Quote Originally Posted by Odin
Interesting article. The article sticks with the theme that a 3rd deployment was for intimidation purposes which I find hard to believe. Mobilization and deployment of a carrier strike force is no small matter, having 2 there now should suffice for intimidation, a 3rd, without the pretense of a military action is just a matter of logic (in my opinion).

I dont dismiss the article out of hand, but it seemed to portray the admiral as a maverick of somekind for bucking the will of the admin. He wasnt ordered to do anything, he gave an opinion contrary to that of the "hawks", that in itself is news worthy but hardly a redirection of policy of intimidation.
Well, our deployments commonly include two nearby -- a fact known to the Iranians. Deploying the third would be more of a saber-rattling move therefore, so the "intimidation" angle is a possibility.

If CENTCOM was telling NCA that "if you do this you had better not do it half-assed and this would be" then CENTCOM was probably providing sage advice.

I very much hope that SECDEF and CENTCOM both pressure NCA to:

a) avoid violence unless absolutely essential, and

b) if decided that it is essential, then use it in a decisive fashion.


Point B may, or may not, be possible given the overall goal set and the forces available to the USA at current deployment conditions.