>>>>What is your take? Sanctioned from the highest level or renegade?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/18/us.iran/index.html?hpt=T1
>>>>
>>>>This is probably an ink blot test here in partisan land. I am hoping for honest reactions.
>>>
>>>I honestly fail to see any problem. It is part of the military's job to plan for all contingencies. While military action is probably the last thing I want to see re Iran, if it becomes necessary I don't want the President saying "OK guys, what are my options" and having the Generals/Admirals saying "Ummmmmmm. We'll get back to you on that."
>>
>>If I thought that is all it is I would agree with you completely. For some reason it strikes me as the military wanting to implement their own plan.
>>
>>Maybe I just don't trust the military brass. (NOT soldiers, who I admire deeply; the brass).
>
>Mike, it is normal for a plan, to cover all possibilities, to be developed. Then, in the future, if (in this case, Iran) makes a move to attack us or our allies a plan is ready. It just saves time if an emergency occurs. Same as escape planning for a house fire or preparing for an earthquake. It is nothing new and it makes good sense.

If that's all it is, contingency planning, then we agree completely. For some reason this struck me as an end around. I doubt Obama is a favorite of the military brass, even though he has continued most of Bush's military policies. You don't hear the phrase "cut and run" much any more.