Guest Authors3 Comments
- Published: Wednesday, 18 January 2012 03:18
- Written by Gen Barry McCaffrey (ret)
The entire Report can be viewed here.
You are a guest ( Sign Up ? )
or post as a guest
This commment is unpublished.· 9 years agoI'm sorry, but Gen McCaffrey often has his own agenda. He told the BBC in March 200 that the INITIAL invasion of Iraq (not the subsequent occupation) could cost the lives of ,000 U.S. troops. And a few years back on a trip to Havana he parroted Cuban talking points on terrorism and other issues. He's a legend in his own mind and whatever he says should be taken with several grains of salt.
This commment is unpublished.· 9 years agoArm Chair Admiral McCaffrey should stick to ground pounding. Carriers are machines of power projection. Even though the considerations of Iran's prowess may seem concerning they are still conventional. (Remember seeing the USS Stark limp home? Compartmentalization and damage control kept her afloat.) ASW & EW modules will do there job- not only on the carrier; but, in the entire battle group. Airwings will provide superiority in ANY theater. It is my opinion the Stennis Battle Group would cripple any threat from Iran by themselves...including any ground based anti-ship threat. All the BIG GUNS are in the NAVY
This commment is unpublished.· 9 years agoAgree with most of your assertions, but you do need Stealth B-2s with MOAB and
F-22s for true Air Superiority! Trust me on that one!
This commment is unpublished.· 9 years agoI agree, Tommy, Sir. I rest assured the Stennis will NOT be our only dog in it if it comes to a fight. I'm irritated when our military is second guessed by our media and pundits suggesting we're past our limits...politics are politics but please allow us to WIN a fight when our enemies beg for it. I know what we're capable of, I think Iran is asking for us to show them.
This commment is unpublished.· 9 years ago(edit: modules will do THEIR jobs)
Also...you don't have to take me word...a bit of research material; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-74.htm
This commment is unpublished.· 9 years agoDunno about dismissing Gen. McCaffrey's assessment entirely. Not claiming any particular kind of expertise, but my impression is that the mullahs: a) don't give a rusty four-letter word about their own casualties, so long as they can make a Great Satan boogeyman to buffalo their citizens with; b) don't give a rusty four-letter-word about their own casualties, so long as they can put some shorts in the rest of the world's circuits; c) don't give a rusty four-letter-word about their own casualties, so long as the Faithful can strike some sort of blow against the evil unbelievers, and the sellout Arab countries dealing with the evil unbelievers; and d) don't give a rusty four-letter-word about their own casualties, period. (Yes, I acknowledge a certain rhetorical repetition, but my point is that Iran's government is like a lot of other pisspot totalitarian regimes: they'll hold out to the last peasant... Rational behavior from their government is not to be expected or depended upon.)
Sure, in a slugfest, we'd take 'em apart like a cheap wristwatch. But it seems unlikely we could keep the Straits of Hormuz safe for civilian shipping while we did it. McCaffrey seems pessimistic about the cost. of doing so, but that doesn't mean he's wrong