I would expect another war in Iraq (which is impossible for diplomatic and military considerations) to be timed about the same way.
Most other sources say, as the Asia Times just did today, that the US armed forces can move and deploy faster now than twelve years ago.
1) The news would be told to thousands of people.
(2) The news would leak all over the place.
(3) The military would be calling up reservists left and right, especially in the face of US manpower now in Afghanistan.
(4) You wouldn't be reading about this in Stratfor, Debka, or Asia Times. You'd be reading about it in the regular press
In 1990, major deployments were not announced or discussed until after the midterm elections, when Bush 41 announced major troop movements into the Gulf. As Asia Times also noted, the troop movements won't need to be so major this time around, because a) Saddam's forces are smaller and weaker, and b) we have so many troops and bases there already.
Think back to news reports in preparation for action in Afghanistan
Yes, let's. I heard almost nothing about troop movements into Afghanistan until the bombing began. Then I heard a month of complaints that we weren't really doing anything, and a quagmire was just at hand due to "the brutal Afghan winter". Oh yes, we mustn't bomb during Ramadan due to Muslim sensitivities. Then the Taliban fell and I stopped hearing these reports, thank goodness.
The fact is that nothing, absolutely nothing, is going on, except the Bush administration talked themselves up a creek. They have no war plans. They have no allies.
Sure, Carl, and Janes, Stratfor, debka and Asia Times are indulging in collective hallucinations, because our press, whom we all recognize are superbly competent and informed on military matters, are not trumpeting the story. Time will tell.
So why hasn't Bush extended duty for the Reserves?
He doesn't need them right now, does he? You never answered my question -- what's the lead time for mobilizing the reserves? |
