From the WSJ:
Anyone who still thinks a nuclear-armed Iran won’t pose a serious, and perhaps mortal, threat ought to consult this week’s bipartisan staff report from the House Intelligence Committee. Drawing on open-source information and mindful of classified background, the report lays out the history of Iranian nuclear deception and its attempts to promote trouble throughout the Middle East. It notes that “Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program.” And it discusses in detail Iran’s support for Hezbollah and other terror groups, as well as its continuing support for insurgents who are killing Americans in Iraq.
“A nuclear-armed Iran would likely embolden the leadership in Tehran to advance its aggressive ambitions in and outside of the region, both directly and through the terrorists it supports—ambitions that gravely threaten the stability and the security of U.S. friends and allies,” says the House Intelligence report. With a nuclear arsenal that they felt protected them from retaliation, the mullahs would also be more likely to use conventional military force in the Middle East. The domino effect as Turkey, Egypt and the Saudis sought their own nuclear deterrent would also not be “stabilizing,” to cite the highest value of our Middle Eastern “realists.” And don’t forget President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vow that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
The most dismaying part of the House report may be its admission that there are huge gaps in U.S. intelligence about Iran and its weapons programs. That was also the conclusion of the Robb-Silberman report on intelligence last year, and the House Committee also recommends that U.S. spooks devote far more resources and attention to Iran as a strategic threat.
No one wants a military confrontation with Iran, but those who want to avoid one have an obligation to show the mullahs that continuing on their current path will lead to isolation, economic suffering and worse. A U.N. Security Council that passes resolutions it refuses to enforce is itself a threat to global security.
This last point has been—and remains—the most crucial to make: We simply cannot entrust global security to an organization that has repeatedly shown itself corrupt, feckless, and—at the most crucial times, and against those state actors who actually pose threats to world security (as opposed to frequent condemnations of democracies)—incapable of backing up its own threats, which, it should be abundantly clear, emboldens countries not too terribly concerned about “world opinion” to play the UN like a grifter plays a greedy mark who erroneously believes himself in on the big con.
Yesterday I floated the idea the the administration—clearly at odds with its own intelligence sources on Iran—is using whatever time remains before Iran goes nuclear to highlight diplomatic futility (the same tack in used in the runup to Iraq) and point to the very clear threat Iran poses to the entire future order of the middle east so that, when the time comes, it will have legislative support for whatever action it must take, with or without the blessings of the rest of the Security Council. Because more than simply changing the middle east, a nuclear Iran will grow the threat from Islamic radicals exponentially, and could very well force a new social order in the west—and precipitate the very “clash of civilizations” we’ve gone to such great pains to avoid in the initial stages of framing this conflict.
For my efforts, I was painted as delusional (“Aren’t you swinging on vines that snap, and dump you into the bottom of the fertile but steep Grand Canyon?”), but I’m not so sure that’s fair.
Bush has said he will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If we take him at his word, then we must assume that the administration is prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent what could very well be the event that, should it happen, could change the way we live (would we, for instance, remain a relatively open-bordered and inviting country? Could we afford to be?).
Again, world diplomats are squirming about trying to look useful. But in the end, we all know that if anything is to be done to stop Iran, it is going to have to be orchestrated and led by the US. And it’s probably not too much of a stretch to believe that many in western Europe, as is there wont, are content to wait for just such a thing, then afterwards sit back and wring their hands, critique the efforts, and second guess from the umbrella of safety we provide them.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
I’m waiting for the left to blame Irans nuclear capability on Bush. Wait. Nevermind.
Well, they blame him for North Korea’s. Heck, they’d blame him for Russia’s if they hadn’t turned the Rosenbergs into martyrs.
“Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program.â€Â
This is a Zionist lie. Our biological weapons program is completely inoffensive. The virus to kill only Jews? A public service to the world that we happily perform.
Jeff, swinging on vines?!!
That’s a swipe at your inner-monkey, and you should feel deeply offended.
The WSJ’s piece is clearly intended as a wake-up call, but it will only work if people actually fear what the WSJ is alerting us to.
Fact is, “polite society” still seems confused as to whether a nuclear Iran is a good thing or a bad thing. Stating the obvious, like, “We cannot let the Mullahs get the Bomb!” still illicits stunned annoyance in nuanced, “thinking” circles. Until that changes, the WSJ can bang on its gong all day, and at least half of the nation, anesthetized by 24/7 soft news-porn will hit snooze, and go back to sleep.
I’m glad the WSJ ponied up. But don’t expect the rest of the establishment media to provide the eye-opening analysis of the Iranian threat that it owes the American public. After election 2000, they’ve been on extended leave
-Steve
Kinda reminds me of the Amity Island mayor in “Jaws” who didn’t give a rats rectum the problem until it was HIS kid in the water when the shark struck. His remarks at the hospital could be part of the Democratic platform.
This is a pretty good description of the CIA, come to think of it.
I think in order to show Iran how serious we are about taking them out if need be, we need to show that enough Americans are willing to fight and die if necessary. A good place to start would be with College Republicans, a well-known bastion of patriotic Americans of prime military age. If they were all to pledge to enlist in the Army or Marines instead of spending Mommy and Daddy’s money at the frat-house, that would show Iran how serious we are. I hear there are some 200,000 College Republicans. Enough to man some 8-10 divisions of combat troops. And we’ll need them, as Iran is more than double the size of Iraq in both territory and population, with a tougher Army, and with much more difficult terrain to boot. It won’t be easy so lets start hitting those recruiting offices folks!
Well, of course. All of the college democrats would be picking cane sugar in Cuba or writing liberation poetry in between bong hits.
Speaking of delusional, here we see an excellent example of the pre-emptive chickenhawk strawman argument.
For our next lesson, the topic will be the ”Pre-emptive dovehawk strawman argument”, where we will discuss the use of College Non-Republicans as human shields in various American cities against nuclear attack.
TW: If I don’t make sense, then neither does Cromagnon.
Is the knuckledragger a parody?
Damn, I hope so…because if it tries to reconcile its “chickenhawk” perfidy with the facts that the current troops overwhelmingly didn’t come Democrat households … it might get nasty in here cleaning up the bits of exploding empty cranium.
I do get the sense that a bit of this post was tongue in cheek but overall you are quite correct. There are limits to air power—as we have recently been reminded—and we are not strong enough to tangle with the Iranians on their own turf at this time with our current obligations. Expand the Land Forces.
Nor am I looking forward to a war with Iran or anyone else. However, it is our national interest to control that part of the world, as well as to prevent others (Iran, Russia, China) from controlling it, and to do so, we have to project more combat strength. It is the task of our political and intellectual leadership to persuade the American people of the necessity of our society becoming more militarized to cope with coming threats.
It may be said in some sense that the threats are not, or not yet, “real.” I agree. But it is also real and true that our economy (and that of our trade partner allies) is keyed to oil, there is finite oil, and most of it is in the Middle East. Ergo we have to control it, and that means projecting the threat of defeating anyone who might think of contesting it with us, and that includes Iran, but also Russia, and China. Our nuclear deterrent is not going to be used as a first option. Airpower simply unites people around the enemy and provides photo ops for CNN. We need soldiers. Period.
Oh… btw
Dead on Michael Ramirez
The only think I know for sure is that whatever happens, the Europeans will sit on their ass and do nothing and then, when it’s over with, complain that we did it all wrong. Our homegrown pussies will concur. That’s all I know of for sure.
We should let them graduate so they can be commissioned. If we’re going to fly over Iran, there’s going to be an officer at the stick, not an enlisted guy.
I suppose that asking a cromagnon to keep up would be a pointless excercise.
Cromagnon
How dare you say that we should send the rich elite class to die for all of us dumb po people.
Jeff,
Hopefully, in the coming months or years our actions will speak louder than the rest of the world’s words.
Death, taxes, Euro-trash weasels carping and caviling from the sidelines, and the “progressive” American Left trying to imitate them. Yep, pretty good list of what’s certain to be in this fallen world.
Hmmm.
All very important I’m sure. But let’s get to something that really is important:
I’m 5’ 9” and 250lbs guy with an ass the size of a medium sized buick.
How would I look in a polka dot thong bikini?
‘Cause that song about the itsy-bitsy polka dot bikini has really, you know, whetted my appetite for one.
sw: it’s time to take stock of your assets I always say!
My daughter’s boyfriend just received his master’s this summer, and reports to the Navy in a few weeks to begin officer training and fly fighters (he already has his private and commericial pilot’s licenses).
While the “All War is Bad” kum-by-ah crowd engages in alternating days of demanding people join the military with days of calling troops “murderers” and “rapists”, fine young men and women from middle and upper class homes are quietly entering the military or re-enlisting.
“will grow the threat from Islamic radicals exponentially”
I cringe at the Clintonesque.
Some of us *are* on our lunch break here. Sweet Jesus!
Benjamin Netanyahu said recently that the world must understand that Bush is totally committed to Iran not becoming a nuclear power.
Think about it: Who better to take on Iran and absorb the inevitable global firestorm of high-pitched screeching and jowel-shaking condemnation than an unpopular lame-duck president who gives not a fig for polls?
Did Cromagnon already fuck off without being told?
What a letdown.
It’s probably simpler—and yet more—than that. I think it’s part PR (as Jeff suggests), part hoping to have a better situation in Iraq by the time an attck is necessary. As the type of attack posited by most is limited to about a dozen sites, I think it’s at least even money that—if it happens—Congress would get informed after the planes are in the air and presented with the fait accompli, justified by the need for tactical surprise.
tw: However, I could be completely wrong.
Darleen sez:
Meanwhile…
Like Father, Like Son
BTW: Given the possibility of an attack before the election, I’m shocked the Left is not already preemptively questioning the timing…
Steve, our society does not have to become more militarized. I am beginning to suspect that you are a “seminar” commenter as Rush might say. This is not a conventional war.
What’s a seminar commenter?
How do you propose to maintain US control in the region? By raising the recruiting age to FORTY ONE? Seriously.
Our war against Al Qaeda et al. is not a conventional war. Our struggles in Iraq, conceived a a fractricidal war among Iraqis, with foreign proxies, is conventional. Just look at Europe, starting in 1936 or so. Any war with Iran will be conventional.
Let’s take this one step further and if MajorJohn is there his insight would be invaluable.
So the US lauches an air attack of some kind (B2’s, cruise’s, etc.) that has the net effect of severely damaging Itan’s nuclear capability thus
a) With our woeful intellegence, how will we know the effectiveness of the raid.
b) Are we in a position deal with an Iranian strategic response including, but not limited to:
1) A missile attack on Israel
2) A ground attack into Iraq, perhaps coordinated with some kind of support from Al Sadr’s people.
3) A coordinated terror attack of some kind.
4) A general uprising of Hamas and/or Hezbullah.
I’m not trying to be a “glass half empty with flat soda water” guy, just curious as to everyone’s views about the above.
BJTexs, I totally agree that there are big problems with a surprise pre-emptive assault.
#1 There will probably be very high (10 K+) collateral damage,
#2 There will be no way of knowing what we have accomplished,
#3 Iran will be able to do anything in retaliation,
#4 Our only retaliation to that will be more bombs, which will simply result in more collateral damage, etc. etc.
When I skimmed the story I thought he was talking about the CIA at first also, had to go back and read it again. That is pretty fucking scary.
I am thinking we may have more help than you realize.
BMoe, quoting a Ralph Peters column from six months ago is not the most effective argument. And it doesn’t really go to the point of maintaining an effective deterrent of Iran.
B Moe,
The OIF link is broken.
I favor subletting occupation to the Indians in exchange for 50% of Iranian oil production for ten years. Tell China that if they give up Communism we’ll let them put in a tender in compettition in ten years. If they take out the Norks within the next twelve months.
Install Windows Vista beta 2 on all their computers.
My estimates are:
a) Air strikes by themselves are generally not effective; it takes a coordinated a ground assault for that. The only exception that I’m aware of are air strikes on a completely unprepared and unsuspecting target (e.g., terrorists hiding in a farmhouse. Against an enemy who is prepared for that scenario, which Iran surely is, feedback on the damage is not the concern. So it’s not a matter of having good intelligence on the ground, but being able to attack at all. I see this as an “all or nothing option”, although I suppose if we depleted our convention warhead stockpiles on one or two targets, or go nuclear ourselves, I suppose we could be effective.
So your question is presented wrong. Ask rather, “Are we prepared to go all the way in attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?”
b) If we attack Iran, it’ll be war, and probably to the knife; Iran has set it up that way. And that’s why I rephrased your question.
But if someone figured out a way to take the Iranian nuclear infrastructure from the air (a really hard assumption for me to swallow), the answers to your questions might be:
a) We won’t. Israel might.
b1) Israel has Patriot missile batteries of known capability, and Iran’s missile capability is largely unproven. Although missile technology is well developed, you don’t know unless you fire test shots. Combining the two means, I think, that Israel has a chance to reduce or eliminate the threat of attack. But assuming nuclear armed missiles from Iran, that’s a terrible risk to accept.
b2) Might be a problem. Iraq’s new Army and the Coalition will have problems dealing with both another rise by Sadr and an invasion. OTOH, Iran’s military is largely untested in combined arms battles, and Sadr, in spite of having a large following, is little more than a gangster. The odds are better than you might think.
b3) I can’t fully assess this, as it is too vague. Depends on how wide spread the attack is; in Iraq? Middle East? Europe? America? At most, I’d see it as diversionary.
b4) This would be a problem for Israel, but Hamas is struggling to survive, and Hezballah just took some serious battle damage, even if the recent cease fire was in their favor. I think that their ability to influence Israel is far less than one might think.
Overall? We would have dark days, no question about it. But I am confident of our capability to see it through……if we can get the pro-terrorist elements in the west to STFU.
I’ve been skeptical of the theory that the administration’s biding time until all other World Community avenues have been traveled, but maybe there is something to it. There is a strange inversely-related aspect to world politics at the moment; the buildup of Iran’s nuclear capability combined with fiery rhetoric, and, in the face of this, an enabling western culture that shows its willingness to accept (or ignore) the threat, and advance the belief that Israel disarmed or eliminated is the best course for world peace.
It may just be that the West, namely Europe, will admit the failure of diplomacy and once again turn to America’s strength to finish off the problem. They truly believe in diplomacy, it’s an admirable belief at that. But even diplomacy has its limit, and when that limit is reached, who can be called on to deal with it from therer? The U.S. and its allies, of course. But will the call happen before it’s too late?
Maybe you weren’t paying attention during the eighties, but the Iraqis fought the Iranians to a draw. They now have three years of intensive training under the best military in history, and state of the art American equipment instead of Soviet hand me downs. That is a pretty fucking effective deterent.
Why should we care about collateral damage among our enemy’s population? They don’t, and they certainly don’t consider our civilians to be anything other than legitimate, even desirable, targets.
Bmoe, I gather you are saying that the new Iraqi army is a credible deterrent to Iran’s nuclear and hegemonic ambitions. Duly noted.
Steve, you might be surprised to know that Rummy himself is lukewarm about adding to the standing Army/Marines. The democrats nominally are in favor but that is meaningless since they will not generally favor the use of force unless it is not in our national interest. As the invasion of Iraq showed no conventional army can stand against us even in the relatively weak condition we were in back in ‘03.
When (not if) we knock out Iran’s enrichment facility we should go ahead and bomb their reactors under construction (I believe they are also constructing or planning to construct a heavy water reactor which can be used to make plutonium directly from unenriched Uranium).
A “seminar” commenter would be a pretend conservative such as yourself.
And incidentally Steve, I have not forgotten your disingenuous prediction with Mona-like certainty that Israel would not invade Lebanon…so your crystal ball is a little tarnished.
Not at all, Noah. Now that you brought it up, I was right. The Israelis hardly “invaded”, they simply raided, and then got out real fast. I didn’t want to bring it up, but I was one of the very few who was skeptical of the assurance that Israel was “shaping the battlefield” with its infra-structure bombing.
LOL. Now you deny reality? That settles the lingering suspicion that you are a moonbat!
No, that doesn’t surprise me at all.
I’ve been a registered republican for almost 40 years. I am furthermore a veteran of the armed services of the United States and a Roman Catholic. It’s true, I thought all of the assurances about how easy the war in Iraq was going to be were BS, and it turned out I was right about that too. I have furthermore been proved right about the ineffectiveness of bombing alone, not only in Iraq (“Shock and Awe”) but also in Lebanon. However, disagreeing with this administration’s foreign policy does not justify questioning someone’s conservative credentials. Thank you.
Yeah, right, go for it.
Come on, Noah. Tell me about Israel’s “invasion” of Lebanon. Tell me all about it.
Are not the Israelis still occupying Southern Lebanon south of the Litani River…waiting for the UN force that apparently will never come? But then I only know what I read in the newspapers….couldn’t be true. If you thought you were so right how come you disappeared from the comment threads for weeks? Now you reappear in all your geopolitical genius!! LOL!!
Eh, steve, in this game, you score a touchdown or you don’t. Did Israel invade Lebanon?
Yep.
Actually, Noah, I usually have much more important things to do than to go around the blogosphere and be slandered about my conservative credentials. However, once in awhile I like to drop by.
So … Israel invaded Lebanon, even though they cannot control the terrain, nor eliminate Hezbollah. Sounds like a plan.
The problem as I see it is that for a guy trumpeting conservative credentials, you seem to have the argument backwards.
For instance, I’m a registared Independant who considers himself a “Reagon Conservative.” I really don’t have any significant issues with our foreign policy but carry SEVERAL rather large issues on entitlements, education, immigration policy and pork barrel politics.
I’m not saying that you can’t call yourself a conservative, I’m just saying that your backwards from what I usually hear from conservative circles.
Of course, it may just be Nedrenaline frying my synapses.
A ceasefire, steve. The war is still on, and will certainly kick off once again without a truce, armistice, peace treaty, etc.
I’d put my money on white and blue, not yellow and black. My inside tip.
Furthermore, the issue with Israel invading Lebanon was not about whether some Israeli dude was going to go across the border and pee on some UN observer kiosk. The issue was whether Israel was going to invade in force, and, needless to say, then act in such a way to make it actually appear as though they did invade in force. Either they failed at the first, or the second, or both, but I do know that many Israel commentators are highly P.O.’d at the gubmint over there right now.
Yeah, about that.
They’re still there, you see.
I have never made any bones about how GDub screwed up this war (in my opinion, of course), and that we have made many mistakes. I am not for precipitate withdrawal, but I am also not in favor of having our guys (and gals) exposed to ultimately pointless IED action.
What I find irksome on the right wing blogosphere is a failure to recognize that “winning” this “WOT” or whatever you want to call what promises to be a decades long engagement with the Muslim world is not going to be “solved” with hi-tech bombs, air power, cruise missiles, nor even nukes. If we want to win, not just on the ground in Iraq, but overall, we need a much stronger national commitment to war fighting and a larger armed force. Just sitting around and saying, “Well, we can bomb this, bomb that” is not going to do it, either in the armchair or in reality.
I am not interested in more war. No. But one way to avoid more war is paradoxically to be more prepared for war. And that means increasing the size of our defense establishment, people under arms, etc. etc. If there are those who think we can do without those things, and still control the ME pipeline, well, your choice. I am saying that that choice loses in the end.
I think you are all severely underestimating the utility of air power here. For fixed, strategic targets, it is a fairly useful tool. I would appreciate it if you could expand a bit further on why it looks unappealing to folks.
Thanks,
BRD
Oh Steve, the fevered moonbat brain never ceases to amaze. Saddam’s military forces WERE essentially defeated by air power plus the threat of annihilation by the onrushing ground force of the Coalition. Remember? Of course you are right things haven’t gone exactly as planned since then but then exactly nobody predicted the extent of the “insurgency”. If you can dig up something of yours from a pre-invasion thread predicting it I will apologize for calling you a moonbat. Until then not a chance.
As you pitch to expand the armed forces and moan when they actually attack anything at all, it seems, steve. So what are your 12 extra divisions of troops sitting in splendid garrison doing, steve?
Exactly. Being exposed to pointless IED attacks.
I assume you mean Iran. Damage estimates I have heard about and/or seen indicate that the collateral damage for any bombing program that effectively disabled Iran’s nuclear prod facilities would be very high. I recognize that most blogosphere folks don’t care about that, but, in the event it happens,I don’t think it will be good for us.
For one thing, if we attack Iran, we either have to promise to occupy and thus regulate the oil flow, or be prepared to open our strategic oil reserves. Because what would in effect be a war with Iran without occupation would have a lot of people running on empty.
BRD, air power is like throwing punches; extremely useful in hurting your enemy.
But in war, like a fist fight, most fights end up decided on the ground.
Don’t quite follow you, Steve. You argue that the the war cannot be won with “hi-tech bombs, air power, cruise missiles, nor even nukes;” and offer that the solution to the problem is a “stronger national commitment to war fighting and a larger armed force.
With what do you propose this larger force be armed besides bombs, planes and missiles?
Oh,and this stronger national commitment you speak of? Do you say the commitment to “war fighting” should be stronger? Still don’t understand.
I did, but I didn’t even know about this place back then. In fact, I predicted a long, and protracted inability to establish order, along with an ongoing insurgency, and possible civil war.
Calling me a lefty, huh? You’re ignorant and your ad hominems don’t help.
Verc: What exactly have I been “moaning” about? The fact that the Iraq war was screwed up?
I tell you what I would do with 12 extra devisions. I would rotate them in and out of Camp Chesty Puller, Camp Dan Daly, and Camp Smedley Butler, all located on the Iranian border. I would waste time on patrollling Iraqi streets except to give my troops a chance to get blooded on our terms.
So now Steve is an expert on the global oil market as well!! IIRC Iran’s oil production is declining due to mismanagement (like Venezuela’s) and is around 3% or so of the world supply.
He needs new factoids to prop up his theory. Can anybody help the poor misguided Republican?
Angler: I am saying that the number of people the USA has available in the traditional combat arms of infantry, tanks, and artillery is too low to CONTROL THE TERRAIN of the countries that we either occupy now, or may need to occupy for strategic purposes in coming years.
Noah: I gather you are saying that a weeks long bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States will not signficantly disrupt world oil production, nor will the price of oil increase. Duly noted.
Applause to Verc. Air war, unto itself, is not decisive. You can not dominate the battlefield from the air; at best, you can bomb the enemy into inconvenience, hardly an acceptable objective. Witness the air campaigns in WWII….the Germans and the Japanese did not surrender simply from aerial bombardments. They surrendered when they had bayonets at their throats (for Japan, the bayonet was in part steel, and in nuclear…..as the Allied invasion force was assembling off Japan when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked).
War is not decisive until you put an 19 year old with a rifle on the objective. Anything else is hubris. This was so in WWII, and remains true in this day and age.
But Steve, how were they going to establish order except by patrolling Iraqi streets back in ‘03?
Next up “we shouldn’t have disbanded the Iraqi army”.
Followed by “should have had more boots on the ground”.
But not “should have shot looters on sight”. Too mean.
Standard moonbat talking points except they are insincere.
I very much agree with this assessment.
I am starting to take steve less and less seriously. All we get is a drumbeat to increase the size of the Armed Forces, and then a series of remarks about how in no way can we use force (ie. “we are not strong enough to tangle with the Iranians on their own turf at this time with our current obligations.” Bombs will only get us bad press and kill the innocent, blah blah, blah).
We have plenty enough combat power available to wax the Iranian military – should we choose to do so. Will we choose to do so is the question, not do we have the ability to do so.
Alot of this hinges on the situation at the time to decide. After Iraq, we cannot count on much support without endless repetitions of “but what about the Iraqi WMDs”? The only thing that could tip it is an Iranian declaration of nuclear capability followed by a test or some other demonstration. That is the worst of it.
If we attack with a limited goal of knocking out the Iranian nuclear capability; air power,naval power and very limited SOF would be enough. How do you tell if you succeeded? Satellites, aircraft, SOF on the ground, spies, drones…
Targets would be a series of delicate and fixed facilities – hardened though the Iranians might have tried to make them. Producing a nuclear weapon isn’t the same as banging AKs out or even making car parts.
No Steve, I didn’t say that. Apparently you can’t read either. I was implying rather strongly that you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. That is all.
I know what people are thinking: because I want to expand the armed forces, re-institute the draft (actually I’d like universal conscription), and so on and so forth, that I am not sincere. It is assumed that I am a closet lefty who is just saying those things because “everyone knows” that those things will “never” happen, and therefore, to advocate them is to (secretly) advocate surrender.
But that’s not where I’m at. I do believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, as conceived and executed, and I do think that Bush and his defense establishment are morons, but I’m not interested in talking about that. I’m interested in getting us ready for the future, and the future will involve the kinds of changes I have advocated. I submit that, unless these changes are made, we will ultimately lose. So there.
Bow before true military genius, you pikers.
In general I try to be nice and respectful to people who disagree with me, and I am amused at how quickly people abuse people who don’t agree with them about their “bombing to win” fantasies.
Okay, fair enough, go ahead, continue with your fantasies about controlling Iran and the ME with minimal risk and minimal loss of life to American troops. See you.
RJS, seems like I recall Israel knocked out Iraq’s Osirak reactor what 30 years ago? Seemed to have had a lasting effect on their nuclear program and not a single ground troop was involved.
I gathered that, Steve. But I take it that you don’t feel we’re sufficiently CONTROLLING THE TERRAIN right now in Iraq – instead subjecting the men and women there to needles IED attacks.
Will more boots on the ground in Iraq, or a “stronger war fighting commitment” increase or decrease the IED targets, as you’ve described them.
And should we be required to invade and occupy Iran, will we find that the population is somehow incapable of constructing IEDs? Won’t whatever force necessary to CONTROL THE TERRAIN there be just as vulnerable to IEDs?
steve, if I am reading him right, is calling for an increase in the military campagin. To wit, depose the current Iraqi government, deploy massive military forces along the Iraq-Iran border, and then proceed to really fuck with Iran.
I have to admit, that has a certain appeal. But only in a comic book sense, as it assumes the following:
1. Congress will authorize and fund such a build up, unseen since the Korean War, or perhaps WWII. (Hint: keep up to speed on Congressional news.)
2. We can depose the elected Iraqi government in such a fashion that the Iraqi people accept an American governor and (possibily) a quisling Iraqi government. (Hint, note that part of the insurgency is a genuine insurgency, working to get the Coalition out of Iraq.)
3. The Iranians are going to sit on their duffs waiting for us to accomplish these noble goals. (Hint: the Iranian mullahs may be mad, but they ain’t stupid.)
steve, not having seen your predictions at the time you made them, I can’t say that you’re right or wrong. But your base line assumptions are so simplistic (if not outright) naive that I have to wonder if you are perhaps rewriting history somewhat.
I say that because you engaging in serious conversation, but sounding like a high school student playing a computer war game, and not with the lives of our soldiers and people.
I actually agree with you on one general point: Iran needs to be firmly quashed. We differ in just how we do that. I’m not especially happy with the current situation, but I’m not going to moan about what we should have done, and engage in strategc fantasies.
It’s not that I think you are not sincere, I think that you not realistic. There’s a difference.
TW: The only difference is a word.
steve, I would differ with you on this, most strongly. I have, literally, bet my life on their efficacy.
And you might even find 1% of the Armed Forces that would actually agree with that. The rest of us 99% cringe, hard, when we hear “draft” or “conscription”. A lot of bodies is not an answer – those bodies need to be trained, motivated, dedicated people that are properly equipped, experienced and the like. That is if you want them to perform at a high level… If you just want guys to depress triggers and empty magazines- well, conscript away.
Correct. But that attack succeeded largely because no one expected the Israeli’s to violate the air space of several (Muslim) nations, penetrate deep into Iraq, and destroy the reactor. The element of surprise was the decisive element there.
For Iran? They can learn from 30 odd years of improvements in aerial warfare technology. They know what can be done, and attempt to mitigate for.
Major John has more experience in this than I do. My perspective is that of a combat engineer, and I know that if I am prepared to piss off THE major world power (who has a demonstrated military capability thanks to cable TV and the INTERNET) by going nuclear, I would do everything that I could to protect my nuclear infrastructure.
I couldn’t give 100% protection. But I could make it very very very difficult and expensive. All I need is money, material, labor, and time. The Iranians have had plenty of those.
So while I know that Major John is perfectly correct, I also know that for every measure, there’s a countermeasure. We can damage the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, and possibly set it back, in itself a noble ambition. I know that we could not destroy it. And if we want to stop this madness, the current Iranian government has to be removed.
Remember, it took us almost 30 years, from Osirak to Operation Iraqi Freedom, to do that for Iraq. Let’s keep that lesson in mind.
Yep, Rummy thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and he is usually right. They had a Final Jeopardy question a couple of weeks ago “ the youngest SecDef in US history?”…all the contestants missed it! Guess who? The guy is brilliant.
I’m with you on this one, Major John. Cringing is putting it mildly, in fact.
TW: never. ‘Nuff said.
It was pretty easy. Only took a month or so.
But the peace is a bitch. Or, the war on terror, aka the war on Islamic fascism, if you prefer. No matter what you want to call it, it’s a motherf*cker. And we have no choice but to win it. Welcome to the long hard slog.
Rolling Iraq was a piece of cake, though. We kicked serious ass in a major hurry, Baghdad Bob notwithstanding.
He’s also the oldest, and if he hangs in there a bit longer, he’ll be the longest serving.
/Rummy fanboy
The Japanese did.
Actually the destruction of Iran’s super duper 75 feet underground enrichment facility is trivial even without nuclear weapons.
A kinetic energy weapon from space ie 50 tons of depleted uranium with a lightweight ablation shield. SPLAT! End of story.
No collateral damage except the janitors because you want to follow the Clinton precedent when he bombed Iraq and be careful not to kill anyone important!!
Steve,
I think the key assertion to question would be the need to “control the ground” in Iran. Airpower is lousy at it, but if you don’t need to control the ground to achieve your policy objectives, then you don’t need to mess with it.
As far as the collateral damage associated with an attack on Iranian facilities, I would be interested in any links you might be able to provide.
As far as the broader perspective on Iraq, the decision was made, on troop levels, about how many would be needed and whether or not such a presence was sustainable from a rotation standpoint. At this juncture, one might be able to make a case for more troops, but what I am hearing is telling me that the combatant commanders don’t feel the need for more troops.
BRD
We could even claim it was a meteor!
Sigh. Pablo, re-read your history. I don’t want to go way off tangent on semantics, but the Japanese were bombarded by Allied aircraft to hell and back throughout the war, after being beat back across the Pacific in a bloody island-by-island campaign where they experienced, first hand, American air power. The Japanese knew what to expect.
However, the Japanese were, in fact, preparing to resist the expected invasion literally down to the last child, up until to August 1945, when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Suddenly, surrender was an option with the Japanese government (separate from the Emperor who, if I recall correctly, wanted peace years before).
And even then, a vocal minority of the Japanese Army lead a failed coup in an attempt to avoid surrender.
Air power played a major role in defeating Japan—no argument. But air power alone did not defeat Japan. As Verc said, every fight goes to ground, sooner or later.
LOL, noah! Yeah, that would do it. First, though, we need 50 tons of DU, and then we need to lift it into orbit.
But my thought is, if we can’t assemble 50 tons of DU, d’ya think Michael Moore might be a good substitute?
RJS, alternative history is so fascinating. (I learned to say that in charm school you know). So I will give it a shot too. We didn’t have the bomb until late…after Germany was already defeated. Who is to say that a concerted nuclear attack on both would not have shortened the war considerably.
Fact is that we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they surrendered. I won’t dispute that a faction wanted to fight on but that faction did not prevail. End of argument. Or should be sighs notwithstanding.
RJS, you are so clever. In fact we have thousands of tons of DU laying around…why do you think we use it in tank/artillery rounds? (Hint: its left over from the Uranium enrichment process). And yes such a weapon could be assembled in space. Actually I’m pretty sure 50 tons would do it but less might well suffice.
Noah, if we must dive into alternate histories, let’s smack a 50 ton kinetic energy weapon on Berlin and Tokyo in 1937, and then declare it to be an act of God in favor of democracy.
That would drive the moonbats to bark even more shrilly, eh?
noah, shhhhhhh! Which would you rather see converted into plasma due to kinetic energy—50 tons of DU or Michael Moore?
Let’s have priorities here, eh?
Jeff, you said:
History as I remember it:
Little Boy dropped on Hiroshims, 8/6/45
Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki, 8/9/45
Japan surrenders, 8/14/45, or a couple days after they figured out what the fuck just hit them.
Aerial bombardment caused Japan to surrender. Boots on the ground did not.
Now you are finally coming to your senses except for a couple of really bothersome details!
But keep trying!!
All,
Steve has repeatedly shown himself to be a fairly sophisticated troll. As with the others, best to ignore.
In general air power cannot “win” a war as you do have to occupy the territory. However, in Iran our only real needs are to disarm their most potent weapons and try to decapitate the government. Monstrous bunker busters may not wipe out the entire nuke program but sure should slow their butts down. There is a certain merit in simply going after leadership. Maybe drop several hundred laser designators to or close to any groups that might be inclined to change the current management of Iran. A few friendly airstrikes later, just to help a brother out you understand, and Iran may not be a problem at all.
Look folks, air power and ground power aren’t really a mutually exclusive set of phenomena. When it gets down to cases, they’re different manifestations of organized violence which are indivdually more or less useful in achieving specific policy outcomes.
Or, to quote the commercial, “Sometimes you feel like a nut, Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don’t”
Major John once again hit the head of the nail. I first enlisted in the earliest years of the all volunteer force and got my commission in the middle of the Reagan years. Let me tell you, all during that time the Professional military folks had no desire whatsoever to go back to the draft.
You want to piss off a liberal that’s talking about drafting…tell them you are pretty sure that they don’t have any skills or talents the military would be interested in. In essence they are not good enough for military service. In todays military that is the truest thing you can say. Leftards seem to only understand cannon fodder.
Pablo, add in eight words, and I agree completely with you:
Otherwise, let’s not quibble over the difference between bombardment with nuclear and conventional weapons, nor which Pacific islands the boots were on.
No argument there, RC. I think it all comes down to what is truly needed to disarm Iran’s most potent weapons and try to decapitate the Iranian government.
Jeff, I think the first 3 you want to add get the job done. Boots on islands caused them concern. 2 huge fucking kabooms broke them. And those who delivered those crushing blows didn’t even have to spend the night.