In my experience, these pieces of evidence represent the lower tier of sourcing methods in determining surprise military action. I understand the eagerness to float information by sources, I have done this as well, testing the waters of credibility is part of evaluating sources. I have learned over time that sourced information on military affairs is never really worth the effort though, something Rubin probably is learning, because when floating information credibility is inevitably assumed by the person discussing the information, not the person producing the information, no matter how much it is qualified. Apparently Rubin feels the potential of a US strike on Iran is worth any dent to his credibility, or perhaps he assumes his credibility is independent to his accuracy, but to assume either is to waste the responsibility of producing accurate information in the first place. It goes back to the boy who cried wolf problem.
Military deployments are equally dangerous 'tea leaves.' I enjoy following military deployments, it is one of the things I do on a regular basis on this blog, mostly in evaluation of my software in retrieving open source data, but also just as a curiosity. I also have the support of a number of knowledgeable people located in several countries who send me tips to news sources otherwise missed in the normal media cycle. As Francios pointed out as recently as this past Friday's Order of Battle, observations that lead to assumptions can be misleading. I observed the French intelligence ship FS Dupuy de Lome (A 759) crossing the Suez and made an assumption, and someone more familiar with the deployment of the ship pointed out that its noteworthiness is exactly, not noteworthy. In follow-on research, I found that the FS Dupuy de Lome (A 759) is actually returning to the region, not deploying, as it had come northbound on the Suez earlier this summer.
There is a lot of "hey" made about deployments, whether it is the relocation of air force bombers or the deployment of warships to the Persian Gulf. In reality, more sources than not get it wrong anyway, and there is questionable motive behind the reporting. As an example of military disinformation, everyone favorite inaccurate source Debka has this today.
Since the maneuver ended Friday, Sept. 7, the Nimitz has been on its way back to the Persian Gulf. The Truman group, made up of 12 warships and submarines, including a nuclear sub, with 7,600 sailors, air crew and marines aboard, has just completed a long series of training exercises and is preparing to set out for its new posting. It carries eight squadrons of fighters, bombers and spy planes.
The Truman force’s battle cry is: “Give ‘em hell”.
The combined naval strike groups include the Monterey-CG 61 guided missile cruiser, the USS Barry DDG 52 and USS Mason-DDG 87 guided missile destroyers, the USS Albuquerque-SSN 706 fast nuclear strike submarine and the combat logistical USNS Arctic T-AOE 8.
Never mind the Nimitz CSG has another 5-7 weeks left in its scheduled deployment, or that the USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) has been spotted off South America, or that the USS Monterey (CG 61) is in a maintenance period in Norfolk after returning home earlier this year from a 6 month tour with NATO, or that the USS Barry (DDG 52) has been published as deploying with the HMS Illustrious (R06) later this year, or that the USS Mason (DDG 87) just returned to Norfolk in late May after a seven and a half month deployment, these details and what they mean for accuracy makes no difference to Debka.
Using deployments as "Tea Leaves" is inaccurate at best, and subject to disinformation more than most other methods of evaluation. A quick google blog search reveals how eager some will run with disinformation, for what purpose is unclear.
Clearly I part ways with Rubin and do not believe the US is attacking Iran tomorrow, but there is something to be said that so many believe it is going to happen. In the end, I do believe tomorrow is about Iran, but not in the context he does, I think the one part of the Petraeus report that has people attacking the generals credibility is that he is going to reintroduce the problem of Iran in relation to Iraq, and the fact of the matter is, there is no easy political answer on how to deal with that. With a president who has no credibility on proportionate responses or limited engagements, both of which guided the military policy for the region for several decades, there really isn't much Bush or Congress can do unless they decide to go all in, the very scenario Rubin is worried about; or all out, the very scenario that has the hard right concerned. My hope is that Petraeus sees a middle ground.
Put me solidly with the group that doesn't buy bombs dropping on Iran tomorrow. Yes I feel the possibility of war with Iran coming, as does every member of any armed services reserve who hasn't been called up but has trained in the last 8 months, but it won't be tomorrow. If I am wrong, I'll gladly eat crow, and consider myself among those who fell for the deception.
No comments:
Post a Comment