What is the U.S. going to do about Iran? It seems that President Bush has decided to spend his political capital (does he have any?) on Iraq. Benny Morris in an editorial in The Jerusalem Post says this:
IN SHORT order, therefore, the incompetent leadership in Jerusalem would soon confront a doomsday scenario, either after launching their marginally effective conventional offensive or in its stead, of launching a preemptive nuclear strike against the Iranian nuclear program, some of whose components are in or near major cities. Would they have the stomach for this? Would their determination to save Israel extend to preemptively killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran?
This dilemma had long ago been accurately defined by a wise general: Israel’s nuclear armory is unusable. It can only be used too early or too late. There will never be a “right” time. Use it “too early,” meaning before Iran acquires similar weapons, and Israel will be cast in the role of international pariah, a target of universal Muslim assault, without a friend in the world; “too late” means after the Iranians have struck. What purpose would that serve?
So Israel’s leaders will grit their teeth and hope that somehow things will turn out for the best. Perhaps, after acquiring the Bomb, the Iranians will behave “rationally”?
BUT THE Iranians are driven by a higher logic. And they will launch their rockets. And, as with the first Holocaust, the international community will do nothing. It will all be over, for Israel, in a few minutes – not like in the 1940s, when the world had five long years in which to wring its hands and do nothing. After the Shihabs fall, the world will send rescue ships and medical aid for the lightly charred. It will not nuke Iran. For what purpose and at what cost? An American nuclear response would lastingly alienate the whole Muslim world, deepening and universalizing the ongoing clash of civilizations. And, of course, it would not bring Israel back. (Would hanging a serial murderer bring back his victims?)
So, will the world wait? And in so doing, is Israel’s fate already sealed?
Melville said it best:
Israel will retaliate if Iran nukes them first.
I think our best hopes are for a new revolution in Iran (which seems unlikely) or conventional strikes that can take out their nuclear facilities. Nobody’s going to use nukes pre-emptively.
Well, what a hell of a quwstion to start the week with! This is really more like a Thursday or Friday question.
But are we up to the task? You betcha!
Iran is going to need it’s knuckles rapped sometime in the not too distant future. I don’t pretend to have a clue about what is actually going on over there, except that it appears to be quite nutso, and in the control of certifiable lunatics.
If the Israelis won’t do anything, Bush will have to. There is no one else on the horizon who even has half the stones we need to deal with the fanatical idiots who now control Iran. Once the Iranians have a deliverable nuke, the world changes in a huge way – forever. It should be an unthinkable outcome to any sane human being on the planet. Unfortunately, it’s the new millennium, and thoughtfulness and self preservation seem to have gone the way of the horse and buggy.
I have always thought that the Chinese were our #1 future problem, but it seems that they have been knocked aside for the time being, As scary as the specter of war with the Chinese is, they can’t hold a candle to a nuclear Iran. The Iranian whacks are some truly scary dudes, who think that Armageddon is the first priority..
The Iranians want a bomb because they are surrounded by nuclear countries, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia. It’s defensive. While the Post, in typical hysterical fashion, attempts to frighten its American readers into making the American govt “do something,” the Iranian bomb is half as dangerous as the Pakistani bomb in that it less likely to fall into real crazies hands (Pakistan created the Taliban and allows some crazy jihadis to conduct terrorism operation in Kashmir). A jihadist coup in Islaamabad is way more dangerous than Iraq with a bomb.
Hell, half the reason they want a bomb is because we won’t attack them.
Several portions of American society are going to have to come to grips with the truth of nukes. Unfortunately, they are not the province of Western, rich nations any longer. Many Third World nations are acquiring them. Non-Proliferation is failing. Reacting to that new reality doesn’t require the bombing of every Los Alamos in the world
I think timmy has set a new record for total amount of stupid in just two paragraphs.
Maybe we should just have a yard sale and get rid of our old nukes. I wouldn’t mind having one of those babies in my garage. The neighbors woulde never screw with me again. They would either be too frightened, or maybe they would be a bunch of tiny little black cinders.
We love options, huh?
Eric is right… Israel would not only retaliate, but it would do so because it would have a moral duty to do so. Morris’ “So what would be the point?” is a shockingly amoral statement. For nuclear terrorism to be sanctioned with a non-response would be tantamount to a wholesale surrender of all civilization.
Left unexamined by Morris is how an Iranian-sponsored holocaust would not be a sufficient catalyst for a deepened and universalized clash of civilizations. I’m thinking it would definitely be kind of a low point.
And that’s why Ahmadinejad can’t shut up about annihilating Israel—yet doesn’t say a word about defending against Pakistan, India or Russia.
No, but it will certainly save any future victims from the fate of their predecesors…
Melissa, I would hope not for if true and Israel’s fate is sealed so is ours. I remember from prophecy teaching that the U.S. does not fare well in the Armageddon scenario and that scares the hell out of me. Do we make it happen and do nothing or perhaps cause Armageddon by trying to do the right thing?
/not a good prospect either way now is it?
So long as it has no nuclear capability, Iran is safe from preemptive nuclear attack.
If however it used a nuclear weapon on Israel, I truly believe that it would be annihilated in return. Almost certainly by Israel, but failing that by America. I regret I doubt the moral courage of my own country to respond correctly in this hypothetical circumstance, and I think we can all agree the French response would be one of those cute gallic shrugs.
As far as being surrounded by nuclear armed states is concerned, and also with regard to the extreme danger of Islamabad already having a nuclear capability and the means to deliver it, I have, probably for the only time in my life, to concede that what timmy has said is not entirely wrong.
Still, alphie admitted that he was wrong yesterday and I am unreasonably euphoric in consequence. It won’t last.
B Moe, classy response as always.
McGehee, Ahmadinejad’s bluster is just that. News reports from inside Iran, including where he was booed at Teheran University, would seem to indicate most of the younger generation is against him. The Israel thing is all about rhetoric. Besides, Ahmadinejad is the elected President and elected Presidents in Iraq are not a) autocrats or b) all that powerful. Power is wielded behind the scenes by the kooks in Islamic Courts and the religious council (which I can’t remember the name of).
Iran wants a bomb because it is tre chic in their neighborhood and, rumor has it, if you have one, the Americans won’t attack you.
On the other hand, an offensive strike by Iran against Israel would allow the result in the complete destruction of Iran. the Israelis have been building their arsenal of weapons for 30 years. The Iranians are 5-10 years from having one.
Poor Tom Rose. Life doesn’t seem fair unless there’s a war to gin up. He’ll get his mojo back somehow.
I was right, it didn’t last.
So, can I infer from that that you are in favor of a US missile defense system and airborne laser?
TimmyB
Your logic is flawed. You should reexamine your thinking on the subject. Focus on how you got to the place where the mans actions are going to be based on his polling at Tehran U. Also, what is it that makes you think the words coming out of his mouth, which are echoed by the other parts of his government, are mere rhetoric? When someone is saying things as potentially dangerous as he is, don’t we owe it to the larger world to take him seriously?
Ahmadinejad is just blustering and the only want nukes which they’re definitely not building, because Russia has them.
The Gospel according to Timmah!
Jesus, Timmah! How do you manage to put your pants on in the morning? Or perhaps that should be: Do you manage to put your pants on in the morning?
Power is wielded by Khameni, who ain’t much for Joooos either.
Sorry about the downer topic (perhaps its the virus Jeff gave me), but Morris’ essay was disturbing and since the smartest people I know lurk here (don’t you love a kiss ass?) and since Jeff invited us….
I guess what concerns me is this:
1. Obviously the Iranian people don’t want any intervention and think that a revolution is possible and there are those outside Iran who don’t want to mess with the natural course of things, but….
2. It might not matter if the leadership get nukes before a revolution happens.
3. And if Iran does obtain nukes, it will then hold the world hostage or more likely, do exactly what they say they’ll do–wipe out Israel.
4. The leadership of Iran knows that obliterating Israel means certain death, but they don’t care. And the people of Iran seem not to get this. Or if they do get it, are helpless to stop it. Or, if they really get it, they agree with it, otherwise why stories like this?
And as an aside, why would Russia (besides money) be so willing to arm a bunch of crazies?
I think the Russians don’t mind sticking Iran in our eye. They arm Iran, Iran arms Khan in Afghanistan and the Shia in Iraq and the US is bogged down for a long time. No pipeline to Central Asia through Afghanistan and little Iraqi oil on the world market benefits the Russian gas and oil exporters. At least that’s my guess.
Gray: I’m also in favor of balloon fences. It’s as likely to work as missile defense. Since missile defense doesn’t work, I would actually be more interested in figuring out a way to make nuclear non-proliferation work again until we can make missile defense work.
Defense Guy: When the best and brightest of a country that is 50% under the age of 30 jeer at the President, because they don’t like his saber rattling (google it), it is indicative that the important people of Iran don’t like his saber rattling nonsense either.
Pablo, more of the same, as always. I never said the Iranians aren’t trying to build bombs. they most certainly are and it is a rational act of defense by them. There are now only 2 countries they count as enemies on the entire planet and both of those countries have nukes.
How do you prevent an US invasion? Compare and contrast Iraq and North Korea. I know we like to think all sorts of people in this are just meanies, but have you ever thought the Iranians are more afraid Michael Ledeen than Tom Rose is of them? Think about from their angle for a split second. This bomb would prevent an invasion.
Sort of like how afraid I was last night whenever the Colts kicked off to Ellis Hobbs
TimmyB
I understand that many are trying to talk to you, but that said, is there a reason you chose to only “answer” part of that which was directed at you? Easier to ignore the other parts?
That said, I will take what you gave and tell you it still can’t stand on it’s own logical legs. You say:
Those living under tyranny don’t usually like it. So what? It doesn’t change a thing unless and until they rise up to stop what seems to be coming? How likely is that?
Try personalizing it. You couldn’t stop Bush from fighting a war in Iraq, and you don’t even have the excuse of living under a despot. What makes you think these kids can stop the nutjob from completing what he says is his destiny?
Typical Faux Liberal projection – and something about the “audacious distortion of reality in order to reveal higher truths”.
But remember, Timmy, “perception is reality”. And you are lost in your own rhetorical perceptions, which are designed to avoid reality.
So missile defense doesn’t work and non-proliferation doesn’t work.
I guess all that’s left is to lie down and die. While N Korea and Iran fight like hyena over the scraps that are left.
Who says the left isn’t strong on national defense!?
TW: But missile defense does work, so in your face66!
Everything I needed to know about missile defense, I learned from Ric Locke.
Hell, just about everything I need to know about anything, I could learn from Ric Locke.
Turing word: I’d just need to seek further training57.
Oh, I forgot how much they love the Saudis, Timmah!
My bad.
I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with Iran either. Nope, not a thing, nothing at all.
A ‘muslim world’ so easily inflamed as to become alienated over a US response to the nuclear assault of an ally is not a ‘world’ worthy of any consideration. They will reap what they sow or the western world will enter its final night.
It’s the dialectic, dammit! Stoke the dialectic to see what will emerge! Every schnook in the worker’s paradise will have a dialectic in the garage to enable all to skate into greater revolutionary bliss. And what could be more real than the Marxian dialectic?
Somebody refresh my memory—who was arming the Chechen separatists?
is actually much better phrased as
Who?
Tom Rose is the editor of the Jer. Post or at least he was when he came on the local radio show here in Indy (where he grew up). He is as paranoid as any far right Likud (you know, the kind of guy that thinks Sharon should have taken the gloves off). i suspect many of you would like him.
Now, it must be said that I haven’t been able to listen to the local right wing show since my new job does not allow radio at work, but as of last August, he was busy trying to convince Hoosiers, the Persians were trying to conquer the world.
As for J., dude tell when the last time Israel and Iran were at war. Directly and not through proxies. Oops. Since the Iranians have never fought the Israelis, it seems rather silly to believe they are getting ready to invade AT THIS VERY MOMENT or that they want nukes so THEY CAN ERDICATE ISRAEL resulting in their own fiery deaths. You can still you faux liberal desgination wherever you find Israeli and Iranians tank forces or jets fighting each other.
Your President has threatened Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, yet do any of you really think we’re about to invade those countries.
Anyway, so you can discuss Melissa’s post, I will cease. Parse away
I suppose I should take it as a badge of honor that TimmyB so often just ignores what I have to say.
And with that, I shall stop trying to talk to him.
I do not see how it is moral to sit on our asses (and for Israel to sit on its ass) while a hostile government brags about developing nuclear weapons and fantasizes about wiping Israel and the US off the map.
That dip-shit front man for Iran needs to go. He is the definition of madman. He is a real-life, insane, madman with nuclear ambitions that are almost realized.
In a sane world a group of honest nations would just inform Iran that they have seventy-two hours to cease and desist all nuclear activities and allow unhindered inspection of all facilities. Failure to comply will result in complete destruction of all nuclear capabilities and the death of all government leaders. As a consequence of Iran’s leader’s actions hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent people will die.
It’s either this or risk the stated goal of Iran to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth†where the end result will be millions dead on both sides – guaranteed.
Sitting around and talking about it has done, and will do, absolutely nothing. Reasonable nations convince themselves that Iran will act rationally. Iran has not budged one bit from its stated goals of wiping Israel off the planet.
I would also recommend that Bush inform the State Department that all employees must comply with executive orders. If so much as one person rolls their eyes fire the whole lot of them, demolish their buildings and set up a new State Department in Oklahoma. Then tell the CIA they must comply with executive orders…
Nobody means anything they say anymore except the fucking madmen.
I have a personal doctrine: Crazy-insane people do not get to be in charge.
As for the Arab world rising up against us: I think after we solve Iran that if we tell Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. to shut the fuck up they’ll say, “Please sir, may we have another KFCâ€Â.
Timmy,
Sure, Bush has threatened all those countries. He’s said things like “we’re concerned” and included them in his axis of evil. Condi’s even said Iranian nukes are “unacceptable”.
When has anybody in the Bush administration said any of these countries were gonna get “wiped off the map”? Did I miss a threat from Bush to nuke somebody?
The lasting regret of politicians who were in power in the 1930s was their willingness to dismiss openly stated intentions as “bluster”. It may be Imadinnerjacket is just blustering, but maybe not. Israel has to take those threats seriously. The only question is what to do.
Yeah, those howling Palestinian mobs screaming for the annihilation of Israel at the exhortation of their political and religious leaders?
Purely imaginary. Probably nothing more than a spot of mustard or an undigested bit of gruel.
It seems even the mullahs are coming around to that realization.
Defense guy, I thought I answered all seriosu questions. Yopu have to remember there are generally 5 or 6 of you and one of me, so I might forget a serious response.
I think your question was the best of the lot and I’m sorry I forgot to answer. In the case of George and his war, he convinced quite a few folks it was a good idea (like most of Congress and most of the public). I would argue if the American public rejected the idea in the same numbers they do now, there would not have been an invasionm because the President had 2 goals: invade Iraq AND get re-elected.
Crazy old Achmajeemdhsksb (I can’t spell his name) is also interested in getting re-elected. Corruption is pretty rampant for Presidents in Iran and he wants to be rich (beats going back to the slum). If the public is against the “war”, the mullahs won’t let him do it.
hell, the only way Israel and Iran start fighting is if Israel attacks Iran. Iran is the nine bully of our little brother. They may taunt him, but in the end, we’re 19 and we have brass knuckles. Touching Israel means getting touched back. Hard
Thanks Timmy. I know your getting a lot of attention, so perhaps my comment was a bit childish.
What worries me the most is what seems to concern you the least. What if he means what he says? When it comes to this kind of talk about genocide, it seems to me that we have heard it before and it ended up being more than just mere rhetoric.
Do you think the average Iranian (or merely those under 30) are down with hanging homosexuals? Me either. And yet, on it goes.
It’s not that I don’t have faith in people, it’s that I am aware that it would take King George far less than 90 days or so to put 10,000 redcoats in NY harbor these days.
Sure. We could of just enforce the no-fly-zones and sanctions forever. We could have just starved Iraqi children and enriched Kofi Annan and his thug son in perpetuity.
Do you hate Iraqi children and want to starve them?
No. Unlike you, it isn’t all about money, envy, and class warfare. He was a ‘Basij’ during the Iran/Iraq war–he trained children to attack in human waves. He was a hostage-taker in the hostage crisis….
I know you can’t understand it, but it’s not about money, and envy of those with money. He, unlike you and your nihilist baby-boomer cohort, actually believes in something. He’s doing it ‘cuz he digs it and doesn’t dig jews.
Are you a Mussulman or just another leftist who’s got something against jews? Is this more of that money/class envy?
Let’s state one thing up front: I don’t understand the internal working of Iran very well. All I know is what I read and hear. What I read is there is, realistically, nothing we can do about them (the Atlantic) and their people really, really like the West (Robert Kaplan’s books). What I hear comes mainly from NPR and interviews with Kenneth Pollock (former Clinton administration guy who supported the Iraq invasion).
From listening to the pros pooh-pooh Achmajenidad, I stopped listening to his crazy stunts. The guy doesn’t wield power, I’m told. And that makes sense, given Rafsanjani was a liberal (by Iranian standards) and he was never able to power through the kooks on the religious councils either.
In the end, I think states, almost always, act rationally. Are there irrational decisions? There sure are. But, in this interest, Iran’s pursuit of these weapons is about keeping us away, not attacking Israel.
Basically, I think the Bush administration is searching for the right balance of carrot and stick and the folks at the Jerusalem Post are always willing to scare Americans.
If you believe otherwise, as many people on this thread seem to, it would seem to mean we have to attack Iran (if we really believe he’s a murderous kook who is about to launch war on Israel, we wouldn’t really have a choice). Given at the present time that we can’t control Iraq (a third less populous than Iran, bled dry by sanctions and Saddam, and an army using T-55 tanks), that would appear impossible to do.
What say you, Defense Guy. Is any part of that analysis close? What would you change?
PS Still makes me think we should declare victory in Iraq and redeploy to our in country bases. We said we eliminate WMD’s (check), overthrow Saddam (check), and install a democratically elected government (check). Let’s let them patrol the streets of Baghdad. We’ll still have Apaches and a-10’s nearby to protect the government. Soory, that was off-topic
Let’s start by making the basic claim that in both of our cases their are bound to be factors that we have no way of knowing. I think you’d agree that we are both forced to deal with imperfect information on which to base our opinions.
As to what I would change about your analysis…
I think it is wrong to pooh-pooh the Iranian president just because he “doesn’t wield power”. He serves at the pleasure of those that do, so you can be pretty much assured that what comes out of his mouth has been vetted. Yes? Or shall we say that they tyranny of the ruling class doesn’t affect his position?
I think you are right that Bush is searching for the right balance of carrot and stick. I also am glad for it. I think further that the folks at the Jerusalem Post are trying to “scare Americans” as you put it, because there is a very real possibility that their lives may depend on how effective they are at it.
Tough call on a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Not saying it shouldn’t be done, but your points about Iraq do bear strong consideration. Just remember that we really don’t need to invade to stop their nuclear ambitions. We didn’t invade Bosnia until after 90 days or so of bombing everything that was of conceivable use to anyone. We could do that again. I really hope it doesn’t come to that and that cooler heads in both countries prevail. I imagine you hope this as well.
Lastly, I have a little less faith in “rational states” acting rationally. To Pol Pot, all his ideas about how a country should be run were rational. If you want to drive yourself crazy, play around with the notion of the outcome of WW2 being different had Hitler not decided to mess around with the whole greater race thing. An idea, which he considered very rational, imperative even.
“We are discussing with Iran its request for withdrawing the designation of certain safeguards inspectors,” the IAEA said in a short statement issued by its Vienna headquarters.
Well, If the IAEA says it’s OK, then I feel good about it. It’s not like Iraq or North Korea got weapons on their watch.
I’m not happy with the Whitehouse offering nuke technology–didn’t learn a damned thing from Clinton and NK, but we are so nice….
The IAEA knew the inspectors were to be barred before they even got on the plane, and would like nothing better than to go the “can’t confirm or deny” route come February 21. This is because the IAEA are wankers.
Are you saying that our Iraq campaign has been successful, Timmy? Because we might finally agree on something.
They still haven’t got headphones for the girl at the drive-thru? Bummer.
I have found the secret to timmy’s humor, by the way: just read his posts in your head in the voice of that comic book guy on the Simpsons.
Depends. I’m saying we can the hell out of the way and let Iraqis die for their country. I’m saying we did what we said we would do by the letter of our promises and we can declare victory.
But, as far the spirit of our promises, we have not done a good job in Iraq and I think we missed whatever chance we did have to leave a nice peaceful country years ago. I also think the chances of doing what Wolfowitz’s, Cheney, and Rummy envisioned were remote to begin with.
A summary: I think we should declare victory and run to the FOB’s. I think the war was a bad idea, poorly executed, and a waste of our time, lives, and treasure. I thought that then too (Jeff hates when I say that, when he listened to me. I mention it to say I have been consistent).
Pablo, a window into my “thinking” and, then you can decide how right or wrong you think I am. My cousin was in Haditha (he’s a Lt in the Marines) and they protect this giant dam there. No one ever shoots at them in the dam, mainly because that’s suicide. But, the dam is right next to the city and to protect their perimeter and the convoys that bring supplies, they have to patrol the outlying district. That’s when they get shot at and IED’d (yes, I made it a verb).
My brother-in-law was in the Southern part of Iraq near Basra. He visited 2 FOB’s and says you can see anyone coming for miles away. He said they are the size of small cities. So, we still maintain a presence in Iraq by moving to the FOB’s by using mobility and air power, while we protect the force by not doing any of the stupid patrols that get us killed to start with.
That’s my idea. Many PW posters don’t like it, because it uncorks the violence in Iraq and may lead to ethnic cleansing. I just don’t see any other way, because the status quo doesn’t work.
Do we agree, Pablo? It would be nice. I swear there is common ground between left and right.
Defense Guy. I’m going to make an extraordinary assumption. I’m going to assume that Israel’s middle east intelligence is better than ours.I’m further going to assume that their Iran intelligence is better than ours.
Working under the theory that says; when confronted by an assailant armed with a gun, never assume the gun is emty. I think when Isreal has convinced itself that there are no other avenues they will pre-emtivly strike Iran.
The rest of the middle east except for the Palestinians and Hezzbola, Hammas, etc. will do nothing.
Yep. Enforcing the no-fly-zones and sanctions in perpetuity wouldn’t have been a waste of time, lives and treasure!
–I’m going to keep making that point until someone acknowledges it or even tries to argue against it:
Our choice was between war now at a time/place of our choosing or being sucked into a war enforcing the no-fly-zones at a time/place not of our choosing.
Even if we had put it off, it would have looked just like this
Hide like little fobbits in our fobbit holes!
There is already a term for this: “Mud Fort Syndrome”. It’s what got the French killed at Dien Bien Phu–it’s thoroughly discredited as a military strategy.
Aggressive patroling is the key to security. The insurgents kill less people/attack when they hit patrols than when they hit the fobbits. Remember the chow hall bombing in Mosul?
Yes, Gray, it is discredited when it is done in urban area where you are a target. When you are not the target and, in Iraq, I think, the insurgents shoot at us when we get in their way and shoot each other when we’re not.
I’m not sure how clear, hold, build is any different from my idea except that a) it has already shown it doesn’t work and b) we don’t have enough troops, and c) we’re trying it urban areas.
Force protection is served by miles of deserts in western Iraq and power projection is quite possible outside of it with helicopter assaults and air power.
So, in less words, security is easier at the FOB’s because the Iraqis work and live there (Mosul suicide bombing thus prevented). I think Iraq is unique because the FOB’s cannot be easily attacked. Aggressive patrols outside the FOB’s will protect them, as a C-130 would have a great deal of fun with a group of several hundred insurgents driving to an FOB.
With that said, Gray, you are correct in that castellation as strategy or tactics went out of style a few hundreds ago. I’m saying this is a unique situation, combining our strengths and our weakness into a nice tight package.
Don’t think we’re any danger of this happening with the current administration, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone mention it during the next campaign.
Did I convince you?
Gray, I have seen that “no-fly” comment from you before. No one answers it?
Here’s what I think: yes, no fly zones until Saddam fell was eminently preferrable to what we do now. No dead Iraqi kids by American bombs, Saddam stuck with his 50 year old tanks, etc. Containment, in my opinion, works. Ask the Soviets…ooops, we can’t.
Where you might have problems with no-fly zones and sanctions, they seemed to work.
I know you want to tee off, so have it
Rusty – you meant to say Israel will preemptively nuke Iran? That sounds like no fun for anybody involved, but the Democrats will look awfully short-sighted for having halted development of low-yield nuclear bunker-busting technologies.
LOL!
timmyb
As much as I would like to laud you for talking about moving our troops out of harms way, the sad fact remains that, as of right now, they happen to be the most qualified people in the area to help ensure a positive outcome for individual liberty in Iraq.
The difference is: clear, hold and build is also known as the ‘oilspot’ theory of counterinsurgency. The British were masters at it.
a) It works everytime it is tried: Malaysia, Aden, and ultimately Japan and Germany. b) that’s why we are sending more troops and c) it works particularly well in urban areas because food and water have to be imported to those areas.
It was an Iraqi worker that suicide bombed it.
That’s just what the French thought of Dien Bien Phu.
What happened to the Powell doctrine of “You break it you own it?”
Your proposal recommends the sitting of a duck and the head in the sand of an ostrich.
“Dear Mr and Mrs America: Fuck Iraq and the Iraqis. Fuck the oil fields and the petroleum infrastructure. Fuck the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs we lost men for a decade trying to safeguard. Fuck the Sunni Minority. Let Al Qaida come and rescue them. Genocide? We can ignore it like Darfur. Let it become another Afghanistan or Somalia, but we are going to keep our bases there, but not to attack Iran.”
You convinced me you don’t really know much about this kind of thing….
And, you have convinced me that you’re the sort of “macho, we can do anything” sort of fella who got us into this mess to start with.
Did oilspots work when we called it Vietnamization or Search and destroy in ‘Nam?
20,000 troops ain’t gonna help, Gray. I’ll remind you in a year when nothing has changed.
The US Army estimates it takes 2 soldiers per 100 people. There are 6.5 million in Baghdad alone. You’re talking about having 90,000 solders in baghdad. That barely two-thirds of the Defense Depatment’s own estimate.
Success is guaranteed
So it’s better to starve millions for decades than loss of life in a pursuit of liberty. That sounds like the usual liberal solution
So how long would it be for Saddam to fall? Then Uday and Qusay? We had enforced it for a decade with constant incidents. Wanna do that for another 50 years?
How do you guarantee he doesn’t get more tanks? Once France, Germany and Russia break the Sanctions.
As far as sanctions go–is it really that important to you that Kofi Annan his Thug Son, The French and George Galloway make a fortune while Iraqi kids die for guns, soccer teams and palaces?
You lefties never met a tyrant you didn’t love. The greater the tyrant, the more the left will do to protect him. Why is that?
Containment never worked anywhere. Ever.
The Soviet Union, lamented by American liberals, only fell after vigorous engagement under Reagan and Thatcher by proxy armies with American advisors in Central America, South America The Middle East, Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Oh yeah, the left was against that too….
Like where? Name one place.
However, your solutions are typically liberal:
You protected the dictators while the innocent died and left the problem intact….
and you’re ignoring that that we aren’t talking about using ONLY U.S. troops. from the president’s speech last week:
Iraqis are dying for their country.
It isn’t about what we said we’d do. It’s about doing what needs to be done.
Then why even stay at the FOB’s? Really, I want the Iraqis out front, and I want them securing they’re own country, but they’re just not ready to go it alone yet. They’re getting there, but they’re not there. To pretend that they are is to waste all that blood and treasure we’ve poured in there.
Once again you are forgetting to figure the Iraqi Army and Police in there timmy, you can’t even remember getting schooled on this last week? How fucking retarded are you?
Well, we could have just enforced the no-fly-zone and starved Iraqi kids for another 50 years…. I don’t know why you prefer that.
I think, like most leftists, you are engaging in magical thinking: as long as we don’t actually go to war, maybe something good will happen and we won’t have to go to war–y’know, like Clinton’s entire presidency.
“Vietnamization” is the cut-and-run strategy the democrats are suggesting. They suggest it because they know it won’t work.
Search and Destroy is the opposite of “Clear, Hold and Build”–Hence the “Hold and Build” part of “Clear, Hold and Build”, or did you miss that?
I really wish the baby boomers would come to grips with Vietnam so we could effectively fight the jehadis who want to take the boomers sex, bacon and chardonnay. Help us to help you, please….
Learn what, Gray?
That we actually “won” Vietnam?
What does Vietnam have to do with this?
Not every war is Vietnam. Not every president is Nixon. Not every American economy is the era of Soup Lines. Not every year is 1964 for Civil Rights. Not every arab terrorist is Che Guevara.
Just get the fuck over Vietnam already!
Do it for the bacon. Do it for the Chardonnay and fru-fru wine.
Don’t you like bacon, Alphie?
At long last, don’t you like bacon?
Yeah, Happy, I do. No fun maybe, but look at it from this perspective.What does Israel possibly have to lose other than pissing off Iran and possibly Syria.Egypt will bluster, but won’t act. So will Saudi Arabia. The actors that are already disposed to act against Israel are already doing it or preparing to. Since europe is so antisemitic there’s no lost love there.
The political backlash both from the dems here and liberals elsewhere are all they have to fear.
Rusty – just kind of wondering about all the issues surrounding the nuclear fallout, where it spreads in the region, lasting health effects etc… the insanity over DU should give some idea of the industry that will develop around this overnight, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find Israel subject to the most intense economic sanctions ever levied… and while the US would likely not participate, the disinvestment campaigns would soon be in full swing, and the media would keep leaning forward on the issue until it became entirely imaginable that our alliance with Israel would be sundered. That didn’t necessarily have to all be one sentence… in short, I think we would see the law of unintended consequences operating viciously, and that it’s entirely likely that Israel will not be scored as having achieved a strategic success.
I can’t really see the logic of a preemptive nuclear strike without significantly exhausting conventional possibilities first, however arduous and impossible they might be. That would be a necessary measure of Israel’s character I think, if her people were to stand any chance of surviving as anything more than pariahs. People can be so judgmental.
Maggie, George can sit around the White House and move phantom divisions around Baghdad all he wants; there are no Iraqi troops to help out. After all it takes 12 years to train a brigade.
B Moe, again witty, charming, insightful and you know the location of a secret repository of Iraqi troops. you are just gold, my man. Instead of responding to posts, why don’t you threaten to take me out back and beat me. That’s a rhetorical winner if I ever heard one!
Here’s a news story for the Pangloss’s of the world
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2554802,00.htmlhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2554802,00.html
Yeah, maggie the invisible soldiers will be there to help! That is one fucked up place…
Unless we retreat to the FOBs, then the Iraqis are going to be able to police themselves just fine. I am getting tired of trying to come up with adjectives for what a retarded shit for brains you are timmy. Do you even bother to read what you are typing, or is it just random rote from years of being an annoying idiot.
Timmy, its a shame that you don’t actually understand the military history of the Vietnam conflict. Because if you did, you would know that with respect to the insurgency, the irregular guerillas, we did win. The counter-insurgency tactics employed by the US Army were successful. The Viet Cong was defeated in 1968, never to return to the field in any significant amount.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war after convincing America to cut and run like the Democrats are working to convince today.
There is a lesson there for us today, if you would go beyond the cheap bumpersticker slogans and treated the issue like an adult.
that can be independent. fine, you happy now?
yes, there are problems, but ghost soldiers translates to NO soldiers somehow? who are these guys?
here’s someone elses take on the Times article.
timmy, this thread is about Iran nuking Israel just for scuzz, not about Iraq. (Check the title for a clue.) Iraq would be different. Iran is related to some of the more interesting goings-on in Iraq, but their activities in Iraq are not directly in furtherance of the turn-Israel-into-a-lake-of-fire thing. Katie Couric says we’re not supposed to conflate things like that.
Have you ever read a history book?
Or it would seem to make sense to finish the job in Iraq to make sure it does not become another Syria.
BTW Melissa I agree with you for the most part. However they seems to enjoy the ability to fight a proxie war against Isreal through Hezbolla, Hamas ect. So I wonder if they would try and do the same with a nuke. Just like they had nothing to do with 100s of rockets launched into Isreal, they could claim they had nothing to do with it. I mean, most states act rationally anyway…….right timmah?
Then there’s your timeline, Timmah! There’s your plan. Which, btw, has been the plan since we scrapped the old army.
Pablo, you are are a wunderkind!
I remember when you people were selling this war to us and Wolfowitz and Rummy and the President (Mission Accomplished) all “we’re gonna be in Iraq for 12 years.” Oh, hold it, no they didn’t….
Move the goal posts, Pab.
John, I’ve read more military history and history than you’ve read books.
Robin, I certainly do understand that the Vietcong were largely defeated after Tet, I also know there were guerillas still in the villages. And, you should learn your poltical history, because it was a Republican that signed the Peace Treaty in 1973 that ended American involvement in the war. Before running around screaming Democrats are pussies, they got you into the war, escalated to 500,000 men, and bombed the living hell out of the North Vietnam. it was that peace-loving pussy Nixon who “cut and ran.”
Maggie, never ceases to amaze me that when a reporter says something, he or she is lying; but, when the dudes with the guns say soemthing, he/she is a genius truthteller. The Times reports a story and a blooger from the US military says “Hah, that’s only partially true” and you run with it like you heard from Christ Himself.”
Reports from the US govt and the media have all held one consistent theme for the last 4 years. The number of Iraqi soldiers int he Iraqi Army who can and will fight is abyssmally low.
You believe what you want
Roosevelt didn’t tell us we’d be in Europe for 60+ years, either did he? Neither did Bush the first tell us we’d be the dam that held Saddam back for a dozen years back in ‘91.
Thing is, we won’t be fighting in Iraq 10 years from now, though we’ll likely be fighting from there. Because of the strategery.
Define abysmally low, and then cite something fresh for us, Timmah! And try not to notice the provinces in which the Iraqis are now running the security operations.
BTW, what did those guys tell us? I believe it went something like this:
Mission accomplished, right?
Timmy seems to think we sit on an egg for 12 years and suddenly it hatches into a fully trained soldier.
did you read the post? and I would guess since that “blooger from the US military” is being published in the Examiner that maybe we could also call him a reporter? and where did I say the Times reporter was lying? perhps I prefer a bit more…. nuance. You’re the one that implied that the Times’ article somehow shows that there are NO Iraqi soldiers. but then you have a tendency to mangle things so I shouldn’t be surprised anymore.
or he got the idea that I think that because I linked this post a while back. I’ve seen some guess at as little as eight years. Timmy’s free to mock it all he wants, but for someone that’s read so much history he can’t seem to come up with his own estimate when asked for it.
Uh, now
I’ve said it a bunch of times. Now. Redeploy NOW
uh, we’re talking about how long it would take to train a competent, able to act on it’s own military.
TimmyB
It helps if you remember that the US policy in Vietnam was one of boxes. Boxes which we where in and which we forced ourselves to stay in. The enemy, who actually wanted to win, thought in terms of victory. By the time we realized how fucked up this was, it was too late. The people had called in all the markers and the troops were called home.
For Maggie, history as it pertains to the creation of an army. For PW, so you can all be mad at the resident dumbass
An army is an institution and institutions aren’t created by foreign occupiers (or have you missed that?). They are created by the society’s they serve. Jesus, go study the Pershmerga. We didn’t create them and they are the third most professional force in Iraq at this moment.
You nation building, Western know-it-alls think peace and democracy come from the barrel of a tank? It comes from the desire of the people to embrace it. There is no popular will in Iraq to create an Army, just like there wasn’t for the French in Algeria, or the ARVN in Vietnam.
The US government abandoned the Shia in ‘91, is fighting the Sunni now, the Kurds were let down in the ‘80’s…all by us. Why would they rush to our banner?
I mean, 12 years for a brigade? The Israelis created them overnight in ‘48. The Pakistanis had an Army in ‘48. Azerbaijan and Armenia has armies willing to kill each other within months of the collapse of the USSR. The Rwandan Tutsi had one good enough to invade the Democratic Rep of Congo within weeks of taking power (much larger than the rump they took over with). In 1792 it took the French four months to not only create a Revolutionary Army, but to beat back every power in Europe and dominate the continent militarily for 20 years. The Russian Army in 1917 refused to fight for the Czar, because the system did not represent them. But two years later the Whites and the Reds had millions under arms. Hitler rejected the Versailles 100,000 man cap on the German Army and three years later had an Army large enough and trained well enough to overrun most of Europe in a year. It took the Serbs and Croats roughly ten minutes to develop armies and achieve a balance of power over a six month period of time.
Last example: http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm 1 Dec 1941 = 1,657,157; 31 Dec 1942 = 5,398,888; 31 Dec 1943 = 7,582,434. Those are the number of US Army personnel from 1941-1943. We add 6 million soldiers, trained and equipped in two years and beat back the Nazi and the Japanese
But, it takes four years to develop one Iraqi battalion?
Redeploy and the Iraqis will choose sides and make an Army. If you use air power and Special Forces the right way, you could probably decide who would win. The side you pick needs your air power and your supplies, so you have a reasonable check on their human rights abuses.
It’s funny, besides Gray (who made a fantastic argument on this thread just yesterday), all you guys can do is insult and throw petty little witticisms and internet links to mil blogs. Distant history, recent history, and current events all argue that your stated goal of leaving Iraq as a Garden of Eden is impossible (and might have only been possible in the closing weeks of 2003). But, you persist and call that persistence virtue.
Does anyone know if Brent Scowcroft has a blog? I miss conservative Realpolitik. At least it was tenuously based on reality and not pie in the sky fantasies. I wish one poster could throw a historical example (Gray might be up to the challenge), instead of “Gee, Timmy, you’re an ass.†“Are you crazy†“Lefties are in bed with the terrorists†and “Iraq is Disneyland, but the MSM won’t report itâ€Â
Hmmm…better tell the Japanese that their government (which is an institution) doesn’t work. Dig McArthur up too. He needs to know.
That’s the ONLY place it comes from.
Who said it takes 12 years to build a brigade? Oh yeah, you did.
And you base that proclamation on what, exactly?
I’m still waiting for your response to this, btw:
but, Timmy, we’re training for counter-insurgency, they require intelligence and leadership, not fodder.
which is why it’s even more important for them to know that we won’t abandon them again. and why do you continue to dismiss the progress they’re making? it’s not a quick as anyone would like, but it’s happening.
There’s a yawning chasam between putting men under arms and going to fight and developing a self sustaining system of bases, logistics, training and support.
Men arise in history that seemingly were born to command and win victory after victory with never a days martial training. But they are rare and never rise on any schedule. Without one of these prodigies, one must have a training structure to develop leaders the old way.
Add to this that technology and complexity of weapons and support equipment as well as the very pace of the battlefield itself have advanced since the most recent examples given.
Recommended Reading: Network Centric Warfare by ADM Art Cerebrowski. Anything by LTC John Boyd.
As well as 8 to 11 years to prosecute.
Good thing the Colts didn’t decide the game was not winnable at halftime.
That sounds sort of nuanced, RTO. Is this gonna be difficult?
There is your problem, RTO, all this high-tech gimcrackery is holding you back! We just need to send some horses and wranglers over there, hand out some swords and by God we could whup them bastards in no time.
Pablo, here is a link to the lates tinformation I could find. Seems like the DoD decided to stop declassifying the number of Iraqis ready to fight. Fortunately, we now have a Congress that will exercise oversight. So, CENTCOM is probably briefing someone with some numbers right now.
Anyway, I included this quote (and your damn right right I cherry-picked it). You can read the full article with other links at http://www.cfr.org/publication/12243/
Unfortunately for the two nations involved, these figures point out dirge and surge rhyme for a reason. I hope the plan works, but by the DoD’s own math, it most likely won’t.
Here:
“…the military has trained five Iraqi divisions, twenty-five brigades, and eighty-seven army and police battalions capable of leading security operations in select areas, according to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index. But, Anthony Cordesman, a counterinsurgency expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes that “such reports are misleading to the point of being actively dishonest.†The problem, he says, is the U.S. estimates do not accurately reflect the large number of Iraqi soldiers who are trained but then desert the army. Gauging the development of these forces is increasingly difficult because the U.S. Defense Department has stopped declassifying material about Iraqi troop readiness (its previous Level One to Level Four grading system), instead only releasing information on the numbers of units “ready and equipped†and “in the lead.†“These are vague, if not meaningless categories,†Cordesman writes. “‘In the lead’ does not indicate the level of independence from U.S. support, and we do not know how many ‘ready and equipped’ soldiers quit or deserted the force….â€Â
…But…the Washington Post reports that of the Iraqi army’s 134,000 men, only about ten battalions are effectiveâ€â€well under ten thousand men…”
It might be helpful in critiquing the new strategy, to actually know what that strategy is.
“Congressional Oversight” has been a joke for over 40 years. If they should miraculously decide to try to fix problems rather than assign blame, maybe it’ll matter. Otherwise it’s just theater. Bad theater at that.
It might help if a few of them would actually read the Constitution beyond Article 1 (if they’ve read that far).
“Cordesman expects major U.S. military aid and advisory programs will be in place in Iraq probably until 2015.” Whaddaya know? About 12 years, all together….
The subject at hand was whether surge would work, not whether US soldiers and Marines would be bogged down in Iraq training Iraqi divisions to fight with American technology and tactics for 15 years. That’s not the problem. You think training them takes forever. I say it takes forever because no one wants to serve in the Iraqi Army.
In previous posts I was addressing American plans regarding what we wanted to accomplish. You are addressing colonialism. Yes, the English got plenty of troops out of India after the Raj was in its 50th year, but we’re not colonial occupiers (take that Chomsky). I mean, is that what you’re saying, RTO, that we invade a country, topple its government, influence (if not dictate) what form of governance it “chooses†post-invasion, and then we stay for twenty years “molding institutions†at the barrel of gun?
Isn’t that colonialism? And how do you juxtapose that presence under fire with what the American people were promised by the administration?
More importantly, do you think disbanding the Iraqi was a mistake? From your experience, would the training of a de-Baath’ed Iraqi Army taken less time than starting from scrath? Obviously, I think it was a mistake (Granted, many Iraqis were conscripts and, thus, poor soldiers, but for twenty years they had been on war footing. There had to some good NCO’s in that bunch somewhere.).
Assume you are Bremer. Would you have done that?
I would have disbanded the Iraqi Army.
It was a no win decision, but disbanding had the most upside.
The Iraqi army, as it existed, had no NCO corps to speak of, and was a hollow force. Except for the Republican Guards. Letting the ineffective guys go and keeping the effective ones as the core of a new force might have worked, but consider what keeping the RG would have signaled to the Sunni and especially the Kurd population.
As for the whole colonialism business, you are reading volumes into a few scant sentences and most of it is coming through your headgear. I tend not to load up on subtext; what you see is what you get.
Your second point is fair enough, but am I wrong or does 2 decades of running someone’s country smack of colonialism?
Leave out what was promised to us, which was completely different. Further, if you’re right, the administration STILL hasn’t prepared the American public for a decade of occupation, thus undermining whatever hope they or the Army has of staying.
Seriously, the policy cannot survive. John Warner has jumped ship, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel. The President has lost not just the Dems, but he’s losing the entire ruling class! Once it’s gone, thy’re gonna cut the funding and pull out. Isn’t redeployment better than the cutting of funds?
As for the Iraqi Army, I would have kept some units, merged them UNDER Kurdish leadership, and built a new army outside of that. Finding those troops and managing the merger would have taken someone more schooled in Iraq than Bremer. I just think we built a Cold War German Army around the Nazi (in roughly two years, no less), why couldn’t we have built a Third World one around the Iraqi remnants?
Anyway, must doing boring work. Thanks for your input