From Ynet News:
The U.S. government has called on NATO members to prepare for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the German daily Der Spiegel reported Saturday.
NATO officials said the United States is seriously weighing the possibility of military action against Iran.
Seems unlikely on it’s face, but at the same time, President Bush has been adamant that he will not allow Iran nuclear weapons, and it seems plausible that even our NATO allies see limited military action as the only option for stopping them at this point.
Of course, if we’re hearing about it, Iran is certainly hearing about it—so we could be witnessing the beginning of a more orchestrated hardline stance toward Iran that circumvents the (increasingly irrelevant) UN Security Council altogether.
Which makes sense, given that China and Russia wouldn’t even back sanctions.
For their part, Congressional Democrats are already calling for an investigation into whether or not Bush lied about the threat from Iran’s imminent nuclear weapons capabilities.
(h/t Allah)
****
update: Here’ more, from the Jerusalem Post:
The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.
The German daily Der Spiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.
According to the report, CIA chief Porter Gus [sic], in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.
The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding to supposed plan. American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation.
Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.
Again, not at all surprising we’ve made Special Forces forays inside Iran to gather intel or mark targets—after all, military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have their advantages; that the New Yorker and Der Spiegel know about the incursions leads me to believe that the US perhaps wanted the information leaked, in an effort to convince Iran of our seriousness and enhance our diplomatic bargaining position.
Developing…
You know what I’m kind of looking forward to? Protesters showing up outside the White House after the attack with “If Israel Can Have Nukes, Why Can’t Iran?” signs.
With a swastika in place of the “s” in “Israel,” of course.
Also fun: watching conscientious liberals, who know the attack is necessary but can’t quite bring themselves to support anything Bush does, squirm.
What I’m looking forward to is an entirely different group of squirmers.
The NYT is almost sure to pick this up, as an example of the Perfidy of the Warmongering Bushies. You will then see a series of assurances from the Administration, bland to forthright according to personality, that nothing of the kind is contemplated, well, err, it’s not actually set in stone, don’tcha know, we make plans for all kinds of things that never come to pass, there’s i>always</i> alternatives…
I can tell you from experience that being on high alert is fatiguing—you can’t beat “To Quarters!” and man the guns every time the other side drops silverware in the chow line without getting worn out. But the Mad Mullahs (useful pejorative, though they aren’t actually crazy in any objective sense) pretty well have to respond to this. What if they weren’t on watch when the Joooooos and their sycophants rolled across the border?
An occasional sortie that penetrates the border and immediately turns back, followed by abject apologies from the DOD, would be useful…
Let’s see how it goes… it’s about time for another rant from Mr. Ahmadinejad, isn’t it?
Regards,
Ric
I’m concerned that if it does come to war the Bushitlers and their NSA lackies will see it as the perfect opportunity to secretly spy on Iranian overseas communications, in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, the FISA law and the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution.
I don’t put anything past those Israeli-loving neocons for a second!
I would rate the actually odds of the consultations with NATO as rather high. I was going to write a long post here. But I didn’t – I actually (heaven forbid) wrote a post on my own damn blog.
Uh, I certainly hope that
And the Iranians already knew it, so everyone else should too. If there’s no real threat of force, diplomacy will be useless–just look at Iraq.
But you know me, I’m a crazy, war-mongering Neocon–I don’t even care that those Special Forces probably didn’t have a warrent from Kofi Annan, so what do I know?
Happy New Year, Jeff, and good luck with that armadillo drop.
Sooner or later, something has to give.
Funniest thing I’ve read in a month.
Jeff, you’ve done a tremendous service flushing out a massive amount of info and perspective in the last weeks, and my hat’s off, yet all it takes is a fabulous oneliner like this to put these mendacious leftist seditionists right where they deserve to be.
Prosecute the NYT.
tw: Once the war effort got to its feet and said what needed saying.
How long before Phoenician shows up to explain how this in some way proves that we’re all sheep…or serfs…or sheep-like serfs…or surfing sheep…
i’ve felt for a while that Bush should be viewed like lincoln in 1864.
lincoln thought he was gonna lose the 1864 prez election and called in his war cabinet and told them so. and he told them that since he was gonna lose that it meant they only had from then – october – to march (when the inaugurals were back then) to win the war. so he told them to pull out all the stops.
as a result – they turned the war around – making lincoln more popular as a result – and they won war in april. almost on schedule.
bush knows he cannnot count on congress being gop or the next prez being gop or a hawk, so he will do WHATVER it takes to defeat the enemy ASAP.
and FASTER if he starts to lose power domestically (the dems win the house or the senate or both).
so: i expect that we are readying an attack on iran and syria and north korea.
which means getting the ammo/smart bombs/missiles in stock and in place for an attack on one or two oir all three of em.
this (these) attack(s) will be managed by computer. missiles are aimed and launched by computer. the computer program are ready and the missiles are on hand.
SO…. all bush is waiting for is: (1) the intel that he MUST act “A/O!”; or (2) news that he has lost in the congressional elections.
if the gop does badlym then he will attack ASAP. nothing to lose and the GWOT to win.
at least that’s my theory right now.
if assad is overthrown before summer then syrai comes off the list. I THINK THIS IS LIKELY – like… 6-4.
if noko agrees to invasive inspections and controls, then they come off the list. I DO NOT EXPECT THIS TO HAPPEN.
if the mullahs are overthrown, then they come off the list. I DO NOT EXPECT THIS TO HAPPEN.
if the GOP is traling VERY VERY badly i the summer then we MIGHT attack Iran. it would help us: there’d be more of a surpise.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Gee. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a friend in the region with, I dunno, a spare hundred or so infantry battalions, give or take, trained up to something resembling NATO standards? Y’know, troops in a democratic country, who are willing to fight to secure their future, and who might be willing to do the U.S. a favor. I’m sure the thought hasn’t crossed Chimperor McHalliburton’s mind or any of those BushKill DeathMachine Storm Troopers over there imperially despoiling the great cradle of civilization. But it sure would be nice. Too bad that it’s just like France says, and nobody in the world likes us, and would be willing to help out. I dunno. Maybe if we asked France real nicely again…. to stop selling nuclear reactors. Oh, please, you don’t think they’d lift a military finger to help while that unthinking cowboy and his coup d’etat is occupying Our White House, now do you?
Is anyone surprised by this? Are we all just assuming Bush will allow a country run by religious lunatics that say Americans should all die in a lake of fire to acquire nuclear weapons?
Well duh, we should have invaded Iran rather than Iraq in the first place. Most of the letters are the same, but no cookie.
Don’t be silly, Tillman.
I love those declarations. They’re notifications that the writer knows nothing about military capabilities, operations, strategy, or tactics, is stone ignorant of the geography, geology, politics, ethnic makeup, and cultural dynamics of the area, and has a firm and totally wrong concept of the administration’s goals and intentions and a very shaky grasp of the laws of physics.
But I’ll give Tillman this: he(?) didn’t suggest that it should have been Saudi Arabia.
Regards,
Ric
OK, Ric, suddenly we CAN go bomb Iran, but before, we couldn’t for all kinds of reasons. Sorry, I don’t buy that.
Again, not at all surprising we’ve made Special Forces forays inside Iran to gather intel or mark targets
Wait a minute – does this mean you believe Iran now has a right to launch preemptive attacks on the US?
How long before Phoenician shows up to explain how this in some way proves that we’re all sheep…or serfs…or sheep-like serfs…or surfing sheep…
No, that’ll wait until you start spouting whatever bullshit is on the list of Republican talking points for the day, about when things start to go wrong with the Emperor’s Glorious Military Adventure, Mk. 3.
So far you’re just dheering on the bombing of people for, well, no reason yet that I can see. That doesn’t make you sheep; it makes you about the same as the people who supposedly danced in the street celebrating the Sept. 11th attacks.
Your sheep-like moment will come later, without doubt.
Tillman, you make my case: if you can’t tell the difference between bombing from aircraft somewhere near the limit of their range and an actual invasion, you’re too ignorant to be paid attention to. Even Pussy[1] in a Time of Rambos makes better sense than that.
Regards,
Ric
[1]The sexual connotation makes it stronger, but the word derives from pusillanimous. You’re permitted to snigger briefly. You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever.
OK, Tillman, I’ll bite. Why don’t you buy that? Did we have some sort of fly over agreement with Hussein (when he still ruled Iraq) that the rest of the world didn’t know about? Maybe Syria? Would Turkey have allowed it? How about Kuwait?
I bring those countries up for a reason. Pull out a map of the Middle East, put your finger on Iran, and then draw lines to US military bases capable of supporting the required aircraft. See where those lines cross international borders.
Or are you seriously suggesting that a carrier task group could do the job from the Gulf without the active cooperation of the Gulf countries?
Or do you have another, unstated reason?
I’m all ears.
PS: Ric poses the question better……but I do suggest drawing a picture. This might be easier for you to visualize.
Ric, Fuck you.
I don’t know, Phoney, it depends on if you are still masturbating. That’s the sort of question you’re asking.
You’d be more honest by stating that you think Iran has the right to launch pre-emptive strikes on the US. For you, that’s probably better than masturbation.
.
No, we are discussing bombing nuclear weapon production facilities; any people that are targeted in any such attack would probably be the workers there. Unless Iran put their facilities in a daycare center, in which case I doubt they would be attacked.
I would think that a citizen of New Zealand would be glad to see the total number of nukes in the world being reduced. Or did that mulesing mess with your ears?
JeffS, the U.S. is incapable of invading a country? You’ve got to be kidding. It would be harder, but we could bomb the shit out of them and do a land invasion from the sea couldn’t we?
Actually, what I believe we should have done (assuming the intel is accurate this time about Iran’s nukes) is to just go bomb the sites that look like nukes.
Ah, the give and take of rational, civilized debate… I was going to apologize, but won’t. Thanks for making it unnecessary.
Buried in the snark, PiatoR has a point: we should not bomb Iran, for a host of reasons. At the top of that list is that the Iranians are culturally and ethnicly distinct from either Arabs or Afghans, and unusually for the Middle East have a strong sense of nationhood in the original meaning of the term. An attack is likely (not certainly, but highly likely IMO) to induce solidarity. The Mad Mullahs are assholes, but they’re their assholes. The ones I’ve known felt much the same way about Reza Pahlevi, and they hated him.
At this point, reactions like PiatoR’s are actually useful. One of the best ways to deal with violent crazy people is to convince them that you’re as violent and crazy as they are, and the “George Bush is a loose cannon” bit helps in that respect. Remember that Bush plays poker, and by all accounts is quite good at it.
Unfortunately there may, at this point, be nothing else that’s doable. “Nothing” is not an option; if we were sure that Israel had an effective missile defense, and were confident that the measures in place to prevent surreptitious introduction of a nuke into some spectacularly-populated area were adequate, we could sit back and watch. Neither is the case.
It’s not something we should do, and I’m fairly confident it’s not something Bush wants to do or thinks is a good idea. Sometimes all the choices are bad ones.
Regards,
Ric
Tillman, Ric makes a good point. A “simple” bombing mission is not simple. An outright invasion is a logistical nightmare.
Any invasion in an assault into hostile territory. You have to have a bridgehead to make this possible. To have a bridgehead, you have to have a secure landmass that is easily supplied within reasonable distance of the bridgehead. Normandy in WWII was a “bridgehead” (actually, a beachhead), supported by England, supplied by ship from the US and Canada. If England had been occupied by Hitler, Allied forces could not have invaded Europe.
The situation for Iran is the same, only worse in scope. The only potential jumping off points for an invasion into Iran are Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Until recently, the only practical choices available were Kuwait and Saudia Arabia—if their governments would let that happen. And we would still have to cross the Gulf to do so, by no means an easy task. Iraq might not let us do it (and, yes, I am expecting that Bush would not do so without permission from Iraq).
As for a bombing run…..stop taking Hollywood seriously. Any bombing mission into hostile territory is an extreme risk for crew and aircraft, even from a short distance away. Recall that in spite of overwhelming air superiorityfor us in the Balkans, we still managed to lose aircraft there…..including an F117, a “stealth” fighter.
Suicide bombing runs are not policy for American forces. There has to be a reasonable expectation of success for the mission.
If the bombing run is a long ways away (e.g., England or Diego Garcia), then the mission is severely complicated.
This assumes that we have solid targeting data, the air defense is suppressed or non-existant, and that the target isn’t dug in too deeply.
Oh, and we have the element of surprise working for us. That’s really helpful. Not essential, but preferable.
Really, air support is very useful….when you can direct the aircraft to the target. Which requires people on the ground, with eyes on the target. Otherwise, you are shooting blind. Oh, it’s incredibly accurate with GPS technology, but ultimately, you still need hard targeting data for that work. Even then, attacks are reviewed by other sources (e.g., sat imagery) for effectiveness.
So, in short, bombing missions are sexy, but way more complicated than you would think. Possible, in a limited sense, but when it’s all you have, it’s all you have.
Invasions? Go read about the Iraq invasion in 2003. Focus on the logistical support. It’s even more complicated, by a lot.
Oh, and I must note, my post largely ignored the politics. Ric makes another point about “they are OUR crazy bastards”, but these are other factors.
For the record, Phoney does have a point (as Ric notes), but I stand by my own comment. Needs must when the demons drive.
Well thank you JeffS and even you Ric for the explanations.
But JeffS, you mentioned Afghanistan as one of the potential “jumping off points.†Why not build up there and use that country to invade Iran since we invaded Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq?
BTW, I should mention that I am no relation to Pat Tillman. For that reason, I think I’ll change my internet name tomorrow to Psyberian. I don’t want people to wonder about that.
Tillman, you really do need to look at some maps. Here are a few to start with:
shaded relief (big)
Mine and JeffS’s worry
More if you have the interest.
Afghanistan, specifically: note the “wrinkly bits” and the deserts. The part of Iran that’s anywhere near Afghanistan is well-nigh impassable mountains, doesn’t contain anything vital or interesting, and is far enough from the centers to give the defenders plenty of time to get their shit together. Oh, it’s doable. Lots of things are doable. But there’d have to be a really good reason—and there isn’t. Same with invading across the Persian Gulf, playing bumper-cars with the supertankers.
The Iranians have repeatedly made the point that their nuclear facilities are dispersed and deeply dug in. A bombing run might not do any good, even if it hit the right target(s). Same problem with North Korea, by the way.
It would actually be much easier if PiatoR wasn’t full of shit. Too bad it isn’t us calling him a liar, it’s the Mullahs, who have repeatedly, loudly, and specifically said what they mean to do with their toys. If it were merely a case of resisting Imperialism, we’d be cool with that. But we don’t want Israel nuked, for reasons that go ‘way beyond any friendship or alliance with them, and we definitely don’t want al Qaeda getting their hands on them, and the mullahs have specifically promised both.
So unless somebody somewhere has something up a sleeve, the next month or so is likely to be… interesting.
Regards,
Ric
Knowing PIATOR, that could only be because s/he is a capitulating, democracy-hating coward who hates freedom and equality for women and loves the thought of genocide and radical freaks posessing nukes…
Unless they’re white Christian radical freaks posessing nukes, that is.
6Gun, you overstate by a lot. PiatoR’s problem is transference. Another way to describe it is that, like his namesakes, he’s wading in bullshit and calling it holy.
The Iranians oppose the United States. Without actually rationalizing it, PiatoR assumes that this is because they’re good peaceful socialists, reluctantly leaving their tractors and forges to defy the forces of Imperial Capitalism. The USSR, in other words… the mullahs’ rhetoric goes in one ear and out the other without affecting any of the intervening matter, a facility any good socialist had to develop in the days of overnight doctrine switches. At this point I’m not sure there’s anything that could fix that short of something he finds precious getting bombed, and I’m not (yet) resentful enough to cheer the nuking of Christchurch just to make the point. Leave that for Democrats.
Regards,
Ric
You’d be more honest by stating that you think Iran has the right to launch pre-emptive strikes on the US. For you, that’s probably better than masturbation.
Ahem.
“PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. And our security will require all Americans to be forward- looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause)” – Speech at West Point, 2002.
Obviously the same applies to Iran. If the US is planning to attack Iran, and actually making Special Forces forays inside Iran to gather intel or mark targets, it logically follows that anyone supporting the Bush doctrine whould also be supporting Iran’s right to attack America first.
It’ll be interesting to see how many resort to spluttering ad hominem rather than actually engage the argument…
The last time I heard from you, Tillman, you were pontificating on the nature of God, and whimpering how your churchgoing days were so distressing you evidently took up flamebaiting Christians.
Now you’re a military strategist, you pedantic little bitch? What a cunt you are, thinking this republic owes you a damn thing, much less blueprints on waging war.
It’ll be interesting to see how many resort to spluttering ad hominem rather than actually engage the argument…
Okay, that’s Ric Locke and 6Gun heard from. Anybody else?
Clearly. That tired old Che/Castro/Mao saw amuses me to no end. But I’m waiting for the irony to beat these fucks Tillman and PIATOR in the head to the point they actually see it. This will involve a very large mallet:
I’m pretty sure your mother puts out in Tehran, PIATOR, seven days a week. For free. That stated as fact and principle, now it’ll be interesting to see if you resort to spluttering [sic] ad hominem rather than actually engage the argument.
See, as turnabout goes, I could also expect to vomit mewling, leading, pedantic, baiting, arrogant, mendacious, wooden, tiring, dimensionless, irresponsible, and baseless theories and claims and then get up on my back legs and demand that reasonable minds answer with depth, respect and consideration.
Fair’s fair, right, PIATOR?
What PIATOR and Tillman are transferring is their responsibility to clean their own asses.
I’m not sure what your point is, PiatoR. The Iranians have repeatedly stated that they not only have the right to a pre-emptive attack on the United States, they fully intend to make one as soon as they have the wherewithal. That’s a good-sized chunk of what this is all about.
Talking about “right to attack” isn’t Socialism. It isn’t even Progressive. It’s the neolithic tribalist revenge cycle, and we don’t play that game. Oh, George will spout the rhetoric (or, rather, assign the State Department to do it; that’s what it’s for). But, in the end, what’s at issue here is that they’ve stated flatly that they’ll nuke us and/or our friends if they get the chance, and what we’re working on is denying them that chance because we’d really prefer that they didn’t do that.
I snark at you because you make noises like a pacifist, and I regard pacifists as being just below real-estate agents and ‘way below telephone solicitors in the ranking of “admirable people”, in large part because they claim moral superiority on that ground. Pacifists always end up enabling and supporting violent bullies. This situation is a case in point.
Regards,
Ric
Damn, right after wooden, I should have added playing to the crowd…
In other words, this really isn’t a debate, is it PIATOR? It’s a couple student-loaned twenty-somethings playacting to appease the academic gods of American socialism.
PIATOR:
Ric Locke:
So, about that “argument” PIATOR, would it involve the US not taking a responsible stance to, say, keep my daughter and family out of nuclear winter on this continent?
What happens down under is your affair, so capitulate all you want. I do believe the rest of us are done “arguing.”
tw: British. Heh.
Phoney, just what planet do you live on? It ain’t Earth or Vulcan, that’s for sure. Because you have it backwards. Wotta surprise.
Since Iran has declared America as their enemy (not the other way, and way before Bush 43, incidentally—remember the Iranian hostage crisis under Jimmuh Cartuh?), not to mention promising to destroy Israel, they opened themselves up to pre-emptive strikes in the first place. This is called “self-defense”. There’s no “logic” in supporting the Bush doctrine is supporting the Iran’s position in any way, shape, or form.
There’s an expectation amongst the inhabitants of the real world that the Iranian President has his finger On The Button, looking for an excuse to nuke something. Possibly his aura will enlighten us one day. But if the Mad Mullahs decide to escalate, they have only themselves to blame.
But JeffS, you mentioned Afghanistan as one of the potential “jumping off points.†Why not build up there and use that country to invade Iran since we invaded Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq?
A fair question, Tillman. What drives any combat operations is logistics. Sometimes tactics dictate logistics, but strategy must be logistically supportable. If you can’t support the force with fuel, ammo, food, medical supplies, etc, the force can’t fight. This has been a problem in all wars, but especially so in modern combat.
Bulk supplies and materiel are best shipped by bulk carrier. In today’s world, that would be train or ship/barge. Airplanes can provide logistical support, but not in the quantities needed, so they are generally reserved for troops and critical items. Imagine what it takes to feed, house, cloth, and in general care for a city of 150,000 people. Now add in fuel, ammo, and other military necessities. This requires a lot of transportation.
The problem with Afghanistan is that it has no convenient seaport, nor any railroad. Every thing has to be trucked in over poor roads, flown in, or produced locally. Not simple or easy.
Also, the terrain in that portion of Iran is highly mountainous, similar to Afghanistan. It favors the defense (ask the Soviet Union). Taken together with the logistical trail, Afghanistan is not the first choice for any invasion.
When we fall for the Mao Red Book Department of Homeland Security story, Piator? Is that when we’ll know we’re sheep?
Or is it a different animal that consistently espouses the anti-Bush talking point of the day?
Finish your bourbon, 6Gun. Be sure to dump the ice in the sink and set the glass on the counter to be washed tomorrow.
Happy new year, everyone.
Regards,
Ric
Obviously the same applies to Iran. If the US is planning to attack Iran, and actually making Special Forces forays inside Iran to gather intel or mark targets, it logically follows that anyone supporting the Bush doctrine whould also be supporting Iran’s right to attack America first.
Exactly. Just because they’re a rabid theocracy <strike>threatening</strikethrough> promising genocide and we’re the main reason democracy and freedom are still alive in the world despite the best efforts of fascism, Nazism, and Communism is no reason to draw any silly moral distinctions. I salute the clarity of your thinking.
BWAH HA HA HAAAAA, maybee, you’ve just made my night. ;D
You gotta admit – Phoenician has a way-too-unhealthy obsession with sheep. What is it about New Zealand?
With what Army? And I’m sure the newly elected religious government in Iraq is going to be all for this.
Can’t wait till they decide to get some WMDs.
Some leaks are more official than others, I guess.
6Gun, you sure don’t hesitate to show your ass, do you? You obviously have no intellect, so that’s all you’ve got. More light and less testosterone, bonehead. You’re pathetic.
Thanks again for the reasonable response, JeffS. I agree that logistics are important.
But what about this: Haven’t we learned from Iraq that rather than depose the leader of a country, we just bomb them into submission and tell them that they’d better straighten up or we’ll do it again? That way, we don’t have to occupy the country and deal with expensive and deadly nation building. Also, that way, someone is left to surrender. This would also resolve a lot of the logistical problems you mention.
[Formerly Tillman]
There’s an saying in the military—you can’t secure the objective until you’ve got an 18 year old soldier with a rifle standing on it. Aerial
bombardment is effective only if you follow up with a ground attack. The Air Force may tell you differently, but they are wrong.
Example #1:
In the Balkans, Clinton (through NATO) bombed the holy crap out of the Serbs. Did this work? Only after we destroyed much of their general infrastructure (all of it unprotected, but thereby gaining the attention of the Serbs), and then followed up with peace keeping forces.
A general bombardment of that sort in Iran would not work for several reasons. First, Phoney has this one right, attacking the people (as opposed to the nuclear weapon plants) would not be appropriate. Second, Iran doesn’t have the same level of infrastructure that Europe (including the Balkans) has, so what have they to lose? Third, the Mad Mullahs would probably just shrug and say ”Insha Allah.”
A targeted bombardment we’ve already discussed.
Example #2:
During Desert Storm, the “Air Campaign” received a lot of press. It was sexy and all y’know? Problem was, the air attacks really just destroyed a lot of infrastructure that supported their logistics. The actual destruction of Iraqi forces didn’t take place until after the ground attack started. I recall that one Iraqi armor battalion survived the air campaign virtually intact (in spite of the fact that tanks were a priority target) simply by digging in and not moving. Once that battalion engaged Coalition forces, it lasted less than a day against a combined air and ground attack.
Besides which, no one is discussing deposing the Iranian leadership. We are discussing bombing nuclear weapon production facilities. Which, as has been discussed, would be difficult.
You’re too kind. And had I been drinking, I’d fall back on Hemingway: “An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools.”
So, I’m just absorbing Tillman’s lightening fast responses instead.
(And this from the leftist who virtually posts his shrink’s results amongst conservatives.)
6Gun, I have an M.S. in psychology, but I have no idea why you would say that I am posting “my shrink’s results.” Excuse me for being human enough to actually go to sleep last night – thus my “lightning fast response.†I’m not going to loose any sleep over your drunken tirades, that’s for sure.
JeffS, maybe what I’m thinking of wouldn’t work. But if we had accurate intelligence and the issue is nukes, why not just bomb the nukes and be done with it? No long, dangerous and costly invasion, few (if any) American lives lost, a lot cheaper than nation building.
PIATOR,
With respect to the notion of having the right to a pre-emptive strike, what of it?
That’s interesting. Says a lot.
But Tillman/Psyberian, your stuff is. still. too. turgid—leftists typically lack humor and self-awareness when there’s so much back seat driving to do.
Oops; there we go again.
The psychology of nuking sociopaths?
You might leave the heavy lifting to others. Um, there’s possibly as much about your mindset and politics in your closet as in your points/demands/theories. Heal thyself?
6Gun, that’s laughable. You think that just because I said that I had to sit through “Sins of the Flesh†sermons that it was a big, traumatic, life-defining event to me? The emoticon I put there was just sarcastic. I’m done with your idiocy.
You tell me. All I know’s that I had fire and brimstone figured out at about 5 or 7, meaning without the degree.
Actually your psychoanalyzing Job’s God raised the questions. For a guy wrestling with biblical images, it seemed a little more conflicted. I’d assumed a psych MS would have a handle on that. Shame on me.
Anyway, happy new year.
Psyberian,
It’s become clear to me over the years that one of the ways people become “antiwar” is to start with an enormously inflated concept of what the military can do. Putative supporters of the war can get the same idea, and end up proposing things that simply won’t work because the only way they could work would be for Gandalf to do them.
This is especially true in the case of aerial bombing. Consider “carpet bombing”. In a former life I did a good bit of BDA (“bomb damage assessment”) from aerial photos of the target area. The bits where it happens are horrific, but in a photo covering an area a quarter mile square it can be quite difficult to actually find the scar.
Bombing, despite romanticism, is simply a very long-range form of artillery. The defense against artillery or bombing is simple, consisting of dispersal and digging holes. There are many, many instances of unprepared troops in the field enduring literally hours of continual bombardment with few casualties, by spreading out and digging foxholes or trenches. A “golden BB” can fall directly in the hole, but that’s nothing but pure bad luck, and the guys in the next hole over are unlikely to have any problems other than temporary loss of hearing. About the only way to really hurt a well-dug-in unit is to keep up the bombardment long enough to drive them nuts from the noise and danger.
In the case of industrial facilities or long-term headquarters complexes, one simply digs the holes first. Ten feet of ordinary dirt, combined with good bracing underneath, will render an installation well-nigh immune to aerial bombing, because no bomb an aircraft can carry will go all the way through and there’s no way to get enough airplanes carrying enough bombs to excavate it.
This is one of many reasons for building “smart bombs”. If you can put the second bomb into the first one’s hole you can penetrate the cover. The defender shrugs, digs deeper, covers the facility with a foot of reinforced concrete, and spreads twenty feet of dirt—which is a lot cheaper than airplanes and bombs and is ready to hand. The defender always has the advantage in such situations, given any warning at all.
This is also one of the motivations behind the existence of nukes in the first place, but they aren’t a magic wand, either. An air burst covers a lot of area, knocks down a lot of structures, and kills a lot of people, but the same ten feet of dirt used against ordinary bombs will shrug it off. A ground burst can penetrate fairly deeply, but compared to the potential area being defended it makes a little hole. Miss by a very small amount, and the defenders are up and around right away.
We have recently developed “penetrators”, bombs with sharp strong points that can pierce the ground. They’re heavy (so airplanes can’t carry very many of them) and make a deep but relatively small-diameter hole. There’s still a rather small maximum to how deep they can go, and something only a few meters away is unlikely to be damaged. They’re a sniper weapon, requiring dead-nuts targeting.
The mullahs know that very few people think that them having nukes is a good idea, and they have to have calculated that their facilities are likely to be attacked. The few photos and descriptions I’ve seen confirm that—the facilities are big (meaning it takes a lot of bombs to cover them), sparse (meaning most of those bombs destroy cheap dirt and concrete between the nodes of importance), and deep (meaning the bombs have to be big and heavy, therefore there will be fewer of them).
Conclusion: bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is unlikely to do any damage that can’t be quickly repaired. It’s possible that the mullahs are as romantic about the potential damage as you are, and will therefore blink at the threat. I’m not betting on that.
George Bush and his advisors know all this, in much greater detail than I do. Bill Clinton could bomb things and expect that it would influence the other side’s activities. That’s because Clinton was anti-military and had the usual inflated notion of it. Even if Bush doesn’t know all this, his military advisors do and he listens to them. Conclusion: there is more to this than meets the eye.
Regards,
Ric
Psyberian nee’ Tillman, you ain’t listening. I’ll say this one more time, so listen carefully:
An attack does not necessarily mean an invasion. I expect that all options are on the table at this time.
This concludes today’s session of Military 101.
Ric—excellent points there. Aerial bombardment is but one tool in the tool box, and not a solution in and of itself.
JeffS,
Thanks. Sorry to be so verbose. I get frustrated, and my fingers start poking keys
It’s also worthwhile that the verb being used is attack. That’s sort of, umm, general…
Regards,
Ric
Attack is a very general term. With some people, you have to speak slowly.
And as for verbose? Hey, your prose is most enlightening! And easy to read. Unlike, oh, cloudy.
I’d add patient too…
You’re better on a bad day than I am on a good one … “bourbon” notwithstanding:
When ignorance asks a stupid question, that’s worth kindness, courtesy, and the time spent, but when politically-charged adolescent dishonesty demands indulgence, and lives and freedoms are on the line, that’s when I get sarcastic.
By the left’s logic, we’d need no police; all mindsets are equivalent and criminal behavior is therefore the fault of pressure by The Man, his law, and trillions in funds he spends in order to float the mideast.
To a leftist, the only logical response would be them wanting to nuke us out of existence, thereby guarenteeing their own extinction by one means or another. Justifiably. To a leftist.
An interesting internal conflict for the party of centralized power who advocates for the third world.
Well said Ric. But I would add that a nuclear facility itself can’t be sparse, it has to be all in one place, although some of the auxiliary components can be sparse (like holding facilities, etc.). I’m getting the idea that we just don’t have the intelligence to pull it off (and don’t take that as any kind of criticism since I realize that good intel is really difficult in a lot of scenarios).
Also Ric, I believe you are right about high expectations from the military. For example, I thought that “bunker-busting†bombs could do a lot more and I didn’t realize that only a few could be carried by plane at a time because of their weight. I can see how it would be difficult to get them to take out the nukes even if we did have perfect intelligence. On the other hand, invasion is so costly – how many of those bombs could we drop there for say, the tens of billions already spent in Iraq?
JeffS, the reason I was talking about invasion is that you were implying that it wouldn’t do any good to just bomb them (your comment marked 12:05).
It might not be effective to bomb them, Psyberian. Or it might be. I’m a combat engineer, not a targeting specialist or wing commander. I know how I would disperse and harden those facilities against such an attack. But for every measure is a countermeasure. And sometimes, all you need is a very big hammer.
I honestly don’t know, except to say that there are smarter and more experienced people than me looking at this problem. And I’ve been wrong before. I’m really just trying to point out that the expectations of any such attack must be realistic.
TW: indeed. Indeed.
With all of Tillman/Psyberian’s silly references to Iraq, there is nonetheless one lesson from Iraq to apply to Iran. It will be very difficult to conclude that we’ve found all the necessary targets without a physical presence in Iran itself.
Jeff, you know how in ‘Flinch’, it’s best to have your bicep tensed up before you get punched? And your friend does several fake-outs to get you to relax, and then slams you when you are least expecting it? Yeah, it’s like that.
Sure, if Iran’s nuclear industry is vital to its security.
Or in simpler terms, “no”.
Sure, if Iran’s nuclear industry is vital to its security.
Since we’re discussing a possible attack by immensely superior military force which has only ever been deterred by the threat of nuclear force, it’s clear that nuclear weaponry is vital to Iran’s security.
The US bombed Serbia over Kosovo. It didn’t bomb Russia over Chechyna.