time that I looked ( a couple of days ago) Obama was leading in almost all of the polls.

 

[netsecurity]

Hate to break it to you, but we're in the middle of a war. Did you, (like most of America and the so-called "anti-war" people) forget that Afghanistan is still going on? We still have tons of people in Iraq, too. And Obama increased the number of people in Afghanistan and has prosecuted a new drone based war in Asia, Africa and the ME. I'd have to say he's done at least as well as Bush and probably even upped the ante over Bush. Regardless of what some in his party may think, Obama's quite the little war monger.

I wouldn't say that. It appears to me the US military industrial complex runs the wars, and Obama doesn't have he backbone to even control his own Army. This seems to be all part of his lead from behind strategy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I wouldn't say that. It appears to me the US military industrial complex runs the wars, and Obama doesn't have he backbone to even control his own Army. This seems to be all part of his lead from behind strategy.

Civilian leadership ALWAYS sets the rules for US warfighting - which is one of the reasons we've lost so many conflicts in the long run. I don't advocate the "military" setting the conditions under which wars will be fought, but I'd like to see politicians of both sides set the political end conditions and let the military do their jobs.

As to the posited "Plan B" in the OP; I sincerely doubt such a military attack could be carried out with sufficient secrecy to accomplish its objectives. We've already seen that some of the most loyal covert operatives in the military won't accept the political whitewashing of their actions; I can't see any faction of the military remaining silent over such a blatantly politically-based action.

 

[88GT]

Random thoughts on the article and the comments made thus far in the thread.

1. I absolutely see the Kenyan using any and all options at his disposal if he thought it would mean his re-election. IF he thinks war is the key to re-election, it would be foolhardy to bet against it.

2. What I am not convinced of at this point is that he sees himself in trouble. Polls are showing a statistical dead heat. And even the post-convention bump didn't give Romney *that* much of a lead over Obama. (Of course, if one really wants to dissect the polls, Romney leading by a few percentages points with a sampling favoring D on a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 basis over R indicates a greater lead than just the final poll numbers.)

3. On the assumption he chose the war option, it would not be Iran. And certainly not the false-flag Israel operation the article suggested. There are far too many safer options that wouldn't raise near the public uproar. Syria comes to mind. Not that I think it would be a popular decision, but it would raise far fewer eyebrows than some machinations involving Iran and Israel. For that matter, all he has to do is ramp up Afghanistan a bit. The recent news of Afghani allies shooting our soldiers would be easy enough cover for creating the desired "war president" persona without having to involve us in a new conflict.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

How can things be going so poorly for him and he still does so many things that alienate his core constituency and yet hope to be re-elected?

He's going to cheat. The election will not be real.

 

[jblomenberg16]

The last time that I looked ( a couple of days ago) Obama was leading in almost all of the polls.

That's because most of the polls are run by the mainstream media, which wants him to win. I can't remember the actual term for it, but there is and "effect" on undecided people to chose who they think is the winner.

So, by seeing him "leading" in the polls some voters may just be inclined to jump on the bandwagon and vote for him so that they "voted for the winner."

 

[ViperJock]

I agree with 88GT. Who says he is losing? When the majority of Americans need/want handouts why would they bite the hand that feeds them? What I see is a mobilization of people who hate Obama already but can't agree who to vote for. From where he is sitting its probably a little worrisome but I doubt he is all that nervous.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a bit of news that should put the "Plan B" to rest.

'Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf' - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[Ted]

I'd be more concerned about him starting an uprising at home. He already has plans in place to cancel the election, and remain in the white house.

For 8-10 years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PAfFm0om-M​

 

[printcraft]

Here's a bit of news that should put the "Plan B" to rest.

'Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf' - Israel News, Ynetnews

Well........... yeah, but what if Israel feels it is totally alone now?

I think the gloves come off at that point.
They would be backed into a corner with no life line and nobody holding the reins.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well........... yeah, but what if Israel feels it is totally alone now?

I think the gloves come off at that point.
They would be backed into a corner with no life line and nobody holding the reins.

Actually, there's a good chance that, if they knew they were on their own, they'd do absolutely nothing. There's not a lot of support for that kind of action in Israel. The pro-attack faction is pretty small and Netanyahu is it's face. Large numbers of Israeli's on the street are totally against any form of attack on Iran, especially if Israel decides to go it alone. There would be a political price to pay for that act and Netanyahu would likely be out of a job.

 

[Ted]

Actually, there's a good chance that, if they knew they were on their own, they'd do absolutely nothing. There's not a lot of support for that kind of action in Israel. The pro-attack faction is pretty small and Netanyahu is it's face. Large numbers of Israeli's on the street are totally against any form of attack on Iran, especially if Israel decides to go it alone. There would be a political price to pay for that act and Netanyahu would likely be out of a job.

I disagree. If Israel knew that they were on their own, I strongly believe that they would attack with conventional weapons.....until it came to using its nukes that they would use.

I'm sure that Benjamin Netanyahu remembers the lessons of history with doing nothing, and is still reeling from his brother Jonathan's death in 1976 in its raid upon the Uganda's Entebbe Airport.

If Israel is going to go down, its going to go down swinging....and take a lot of its enemies with her.

 

[mrjarrell]

I disagree. If Israel knew that they were on their own, I strongly believe that they would attack with conventional weapons.....until it came to using its nukes that they would use.

I'm sure that Benjamin Netanyahu remembers the lessons of history with doing nothing, and is still reeling from his brother Jonathan's death in 1976 in its raid upon the Uganda's Entebbe Airport.

If Israel is going to go down, its going to go down swinging....and take a lot of its enemies with her.

Feel free to disagree all you want. Doesn't change the facts that the Israeli citizenry is against an attack. Doing so would cause the collapse of their government coalitions and the government would have to be reformed in the middle of a war. Even Bebe isn't that stupid. Most Israeli's just don't want it and they, unlike many of their American counterparts, vote. Spend some time reading actual Israeli news from multiple sources and you'll see. The Israeli people aren't a bloodthirsty bunch and don't relish the thought of having thousands of missiles come raining down on them. Especially without US backup.

 

[Ted]

Feel free to disagree all you want. Doesn't change the facts that the Israeli citizenry is against an attack. Doing so would cause the collapse of their government coalitions and the government would have to be reformed in the middle of a war. Even Bebe isn't that stupid. Most Israeli's just don't want it and they, unlike many of their American counterparts, vote. Spend some time reading actual Israeli news from multiple sources and you'll see. The Israeli people aren't a bloodthirsty bunch and don't relish the thought of having thousands of missiles come raining down on them. Especially without US backup.

I regularly read Israeli news media, and am of the informed opinion that it isn't dissimilar to the liberal media here. That being said, I agree that its citizenry isn't bloodthirty....but they're not stupid either, and know what a nuclear Iran means to them.

After all, history is a good indicator of what blind passiveness does to an entire people.....and there are still a few still around that witnessed it first hand.

 

[mrjarrell]

The only people seemingly for an attack by Israel on Iran are Americans who will have no skin in the game. Until they up stakes and put themselves at ground zero they need to stop and think about the innocents in Israel who will die, if this happens. They, not American supporters, will bear the brunt.

 

[Ted]

The only people seemingly for an attack by Israel on Iran are Americans who will have no skin in the game. Until they up stakes and put themselves at ground zero they need to stop and think about the innocents in Israel who will die, if this happens. They, not American supporters, will bear the brunt.

Its not surprising that many Americans are angry at the Iranian government, considering that there are a lot of Americans that are still pissed off at Iran for the American embassy hostages from 1979 to 1981. Iran's past conduct has proven that there are more that just Americans, Western allied, and a handful of Israelis that wish to levy aggression toward the Iran government....that includes a fair number of former citizens of Iran that fled from persecution after the Iranian revolution.

Israel is an incredibly resilient, demonstrated by their decisive victory over Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the Six Days War in 1967. Casualties amounted to < 1000 Israelis KIA; 4,500 wounded, and 15 captured. An estimated 16,500 Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian soldiers were listed as KIA/MIA; with > approximate number of 5,000 captured. Wounded numbers from these countries are not available for retrieval. All this provides realistic proof that the Jews aren't about to allow a second attempted extermination.....and still translates today.

Given Israel's state of technology today, its history, heritage, and motivation to engage the enemy, as well as Iran's diminished resources that are exacerbated from the worldwide embargo currently in place, I'm of the opinion that Israel could adequately dispatch Iran....with much lower losses.

 

[mrjarrell]

And they would, inevitably, draw in American forces in the region. No thanks. The Israeli people don't want it and we don't need another war. If you want one, get in the game.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I do not think anyone WANTS another war—unless it is the mullahs in Iran. The question is how do the USA and Israel survive without one being forced on us.

 

[steveg26]

Look up john moore on youtube. I don't know what to think.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Look up john moore on youtube. I don't know what to think.

Got a link? It would help.