Officials Worried About Summer Attack

[Badger]

Must purchase Haliburton stocks.

(Yes, I read Linda McQuaig http://www.lindamcquaig.com/index.cfm)

 

[Ziggurat]

So if Bush ordered a soldier to lie to the press, that soldier would disobey?

Are you contending that Bush has given direct orders to lie?

As for what a given soldier would do if given a direct order to lie, that's purely speculation. But soldiers are not legally entitled to lie to Congress, orders or not. And soldiers are indeed legally required to disobey unlawful orders. They face much more severe consequences for lying than either politicians or journalists.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So if Bush ordered a soldier to lie to the press, that soldier would disobey?

Depends on the soldier. He could refuse the order as unlawful, and be free and clear. The trick is to recognize unlawful orders when they are given.

DR

 

[Augustine]

So if Bush ordered a soldier to lie to the press, that soldier would disobey?

What is this, crazy hypothetical scenario day? Bush does not give orders to soldiers. Chain of command is Bush, SECDEF, COCOM Commanders (e.g. ADM Fallon). Order to deliberately lie is an unlawful order. Soldiers can disobey.

 

[Augustine]

The key point there is that the end of the turmoil in Iraq would be beneficial to Iran. With Iraq’s Shiite majority, any government that emerges from the system is almost guaranteed to be fairly sympathetic to Iran. I said in an earlier thread that this was my main problem with the idea of Iran providing weapons to the insurgents. The bulk of the insurgents are Sunnis who want to kill Shiites. It just doesn’t make any sense for them to provide weapons and training to anti-Shiite insurgents to destabilize a government that would probably be friendly to them once everyone got their act together.

Iran arms Shia insurgents such as the Mahdi Army. Iran is many complex factions, as is Iraq - even within Shias. Al-Maliki, who is Shia and certainly didn't help sectarian violence, has already warned Iran about engaging the US and using Iraq as a battlefield. Al-Sadr has given mixed signals whether he's going to work within the system or run away to Iran until the US leaves. Iran contributing to strife within the borders of Iraq (and contributing to deaths of American soldiers) is reality, deal with it.

 

[Augustine]

If they have proof that al-Qaeda are operating freely out of Iran, using Iranian arms, and even building mockups in Iran of the facilities they will attack in Iraq, then the Bush administration has a responsibility to act on that information and stop it. If he does not, then he is not serious about winning in Iraq. Nor is he serious about defeating terrorists AND the allies of terrorists ... as he said he was going to do. That is not oversimplifying.

Of course, I haven't said that. The military does what the President tells them to (as they should). The responsibility if the war in Iraq is lost because the insurgents were given a free pass in Iran and Syria rests solely at Bush's feet. Likewise, if Iranians build nuclear weapons and one of those ends up in terrorist hands, I will point my finger at Bush's failure to act when all the warning signs were present..

The military and the President also do what the American people support. If the public will is not there, not even initially, it will not happen. The military reality is that we do not have the manpower for anything more than small covert actions against Iran. The political reality is that the American public will not support anything more than that. The geo-political reality is that the Arab world and Europe won't support anything more than that.

Iran is a lot more vulnerable than you seem to imagine. Iran's economy is extremely vulnerable. Shut down their oil facilities and you shut it down. It's airforce would fair no better than Iraq's did. And neither would its ground forces. But waiting is allowing Iran to acquire weapon systems that could cause immense damage to attacking forces. And of course once they actually do have nuclear weapons ....

I would suggest you read Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, a publication by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center through the Army's War College Strategic Studies Institute. The last thing we need after our lesson in Iraq is to don rosy-color glasses to solve the Iran problem.

I agree. Bush seems to be doing everything he can to ignore the reality of the threat Iran poses now in Iraq and long term by NOT looking for an excuse to attack Iran.

We are close enough to agreement here, lot of variance on the fine details though...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Iran contributing to strife within the borders of Iraq (and contributing to deaths of American soldiers) is reality, deal with it.

The question is: why? What political end is achieved by doing so? One is to cause America political grief, both internally and externally. Other motives are not as clear to me.

I often wonder at the significant lack of effort to find a path to work with Teheran, particularly as there were some common (modest) efforts when OEF first began to cooperate where we could find a common interest: like the Taliban were needing a good whacking.

DR

 

[ambrose]

Does it really matter if the weapons are from Iran? I mean, GUNS don't kill people. People kill people, right?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Does it really matter if the weapons are from Iran? I mean, GUNS don't kill people. People kill people, right?

Good point.

As a "devil's advocate" sort of counter, the ATF goes after those who sell illegal guns.

DR

 

[ambrose]

Here's another analogy, then.

Let's say somebody breaks into my house because they mistakenly believe I have stolen their golf clubs. This is later proven to be false. Let's then say my neighbors have come to my aid (perhaps out of their own self interest, perhaps not.)

Does the initial person who illegally/misakenly broke into my house then have the right to break into my neighbor's house?

 

[Augustine]

The question is: why? What political end is achieved by doing so? One is to cause America political grief, both internally and externally. Other motives are not as clear to me.

I often wonder at the significant lack of effort to find a path to work with Teheran, particularly as there were some common (modest) efforts when OEF first began to cooperate where we could find a common interest: like the Taliban were needing a good whacking.

DR

I am not so sure that there is much of a common path with Tehran on Iraq; I think our national interests in the region and theirs are too divergent. However, I also believe that we do not have a clear understanding of Tehran's national goals and objectives, or a comprehensive picture of all the different factions within their government. Within the Army, there is a spectrum of opinions on Iran ranging from almost ridiculously hardline (one officer I know frankly alarms me if he attains any kind of strategic planning position) to (IMO) dangerously naive. We need to refine our knowledge and certainly attempt to improve relations.

More importantly, IMO, is we need to engage other Arab nations in the ME who certainly have no desire to see Iran emerge as the most powerful regional player. This is a balancing act, admittedly, because no Arab government wants to be seen as the US's lackey. Backroom diplomacy needs to be exercised.

 

[Augustine]

Does it really matter if the weapons are from Iran? I mean, GUNS don't kill people. People kill people, right?

It's not just weapons; more like weapons, financing, training, equipment.

 

[Badger]

I gotta say that all the hoo-haa about Iran sounds very familiar.

I know it sounds all "conspiracy theorist" I've yet to see anything more solid than the justifications for going into Iraq ended up being. Having been fooled once, I require greater proof this time.

 

[ambrose]

I gotta say that all the hoo-haa about Iran sounds very familiar.

I know it sounds all "conspiracy theorist" I've yet to see anything more solid than the justifications for going into Iraq ended up being. Having been fooled once, I require greater proof this time.

Fool me once, shame on.. shame on you.

Fooled me you can't get fooled again.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Fool me once, shame on.. shame on you.

Fooled me you can't get fooled again.

I guess all CIA intel should be disregarded until a Demorat admin is in place...then it will be all spot on...Maybe they will make "Secret Agent Woman" Val Plame the director of Intelligence?

Haaaaaaa...Haaaaaa...

 

[BeAChooser]

The military and the President also do what the American people support.

ROTFLOL! If the military and the President actually did what the American people want done, then the Mexican border would have been closed to illegal entry 5 years ago. Who are you kidding?

This is not a democracy. It's a representative republic. The underlying principle is that elected leaders are to do what THEY judge best for the nation based on, for one, access to more information than you or I might have. We elect leaders to do that regardless of public opinion which varies from day to day depending on what the people have been told last and the loudest. Public opinion should be expressed in one place ... the ballot box ... if you are not satisfied with the last administration or a given congressperson.

It certainly shouldn't govern military decisions in a war once the elected officials have expressed the goals that are sought and the public agreed. Bush said early on that this is a war against terrorism and we will not tolerate states that support terrorism. And the people applauded. In fact, take a poll now asking if the government should do something effective about states that support terrorism and I imagine you will still find the overwhelming answer is "yes".

The other side in Iraq is clearly using terrorism to future its goals. The fact appears to be that Iran is heavily involved in supporting these al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations elsewhere. There is ample and still growing evidence that Iran is supplying arms, training and safe haven to those groups. There is evidence that Iranians are actually participating in the planting of bombs in Iraq. They are also participating in the firing of missiles into Israel.

If Bush and company are to obey the will of the people, they will stop these activities by whatever means necessary. If they don't, they should be held fully responsible when VERY bad things happen in the future as a result of ignoring the current activities of Iran.

The military reality is that we do not have the manpower for anything more than small covert actions against Iran.

This is nonsense.

The US has plenty of ability to project massive amounts of military power into Iran while keeping Iran from doing the same to us. This is not going to be a ground war. If the military has the evidence to show that Iran is supporting the terrorists in Iraq, Iran's government should be given an ultimatum ... stop all support of terrorists and turn over all al-qaeda now residing in Iran, or we will take your military apart piece by piece.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most. It would be a very lopsided victory. At that point, known terrorist facilities should be destroyed along with all nuclear facilities that are thought to be violation of the nuclear proliferation agreement Iran signed. Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment. If that doesn't change their minds about engaging in terrorism, their economic infrastructure (in particular, their oil industry) should go on the chopping block. Or perhaps at that point we save the environment and just we tell them the choice is between stopping terrorism and government decapitation. Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq, you would find the same thing happens as happened outside Baghdad to the Republican Guard during the last Gulf War when a relatively small group of second string US ground forces decimated (and I mean decimated) with air support the best forces that Saddam had ... forces just as capable as anything Iran now fields in its army. You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

And if at any point Iran should send that army of suicide bombers it claims to now have into Iraq or anywhere else to cause mayhem, we should immediately decapitate the government and let the will of the Iranian people be felt for the first time in many years.

The political reality is that the American public will not support anything more than that. The geo-political reality is that the Arab world and Europe won't support anything more than that.

I think you are wrong. I think most Americans and most in the Arab world and Europe would breath a huge sigh of relief at the passing of Iran's growing threat. Just like they quietly applauded when Israel took out Iraq's reacter a couple decades ago. By the way, there was a lesson in that for us. The only reason we were able to safely challenge Saddam in the first Gulf War is that Israel's action kept Saddam from getting the bomb by then. We face the same situation with regards to Iran today. There is going to be a war with that country sooner or later. Mark my words. The question is do you want it to be now while we still can easily prevail or later when the cost will be much, much higher?

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This is nonsense.

The US has plenty of ability to project massive amounts of military power into Iran while keeping Iran from doing the same to us. This is not going to be a ground war. If the military has the evidence to show that Iran is supporting the terrorists in Iraq, Iran's government should be given an ultimatum ... stop all support of terrorists and turn over all al-qaeda now residing in Iran, or we will take your military apart piece by piece.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most. It would be a very lopsided victory. At that point, known terrorist facilities should be destroyed along with all nuclear facilities that are thought to be violation of the nuclear proliferation agreement Iran signed. Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment. If that doesn't change their minds about engaging in terrorism, their economic infrastructure (in particular, their oil industry) should go on the chopping block. Or perhaps at that point we save the environment and just we tell them the choice is between stopping terrorism and government decapitation. Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq, you would find the same thing happens as happened outside Baghdad to the Republican Guard during the last Gulf War when a relatively small group of second string US ground forces decimated (and I mean decimated) with air support the best forces that Saddam had ... forces just as capable as anything Iran now fields in its army. You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

And if at any point Iran should send that army of suicide bombers it claims to now have into Iraq or anywhere else to cause mayhem, we should immediately decapitate the government and let the will of the Iranian people be felt for the first time in many years.

Agreed...BEER for you...

 

[Random]

This is nonsense.

The US has plenty of ability to project massive amounts of military power into Iran while keeping Iran from doing the same to us. This is not going to be a ground war. If the military has the evidence to show that Iran is supporting the terrorists in Iraq, Iran's government should be given an ultimatum ... stop all support of terrorists and turn over all al-qaeda now residing in Iran, or we will take your military apart piece by piece.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most. It would be a very lopsided victory. At that point, known terrorist facilities should be destroyed along with all nuclear facilities that are thought to be violation of the nuclear proliferation agreement Iran signed. Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment. If that doesn't change their minds about engaging in terrorism, their economic infrastructure (in particular, their oil industry) should go on the chopping block. Or perhaps at that point we save the environment and just we tell them the choice is between stopping terrorism and government decapitation. Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq, you would find the same thing happens as happened outside Baghdad to the Republican Guard during the last Gulf War when a relatively small group of second string US ground forces decimated (and I mean decimated) with air support the best forces that Saddam had ... forces just as capable as anything Iran now fields in its army. You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

And if the Iranian government decides instead of open war to go for an Algiers/Vietnam/Iraq style cellular insurgency? We can't deal with Iraq under those circumstances. Iran has more than twice as many people, four times the surface area to cover, has not been crippled by a decade of sanctions, and if they have a lick of sense have been planning an insurgency type campaign for several years now.

Yes, the US can crush anybody under its heel in open war. But the lesson that everyone else is learning from Iraq is, "Don't fight America in open war, wait in the back alley with a lead pipe".

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And if the Iranian government decides instead of open war to go for an Algiers/Vietnam/Iraq style cellular insurgency? We can't deal with Iraq under those circumstances. Iran has more than twice as many people, four times the surface area to cover, has not been crippled by a decade of sanctions, and if they have a lick of sense have been planning an insurgency type campaign for several years now.

Yes, the US can crush anybody under its heel in open war. But the lesson that everyone else is learning from Iraq is, "Don't fight America in open war, wait in the back alley with a lead pipe

I love our Naval and land air power!!!!

 

[BeAChooser]

And if the Iranian government decides instead of open war to go for an Algiers/Vietnam/Iraq style cellular insurgency?

What Iranian government? The government in that case would be decapitated. For all intents and purposes, it would no longer exist, except in the most rudimentary fashion. We would control the skies over Iran in a way that we never controlled them over Vietnam. The remnants of whatever government remained would have to operate out of caves and use human couriers. All electronic communications in the country could be cut or intercepted. And we could do most of that without killing many innocent people. This is not the world as it was back in Vietnam.

Furthermore, there is no major power that will put it all on the line for Iran as the Soviets did for Vietnam. Not when all we are asking them to do is stop supporting terrorists. Technology has changed things and at least for a time we have a significant advantage over the Iranians.

Iran has more than twice as many people,

What can the Iranian government do with those people in this case? Arm them? Against what? I'm not suggesting an invasion of Iran. And no matter how many people they might arm, that militia (or more likely rabble) would likely turn their guns on the Iranian government should that government ask them to do something that would in effect be suicide ... like invade Iraq. In fact, the people might turn their guns on the government anyway for putting them in this situation. Especially when we make it clear to the Iranians via psyop materials that we are not invading their country but only asking that their leaders stop supporting terrorists.

four times the surface area to cover

So what? We aren't talking about trying to occupy that country. Just bomb it into submission. They have a choice ... stop terrorism or suffer the consequences.

has not been crippled by a decade of sanctions

But I'm not suggesting sanctions. I am suggesting they be told to toe the line. Act like a responsible state or we will reduce their military, government and, if necessary, portions of their economy to rubble. The stark reality is that the world can no longer tolerate state sponsored terrorism. Not in the age of WMD. Not after what happened on 9/11.

But the lesson that everyone else is learning from Iraq is, "Don't fight America in open war, wait in the back alley with a lead pipe".

No, you've completely missed the lesson in Iraq so far.

The real lesson is that you won't defeat terrorists operating in a country (and let's be honest here, it's FOREIGN terrorists who are causing most of the problems in Iraq now), unless you prevent those terrorists from acquiring safe havens (in which to train, etc) in nearby countries and prevent them from getting support from those countries. The real lesson is you will not defeat terrorism if you allow states to sponsor it.

The US military thought that by building forts along the Iranian and Syrian borders they could solve this problem. Well clearly that is not working. The solution is to carry the war to ANY government that allows al-qaeda terrorists to operate freely and supports them with funds, weapons and logistics. And that includes Iran, Syria, and yes ... even Pakistan. We either get serious about this threat or we might as well prepare for this:

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070126/allie.jpg

And don't think radicalism won't be following us home if we do.