Officials Worried About Summer Attack

[Gurdur]

...This is not a democracy. It's a representative republic.

Don't be totally silly. No matter how much you hate democracy because people won't do what you hysterically order them to do, the USA is still a democracy; it is both a representitive republic AND a democracy.
Were the words short enough to understand?

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.

McCarthy is dead. Get over it already.

All I noted is that Israel did not violate a treaty to develop nuclear weapons

Strangely enough because it refused to actually sign any.

All I noted is that Israel is not sending people ... to kill our soldiers but Iran is doing that.

One of the sad and ironic facts of history is that official Israeli armed forces have killed many more official American armed forces than have official Iranian armed forces.

Don't think we didn't notice you avoiding the question.

Now THIS is REALLY weird. Do you always refer to yourself using the royal "we"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, no, wrong yet again on all counts.

Become Minister for Justice in old apartheid South Africa?

You two were having too much fun with the Viet Nam thing, I stayed out of it. Some of your revisionism I disagree with, but that horse is rather pasty at the moment. As that derail went south, I was far too busy in threads far too long with BAC, so I'll let the entertainment you two provided to all and sundry stand.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

...Some of your revisionism I disagree with, but that horse is rather pasty at the moment. ....

I want to do a thread very soon, a serious one, on parallels between the American War Of Independence, Vietnam and Iraq; basically simply developing on Tuchman's theme, and that being that right from the beginning of Iraq2, the USA admin knew it was being foolhardy but thought it could over-ride reality --- just like the British admin when confronted by the American colonialists.

I DID do some research on your suggested Korean War tangent. I don't think it fits; even at the time the differences between wars and conditions between Korea and Vietnam were acknowledged right from the beginning -- with the Pentagon being rather Korea-scarred and worried about getting involved in another land war in Asia. *sigh* If only they had known. And some did, but the various USA admins ignored them. March of folly time indeed. But the differences were known; nobody really seems to have thought that Vietnam could be approached like Korea; the closest you get is the Malayan Communist Insurgency, done by the Brits. But that again was wildly different to Vietnam; in Malaysia, it was a minority among what was already a minority population segment, the Chinese in Malaysia.

Sorry if you think I'm being revisionist on Vietnam, dunno how; feel free to argue the toss on the new thread once I actually get around to doing it. Meant to be a serious effort, and not to be one of the bloody stupid one-liner wars so common around here.

The worst effect for the USA was the McCarthyism; it still seems to poison so much today. Ironically, despite BAC's obsessive hatreds on the score, it was of course the Democrats who were most gung-ho about Vietnam, since they were deadly afraid of being tarred as "soft on communism" etc.. And of course Vietnam destroyed what might have been otherwise a historically good presidency by LBJ. If only LBJ had listened to people disagreeing with him; but then, so few rulers do.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The worst effect for the USA was the McCarthyism.

I disagree. It was a natural populist reaction to what the myth of Communism represented. RRed Baiting was in fine form in the Thirties, MaCarthy didn't invent this mind set.

It ran its course, and I find this continual appeal to "neo MaCarthyism" sloppy thinking.

The Democrats who were most gung-ho about Vietnam, since they were deadly afraid of being tarred as "soft on communism" etc.

JFK: pay any price, bear any burden, and oh, yeah, Diem has to go. So, now what do I do?
*bang*

We'll never know.

I'll offer that a good, recent look at Viet Nam is by H.R. McMaster, a guy who a couple of years ago did some good work in North Central Iraq as Commander of the 3rd ACR. Dereliction of Duty is the book. Worth a look, he used stuff declassified in the mid to late 1990's as source material.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

I disagree. It was a natural populist reaction to what the myth of Communism represented. RRed Baiting was in fine form in the Thirties, MaCarthy didn't invent this mind set.

Hitler didn't really invent Naziism either, he was just its best illustration. The mess in the USA has many different causes; 1890-1895 and 1917 are extremely important, the creation and development of the AFL-CIO, depriving Eugene Debs of his constitutional rights etc., the anxiety to defend racist segregation etc..

McCarthyism represented one particular populist strand, but more importantly, it was the conscious development of a populist strand; it was indeed rule by fear, and self-perpetuating rule of fear. It was also sometimes down purely as financial blackmail -- firms during the Hollywood BlackList affairs made quite a lot of money out of "vetting" people.

It ran its course,

Not entirely whatsover.
The politics of artificial fear are very much still in evidence; as you can see from BAC, the strongman tactic of trying emotional blackmail is very much in evidence today still; and it really does poison political atmospheres.

Bluntly, the USA political atmosphere is still quite sick and could do with some major antibiotics to get a much more flourishing democratic process going; too much hidebound prejudices on all sides, too many clichés of no truth, regardless of what side you pick.

and and I find this continual appeal to "neo MaCarthyism" sloppy thinking.

1) Not an "appeal", a straight description of a particular tactic. It's either an accurate description or it isn't; if you think it's not accurate, say exactly why.
2) Merely because (as often) I deeply disagree with you, does not constitute sloppy thinking on my part -- I suggest it may well be on yours?

JFK: pay any price, bear any burden, and oh, yeah, Diem has to go. So, now what do I do?
*bang*

More LBJ; perhaps his was the far greater tragedy.

I'll offer that a good, recent look at Viet Nam is by H.R. McMaster, a guy who a couple of years ago did some good work in North Central Iraq as Commander of the 3rd ACR. Dereliction of Duty is the book. Worth a look, he used stuff declassified in the mid to late 1990's as source material.

I'll take a look at it. Will take me about 2 months, I suppose, till I get around to buying it and reading it.

I'm still stuck on a project of fully documenting neurological bases / correlates of free will, or IOW why and how free will has evolved, or IOW why it is completely OK to believe in free will and still be a Good Atheist.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[BeAChooser]

YOur posts come off like a Chickenhawk

At least *mine* have the "hawk" part in them.

The Brits fought the IRA for decades in Northern Ireland.

Talk about an irrelevant statement.

but again, so what? That Musharraf is taking action doesn't mean it will be effective, and has not materially changed the safe haven of Northwestern Pakistan.

You expect little Pakistan to do what we've not been able to do in either Afghanistan or Iraq? That's your only measure of whether they are any different than Iran? At least, in comparison to Iran, they killed or captured a large number of al-Qaeda and turned some of them over to us for further questioning. That sort of cooperation is totally lacking with Iran and Iran appears to be actively helping al-Qaeda by supplying them arms and training, in addition to actively participating in operations against Iraq.

From yesterday's Los Angeles Times. ... snip ... The attacks could presage a broader war by Islamist militants against government forces, triggered by the siege of a radical mosque last week by elite Pakistani commandos in the capital, Islamabad, which left scores dead.

Wait! Just a moment ago you were trying to give us the impression that al-Qaeda and Pakistan are best friends. Make up your mind.

Why do you presume Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?

Don't you pay any attention to the news or to the rest of this thread?

It's little things like this, posted by Augustine in #19: "U.S. reconnaissance spacecraft have spotted a training center in Iran that duplicates the layout of the governor's compound in Karbala, Iraq, that was attacked in January by a specialized unit that killed American and Iraqi soldiers. The U.S. believes the discovery indicates Iran was heavily involved in the attack, which relied on a fake motorcade to gain entrance to the compound. The duplicate layout in Iran allowed attackers to practice procedures to use at the Iraqi compound, the Defense Dept. believes.
Michael Mecham, In Orbit, Aviation Week and Space Technology, June 4, 2007"

And this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran214.xml "According to recent reports received by Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians are training senior al-Qa'eda operatives in Teheran to take over the organisation when bin Laden is no longer leader."

And this: http://www.nysun.com/article/43442 "Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters to carry out attacks against coalition forces throughout the Middle East. The Iranian government has been providing a safe haven for fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group since they were forced to flee Afghanistan in late 2001. But Western intelligence agencies now report that the Iranians are training Al Qaeda fighters at centers that were previously used by other Islamic militant groups, such as the Lebanese militia Hezbollah."

And this: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm "As we mentioned in chapter 2, while in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin's return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi "muscle" operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. In October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved. Also in October 2000, two future muscle hijackers, Mohand al Shehri and Hamza al Ghamdi, flew from Iran to Kuwait. In November, Ahmed al Ghamdi apparently flew to Beirut, traveling-perhaps by coincidence-on the same flight as a senior Hezbollah operative. Also in November, Salem al Hazmi apparently flew from Saudi Arabia to Beirut. In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers, Wail al Shehri, Waleed al Shehri, and Ahmed al Nami, all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah. Later in November, two future muscle hijackers, Satam al Suqami and Majed Moqed, flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border. KSM and Binalshibh have confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. They deny any other reason for the hijackers' travel to Iran. They also deny any relationship between the hijackers and Hezbollah. In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence-that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers."

And this: http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iran_and_alqaeda_in.php "Further evidence of Iran's support of the Shia death squads and Sunni al-Qaeda has emerged. At the end of December, two Iranian agents of the Qods force were arrested in a SCIRI compound in Baghdad. The Iraqi government was angry over the arrests, as the Iranians were part of a diplomatic delegation, and the agents were later released and deported. But the Washington Post reported the two Iranian intelligence agents captured in Baghdad possessed "weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information... [and] information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq." One was "the third-highest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Qods Brigade. ... This ignores a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as Iran's sheltering of over 100 al-Qaeda leaders, including Said bin Laden, Osama's son, and Saif al-Adel, al-Qaeda's strategic planner, or Iranian support of Somalia's Sunni Islamic Courts by providing arms and training."

Again, I didn't have to dig to find those examples. They are out there by the hundreds. You just choose to ignore them.

Pakistan's policy, to date, has provided a safe haven in Northwest Pakistan for both Al Q, Taliban, and other Islamist jerks.

"Save haven" might be the wrong word when al-Qaeda by the hundreds are being killed in that area by Pakistani troops.

BAC - "I'm still waiting to hear what exactly you will do about Iran's government helping kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq."

I expect that what we can do is roughly the same thing we did about Iran backing people who killed Marines in Beirut, in 1983.

You mean send in the lawyers (I mean clowns)? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2951938.stm "US federal judge has found Iran liable for the 1983 bombing of a US barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 marines dead." ROTFLOL! This sentence in the linked article is especially interesting given it was written in 2003: "The ruling comes amid growing tensions between Tehran and Washington, with the Bush administration stepping up pressure on Iran to clamp down on alleged al-Qaeda members in the country and stop pursuing nuclear weapons programmes."

Your Air Campaign is all well and good until you get to the part of "no troops on the ground"

I didn't say that. I said we would not invade or occupy the country. That doesn't preclude an occasional use of special forces with select missions who enter and quickly leave. I guess I should have made that clearer for some.

I don't see that Spec Ops program that Iran has, of whatever level, is stoppable at an acceptable political cost.

ROTFLOL! You mean the thousands of suicide bombers they claim to have trained? Frankly, I think you are just waving boogie men at us. Whether we do something about Iran or not, it appears suicide bombers are being used anyway. Iran is ALREADY helping suicide bombers who are targeting US assets and allies. That being the case, we might as well do something about the source and promote a change of government in Iran that will end that type of activity. I'm sure Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would agree.

Doing more we aren't prepared to do, materially, unless you want to restart the draft in anticipation of doing it sometime next year, or the year after that.

This is just another boogie man. There is no need to institute a draft for the approach I've outlined. We aren't going to invade Iran and should Iran try to send it's army our way, the existing forces are more than capable of dealing with it.

OK, how long to you intend this anti mine campaign, by bombing everything that floats along the Iranian coast, to take?

Until it is clear that Iran's government has stopped supporting/helping those trying to destabilize Iraq and has closed down all al-Qaeda operations in their country. Turning over the senior al-Qaeda in their "custody" might be a nice gesture too.

anything that floats can lay mines.

But not in quantity and at some point the use of small civilian craft becomes a violation of the Geneva Conventions. At some point, their use would make turning the Iranian coast into a "free fire" zone acceptable ... even to the world at large. How bloody this becomes over the question of whether they will stop acting like terrorists and supporting terrorists is really up to them.

OK, when was this fantasy of yours, a free fire zone along the Iranian coast, supposed to start? Before or after the Iranian IAD network is to be taken out?

How about concurrently? You seem to think the Iranian IAD will be effective. What do you base this on given the experience the US Air Force and Navy have had with suppressing and destroying air defense systems the last decade or so? Now granted, if we wait long enough Iran may be able to install components that will cost us to take out. But that's really just an argument for dealing with Iran now.

BAC - "Iranian civilians will know this is coming. We will tell them."

What means do you intend to use?

Good grief. You're not suggesting the Iranian government would hide the full transcript of an ultimatum from it's people just to get some of them killed? Are that they despicable? And do you think only Iran can broadcast in Iran? You think the US can't deliver psyop materials to the country in the day's leading up to the attack? Even simple printed flyers delivered to the largest cities would spread the word quickly. You think we can't do that?

"If they allow their government." You glibly say that as though it has meaning.

Wasn't one of the favorite lines of the anti Iraq invasion war crowd that the Iraqis deserved the government they had because they *allowed* Saddam to remain in control? Why didn't they just rise up? Well this isn't the same thing. What you forget is that unlike Saddam's Iraq, within a few days of Iran's government ignoring the third or fourth ultimatum deadline, there would be little in the way of organized government or security left. I'm almost certain that the security forces that allow Iran to maintain its control over it's people would be on the target list should we get to that stage of the crisis. And don't you remember what unarmed crowds managed to do in the Soviet Union? Why couldn't the same thing happen in Iraq? Besides ... doesn't Iran claim to be a democracy?

China and Russia, actually, is who I had in mind.

And should we really base our actions on their interests?

BAC - "I'm waiting to hear specifically how you will end Iran's efforts to support the al-qaeda terrorists and troublemakers in Iraq.

I don't see that ending.

So you find it acceptable as things now stand? al-Qaeda having safe haven ... REAL safe haven ... in Iran? And getting enormous support to try and destabilize Iraq? You do realize that's a prescription for our losing in Iraq. And perhaps the War on Terror.

The problem of privileged sanctuary is a lesson still staring the entire US military political complex in the face.

Your answer is to start bombing.

My answer is a clear means to deal with it. What you offer is nothing but vagueness. You even seem to admit we might as well learn to live with it. Live with islamic terrorism? How many 9/11's will be acceptable each year? We can't live with it because those Iranian actions will cost us victory in Iraq. And then perhaps elsewhere. And once Iran has the bomb the cost of doing something about Iran may be insurmountable.

If you are so smart, why didn't Bush and his team start that last year? In 2005? Why weren't we bombing Syria in 2004 over a leaky border?

I have no idea but I'll bet you it has something to do with fear of the press and politics. Bush has demonstrated time and again he want's to *work* with his adversary, not beat them, and that he fears the press. But in this case, there will be no working with your adversary and the press may be part of the problem. What even Bush hasn't come to realize is that we are in a life or death struggle with islamofanatics. And time isn't on our side.

If you and I, for example, take our dhow out and lay a few mines, and if the helicopter armed with Hellfire sees us doing it (on his vision device of some sort, let's call it a Hughes or TI FLIR for the moment) and if the visual is confirmed "mine over the side (good viewing angle required, good magnification) then the fishing vessel is no longer "non combatant" and a reasonable shot could be taken.

You missed my point. The use of civilian fishing vessels to lay mines might be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits hiding military articles in civilian infrastructure.

You presume that nothing has been done to increase the Screen/Guard mission on the Eastern border?

I know they have built scores of forts but apparently its easy to bypass them. Word is that some of the fort occupants have even been bought off by infiltrators. Pretty much like our southern border. So the terrorist bombings in Iraq continue.

http://www.nysun.com/article/56188 "On Iraq's Border With Iran, Security Is Lax"

Put a different way: do you actually think that CENTCOM and the CFLCC in Iraq are ignoring the infiltration along the Eastern border?

Of course not but what they are doing clearly isn't working. They've known about this problem for 3 or more years and still it is easy to find credible reports of Iranian supported/trained al-Qaeda carrying out attacks inside Iraq.

BAC - "I call it wasting time while Iran gets closer and closer to building a nuclear weapon and arming itself with more modern weapons ...

More Chickenhawk talking points.

I'll say it one more time. You know absolutely nothing about me. Actually, your use of the Chickenhawk label is rather laughable. It's a sign of weakness in your debate arguments. It is an attempt to stifle debate. Regardless of my background (and you actually know nothing about me), do you honestly think only people who have served in the military should be listened to when it comes to US foreign policy and defense matters? Because if you do, Rice is out. So is most of this administration AND the last administration. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosecelt were all good wartime leaders, but "chickenhawks" by your standards. So just how far are you prepared to go with this adhominen? Should only teachers have a say about teaching? Should only the police be listened to about fighting crime? If the number one issue in the coming election is the war on terror, should only military (past and present) be allowed to vote? And since only those who are in Iraq, have been to Iraq or preparing to Iraq know enough to judge the situation properly, perhaps only they should be allowed a voice? I'm sure the anti-war movement members here at JREF will be interested in your answer since 80% of those in active duty voted for Bush in the last election.

BAC, you overlook the a core element of Iran's program, which is Russia. Cut a deal with VLAD

And just what sort of deal (or should we say blackmail payment?) do you envision? Lot's of cash? And how long will we be blackmailed? Sorry, the problem is that Putin also wants to create problems for the US. Remember his roots. Remember that the Soviets caused problems in Iraq all the way up to the invasion. And they may even have a been a party to moving WMD related materials out of the country just before the invasion. They certainly were closely tied to those Iraqis who formed the core of Iraqi-born insurgents.

With respect to Iran, the Soviets ... I mean Russians ... could put a brake on shipment of nuclear related materials and high tech weaponry to Iran yesterday. But they haven't done it. No, they (and China) seem more than happy to supply Iran with materials that will help kill Americans should we try to stop Iran's terrorist related activities. They've had no qualms about supplying Iran with TOR-M1 missile systems. That wasn't a responsible thing for Russia to do. One more thing. Just how many times should we and Russian's send a "forceful" message to Iran about nuclear enrichment (that was all the latest meeting between Bush and Putin said they'd be doing)? Seems to me we've both done that before and it got us nowhere but here with the problem growing steadily worse.

Four years ago, he and W signed an historic accord that drew down both our nuclear arsenals by about 70%. What the hell happened?

Drawing down our arsenal was definitely in Russia's interest. Stopping terrorist attacks by Iranians doesn't seem to be.

Will bombing Teheran do that? I don't think so. Indeed, it will motivate hard core elements in the Pasdaran, and other parts of the Iranian security aparatus, to increase those efforts, as asymmetrical is one of the few ways they can get at us.

They are already doing that. Bombing doesn't worsen that situation. What bombing does is put a clock on Iran's support of such activities. The longer they wait to end the bombing the weaker Iran becomes. At some point it may be weaker than all the neighboring countries. Now if I were an Iranian leader, that possibility would worry me. I'd look at that situation and see a losing cause ... one that might actually get me killed.

The first people that hurts are . . . the Iranian man on the street.

Balderdash. Iran, unlike the US isn't a welfare economy. Destruction of the Iranian government may hardly affect the average person's lifestyle (except perhaps provide MORE freedom).

Comanche was also part of Force XXI. Oh, wait, it never showed up, but no matter, other platforms sufficed.

You just prove what I said ... that Iraq did not face our best units.

That doesn't change the fact that 3d ID was a Heavy Division.

I didn't say it wasn't. But it wasn't our heaviest or most lethal division. And that's all I said it wasn't.

Logistics, BAC. The MSR's and ASR's have a finite throughput. Heavy divisions take a crap load of 35MM, hell, all classes of supply, to include the all imporatant water, to keep the momentum up in a rapid advance.

I understand logistics. In fact, one of the reasons we need Iraq to be successful is logistics. Again, the point I made is that Iraq did not face our best units ... nor the bulk of our army.

I said the Iranian people need not fear an invasion and occupation.

And they would believe you . . . why?

Why wouldn't they, unless Iran has a version of Baghdad Bob tell the Iranians we are invading in mass. But that would eventually backfire, wouldn't it?

The end state in Iran, after an Air Campaign is, as I understand your plan:

Civil Disorder
Lots of military equipment destroyed.
Lots of C2 nodes destroyed.
IAD network a wreck
Irani Air Force wrecked, or a non factor
Oil fields destroyed/damaged
Iranian Navy sunk or scuttled, particularly the subs

You overlook the fact that it is a multi-staged campaign. Not all of that happens at once. And some of it doesn't happen at all (oil fields destroyed). Hardly any of that is likely to happen if the Iranian government shows ANY sanity. If it doesn't, then we surely don't want Iranians armed with nukes helping islamic-terrorists who openly proclaim they seek the downfall of the west.

Hunamitarian disaster pending.

Why would that be pending when we haven't attacked civilian infrastructure or civilians? The power plants will still be intact. So will the water and sewer treatment plants. And the marketplace. Even the oil refineries shouldn't take long to get back up and running. Unless Iranians destroy them themselves. Sounds to me like you have created another non-existent boogie man to scare us from a course that needs to be taken.

BAC - "I guess you really haven't been paying attention to the rhetoric from Iran's leaders or from Osama."

1. Yes I have. Much of it is for a domestic audience, some of it is "The Arab Street" appealed to.

That might be believable if Iran and al-Qaeda weren't already acting on that rhetoric. There are Iranian missiles launched by Iranians falling on Israel. Osama has set up operations in Gaza.

2. Why do you conflate the two? They are not on the same side, they are on their own sides.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They are acting like that.

"Hi. I am coming to set fire to your house to get rid of the termites.

Two can play that game.

"Help. My neighbor is throwing gasoline on my house fire.

Sorry, your neighbor might get mad if we stopped him."

the SASO problem boils down to the numbers. If you want to Screen/Guard the Iranian infiltrators, it costs you assets on the Syrian border, or in Baghdad, or in Buquba, or in . . .

Zinni said "300,000" to get the job done. Shinsekis staff come up with a smaller number, 250,000 ish.

Ah ... so it is YOUR solution that requires the draft. ROTFLOL!

The missions would be undertaken on a number of levels, assets prioritized as the CINC CENT demands:
Combined arms Screen/Guard along the eastern Iraqi border. (Includes working with Iraqi uinits, a considerable risk and vulnerability.) Intel and Counter Intel. SOF. (Inside Iraq) CMO. Information Operations.

That's what you call "specifically"? ROTFLOL!

By the way, it doesn't seem to be working.

BAC - "Or at least explain to us why they haven't worked and how you would change that."

With the resources on hand now, or with the mission resourced at levels that might allow the mission to succeed?

By all means suggest a fix using whatever resources you think can REALISTICALLY be obtained. You know, don't you, that the draft is a non-starter.

You seem to think the Iran factor is the predominate factor in Iraq.

I just contend that if you allow al-qaeda a safe haven from which to destabilize Iraq and in addition add help from Iran, the likelihood of qwelling the insurgency in Iraq is nil.

BAC - "The outcome of this conflict may determine whether many additional Americans, Europeans, Australians and others die in the coming years at the hands of WMD wielding terrorists backed by countries like Iran."

Which conflict? The WoT or the War in Iraq?

Iraq is currently the most important front in the WoT. Failure in securing it would be a major blow in the WoT. Our victory would be a serious blow to the objectives of al-Qaeda.

The unknown is, if you "attack the government" you do attack Iran.

Like I told the other poster ... there is also an unknown of what happens if you don't. And those unknowns may be even bigger and potentially more serious.

Why would you assume it to be a pro American faction? Persians have ego, and pride, as well as Americans.

Just as long as it's not a pro-terrorist faction. Just as long as its a hands off Iraq faction. That would be sufficient.

BAC - "Remember, the UN inspectors would have just given them a clean bill of health."

You don't know this.

Weren't you listening to Blix's speeches and the media's reports?

Once sanctions are lifted, you could guess, or bet, that in three to four years he'd be hard at work putting together another program.

My, my you are optimistic. The ISG concluded that in 6 months he'd once again have mustard gas munitions and in a year or two he'd be making nerve agent based munitions. And that's assuming there was nothing to the reports of WMD materials being shifted to Syria. Now maybe biological agents would have taken him a little longer or maybe not. But by now he'd undoubtedly have them and the WoT would be much more complicated and scary.

While Saddam was alive and in power, I don't see that as having ever happened.

Again on what basis, if the UN inspections concluded he had come clean? And non-coalition members were eager to supply whatever he needed ... no questions asked. Business as usual.

Since when did Saddam actively work with Al Qaeda? Other terror groups, sure, but Al Q?

The verdict on that is out. There are indications his government did help al-qaeda at times and certainly was making overtures to it after 9/11. But that misses the point. Just allowing al-Qaeda safe haven in Iraq, which he was already doing, would have caused serious problems for us. Like I said, what if al-Zarqawi kept launching mass casualty attacks against western allies from the safety of Iraq? Sooner or later he'd be successful. What would you have done then ... especially if within a year Saddam actually did have WMD to use against our forces or supply to terrorists (if not al-qaeda, his own)?

I am trying to figure out why I care that a few thousand Jordanians die in an inter Arab squabble.

What an easy way to avoid the real issue. And that attack, by the way, had the US embassy in Amman as a target. Do you care about the occupants of that embassy? Or any US embassy?

Saddam was Saddam, the Al Q successes since he fell are a result of the power vacuum and "Wild West" reality that happened when we took him down.

Again you avoid dealing with the issue. If al-Qaeda says creating a safe haven in Iraq is important to their long term plans, then shouldn't you believe it has something to do with the WoT?

Islamofanatic? Islamofascist? Sorry, I don't see the difference.

Well maybe there isn't a difference. I just don't want to ruffle the feathers of folks on your side of the aisle. A lot of them seem to object to implying the other side is fascist. They all KNOW that Bush is the real fascist.

 

[BeAChooser]

the USA is still a democracy; it is both a representitive republic AND a democracy.

How can that be when these two forms of government are the antithesis of one another.

***********

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

"The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy."

... snip ...

"A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."

**********

Weren't the Founders wise?

One of the sad and ironic facts of history is that official Israeli armed forces have killed many more official American armed forces than have official Iranian armed forces.

Just precious. Notice the word "official" folks? And notice that the topic under discussion is support of terrorism by Iran? Guess "unofficial" armed forces don't count. No wonder he thinks terror is an artificial threat. ROTFLOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

The politics of artificial fear are very much still in evidence; as you can see from BAC, the strongman tactic of trying emotional blackmail is very much in evidence today still; and it really does poison political atmospheres.

Translation?

Gurdur apparently doesn't believe the WoT or threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran in league with terrorists is real. He thinks both are artificial and that Bush is the real terrorist and threat.

As a liberal, Gurdur thinks about everything in terms of "feelings" so when faced with hard facts counter to what he thinks, he rationalizes it as "emotional blackmail".

Gurdur thinks that facts counter to his claims poison the political atmosphere. ROTFLOL!

 

[Gurdur]

How can that be when these two forms of government are the antithesis of one another.

They're not.

You know, you really need to learn the difference between an unsubstantiated assertion and a reasoned argument; to put it even more plainly, you repeat your pet prejudices if somehow repeating them ad nauseum will somehow magically make them true. Reality check time for you.

Weren't the Founders wise?

Trying to quote definitions of English abstract nouns from a small group of people over 200 years ago as if they were still true is only displaying your own silliness.

BTW, didn't the "Founders" actually allow slavery? Oh dearie me, so they did. Terribly unwise; the continuation of slavery in the USA would eventuate in the very worst war the USA has ever known, with the highest casualty count for the USA.

Bloody stupid, what what?

Just precious.

To match you, Otto.

Translation?

If you can't understand plain English, this board is probably not the best venue for you. You really do want the bit in the middle explained again and again, eh?

Gurdur apparently doesn't believe

You have no idea what I believe. The fact you're willing to make things up simply means you are intentionally dishonest; it certainly does not mean I believe or disbelieve in various things.

As a liberal,

Since I'm not a liberal, there goes your dishonesty again.
I assume it was simply too hard for you to ask what my own politics are, but it really is bloody stupid of you.

Gurdur thinks about everything in terms of "feelings"

Only when I'm at the pub, Otto.

Gurdur thinks that facts counter to his claims poison the political atmosphere.

Wrong again.

ROTFLOL!

That seems to be the zenith of your intellectual potential -- the argumentum ad AOL. You need to add "eleventy-one!"

 

[Darth Rotor]

At least *mine* have the "hawk" part in them.

And? Are you implying that my not wanting to start a war with Iran makes me less than willing to use force? You spent how much time in war? I contributed my bit to help some Islamist scum meet Allah.

Talk about an irrelevant statement.

Relevant to the topic at hand, which you appear to misunderstand the time scale required to root out guerillas and create change.

You expect little Pakistan to do what we've not been able to do in either Afghanistan or Iraq?

Pakistan, and the Mushmeister, have the unique character of being local. I expect them to do what they can do, which is limited by local politics.

That's your only measure of whether they are any different than Iran?

Enough of the dishonest rhetoric already, BAC. You keep attempting to mischaracterize my remarks in such abosolutist terms that I tire of your blatant falsehood. Either honest up, or shut up.

At least, in comparison to Iran, they killed or captured a large number of al-Qaeda and turned some of them over to us for further questioning. That sort of cooperation is totally lacking with Iran and Iran appears to be actively helping al-Qaeda by supplying them arms and training, in addition to actively participating in operations against Iraq.

No surprise, Iran has been our political enemy since about 1979.

Wait! Just a moment ago you were trying to give us the impression that al-Qaeda and Pakistan are best friends.

No, you are lying in full now. That Pakistan allows a safe haven is a result of internal Pakistani political and ethnic concerns, not any love Islamists the Mushmeister and the Pashtun and various Al Q cells in Pakistan share.

Clue up.

Don't you pay any attention to the news or to the rest of this thread?

Yep. I read the news. Even sources from Canada, the US, France, elsewhere.

It's little things like this, posted by Augustine in #19: "U.S. reconnaissance spacecraft have spotted a training center in Iran that duplicates the layout of the governor's compound in Karbala, Iraq, that was attacked in January by a specialized unit that killed American and Iraqi soldiers.

Yes. Note above where I pointed out the Irani Spec Ops. I don't see how bombing Iran can eliminate that capability, though perhaps bombing some known Spec Ops facilities might do as the cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan (clinton) training camps did: slow it down a bit.

And this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran214.xml "According to recent reports received by Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians are training senior al-Qa'eda operatives in Teheran to take over the organisation when bin Laden is no longer leader."

Could be true.

And this: http://www.nysun.com/article/43442 "Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters to carry out attacks against coalition forces throughout the Middle East.

My only question is whether the fighters they are training are Al Qaeda, or are members of other factions. I don't consider the NY Sun as gospel, but its an interesting report. See my previous post, about Iran Spec Ops training people to infiltrate into Iraq. I do indeed pay attention. This is not news, it was going on when I was over there. What I want to know is, if this is so critical, why attacking Iran wasn't on your plate in 2004? Iin 2005?

The Iranian government has been providing a safe haven for fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group since they were forced to flee Afghanistan in late 2001.

Interesting. That is at odds with what other reports reflect, but it is certainly possible that Al Qaeda sorts are allowed to stay in Iran. They are also allowed to vacation in Qatar, where the US has a base or two, if the Emir's neutrality is respected. Should we now bomb Qatar? (This from a US Army counter intel briefing, 2004, but rather an open secret in the CENTCOM AOR at the time.)

But Western intelligence agencies now report that the Iranians are training Al Qaeda fighters at centers that were previously used by other Islamic militant groups, such as the Lebanese militia Hezbollah."

I again question the affiliation with Al Qaeda, but this is the same pattern of behavior Iran has pursued since 1979.

Why did we attack Iraq, rather than Iran, if this Gulf War is the War on Terror? What was the point? All it did was do Iran a favor, besides ridding the world of Saddam. (A good thing, from many angles.)

And this: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

Yep. Aware of that. Have the book.

And this: http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iran_and_alqaeda_in.php "Further evidence of Iran's support of the Shia death squads and Sunni al-Qaeda has emerged. .. [and] information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq."

Yep. Aware of that. We sell weapons to Israel. They shoot them into Lebanon. Is that our fault? I don't think so.

Again, I didn't have to dig to find those examples. They are out there by the hundreds. You just choose to ignore them.

Nope. Unlike you, I don't look at them through a paper towel tube.

"Save haven" might be the wrong word when al-Qaeda by the hundreds are being killed in that area by Pakistani troops.

Wrong again, if you bothered to read. For the last five years, Northwestern Pakistan has been a refuge, a safe haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda. That is a material fact, as it has been used to stage attacks into Afghanistan, and to retire to, relatively unmolested when compared to what is going on in Afghanistan, under the cover of local tribal chiefs and allies.

You mean send in the lawyers (I mean clowns)? [/QUOTE] Nope. [B]You[/B] said tha...tp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2951938.stm "US federal judge has found Iran liable for the 1983 bombing of a US barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 marines dead."

Duh. We knew that back in 1983. How is this news? IIRC, that ruling helps defend the freezing of Iranian assets in the US, part of the full spectrum conflict between the US and Iran. Four standard elements of power:

Diplomatic
Information
Military
Economic

You mean the thousands of suicide bombers they claim to have trained? Frankly, I think you are just waving boogie men at us.

Look at what you just wrote. I am not the one waving boogie men about. Think again about the words you use, please.

Whether we do something about Iran or not, it appears suicide bombers are being used anyway. Iran is ALREADY helping suicide bombers who are targeting US assets and allies

.
Yes. And given the pattern since the 1970's, will probably continue to do so.

That being the case, we might as well do something about the source and promote a change of government in Iran that will end that type of activity. I'm sure Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would agree.

They'd also agree with using spies and assassination against the Syrian and Iranian leadership. They would have suggested the sniper actually pull the trigger on Al Sadr in August of 2003, and in the spring of 2004, and in the summer of 2004. They'd also advise us to know the nature of the war being embarked upon, and the object. They'd also both suggest we know our enemy, and the people, as well as we know ourselves, which seems not to have been done in Iraq. Perhaps the people in Washington have learned, perhaps not. I am not bettig the over, given the rhetoric.

Your plan: bomb Iran into a regime change. Why would this work?

This is just another boogie man. There is no need to institute a draft for the approach I've outlined. We aren't going to invade Iran and should Iran try to send it's army our way, the existing forces are more than capable of dealing with it.

Right. If we bomb them, no ground troops, no decisive result, and no need for a draft. See again the dispersed nature of Spec Ops operations, who can continue to infiltrate people into Iraq regardless of how we make the rubble bounce. (Another argument for beefing up the Screen/Guard mission on the Iraq/Iran border.) How certain are you that the US has all Iranian Spec Ops facilities on the target list?

Until it is clear that Iran's government has stopped supporting/helping those trying to destabilize Iraq and has closed down all al-Qaeda operations in their country. Turning over the senior al-Qaeda in their "custody" might be a nice gesture too.

That would be a great move, what is the quid pro quo offered from Washington? Note, again, Persians have pride, and egos, also.

But not in quantity and at some point the use of small civilian craft becomes a violation of the Geneva Conventions. At some point, their use would make turning the Iranian coast into a "free fire" zone acceptable ... even to the world at large. How bloody this becomes over the question of whether they will stop acting like terrorists and supporting terrorists is really up to them.

Not a violation of Geneva, but a reclassification of the armed mine layers as combatant forces. This goes back to how you prove it was armed before you shoot at it. That is so we can stay on the good side of Geneva, for our own reasons.

How about concurrently? You seem to think the Iranian IAD will be effective.

No, though concurrent is not a bad idea. But it will take time (a few days) to take down the IAD network.

What do you base this on given the experience the US Air Force and Navy have had with suppressing and destroying air defense systems the last decade or so?

See above.

Good grief. You're not suggesting the Iranian government would hide the full transcript of an ultimatum from it's people just to get some of them killed?

No, but you just did. It may also be repeated far and wide to show what jackasses the US are. Not sure how the Teheran government would handle it.

And do you think only Iran can broadcast in Iran? You think the US can't deliver psyop materials to the country in the day's leading up to the attack? Even simple printed flyers delivered to the largest cities would spread the word quickly. You think we can't do that?

Knock it off with the attempts at mind reading and mischaracterization BAC, it is dishonest.

Wasn't one of the favorite lines of the anti Iraq invasion war crowd that the Iraqis deserved the government they had because they *allowed* Saddam to remain in control? Why didn't they just rise up? Well this isn't the same thing.

I don't ascribe to that position, never did, as I understand very well that Saddam ran an authoritatian, Stalinist/Ba'athist form of government. Blaming the victims was rather idiotic, wasn't it? The last time the Shia rose up, in the South, in '91, Pres Bush (and Schwarzkopf's team) sorta bailed on them, thanks in part to not prohibiting helicopter flights in the southern no fly zone after the cease fire.

What you forget is that unlike Saddam's Iraq, within a few days of Iran's government ignoring the third or fourth ultimatum deadline, there would be little in the way of organized government or security left.

Really? What I forget? I can't forget what hasn't happened, and I don't presume the enemy is stupid. On what do you base this assessment?

I'm almost certain that the security forces that allow Iran to maintain its control over it's people would be on the target list should we get to that stage of the crisis.

I am certain that security force C2 nodes would be targeted. I am also certain that the Iranians saw what we did in Iraq and have tried to develop plans that counter our approach there. We don't make much of a secret of our general methods. They can use the internet.

And don't you remember what unarmed crowds managed to do in the Soviet Union? Why couldn't the same thing happen in Iraq? Besides ... doesn't Iran claim to be a democracy?

No, your continued falsehood sustains my contempt for your style of discussion. Iran claims to be an Islamic Republic. Do I have to drag out that diagram again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Schema_gvt_iran_en.png

Look at who the supreme leader is, who is and is not elected, or appointed, who is secular, who is not.

And should we really base our actions on their interests?

No, we should base our actions on our long term interests.

So you find it acceptable as things now stand?

No, but I find your solution simplistic and moronic, as moronic as Rummy's assumption that he could fight a war, and an occupation, on the cheap. Check out the recent article on MRAP in 2003.

al-Qaeda having safe haven ... REAL safe haven ... in Iran?

The US had blinded its own Intel organs inside Iran, so the US is rather beholden to allied intelligence to provide intel inside Iran in support of much of anything. Knowing what Bush and team have done lately, what incentive do allies have to play along? The recent ops reported in the press down in Baluchistan were, IMO, a good idea, too bad they got public press. Blown OPSEC, again.

And getting enormous support to try and destabilize Iraq? You do realize that's a prescription for our losing in Iraq. And perhaps the War on Terror.

While the US can look bad in Iraq for a variety of reasons, the "win" of getting rid of Saddam, and of liberating the Kurds in Iraq is already achieved. "Losing" Iraq to an Islamist government is already taking place under our own noses. Maliki and his Shia sponsors are more likely to set up an Islamic Republic (and thus keep the civl war going for some time) than any other form of government, so in a sense that "loss" is already a fait accompli, based on our own actions, and regardless of Iran's influence, which is not trivial -- all Spec Ops, Al Quds, and support for guerillas and terrorists aside.

If the US were actually waging a war on Terror, Iran would have been attacked before Iraq, as Iran has been a state sponsor of terror since 1979. You will note that the "War on Terror" did not attack Iran in 2003. Something else is going on, but it's being called a war on terror. It's an attempt to export demmocracy via bayonet, with less than spectacular results so far. Maybe my pessimism is ill founded. Maybe America will find the will to spend twenty years in Iraq, supported by arms, to aid and abet the transformation.

Not holding my breath.

My answer is a clear means to deal with it. What you offer is nothing but vagueness. You even seem to admit we might as well learn to live with it. Live with islamic terrorism? How many 9/11's will be acceptable each year?

Iran wasn't behind 9-11. Let's not try playing that card, shall we?

We've been "living with" Islamic terrorism since Munich 1972. I agree with you that our efforts to counter it need to improve. No question. We've also been dealing with Islamic terrorists in the Philippines for over a decade. Do you want to declare defeat there since we have not bombed Manilla?

We can't live with it because those Iranian actions will cost us victory in Iraq. And then perhaps elsewhere. And once Iran has the bomb the cost of doing something about Iran may be insurmountable.

Yes, Iran with a bomb allows a deterrent, no question. Thus, getting Russia to stop supporting their program is imperative.

What even Bush hasn't come to realize is that we are in a life or death struggle with islamofanatics.

Is it a long term war? Yes. Is Bush unaware? No. Is he dumb enough, or are his team dumb enough, to think this problem has a quick solution?. No, though some of the moves in Iraq make me wonder.

And time isn't on our side.

Depends on what your aims are.

You missed my point. The use of civilian fishing vessels to lay mines might be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits hiding military articles in civilian infrastructure.

Nope. Using a fishing vessel to lay mines is a simple act of commandeering a civilian vessel into military use, and thus making it a viable target. It's that simple.

http://www.nysun.com/article/56188 "On Iraq's Border With Iran, Security Is Lax"

See my previous comments on what I'd do regarding the infiltration.

Of course not but what they are doing clearly isn't working. They've known about this problem for 3 or more years and still it is easy to find credible reports of Iranian supported/trained al-Qaeda carrying out attacks inside Iraq.

See my comments on troop levels, and the underresourcing of the effort.

I'll say it one more time. You know absolutely nothing about me. Actually, your use of the Chickenhawk label is rather laughable. It's a sign of weakness in your debate arguments. It is an attempt to stifle debate.

It's an attempt to label your talking points, as I noted. It is accurate. But enough, you are not a Chickenhawk. Happy?

Regardless of my background (and you actually know nothing about me), do you honestly think only people who have served in the military should be listened to when it comes to US foreign policy and defense matters?

Nope. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, thanks.

And just what sort of deal (or should we say blackmail payment?) do you envision? Lot's of cash? And how long will we be blackmailed?

We have been blackmailed by Egypt and Israel since about 1979 into 3 billion or so a year, apiece, to not fight each other. Camp David.

With respect to Iran, the Soviets ... I mean Russians ... could put a brake on shipment of nuclear related materials and high tech weaponry to Iran yesterday. But they haven't done it. No, they (and China) seem more than happy to supply Iran with materials that will help kill Americans should we try to stop Iran's terrorist related activities.

Yep. So, what now? Must we bomb Russia? China? They are, by this line of inquiry, aiding and abetting Iran by enabling their operations to cost America additional blood and treasure in our efforts in Iraq.

They've had no qualms about supplying Iran with TOR-M1 missile systems. That wasn't a responsible thing for Russia to do.

Why do you say that? We sell arms, the Russians sell arms. The French sell arms.

One more thing. Just how many times should we and Russian's send a "forceful" message to Iran about nuclear enrichment (that was all the latest meeting between Bush and Putin said they'd be doing)?

When the Russians suspend shipments, I'll consider their actions concrete. Until then, you are right, it's a lot of talk.

Stopping terrorist attacks by Iranians doesn't seem to be.

The art of geopolitics is to make it so. I also seem to recall a few years ago some cooperative efforts between Russia and US in terms of War on Terror, since Vlad and his bunch still have Islamists to deal with, for example in Chechnya.

They are already doing that. Bombing doesn't worsen that situation. What bombing does is put a clock on Iran's support of such activities. The longer they wait to end the bombing the weaker Iran becomes. At some point it may be weaker than all the neighboring countries. Now if I were an Iranian leader, that possibility would worry me. I'd look at that situation and see a losing cause ... one that might actually get me killed.

It might or might not have that effect. My concern is not the ability of the US to make the rubble bounce, it is, remember Serbia and 71 days, how long the air campaign takes and what cost is exacted, politically, for that.

Balderdash. Iran, unlike the US isn't a welfare economy. Destruction of the Iranian government may hardly affect the average person's lifestyle (except perhaps provide MORE freedom).

Heard of the gasoline subsidies in Iran? That's a form of welfare.

You just prove what I said ... that Iraq did not face our best units.

Nope.

I didn't say it wasn't. But it wasn't our heaviest or most lethal division. And that's all I said it wasn't.

I am curious as to how that matters. Are you saying that the 3d ID didn't succeed? How much faster, given a sand storm, operational tempo, and logistics trail problems do you think 4th ID would have gotten to Baghdad?

I understand logistics. In fact, one of the reasons we need Iraq to be successful is logistics. Again, the point I made is that Iraq did not face our best units ... nor the bulk of our army.

"The bulk of our army" could not get into the fight due to . . . logistics, and the hard political fact that along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia did not allow for an operation based from their soil.

You overlook the fact that it is a multi-staged campaign. Not all of that happens at once. And some of it doesn't happen at all (oil fields destroyed).

I overlook nothing. Your stage is one phase, an air campaign. Then what, Major? As to the oil fields, you noted them as an economic vulnerability yourself, now you take it off the table? OK.

Hardly any of that is likely to happen if the Iranian government shows ANY sanity.

They don't look at the world the way you do, so I'd not presume to guess what the Iranian leadership considers sane, but I do understand "stubborn."

If it doesn't, then we surely don't want Iranians armed with nukes helping islamic-terrorists who openly proclaim they seek the downfall of the west.

The Russians spent some decades, with nukes, pursuing the downfall of the west. We are still here.

Why would that be pending when we haven't attacked civilian infrastructure or civilians? The power plants will still be intact. So will the water and sewer treatment plants. And the marketplace. Even the oil refineries shouldn't take long to get back up and running.

OK, so you limit the destruction the US does by air, but you wish away any damage done by any civil disorder fomented by government losing its grip.

Why?

Unless Iranians destroy them themselves. Sounds to me like you have created another non-existent boogie man to scare us from a course that needs to be taken.

Why do you assume them away?

That might be believable if Iran and al-Qaeda weren't already acting on that rhetoric. There are Iranian missiles launched by Iranians falling on Israel. Osama has set up operations in Gaza.

Really? Interesting. Got a source? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Lebanon? He seems to have people operating there.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They are acting like that.

Could be. We worked with some real arseholes during the Cold War. We provided some help to Saddam to keep Iran busy with him.

Ah ... so it is YOUR solution that requires the draft.

Nope. The draft, we both seem to agree, is a non starter.

I just contend that if you allow al-qaeda a safe haven from which to destabilize Iraq and in addition add help from Iran, the likelihood of qwelling the insurgency in Iraq is nil.

It is low. The unknown is how badly infiltrated the current Iraqi government is, and what they can do once we leave.

Iraq is currently the most important front in the WoT. Failure in securing it would be a major blow in the WoT. Our victory would be a serious blow to the objectives of al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda doesn't need Iraq as a base of operations to succeed. Didn't need it before 9-11, don't need it now, and if what you claim about Iran is true, they already have a secure base to work from.

It is not in Maliki's interests for Al Qaeda to set up shop in his nation, once we leave.

Like I told the other poster ... there is also an unknown of what happens if you don't. And those unknowns may be even bigger and potentially more serious.

Yes. No guarantees.

Just as long as it's not a pro-terrorist faction. Just as long as its a hands off Iraq faction. That would be sufficient.

Got anyone in mind? Or, are you wishing away the undesired outcome, that a similarly hard line faction replaces the current gang?

Just allowing al-Qaeda safe haven in Iraq, which he was already doing, would have caused serious problems for us. Like I said, what if al-Zarqawi kept launching mass casualty attacks against western allies from the safety of Iraq?

Good question. That concern was one of the reasons a pre-emptive war was chosen, to forestall it. Now, let's look at the outcome.

Is it as desired?

And that attack, by the way, had the US embassy in Amman as a target. Do you care about the occupants of that embassy? Or any US embassy?

More than you'll ever know. Saddam, regardless of how other factors played out, was a guy who looked after number one first. He had to assess the risks of being tied to successful terrorist attack staged from his country. Al Zarqawi being in Iraq and active is a subtly, but importantly, difference from Saddam actively encouraging him to act. What Saddam could also do, if such an attack were successful, is choose to round up Al Zarqawi, or some of his soldiers, and turn them over as his "contribution" to reducing Islamist terrorism. Not sure if he could have gotten away with it, but Saddam was not a big fan of Islamists, given his generally "progressive," modernist nature as a Ba'athist.

If al-Qaeda says creating a safe haven in Iraq is important to their long term plans, then shouldn't you believe it has something to do with the WoT?

It does now, certainly, since the conditions on the ground are more favorable to Al Qaeda than they were when Saddam was in charge.

Well maybe there isn't a difference. I just don't want to ruffle the feathers of folks on your side of the aisle. A lot of them seem to object to implying the other side is fascist. They all KNOW that Bush is the real fascist.

I am on my own side of this discussion, BereftofACerebrum. If you want to agrue about Bush = Fascist, go talk to Ion. He's about your level of dishonest poster. I believed Colin Powell, and I understood the mid term (5-10 year) problem of his nuke and chem, and perhaps bio, programs being left unchecked. My bigger concerns were five in number.

From a recent discussion, now in the archives, one of my pearls of wisdom.

Why are you asking me? I am not Paul Wolfowitz. I would get a kick out of planning and coordinating a half dozen B-2's, filled with 2000 and 5000 pound PGM's, in a planned strike on the black stone of Meccah in the middle of the Haj.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...plicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca,_ Saudi_Arabia.jpg/800px-Supplicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca%2C_ Saudi_Arabia.jpg)j.

It would tickle me pink. That would send a message: you screw with us in the name of Allah, Osama, and Sadr Man, I take your freaking Allah Stone and turn it into gravel.

I don't see it happening any time soon, which is probably just as well for world peace.

When you can have a conversation that does not include continued attempts to put your words in my mouth, that might be nice. Until then, we have beaten this horse about into glue, and we are not going to agree on the core matter:

Attacking Iran, now, is not a good idea. (Me)
Attacking Iran, now, is a good idea. (You)

The rest is window dressing on that core disagreement. I don't understand how you think on BMD, but we can save that for another time.

ETA: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2053068&postcount=31

What I though before the war, and notes on where I was right, wrong, and still uncertain.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. Using a fishing vessel to lay mines is a simple act of commandeering a civilian vessel into military use, and thus making it a viable target. It's that simple.

Minor point: it COULD be that simple. But if the sailors on that boat aren't in military uniform, and go out to drop mines while trying to look like civies, that is indeed a violation of the Geneva conventions, and it would complicate countermeasures.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Minor point: it COULD be that simple. But if the sailors on that boat aren't in military uniform, and go out to drop mines while trying to look like civies, that is indeed a violation of the Geneva conventions, and it would complicate countermeasures.

How is that? Are Special Operations by rule a violation of the Geneva conventions? I don't think so.

Can you be a bit more specific on what manner of violation this is? I think it might be viewed as either partisan activity, sabotage, or spy activity, which changes the category of how you treat someone doing it.

You could also call it a simple crime.

Deception is part of war.

How does using covert/stealthy means violate Geneva, in your view?

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

How does using covert/stealthy means violate Geneva, in your view?

They don't. Attempts to avoid detection are not the same as attempts to be detected as an illegitimate target. That's why camouflage uniforms are still uniforms: they are intended to deceive the viewer into thinking that the wearer is not there, not to deceive the viewer into thinking the wearer is a civie and not a soldier. If you can't tell an enemy soldier from a tree, and start shooting down trees to be extra safe, it's not that big a deal. If you can't tell an enemy soldier from a civie, and start shooting civies to be extra safe, it is a big deal. That's why the distinction matters.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BrayingAssConehead

I find folks who engage in this sort of nonsense during a debate are usually losing that debate. But then, that's just my observation.

BAC - "That's your only measure of whether they are any different than Iran?"
Enough of the dishonest rhetoric already, BAC. You keep attempting to mischaracterize my remarks in such abosolutist terms that I tire of your blatant falsehood.

Did you miss the question mark following what I wrote? I was asking if that was your only measure. If not, simply say so and provide another to demonstrate that to me.

That Pakistan allows a safe haven is a result of internal Pakistani political and ethnic concerns

First of all, your use of the phrase "safe haven" is dishonest. al-Qaeda are being killed by the hundreds in Pakistan. Some of the top leaders have been caught there and even turned over to us. That hardly fits the "save haven" description.

Second, what would you say is the reason Iran allows al-Qaeda a safe haven? And there, the phrase is correctly applied.

Note above where I pointed out the Irani Spec Ops. I don't see how bombing Iran can eliminate that capability

You don't understand. The bombing campaign isn't designed to eliminate that capability although it might put a dent in it. It's designed to change the mind of the leaders of Iran so they don't send such forces to Iraq or against us elsewhere. The leaders will come to view the cost as too great very quickly if you start eliminating all their big and expensive toys.

BAC - "Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters to carry out attacks against coalition forces throughout the Middle East."

My only question is whether the fighters they are training are Al Qaeda, or are members of other factions. I don't consider the NY Sun as gospel, but its an interesting report.

And yes, I know it's not just al-Qaeda that Iran is helping:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265244,00.html "U.S. Military: Iran Training Iraqi Insurgents in Using Roadside Bombs,
Wednesday, April 11, 2007, BAGHDAD*—* Iran has been training Iraqi fighters in Iran on the assembly of deadly roadside bombs known as EFPs, the U.S. military spokesman said on Wednesday. "We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees debriefs," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell ... snip ... Caldwell also said on Wednesday that the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters."

But what's the difference if their aim is also to destabilize Iraq and kill Americans? And lest you think this an admission that the NYSun article is wrong, read on.

What I want to know is, if this is so critical, why attacking Iran wasn't on your plate in 2004? Iin 2005?

How do you know it wasn't? I've been consistent in saying that the US cannot allow Iran to destabilize Iraq and should send them a "message" ... and I wasn't talking about something on paper. I've been highly critical of the Bush administration in this regard.

QUOTED: The Iranian government has been providing a safe haven for fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group since they were forced to flee Afghanistan in late 2001.

Interesting. That is at odds with what other reports reflect, but it is certainly possible that Al Qaeda sorts are allowed to stay in Iran.

You are wrong. Other reports reflect this, too.

http://www.nysun.com/article/58507 "Iran Is Found To Be a Lair of Al Qaeda, Intelligence Estimate Cites Two Councils By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun,
July 17, 2007, WASHINGTON — One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure. That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The estimate, which represents the opinion of America's intelligence agencies, is now finished, and unclassified conclusions will be shared today with the public. ... snip ... The three main Al Qaeda leaders in Iran include Mr. Adel; the organization's minister of propaganda, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, and the man who some analysts believe is the heir apparent to Mr. bin Laden — one of his sons, Saad bin Laden. The locations of the senior leaders include a military base near Tehran called Lavizan; a northern suburb of Tehran, Chalous; an important holy city, Mashod, and a border town near Afghanistan, Zabul, the draft intelligence estimate says. ... snip ... he late founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had multiple meetings with Mr. Adel after 2001. In the past year, the multinational Iraq command force has intercepted at least 10 couriers with instructions from the Iran-based Shura Majlis. In addition, two senior leaders of Al Qaeda captured in 2006 have shared details of the Shura Majlis in Iran. "We know that there were two Al Qaeda centers of gravity. After the Taliban fell, one went to Pakistan, the other fled to Iran," Roger Cressey, a former deputy to a counterterrorism tsar, Richard Clarke, said in an interview yesterday. "The question for several years has been: What type of operational capability did each of these centers have?"

They are also allowed to vacation in Qatar, where the US has a base or two, if the Emir's neutrality is respected. Should we now bomb Qatar?

If they are helping al-Qaeda with funds, supplies, training or allowing them to plan assaults from their country? Perhaps.

I again question the affiliation with Al Qaeda, but this is the same pattern of behavior Iran has pursued since 1979.

Don't you think it's about time to put an end to it? Especially in this post 9/11 world?

Why did we attack Iraq, rather than Iran, if this Gulf War is the War on Terror?

For several OBVIOUS reasons. One would think someone who says he was a military officer would see them.

For one, Saddam was perceived as more unstable than the leaders of Iran at that time and thus more likely to do something rash. Remember that Iran's current leader was not yet in power. So the pronouncements emanating from Iran were much more moderate in tone at the time. Not lightning rods like Saddam's statements about leading his army to conquer Israel. Saddam openly applauded the 9/11 hijackers. Iran's leaders did no such thing.

The judgment about Saddam's irrationality seems more than sound, especially in hindsight. We now know that Saddam ordered the use of WMD against a non-combatant in the first Gulf War. That's not a rational act. We've always known he tried to assassinate an ex-president of the US. In fact, looking back, one can see he was so crazy that he willing to let his country be invaded, his army and ambitions for arab world dominance be destroyed, and he himself be put on the run, rather than cooperate with UN inspectors in proving that he didn't have WMD ... something the anti-war movement claims he didn't have.

Here's another reason Iraq was chosen. We were already at war with the regime. Gulf War I never ended. In fact, the audio tapes captured in the invasion of Saddam and his aides meeting during the cease fire era show they viewed themselves still to be at war with the US. There were even discussions about the use of surrogates to attack the US with WMD. Now granted, Saddam said on those tapes that Iraq would never do that but Saddam also knew those tapes were recording every word he said. And if you listen to what the aides were saying on those tapes, they seem to be supportive of the notion of using surrogates to attack us.

Here's a third possible reason for picking Iraq. Iraq was involved in the previous plot against the WTC towers. We knew that. Iraq was harboring people implicated in that plot. We knew that. So the government might have had reason to believe Iraq was involved in this one too at the time. Remember Cheney saying to the press shortly after 9/11 something to the effect that we know who did this but we aren't ready to do anything about it? He wasn't talking about the attack on Afghanistan which occurred just a few days later. Perhaps he was talking about Iraq? After the military cutbacks by the Clinton administration, the US really wasn't in the position to attack Iraq. Maybe some time to rebuild was necessary. In fact, in the attacks on Kosovo/Serbia, not to many years prior, I think I read that virtually every non-nuclear cruise missile in US inventories was used. And there are reasons to suspect Iraq involvement with Atta and in the anthrax attack (we can go into those if you insist although we'd be getting far afield from the original topic). In any case, perhaps these things led people to view Iraq as more an immediate threat than Iran.

Here's another good reason. Saddam didn't have full control of his country (or even, as it turns out, his WMD programs). In fact, David Kay, who ran the ISG during most of the survey effort, publically stated after the survey was mostly complete that Iraq was more dangerous with regards to terrorists acquiring WMD materials from it than anyone had suspected before the invasion.

Also, the location of Iraq and Iran was an issue. Iraq is close to a number of relatively weak countries that are our allies in the WoT ... Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Eliminating the threat from Saddam, who had already attacked some of them previously, might have been viewed as improving their security in the WoT. Plus their location made toppling Iraq's government much easier than attacking Iran would have been at the time. Now, however, because of the invasion of Iraq, Iran is very vulnerable. We have Air Bases throughout the region and borders that would give forces easier access to the country. Waiting a while to attack Iran has considerably improved our ability to do so. But now, time is on Iran's side. The longer we wait, the stronger Iran becomes.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
Yep. Aware of that. Have the book.

Then why do you question an al-Qaeda/Iran linkage?

We sell weapons to Israel. They shoot them into Lebanon. Is that our fault? I don't think so.

You seem to forget that Iraq and the US have not been firing missiles into Iran. Whereas, Iran supported terrorists in Lebanon have been firing them into Israel. Israel is entirely justified in attacking Israel where has Iran has no legitimate excuse for helping terrorists attack Iraq and participating in attacks in Iraq.

For the last five years, Northwestern Pakistan has been a refuge, a safe haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda. That is a material fact

So you are claiming there have been no Pakistani government attacks on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in "northwestern Pakistan"? You are claiming that Pakistan has insisted the US not attack al-Qaeda and Taliban in "northwestern Pakistan"? Hmmmm?

that ruling helps defend the freezing of Iranian assets in the US, part of the full spectrum conflict between the US and Iran.

That's been oh so effective in curbing the ill behavior of Iran. And it only took a decade or two to get the ruling. And in the meantime, Iran has helped destabilize the Middle East and Iraq (post Saddam). Based on this I conclude your approach to dealing with Iran is likely to be spectacularly unsuccessful in the WoT. How many will die because of that?

They'd also agree with using spies and assassination against the Syrian and Iranian leadership.

Of course they would. But first and foremost they were proponents of TOTAL WAR. I rather think they'd laugh at your proposed solution to the Iranian problem. (By the way, are you proposing that we assassinate the Syrian and Iranian leaders?)

Your plan: bomb Iran into a regime change. Why would this work?

I've already made clear my reasons why I think bombing would bring Iran back into the fold of non-terrorist supporting nations. I suggest you go back and re-read the thread if you missed them.

If we bomb them, no ground troops, no decisive result,

That's only your opinion. I think that Iran's leaders will be willing to give up their support of terrorists (who by the way aren't much happier about Iran's government than they were Iraq's), rather than watch their own country's military and governmental power be quickly diminished to the point that their power and lives are at risk. Because I don't think they are as crazy as Saddam.

Another argument for beefing up the Screen/Guard mission on the Iraq/Iran border.

And you don't think we have the military power to do this without a draft?

Not a violation of Geneva, but a reclassification of the armed mine layers as combatant forces.

We are not talking about armed mine layers. We are talking about small fishing boats.

BAC - "You're not suggesting the Iranian government would hide the full transcript of an ultimatum from it's people just to get some of them killed?"

No, but you just did.

No, I did not. I've made it clear from the beginning that I think the Iranian people will be aware that the US said it is not an invasion or attempt to occupy Iran. You are the one who suggested they would not. And the only way they could not is if the Iranian government did not tell them the content of the ultimatum.

BAC - "And do you think only Iran can broadcast in Iran? You think the US can't deliver psyop materials to the country in the day's leading up to the attack? Even simple printed flyers delivered to the largest cities would spread the word quickly. You think we can't do that?"

Knock it off with the attempts at mind reading and mischaracterization BAC, it is dishonest.

You seem to have problems seeing question marks.

Iran claims to be an Islamic Republic.

You mean there IS a difference between a democracy and a republic? Oh Gundur ...

Best we tell the NYTimes too ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/17/opinion/ediran.php "Iran's sham democracy,
The New York Times,
SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 2005"

ROTFLOL!

as moronic as Rummy's assumption that he could fight a war, and an occupation, on the cheap.

As moronic as thinking the same methods we've used for two decades to unsuccessfully curb Iran's use of terrorists and nuclear program will now suddenly work? As moronic as thinking we can win in Iraq when the insurgents and terrorists have a safe haven in nearby Iran? As moronic as thinking you can ignore evil and it will go away?

By the way, here's a little history lesson because your perceptions of things is wrong (too much liberal press listening?). Rumsfeld actually wanted to go in big, topple the government and get out fast. His plan called for retention of the Iraq military in coherent units to allow that. It was Powell that insisted on dissolving the Iraqi military, police and security forces. This led to chaos and required a long occupation to rebuild. It was also Powell's plan to step by step create a US style republic. Powell won the debate. Powell then left the administration, giving Rumsfeld the unenviable task of carrying out a plan he was originally against. Ironic, eh? Here's a source that confirms it was Powell's plan, not Rumsfeld that was tried in Iraq: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/28/pzn.01.html "JED BABBIN, FORMER DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE ... The president was presented with two plans before the Iraq invasion. ... The problem is, the president chose the wrong plan. He chose a plan that was drafted not by Don Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, but by George Tenet and Colin Powell."

"Losing" Iraq to an Islamist government is already taking place under our own noses.

The problem is not losing Iraq to an Islamic government but losing Iraq to an Islamic government that supports terrorism and al-Qaeda. There is a difference.

If the US were actually waging a war on Terror, Iran would have been attacked before Iraq

Not if you look at the big picture. I noted above some very good reasons why Iraq was dealt with first. I'm sure that the administration and military came to much the same conclusions. My objectives in arguing for bombing Iran now are very clear. With a clear endpoint. With a clear statement of why I think it would work. What would have been your objective in attacking Iran? Topple the government? Get them to stop terrorism? Had we attacked Iran first, the logistical problem would have been ten times worse than it was attacking Iraq which was surrounded by countries that were relatively friendly to us. What would have been your launch point for your invasion? I don't think you can even give a reasonable answer to that question.

Maybe America will find the will to spend twenty years in Iraq, supported by arms, to aid and abet the transformation. Not holding my breath.

Your pessimism doesn't mean that's not the right thing to do. Especially if you look at the long term consequences of doing nothing and watching oil rich Iraq fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda supporting Iraqis. Not if you look at the consequences of Iraq falling into the hands of elements aligned with another oil-rich, WMD armed, terrorist supporting state.

Iran wasn't behind 9-11.

Yet Iran is harboring top leaders of the very group that committed 9/11. And Iran is training and funding the group. Do you think the objectives of al-Qaeda have changed? No. They've been promising attacks even bigger than what we saw on 9/11. So I'll ask you again, since you seem content to let al-Qaeda go on using Iran as a safe haven and funding/training source, how many 9/11's a year are you willing to tolerate?

We've been "living with" Islamic terrorism since Munich 1972.

True, but 9/11 was an event that showed Islamic terrorists were willing to cross the WMD threshold in their attacks. It's for this reason that we can no longer just live with their terrorism. Sooner or later one of those groups is going to get access to something that will kill millions. Best we stay on the offensive and make sure no country wants to be seen as friendly with them.

Thus, getting Russia to stop supporting their program is imperative.

Be honest. Iran is probably past the point of needing anything from Russia in order to complete development and fielding of nuclear weapons. All they need at this point is time. So are we going to give that to them?

BAC - You missed my point. The use of civilian fishing vessels to lay mines might be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits hiding military articles in civilian infrastructure.

Nope. Using a fishing vessel to lay mines is a simple act of commandeering a civilian vessel into military use, and thus making it a viable target. It's that simple.

You are wrong.

Here is what the conventions say: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations." In this case, they would be using the normal movement of their civilian population to shield their military operations from attack.

The conventions further state that "No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects." Civilian objects. A fishing boat would certainly qualify.

Russia? China? They are, by this line of inquiry, aiding and abetting Iran by enabling their operations to cost America additional blood and treasure in our efforts in Iraq.

Then they are not likely to help control Iran. So much for *your* strategy in dealing with the problem.

We sell arms, the Russians sell arms. The French sell arms.

Are any of those confirmed terrorist supporting governments? Say on par with Iran?

My concern is not the ability of the US to make the rubble bounce, it is, remember Serbia and 71 days, how long the air campaign takes and what cost is exacted, politically, for that.

But what was being demanded of Serbia was surrender of their government and military leaders to face war crimes trials. That's a good reason not to give up right away. All we would be asking in this case is that Iran kick out al-qaeda and stop helping efforts to destabilize Iraq. I really don't think this would take weeks to conclusion.

Heard of the gasoline subsidies in Iran? That's a form of welfare.

Be honest. Iran has no where near the welfare economy that the US does. The bulk of Iran's people do not depend on the government. Without a government, they probably wouldn't see much difference in their day to day lives.

BAC - I didn't say it wasn't. But it wasn't our heaviest or most lethal division. And that's all I said it wasn't.

I am curious as to how that matters.

If it doesn't matter, I'm curious why you objected to my statement in the first place?

Are you saying that the 3d ID didn't succeed?

Of course not. Let me say this one more time, slowly.

All I said is that Iraq did not face our best units.

And you objected to that.

How much faster, given a sand storm, operational tempo, and logistics trail problems do you think 4th ID would have gotten to Baghdad?

Lethality is not just measured by how fast you get there.

"The bulk of our army" could not get into the fight due to . . . logistics, and the hard political fact that along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia did not allow for an operation based from their soil."

All I said is that Iraq did not face our best units.

And you objected to that.

I overlook nothing. Your stage is one phase, an air campaign.

You obviously can't read. Or are just choosing to be obtuse. The air campaign consists of a series of stages. At the beginning of each, an ultimatum is issued and Iran is given a chance to comply. Each stage of the attack is progressively more harmful to Iran.

As to the oil fields, you noted them as an economic vulnerability yourself, now you take it off the table?

Here's another example of your inability or unwillingness to read. I've taken nothing off the table. I've simply noted the difference between destroying the oil fields (what you said my plan was) and crippling the refineries (which I actually suggested).

The Russians spent some decades, with nukes, pursuing the downfall of the west. We are still here.

Actually, we came pretty close to ending the world a couple times, sir.

but you wish away any damage done by any civil disorder fomented by government losing its grip.

Like you wish away the civil disorder fomented by Iranian supported terrorists in Iraq? I tell you what. After we take down the Iranian government, the Iranian people can make of their country whatever they want. If they want to destroy their own infrastructure, that's their choice. All I want them to do is stop destroying the infrastructure of Iraq's people.

BAC - "There are Iranian missiles launched by Iranians falling on Israel. Osama has set up operations in Gaza."

Really? Interesting. Got a source?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075 "Iranian Revolutionary Guard Units reportedly stationed in Lebanon fired many of the Hezbollah missiles that have slammed into the Jewish state the past few days, multiple sources told WorldNetDaily. ... snip ... Israeli security officials told WND today they have "concrete information" Iranian soldiers stationed at Hezbollah positions in Lebanon have aided in efforts to fire missiles into Israel since Wednesday. Jordanian officials told WND they are "100 percent sure" Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit soldiers have fired rockets into Israel. "

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18182 "Al-Qaeda Comes to Gaza"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6288554.stm "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Hamas of allowing al-Qaeda into the Gaza Strip."

Al Qaeda doesn't need Iraq as a base of operations to succeed. Didn't need it before 9-11

They had Afghanistan. They no longer do.

, don't need it now,

They said they needed it in captured documents.

and if what you claim about Iran is true, they already have a secure base to work from.

But they don't "own" that one.

Saddam was not a big fan of Islamists

I am on my own side of this discussion, BereftofACerebrum.

Just so you know. When someone starts insulting my intelligence and playing games with my screennames, it's usually a sign they are losing the debate AND KNOW IT.

I believed Colin Powell

Really? Well he was architect of much you don't like about our approach to Iraq.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I find folks who engage in this sort of nonsense during a debate are usually losing that debate. But then, that's just my observation.

You continual attempts to put words in my mouth is insulting, so I choose to respond in kind. If you don't like being insulted, don't try putting words in my mouth. It's that simple.

Did you miss the question mark following what I wrote? I was asking if that was your only measure.

More dishonest BS from you.

First of all, your use of the phrase "safe haven" is dishonest.

Nope, you are wrong. It is their operating base, and has been for years, for operations into Afghanistan, where they don't have to face the Coalition forces thanks to the Mushmeister's own choices, and his internal problems. That his people occasionally have a success does not change the fact that many of the leaders in those areas are hostile to his government, and sympathetic to Islamists. This provides cover and support for groups who would otherwise be vulnerable to Coalition efforts in the WoT.

You don't understand. The bombing campaign isn't designed to eliminate that capability although it might put a dent in it. It's designed to change the mind of the leaders of Iran so they don't send such forces to Iraq or against us elsewhere. The leaders will come to view the cost as too great very quickly if you start eliminating all their big and expensive toys.

Another disciple of Warden. Wonderful. I'd like to know how you support this assertion based on the historic indecisiveness of air campaigns, on their own.
And yes, I know it's not just al-Qaeda that Iran is helping:

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell ... snip ... Caldwell also said on Wednesday that the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters."

Yep. This is not news.

How do you know it wasn't? I've been consistent in saying that the US cannot allow Iran to destabilize Iraq and should send them a "message" ... and I wasn't talking about something on paper.

I understand that. Clinton also sent occasional messages to Saddam during the 1990's. Note how effective that was.

I've been highly critical of the Bush administration in this regard.

I was critical of the Clinton administration in that regard.

Don't you think it's about time to put an end to it? Especially in this post 9/11 world?

That was the idea of the War on Terror, as advertised. Instead, we attacked Iraq.

For one, Saddam was perceived as more unstable than the leaders of Iran at that time and thus more likely to do something rash. Remember that Iran's current leader was not yet in power. So the pronouncements emanating from Iran were much more moderate in tone at the time. Not lightning rods like Saddam's statements about leading his army to conquer Israel. Saddam openly applauded the 9/11 hijackers. Iran's leaders did no such thing.

What makes you think the hardliners will not be replaced without the US bombing them?

The judgment about Saddam's irrationality seems more than sound, especially in hindsight. We now know that Saddam ordered the use of WMD against a non-combatant in the first Gulf War. That's not a rational act. We've always known he tried to assassinate an ex-president of the US. In fact, looking back, one can see he was so crazy that he willing to let his country be invaded, his army and ambitions for arab world dominance be destroyed, and he himself be put on the run, rather than cooperate with UN inspectors in proving that he didn't have WMD ... something the anti-war movement claims he didn't have.

Yep, he was stubborn and proud.

Here's another reason Iraq was chosen. We were already at war with the regime. Gulf War I never ended. In fact, the audio tapes captured in the invasion of Saddam and his aides meeting during the cease fire era show they viewed themselves still to be at war with the US.

Yep. The cease fire had never been resolved, so one of the arguments was that his material breach left him subject to a continuation of that operation.

But now, time is on Iran's side. The longer we wait, the stronger Iran becomes.

You seem to forget that Iraq and the US have not been firing missiles into Iran. Whereas, Iran supported terrorists in Lebanon have been firing them into Israel. Israel is entirely justified in attacking Israel where has Iran has no legitimate excuse for helping terrorists attack Iraq and participating in attacks in Iraq.

Don't forget, not at all. Israel is more than capable of handling its own security problems. I tend to agree with the latter, from my pont of view, but their operations in Iraq are easily understood as an attempt to influence the shape of post war Iraq, just as our attempts to install democratic governance there is an attempt to influence the shape of post war Iraq. They can't confront us directly, no, they are not that strong, but they can, being local and having local connections in Iraq, attempt to influence who doesn't come into power. It is in the interest of Islamic Republic of Iran for Iraq to become an Islamic Republic, not a Western oriented democratic or constitutional republic.

So you are claiming there have been no Pakistani government attacks on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in "northwestern Pakistan"? You are claiming that Pakistan has insisted the US not attack al-Qaeda and Taliban in "northwestern Pakistan"? Hmmmm?

No, I am not so claiming, but I'll point out to you that attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda by Pakistan, which are not and cannot be followed up with occupation or conquest that renders that operating area unsafe for Al Q and Tal to stage from, are at best spoiling attacks. They don't change the nature of support and succor provided there, and cover from the Coalition in Afghanistan.

Of course they would. But first and foremost they were proponents of TOTAL WAR. I rather think they'd laugh at your proposed solution to the Iranian problem. (By the way, are you proposing that we assassinate the Syrian and Iranian leaders?)

Why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth. I pointed out to you what Sun Tzu would recommend, and you try to once again put words into my mouth. You dishonesty is disgusting.

I've already made clear my reasons why I think bombing would bring Iran back into the fold of non-terrorist supporting nations. I suggest you go back and re-read the thread if you missed them.

Bombing North Viet Nam brought them into the fold of non Communist nations, right? (On the other hand, it seems the Christmas bombing did get them to finally agree to some of the provisions in Paris, and a return of the POW's, so maybe the bombs can make some difference. Maybe. The Serbia scenario shows that it can, under certain conditions, though it only solves a temporary problem. Is Serbia your template for this presumption that Iran can be bombed into docility?)

That's only your opinion. I think that Iran's leaders will be willing to give up their support of terrorists (who by the way aren't much happier about Iran's government than they were Iraq's), rather than watch their own country's military and governmental power be quickly diminished to the point that their power and lives are at risk. Because I don't think they are as crazy as Saddam.

I disagree, I think they are just as stubborn. We'll leave it at that. IF they wren't, they'd be working a better deal with the IAEA and UN to get the nuclear power projects moved forward openly to increase their energy production capacity.

And you don't think we have the military power to do this without a draft?

There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. Up yours.

We are not talking about armed mine layers. We are talking about small fishing boats.

I am talking about "by any means necessary" to achieve the denial of the Straights of Hormuz.

No, I did not. I've made it clear from the beginning that I think the Iranian people will be aware that the US said it is not an invasion or attempt to occupy Iran. You are the one who suggested they would not. And the only way they could not is if the Iranian government did not tell them the content of the ultimatum.

I think there is enough tech in Iraq that the contents of the ultimatum would become known, one way or another, if only by rumor.

As moronic as thinking the same methods we've used for two decades to unsuccessfully curb Iran's use of terrorists and nuclear program will now suddenly work? As moronic as thinking we can win in Iraq when the insurgents and terrorists have a safe haven in nearby Iran? As moronic as thinking you can ignore evil and it will go away?

The War on Terror is, as currently being waged, increasing the opportunity for terrorists to operate. Before we invaded Iraq, it was working in the other direction. Missed opportunity, not sure how long to recover from it.

By the way, here's a little history lesson because your perceptions of things is wrong (too much liberal press listening?). Rumsfeld actually wanted to go in big, topple the government and get out fast.

Which is, of course, an idiot's plan.

It occurs to me that two bad plans is a poor way to prepare to import democracy into Iraq.

The problem is not losing Iraq to an Islamic government but losing Iraq to an Islamic government that supports terrorism and al-Qaeda. There is a difference.

Yes, true enough.

Your pessimism doesn't mean that's not the right thing to do. Especially if you look at the long term consequences of doing nothing and watching oil rich Iraq fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda supporting Iraqis.

There was no need to invade Iraq to get at Al Qaeda.

Not if you look at the consequences of Iraq falling into the hands of elements aligned with another oil-rich, WMD armed, terrorist supporting state.

Like, for example, Pakistan if the Mushmeister fallst to an Islamist party. (Don't think it's gonna happen, but it might.)

Yet Iran is harboring top leaders of the very group that committed 9/11. And Iran is training and funding the group. Do you think the objectives of al-Qaeda have changed? No. They've been promising attacks even bigger than what we saw on 9/11.

Yep.

So I'll ask you again, since you seem content to let al-Qaeda go on using Iran as a safe haven and funding/training source, how many 9/11's a year are you willing to tolerate?

As many as you are.

True, but 9/11 was an event that showed Islamic terrorists were willing to cross the WMD threshold in their attacks.

An aircraft is not a WMD, please stop it. It's a guided missile, in that case, a kamikaze style guided missile.

It's for this reason that we can no longer just live with their terrorism.

I completely agree. The initial War on Terror announcement told me that we'd take it to them on their own turf, globally, in parallel, and a lot of it was going to be via Special Operations, covert operations, use of intel and economic pressure to get "blind eye turners" to cough up some miscreants, and to set an example in Afghanistan of what can happen to those who openly support terrorists.

So far so good. And then, the Main Effort changed from teh dirty, in the shadows fight to Exporting Democracy in Iraq.

One military principle often taught is "weight the main effort." That was clearly violated.

Sooner or later one of those groups is going to get access to something that will kill millions. Best we stay on the offensive and make sure no country wants to be seen as friendly with them.

Had we not squandered a lot of our blood and treasure, and for that matter, political good will, in Iraq, we might still be able to take that idea and run with it.

Be honest. Iran is probably past the point of needing anything from Russia in order to complete development and fielding of nuclear weapons. All they need at this point is time. So are we going to give that to them?

Not sure if they have reached the tipping point yet, I am not privy to that level of intel.

The advantage we have with Iran, versus Korea, is that Iran is still vulnerable to attack, from the air, that you are so eager to start tomorrow, a year from now. Korea has China backing them up politically, in the region, so that their fear that we will attack them over a nuke or a missile program is muted.

No one like China has Iran's back in that way.

If Iran doesn't change course, the opportunity to take down their program won't go away. What is being allowed at the moment is a chance to work a deal. No, it doesn't look promising at the moment. Nor did the Cold War in 1981.

"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations."

That is not what fisherman, or sailors posing as fishermen, laying mines in the Gulf would be doing. The human shields issue is not the same thing as a covert operation making a VID of who is a mine layer more difficult. You aren't applying the rules to the scenario we were discussing.

In this case, they would be using the normal movement of their civilian population to shield their military operations from attack.

I think you mistake the use of covert operations for a violation of Geneva. If that is the case, the US violates Geneva every day in Afghanistan.

The conventions further state that "No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects." Civilian objects. A fishing boat would certainly qualify.

Correct. As I pointed out, a fishing boat used to lay mines is no longer a civilian object, it has been commandeered into military use and is thus a legitimate target. What is going over your head is the requirement of determining that before you go weapons free and launch the Hellfire.

Be honest. Iran has no where near the welfare economy that the US does.

The bulk of Iran's people do not depend on the government. Without a government, they probably wouldn't see much difference in their day to day lives.
That may or may not be true, though your lead in comment rings true.

You obviously can't read. Or are just choosing to be obtuse. The air campaign consists of a series of stages. At the beginning of each, an ultimatum is issued and Iran is given a chance to comply. Each stage of the attack is progressively more harmful to Iran.

So, your plan, is to bomb them into docility. That was tried against North VietNam. It didn't work.

Why would it work now, with Iran?

Like you wish away the civil disorder fomented by Iranian supported terrorists in Iraq?

There you go, lying again.

I tell you what. After we take down the Iranian government, the Iranian people can make of their country whatever they want. If they want to destroy their own infrastructure, that's their choice. All I want them to do is stop destroying the infrastructure of Iraq's people.

Got it. "Let 'em play." I felt the same way about Bosnia. If that is your political strategy, fine, it is an option. How realistic is it, today, in 2007, that "the world" adopts the "let 'em play" approach to Iran?

First off, that chaos won't much effect the low level, low cost Spec Ops things going on in Iraq, though it might reduce the scope and scale.

Your approach looks a bit like "we have to destroy Iran to save it."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075 "Iranian Revolutionary Guard Units reportedly stationed in Lebanon fired many of the Hezbollah missiles that have slammed into the Jewish state the past few days, multiple sources told WorldNetDaily. ... snip ... Israeli security officials told WND today they have "concrete information" Iranian soldiers stationed at Hezbollah positions in Lebanon have aided in efforts to fire missiles into Israel since Wednesday. Jordanian officials told WND they are "100 percent sure" Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit soldiers have fired rockets into Israel. "

OK. A source. WorldNetDaily. Hmmm.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18182 "Al-Qaeda Comes to Gaza"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6288554.stm "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Hamas of allowing al-Qaeda into the Gaza Strip."

Interesting.

Just so you know. When someone starts insulting my intelligence and playing games with my screennames, it's usually a sign they are losing the debate AND KNOW IT.

You have asked for it, pal, with your continual attempts to put words in my mouth, and your false representations of a position you wish to pigeon hole me into which for one thing is not mine, and for another, is conveniently framed as a particular side.

You ask me what my strat is. Tell ya what. I wasn't the one who claimed I could solve the problem by an air campaign on Iran. You were.

You plan doesn't pass muster. It's simplistic, and looks to me to ignore the political reality that "what happens after" does matter, once you stop making the rubble bounce.

The best argument you can muster is "nothing else we have tried has worked, try this, it will work."

Does this sound familiar to you?

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

You continual attempts to put words in my mouth is insulting, so I choose to respond in kind.

In kind? ROTFLOL! When have I altered your screenname during this debate? Not once. When have I voiced an insult remotely equivalent or as insulting as "BrayingAssConehead", "BereftofACerebrum" or "Chickenhawk"? Not once. Have I ever directed a foul word at you, like you did me? No. And I could go on and on listing your insulting manners. At best, you could accuse me of sarcastically pointing out a few instances where you didn't seem to understand something ... such as the definition and usage of the phrase "in kind".

If you don't like being insulted, don't try putting words in my mouth.

Perhaps your problem is you don't know how to interpret the "question marks" at the end of sentences. I asked you questions about your views, not stated your views. And if you want to know who "put words" into the other's mouth, look to your own posts to me. For example, you went on and on about "decap strikes on Saddam" when I had said "government decapitation" and told you what I meant repeatedly. Then you tried to put words in my mouth when all I said is that Iraq did not face our best units. Why even in your last post you wrongly claimed that the plan I've offered has a single stage and claimed I said the plan called for "destroying the oil fields", when neither if true. One might think you protest too much, sir.

BAC - "Did you miss the question mark following what I wrote? I was asking if that was your only measure."

More dishonest BS from you.

Here's the sentences I posted to you back then:

"You expect little Pakistan to do what we've not been able to do in either Afghanistan or Iraq? That's your only measure of whether they are any different than Iran?"

Notice the QUESTION MARK? It's the funny symbol with backwards small "c" over an upside down "i". And, by the way, that is still the only reason you've given for claiming Pakistan is the same as Iran as far as dealing with al-Qaeda is concerned.

BAC - "First of all, your use of the phrase "safe haven" is dishonest."

Nope, you are wrong. It is their operating base, and has been for years, for operations into Afghanistan, where they don't have to face the Coalition forces thanks to the Mushmeister's own choices, and his internal problems.

You must have missed articles like these:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/afghanistan_us_.html "Afghanistan: U.S. Forces Attack Suspected Al-Qaeda Hideout, March 03, 2007 ... snip ... For the past two days, U.S. and NATO forces have been conducting a major attack against a compound in a remote area of eastern Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden or another senior al Qaeda leader may be in hiding, ABC News has learned. According to eyewitnesses and local reporters in Kunar province, coalition forces launched a fierce attack on a small enclave in the village of Mandaghel, approximately 17 miles from the border with Pakistan on Friday afternoon. Warplanes pounded the positions; U.S. special forces and Afghan National Army soldiers moved in shortly afterwards."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html "Jul 3, 2007, US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan
... snip ... Since last September, North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan have been pressing Islamabad for the right to conduct extensive hot-pursuit operations into Pakistan to target Taliban and al-Qaeda bases.
According to Asia Times Online contacts, NATO and its US backers have gotten their wish: coalition forces will start hitting targets wherever they might be."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/16/afghanistan.terrorist/index.html "January 17, 2007 ... snip ... Around 6:55 a.m. Tuesday, Pakistani security forces carried out an airstrike on an insurgent hideout that had been under surveillance for several days in the Zamzola area of South Waziristan, in northwestern Pakistan near the Afghan border, a Pakistani army spokesman said.
According to the spokesman, intelligence sources confirmed that 25 to 30 suspected foreign terrorists and their local backers were occupying a complex of five compounds in the area. The Pakistani spokesman said three of the five compounds were destroyed, killing at least 25 of the insurgents in the complex.
Last week, troops from NATO's International Security Assistance Force and the Afghan National Army killed as many as 150 insurgents along the mountainous border with Pakistan, NATO officials reported."

I'd like to know how you support this assertion based on the historic indecisiveness of air campaigns, on their own.

Indecisive? I have to disagree. I'd say the most recent air campaigns (the ones since PGM usage became widespread) have been very decisive. In 1991, 2001 and 2003. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and very quickly. Even in Serbia, where only air was employed, it was decisive. Afterall, it brought a surrender by Serbia even knowing that their top leaders were going to face war crime trials. So I'd like to know why you don't think it will be decisive in Iran, where nothing of the sort will be demanded of Iran's leaders and where all we would be asking is that they stop helping terrorists attacking Iraq and kick al-Qaeda out.

Clinton also sent occasional messages to Saddam during the 1990's. Note how effective that was.

ROTFLOL! Clinton did what he did because he needed a distraction from something he was criminally up on any given day.

What makes you think the hardliners will not be replaced without the US bombing them?

Something to do with the way Iran conducts "free" elections? Tell us, is there ANY sign of that change happening? Remember, the clock is ticking in Iraq and the WoT. The democRATS and some republicans are already demanding we cut and run. Remember, every second we wait is a second Iran is closer to nuclear weapons. Every second Iran gets better armed with conventional weapons (courtesy of those countries you say we should rely on to convince Iran to change its ways). (sarcasm)

Yep, he was stubborn and proud.

He was crazy. Maybe like a fox. But crazy.

It is in the interest of Islamic Republic of Iran for Iraq to become an Islamic Republic, not a Western oriented democratic or constitutional republic.

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. And I'm more concerned about OUR interests than theirs.

I'll point out to you that attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda by Pakistan, which are not and cannot be followed up with occupation or conquest that renders that operating area unsafe for Al Q and Tal to stage from, are at best spoiling attacks. They don't change the nature of support and succor provided there, and cover from the Coalition in Afghanistan.

I'll point out to you that the bulk of the WoT is nothing more than spoiling attacks. Why should operations in Pakistan be any different at this time? We do things to try and keep the other side on the defensive, gather intelligence about their planned attacks so we can foil them, disrupt their command and control, kill their top leaders, prevent training camps from springing up, and keep our allies from being toppled by al-Qaeda's efforts to destabilize them. Iraq is the one place where an attempt is being made to change the whole equation, create an arab/muslim society that is hostile to islamo-fanatic terrorists. It's an attempt to create an arab society that is a vibrant, wealthy, successful western style republic rather than a dictatorship that keeps the bulk of it's people in squalor. The possibility of making that change that is highest in Iraq. And if it can be shown to work, the rest of the arab world will notice. Remember all the movement towards democracy after the Iraqi elections in countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Stop the help Iran is giving terrorists in destabilizing Iraq and the likelihood of seeing that attempt to change the arab world succeed is significantly increased. Don't, and the chance of success is almost nil. And then what?

BAC - By the way, are you proposing that we assassinate the Syrian and Iranian leaders?

Why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth. I pointed out to you what Sun Tzu would recommend, and you try to once again put words into my mouth. You dishonesty is disgusting.

I did no such thing. I clearly ASKED if you agree with Sun Tzu's recommendation. You really need to learn what a question mark means ... rather than live in a continual state of disgust.

Bombing North Viet Nam brought them into the fold of non Communist nations, right?

That's a red herring. What I propose for Iran does not have as it's objective trying to change the form of Iran's government. We aren't asking them to stop being muslims, either. And you are correct ... bombing of North Vietnam did bring them to the negotiating table. Do that here and perhaps we can get them to stop helping al-Qaeda and stop their own efforts at destabilizing Iraq.

Is Serbia your template for this presumption that Iran can be bombed into docility?

Now notice that if I behaved as you have, I'd ignore the question mark at the end your sentence and accuse you of putting words in my mouth. But since I do see the question mark, I'll answer your question. No. Especially since our objectives in Serbia were much different than our objectives would be in this case.

IF they wren't, they'd be working a better deal with the IAEA and UN to get the nuclear power projects moved forward openly to increase their energy production capacity.

You really think Iran's interest in nuclear particles has to do with energy production? ROTFLOL!

BAC - "And you don't think we have the military power to do this without a draft?

There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. Up yours.

There you go again, misinterpreting or ignoring a question mark. Look, you earlier implied that a draft would be needed to close the border. Here, from your post #79,

Darth Rotor - the SASO problem boils down to the numbers. If you want to Screen/Guard the Iranian infiltrators, it costs you assets on the Syrian border, or in Baghdad, or in Buquba, or in . . . Zinni said "300,000" to get the job done. Shinsekis staff come up with a smaller number, 250,000 ish."

Now tell me you can get 300,000 without instituting a draft. If you weren't suggesting the need for a draft to do this, where exactly were you proposing that the extra 200,000 (or so) come from give our current forces worldwide?

I am talking about "by any means necessary" to achieve the denial of the Straights of Hormuz.

But in the eyes of the conventions, there is a difference between using armed mine layers and surreptiously using small fishing boats to accomplish the mining. One is ok. The other is not. Not to mention it's against international law to mine neutral waters.

The War on Terror is, as currently being waged, increasing the opportunity for terrorists to operate.

No denying that, especially when we are content to let Iran shelter al-Qaeda and assist them in their terror efforts.

Before we invaded Iraq, it was working in the other direction.

NONSENSE. Iraq wasn't cooperating in the WoT. Before Iraq, al-Qaeda was openly moving into Iraq and operating from there. They had a large camp in Northern Iraq and captured terrorists openly boasted about having free run of the country. They were so confident that al-Zarqawi even met the terrorists, that he sent to kill tens of thousands of innocents in Jordan, in the heart of Iraq's capital, Baghdad. And apparently Saddam's government knew he was there. At one point, Saddam's security arrested one of al-Zarqawi's people and Saddam personally ordered his release. Sorry, sir, but the signs were there that Saddam's regime was growing bolder in assisting terrorists. He had a whole section of his military organized to operate as terrorists (under the leadership of one of his sons). Our invading troops encountered many foreigners and people who told them such people were being trained as terrorists. The troops found suicide bomb making factories in the course of the invasion. The troops were attacked by people using terrorist tactics. You ignore the obvious.

BAC - "Rumsfeld actually wanted to go in big, topple the government and get out fast."

Which is, of course, an idiot's plan.

Nevertheless, at odd's with what you seemed to think was Rumsfeld's plan.

There was no need to invade Iraq to get at Al Qaeda.

Iraq was invaded to keep suspected WMD materials from falling into terrorist hands and to keep al-Qaeda from securing it's base of operations there. Now I'm just curious. How were you suggesting we eliminate the northern camps and the free run of Iraq (even the capital) that al-qaeda affiliated and friendly terrorists seemed to have? Or was your plan to ignore them and send in the lawyers after they launched a successful attack?

BAC - "So I'll ask you again, since you seem content to let al-Qaeda go on using Iran as a safe haven and funding/training source, how many 9/11's a year are you willing to tolerate?"

As many as you are.

For some reason I don't think so. Not when you seem to be advocating the use of lawyers. ROTFLOL!

An aircraft is not a WMD

I didn't say it was a WMD. I said the event (i.e., using an aircraft in manner that intentionally kills thousands of people and does billions of dollars in damage) showed terrorists were willing to cross the WMD threshold in their attacks. And it clearly did. Like you are so fond of saying ... stop putting words in my mouth.

One military principle often taught is "weight the main effort." That was clearly violated.

Not if you pay attention to where al-Qaeda was shifting the main effort. They were interested in obtaining WMD and Iraq was where they were most likely to obtain such materials.

If Iran doesn't change course, the opportunity to take down their program won't go away.

So you think their possession of nuclear weapons wouldn't matter?

"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations."

That is not what fisherman, or sailors posing as fishermen, laying mines in the Gulf would be doing.

You don't seem to understand the last line (I bolded it).

If that is the case, the US violates Geneva every day in Afghanistan.

US covert actions do not invite attacks on civilians. The action you suggest by Iran clearly would.

As I pointed out, a fishing boat used to lay mines is no longer a civilian object

How convenient for your view of things. So it "IS" no longer a fishing boat? And how is anyone to know? Will the Iranians perhaps fly some sort of pennant to denote the change of status?

it has been commandeered into military use and is thus a legitimate target.

Out of curiosity, does your way of thinking apply to the use of ambulances too? ROTFLOL!

So, your plan, is to bomb them into docility. That was tried against North VietNam. It didn't work.
Why would it work now, with Iran?

Well let's see.

The objectives in bombing Iran would be far different than the bombing that was done in Vietnam. Surely this is obvious to someone with such an *extensive* military background. The goals would be MUCH more limited than they were in Vietnam.

The weaponry available now is much more precise and destructive than what which was available in Vietnam. That precision gives us options we did not have in Vietnam.

The ability to locate leadership elements in Iran would probably far better than our ability to locate North Vietnamese leaders. The NV leaders were never in any danger from the bombing but the leaders of Iran might have to be constantly on the move.

The war in Vietnam was already viewed as won by the NV at the time we bombed NV. The North's leaders therefore, saw no reason to give up after a few days of bombing. The hold the leaders had on NV certainly wasn't detrimentally affected by the bombing. They knew there was no chance the NV people would revolt against the communists because of the bombing.

On the other hand, the danger of the Iranian populous rising up and toppling the Iranian dictatorship should the government's military and security apparatus be crippled is considerable. The longer Iran waits to acquiesce, the more that apparatus is dismantled under the approach I suggest.

Your approach looks a bit like "we have to destroy Iran to save it."

Sorry, but I'm not trying to save Iran. I want to save Iraq.

OK. A source. WorldNetDaily. Hmmm.

Actually there are multiple sources that quote Israelis saying that Iranians were helping fire the missiles. And apparently some sources in Jordan said the same thing. Our own government appears to believe it, too. But you doubt it? Why?

The best argument you can muster is "nothing else we have tried has worked, try this, it will work."

Oh I think my arguments were a *little* better than that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

ROTFLOL!

More of your wit, I notice.

Perhaps your problem is you don't know how to interpret the "question marks" at the end of sentences. ==snip== One might think you protest too much, sir.

I understand the dishonest artifice of using a question to make a statement. I was born at night, not last night. You get called on your BS.[/QUOTE]

You must have missed articles like these:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/afghanistan_us_.html "Afghanistan: U.S. Forces Attack Suspected Al-Qaeda Hideout, March 03, 2007 ... snip ... For the past two days, U.S. and NATO forces have been conducting a major attack against a compound in a remote area of eastern Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden or another senior al Qaeda leader may be in hiding, ABC News has learned. According to eyewitnesses and local reporters in Kunar province, coalition forces launched a fierce attack on a small enclave in the village of Mandaghel, approximately 17 miles from the border with Pakistan on Friday afternoon. Warplanes pounded the positions; U.S. special forces and Afghan National Army soldiers moved in shortly afterwards."

What does that have to do with Pakistan? We've been fighting Al Q and the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. How is this news?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html "Jul 3, 2007, US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan
... snip ... Since last September, North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan have been pressing Islamabad for the right to conduct extensive hot-pursuit operations into Pakistan to target Taliban and al-Qaeda bases.
According to Asia Times Online contacts, NATO and its US backers have gotten their wish: coalition forces will start hitting targets wherever they might be."

I'll believe it when I see it, and I fervently hope, against hope, that this is not more media bullspit. At long last, privileged sanctuary overcome.

*crosses fingers*

Your body count links only tell us that the war continues. That isn't any indication of decisive action, though it does my heart good to hear that Taliban and Al Q arseholes are meeting Allah.

Indecisive? I have to disagree. I'd say the most recent air campaigns (the ones since PGM usage became widespread) have been very decisive. In 1991, 2001 and 2003.

Part of a combined arms campaign. Air and ground, full spectrum warfare.

Next, or are you going to play this "glassy eyed Warden Disciple" game yet again? Have you memorized his seminal work, the Five (Cock) Rings of Air Power?

So I'd like to know why you don't think it will be decisive in Iran, where nothing of the sort will be demanded of Iran's leaders and where all we would be asking is that they stop helping terrorists attacking Iraq and kick al-Qaeda out.

Because no air campaign, on its own, has ever been decisive before, though I have seen and heard arguments, some of them good, that the Serbia op in '99 was "decisive" as an air campaign. Mind you, these arguments tend to ignore that there were troops deployed in neighboring countries who could have been sent across the LD. And after the bombing stopped, guess what? Foreigners in Kosovo, troops on the ground.

ROTFLOL!

Such wit.

Clinton did what he did because he needed a distraction from something he was criminally up on any given day.

Nope. You can pretend that's why he did a great many things, but let's confine our discussion to real life, not political cartoons.

Something to do with the way Iran conducts "free" elections? Tell us, is there ANY sign of that change happening?

Their elections are an interesting institution, but the real power, the decisions, tend to be led by the unelected/appointed sorts. See the diagram I previously posted. That said, Mahmoud the Funny Guy in the Jacket was elected. He can be fired by the Mullahs pretty much at will, and another mouthpiece elected.

Remember, the clock is ticking in Iraq and the WoT. The democRATS and some republicans are already demanding we cut and run. Remember, every second we wait is a second Iran is closer to nuclear weapons. Every second Iran gets better armed with conventional weapons

Hyperbole. As Saddam amply demonstrated, buying more conventional weapons merely gives our pilots, gunners, soldiers, tankers, etc, more targets to destroy. We do combined arms warfare, full spectrum warfare, like no one else, and the next best group, the Brits, are a distant second in raw capability.

I'll point out to you that the bulk of the WoT is nothing more than spoiling attacks. Why should operations in Pakistan be any different at this time? We do things to try and keep the other side on the defensive, gather intelligence about their planned attacks so we can foil them, disrupt their command and control, kill their top leaders, prevent training camps from springing up, and keep our allies from being toppled by al-Qaeda's efforts to destabilize them.

We don't disagree on that, at all. I pointed to the lack of a decisive outcome, so far. Perhaps this war of attrition is the only way, and we need to settle in for another few decades of this stuff.

Iraq is the one place where an attempt is being made to change the whole equation, create an arab/muslim society that is hostile to islamo-fanatic terrorists.

I read the Op Plan, thanks.

It's an attempt to create an arab society that is a vibrant, wealthy, successful western style republic rather than a dictatorship that keeps the bulk of it's people in squalor. The possibility of making that change that is highest in Iraq. And if it can be shown to work, the rest of the arab world will notice.

Yes. If. It's a big if, and the If was the biggest, some will say ballsiest, gamble that GWB chose to take. What's the unemployment figure in Iraq today, Major?

Remember all the movement towards democracy after the Iraqi elections in countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

I do. I also note that Hezbollah has also added to its political base in Lebanon. One step forward, one step back, muddling along. I note that the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well in Egypt. No decisive change, as of yet.

Stop the help Iran is giving terrorists in destabilizing Iraq and the likelihood of seeing that attempt to change the arab world succeed is significantly increased.

I understand the theory, rather well, thanks, its been in papers and talking points for years, from a variety of think tanks and card carrying smart guys.

"How" is the thorny bit, and I find your "bomb them into docilty" lacking as a method.

What I propose for Iran does not have as it's objective trying to change the form of Iran's government. We aren't asking them to stop being muslims, either. And you are correct ... bombing of North Vietnam did bring them to the negotiating table. Do that here and perhaps we can get them to stop helping al-Qaeda and stop their own efforts at destabilizing Iraq.

Perhaps. And if not, what does the bombing accomplish? How confident are you that Iran will come to the table if we bomb them? What motive does any politician or general in Iran have, internally, in meeklly kneeling before The Great Satan and being given orders? I"m sorry, as I see human nature, and the nature of people in power, stubborn overcomes your wishful thinking.

What's your back up plan, Major? What are you other branches, your other serials?

You really think Iran's interest in nuclear particles has to do with energy production?

Yes, and weapons. Both. The last estimate I read was (The Economist) that the Iranian petrol reserves had about 10-15 years left. They have a motive for alternative power sources, and since I am a fan of nuclear power generation, for about 30+ years a fan, I would encourage them to take that path, on the condition that, like Japan, they stick to that. As of this writing, that seems a low odds bet.

ROTFLOL!

I see, more of your wit.

There you go again, misinterpreting or ignoring a question mark. Look, you earlier implied that a draft would be needed to close the border. Here, from your post #79.

No, I wanted to know how you raise the force levels in Iraq without a draft. That is not the same as me advocating a draft. I am against it. The All Volunteer force works, both in its political intention as proposed by the military, as policy, back in the 1970's, and as a professional fighting force now. The question is intended to direct you, grasshopper, to the realities of what American commitments are, as balanced against resources at hand, and the material and political cost of moblizing more of the force at a higher OPTEMPO.

These are things someone who spent a career in the military understands.

The SASO problem boils down to the numbers. If you want to Screen/Guard the Iranian infiltrators, it costs you assets on the Syrian border, or in Baghdad, or in Buquba, or in . . . Zinni said "300,000" to get the job done. Shinsekis staff come up with a smaller number, 250,000 ish."

Now tell me you can get 300,000 without instituting a draft. If you weren't suggesting the need for a draft to do this, where exactly were you proposing that the extra 200,000 (or so) come from give our current forces worldwide?

Did you answer the question? No. Care to try, now that I have given away half of the answer?

Iraq wasn't cooperating in the WoT. Before Iraq, al-Qaeda was openly moving into Iraq and operating from there. They had a large camp in Northern Iraq and captured terrorists openly boasted about having free run of the country. They were so confident that al-Zarqawi even met the terrorists, that he sent to kill tens of thousands of innocents in Jordan, in the heart of Iraq's capital, Baghdad. And apparently Saddam's government knew he was there.

Let's go on the premise that some of Saddam's team knew he was there. It's plausible. Did they know his plans? Did they materially support him, or did they do as most Arab nations did, and still do, with a lot of the various terror organizations, and turn a blind eye?

"Not operating here? Fine, keep your nose clean in my house, or your ass is on the street, and maybe in my hands."

Last I checked, Saddam was not a fan of Islamists, as they were a threat to his more secularist regime. Of course, he's dead now. Sucks to be him.

At one point, Saddam's security arrested one of al-Zarqawi's people and Saddam personally ordered his release. Sorry, sir, but the signs were there that Saddam's regime was growing bolder in assisting terrorists. He had a whole section of his military organized to operate as terrorists (under the leadership of one of his sons).

Indeed, and? Islamists also have bases in Saudi, numerous in Lebanon, and in Syria. Do we bomb them also? I almost pissed myself laughing at your idea that we bomb Qatar. Any idea why?

Here's a hint: what happened to PSAB?

Our invading troops encountered many foreigners and people who told them such people were being trained as terrorists. The troops found suicide bomb making factories in the course of the invasion. The troops were attacked by people using terrorist tactics.

Yep.

You ignore the obvious.

Nope. I draw a different conclusion.

Iraq was invaded to keep suspected WMD materials from falling into terrorist hands and to keep al-Qaeda from securing it's base of operations there.

Among other reasons.

Now I'm just curious. How were you suggesting we eliminate the northern camps and the free run of Iraq (even the capital) that al-qaeda affiliated and friendly terrorists seemed to have?

One of the ideas I had pre 9-11 was to use of B-2's to bomb known terrorist training camps, in Iraq and elsewhere, rather like the way Clinton went after (sporadically) terror training camps in Afghanistan. Whose gonna know, or be able to point the finger? Plus, the US already had ownership of Northern and Southern Iraqi airspace in Northern Watch and Southern Watch. Rather trivial to now and again lay a little love from above on places like Ansar Al Islam's camp, or other camps, and for sure make them paranoid as hell.

"The last thing they heard was the clicking of the guidance fins on the GBU 32 in the end game of hitting the GPS aimpoint."

What does that do? It drives them into cities, to hide behind civilian skirts. What is the follow on of that? They get in local trouble, being crooks. Get in enough local trouble, be it in Iraq or elsewhere, and they either get sent elsewhere, or quietly taken down by the locals.

Once 9-11 happened, I was a bit surprised that a tactic of that nature wasn't pursued. There wasn't that much of a fuss over Clinton's "reaction by Tomahawk" nor the "predator Hellfire" kill in Yemen.

There are some big political problems with that idea, of course, which doubtless contributed to that method not being used, but I would have thought that post 9-11 those could be more easily overcome.

Or was your plan to ignore them and send in the lawyers after they launched a successful attack?

Trying to put words in my mouth again? Go piss up a rope.

For some reason I don't think so. Not when you seem to be advocating the use of lawyers. ROTFLOL!

Another falsehood. And more of your wit.

Not if you pay attention to where al-Qaeda was shifting the main effort. They were interested in obtaining WMD and Iraq was where they were most likely to obtain such materials.

My guess would have been Pakistan, but Iraq, given the fact that the programs existed, in whatever condition, was certainly a potential source. I hope you realize that I believed Powell's speech, and I was basically resigned to us having to "do it" (12 years of UN asshattery being inconclusive), though I was worried as hell about all the things that can go wrong.

So you think their possession of nuclear weapons wouldn't matter?

In Iran? I think Iran wants nukes as a deterrent. They want to join the Big Boy club. They want to be perceived as having large penises.

US covert actions do not invite attacks on civilians. The action you suggest by Iran clearly would.

By design, no, US covert actions do not target civilians. Occasionally, civvies get hit.

How convenient for your view of things. So it "IS" no longer a fishing boat? And how is anyone to know? Will the Iranians perhaps fly some sort of pennant to denote the change of status?

My view is colored by my military experience in real operations. What colors yours?

Out of curiosity, does your way of thinking apply to the use of ambulances too? ROTFLOL!

I note that you are stuck on stupid.

The objectives in bombing Iran would be far different than the bombing that was done in Vietnam. Surely this is obvious to someone with such an *extensive* military background. The goals would be MUCH more limited than they were in Vietnam.

OK, I'll play.

Spell them out.

The weaponry available now is much more precise and destructive than what which was available in Vietnam. That precision gives us options we did not have in Vietnam.

True.

The ability to locate leadership elements in Iran would probably far better than our ability to locate North Vietnamese leaders. The NV leaders were never in any danger from the bombing but the leaders of Iran might have to be constantly on the move.

Got it, so far.

The war in Vietnam was already viewed as won by the NV at the time we bombed NV. The North's leaders therefore, saw no reason to give up after a few days of bombing. The hold the leaders had on NV certainly wasn't detrimentally affected by the bombing. They knew there was no chance the NV people would revolt against the communists because of the bombing.

I see that the same way.

On the other hand, the danger of the Iranian populous rising up and toppling the Iranian dictatorship should the government's military and security apparatus be crippled is considerable. The longer Iran waits to acquiesce, the more that apparatus is dismantled under the approach I suggest.

That's one way it might turn. Another way is that the US bombing Iran grants the Iranian politicans a common enemy, who they spin as (add your favorite Great Satan characteristic here) and rally support against The Foreigners.

Another possible branch is the Azeris and Kurds try to break away. Fun Fun Fun, regional chaos.

Is that a US policy aim?

Sorry, but I'm not trying to save Iran. I want to save Iraq.

OK.

Actually there are multiple sources that quote Israelis saying that Iranians were helping fire the missiles. And apparently some sources in Jordan said the same thing. Our own government appears to believe it, too. But you doubt it? Why?

My experience with the information war, from both the inside and the outside, makes me skeptical of a lot of what you and I read in the press. I got to watch a lot of what I was involved in be reported in the press. The fidelity to fact was low. So, it is possible that Iranians were aiding and abetting Hezbollah, and for that matter Hamas, and to support that guess, they had dickheads in Bosnia ten years ago, adding to the fun and games there.

They could be doing it again.

Oh I think my arguments were a *little* better than that.

Nope. Bomb them into docility, but no ground troops. That's your plan, in very simple terms.

Now, if you please, tell me where the added troops come from, for Iraq, without a draft, given the current OPTEMPO and political climate in Washington, and given American security commitments around the Globe.

I am all ears.

Oh, and spell out your objectives, if you please.

Note of interest:

From this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

A key issue regarding Cheney's impatience with Iran, and his desire to use strong armed measures, is that before Iraq, Bush could go to Congress and get authorization to use force.

I don't see that as likely now, since he pissed away that advantage over the past 4 years. Even if you think it's a good idea, as VP Cheney seems to think, the political leverage to get Congress on board is, as of now, lacking.

What do you think it will take to change that, politically, BAC?

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

I understand the dishonest artifice of using a question to make a statement.

You also clearly understand the tactic of making hypocritical complaints in order to avoid answering uncomfortable questions or fully defining one's position. And you are quite adept at filling in gaps in logic and facts with insulting labels and foul language. You never once considered that I might actually wonder what you believe? (That's a question, in case you missed seeing the punctuation mark at the very end of the sentence.)

What does that have to do with Pakistan?

Fair enough.

But there are other links showing that the Coalition has been operating inside Pakistan, including bombing from time to time both with manned and unmanned aircraft. And at least the Pakistanis seem to believe it is with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government. In fact, here's an interesting article and recent article about the situation: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/11/f20dcb12-6a2f-4e23-99cf-6414fde4fd80.html.

Your body count links only tell us that the war continues. That isn't any indication of decisive action,

I haven't claimed decisive action, only that Pakistan, unlike Iran, is actively trying to fight al-Qaeda ... probably to the best of its ability at this time. And I think the article I linked above explains the tight rope that Pakistan's government walks. Why you want to voice your displeasure with Pakistan when they've killed and captured hundreds of al-qaeda and Taliban, while basically ignoring Iran's far more serious activities, from the standpoint of saving the situation in Iraq, is beyond me.

Part of a combined arms campaign. Air and ground, full spectrum warfare.

Nevertheless, the air campaign portion of all recent efforts have been decisive in accomplishing what they set out to do, and they did it in record time with minimal loss of life (at least our military and their civilians). Furthermore, they accomplished precisely the sort of missions that I have suggested would help change Iran's mind about assisting Iraq destabilization. That's at odds with your claim that air campaigns have been and would be indecisive.

Because no air campaign, on its own, has ever been decisive before,

That's false as I've already pointed out. The campaign against Serbia was almost entirely an air campaign and it was decisive.

Furthermore, for the missions that I've proposed in Iran, previous air campaigns can only be characterized as decisive. In all recent cases, modern air defense systems were rapidly and decisively defeated (or suppressed to the point that our aircraft had free and safe access to any target in the attacked country).

In those cases, precise and devastating attacks were made on installations central to the military, government and security forces without significantly endangering civilians or civilian infrastructure.

In those case, we've been able to intercept radio/phone communications and track the locations of enemy leaders, in some cases killing them.

And let's not forget that I'm not ruling out the use of special forces to investigate targets and coordinate/guide attacks on targets much like they did in Afghanistan and Iraq recently.

Put this all together and I think there is a excellent chance that the outlined objective in an attack on Iran could be achieved because the missions I've suggest to achieve it have all been decisively accomplished in all our recent air wars.

The cases where air power have not been decisive are all cases where the objective was to occupy a country or region, kill the enemy leaders, or force them to surrender to authorities and face the possibility of imprisonment or death. In what I proposed vis a vis Iran, none of those are objectives. We just want Iran to stop supporting efforts to undermine the will of the Iraqi people.

And after the bombing stopped, guess what? Foreigners in Kosovo, troops on the ground.

Yeah. Imagine that. An air campaign ALONE convinced a hostile nation to let NATO and Russia occupy a region in its country. Who said air campaigns never work. ROTFLOL!

BAC - Clinton did what he did because he needed a distraction from something he was criminally up on any given day.

Nope. You can pretend that's why he did a great many things, but let's confine our discussion to real life, not political cartoons.

Clinton's criminal activities and his wag the dog approach to military ventures was real life. Look at the attack on Serbia/Kosovo. He ordered the attack over the objections of our military's top brass. The timing is suspicious given that it happened as the Cox Report, detailing treasonous behavior by his administration and the democRAT party, was released.

How about Clinton's bombing of Iraq's WMD sites in 1998? He bombed from December 16 to December 19th. You know what else happened in in that timeframe? House Republicans decided to open debate on the impeachment of President Clinton. Clinton was looking a distraction to take his problems off the front page.

So don't try to tell me what is real life, sir. I am well aware of the true facts.

BAC - "Tell us, is there ANY sign of that change happening?"

Their elections are an interesting institution, but the real power, the decisions, tend to be led by the unelected/appointed sorts. See the diagram I previously posted. That said, Mahmoud the Funny Guy in the Jacket was elected. He can be fired by the Mullahs pretty much at will, and another mouthpiece elected.

I notice that you didn't answer the question. But you sure threw out a lot of chaff.

BAC - "Remember, the clock is ticking in Iraq and the WoT. The democRATS and some republicans are already demanding we cut and run. Remember, every second we wait is a second Iran is closer to nuclear weapons. Every second Iran gets better armed with conventional weapons"

Hyperbole.

Not at all. Fact. As we write back and forth to each other, democRATS and some republicans have passed a resolution demanding withdrawal start in just a few months. As we sit here, Iran is working feverishly to refine enough weapons grade material to make a bomb. As we sit here, Iran goes about purchasing and installing weapon systems that will make any attack on Iran more difficult and costly.

As Saddam amply demonstrated, buying more conventional weapons merely gives our pilots, gunners, soldiers, tankers, etc, more targets to destroy.

So you brought up the TOR missiles during this debate just to note they were adding targets for us to destroy? Obviously not.

We do combined arms warfare, full spectrum warfare, like no one else

Actually, we also do air campaigns like no one else. But in any case, your statement doesn't change the fact that with each tic of the clock it gets harder to attack Iran without taking unacceptable casualties. Indeed, one mistake we made with Saddam was giving his regime too much time to prepare for our attack.

I pointed to the lack of a decisive outcome, so far.

And you think you will get a decisive outcome by ineffectively dealing with Iran and ensuring our loss in Iraq?

Perhaps this war of attrition is the only way, and we need to settle in for another few decades of this stuff.

You are correct that as things stand (I'd add with Iran helping al-Qaeda feed terrorists into Iraq) this is a war of attrition. If we should have learned anything from Vietnam, its that we won't win a war of attrittion. Our enemies threshold of pain for losses, be it North Vietnam or al-Qaeda, is much larger than ours ... especially if their leaders are safe. In fact, half this country (the democRAT half) have already said the losses have exceeded the threshold of pain. Some said it when the first soldier died.

Iraq is the one place where an attempt is being made to change the whole equation, create an arab/muslim society that is hostile to islamo-fanatic terrorists.

I read the Op Plan, thanks.

Well good for you. That needed to be pointed out for those reading this exchange.

If. It's a big if

Not that big of if ... provided we can keep foreign troublemakers from stirring the pot. The Iraqi people voted by a large margin to move in the direction we wanted. They've demonstrated a willingness to shed lots of blood in that direction. That outsiders are causing much of the chaos has been apparent from day one and is even more so now. Our military leaders in charge of the surge say it is working. But two things can still derail the process. One is outside interference. Terrorists exploding large bombs in public areas in an effort to create ethnic hatred and anger at the inability of the elected government and Coalition to stop it. The other is a failure of will of the American leaders.

What's the unemployment figure in Iraq today, Major?

Just curious, but why are you calling me Major? Is that meant to be an insult? Is that an indirect way of labeling me a chickenhawk or suggesting you are more qualified than I to speak about military matters? Let me remind you, yet again, that you know absolutely nothing about me. But I suspect that some might conclude, based on our exchange so far, that I have just as much insight into military matters as you, if not more.

Now to respond to your question, according to the The Brookings Institution's July report, the unemployment rate now stands at 25 - 40 percent. But what's your point? Do you think not stopping Iran's efforts to destabilize Iraq will lower it? Do you think abandoning Iraq now will lower it? What's your point?

I also note that Hezbollah has also added to its political base in Lebanon.

And who is behind Hezbollah? Iran. So if we get Iran to stop supporting terrorists, Hezbollah might also die on the vine. Yet another possible benefit of the strategy I propose.

How confident are you that Iran will come to the table if we bomb them?

100%. I've no doubt that Iranian leaders would decide at some point that their best chance to stay in power, stay alive, and keep Iran from becoming a fifth rate military power is to accept the conditions of the ultimatum we would make prior to bombing.

What motive does any politician or general in Iran have, internally, in meeklly kneeling before The Great Satan and being given orders?

Hyperbole. All we would be asking them to do is stop activities that internationally are making Iran an outcast. I'm certain that Iran's leaders could spin this to their advantage. After all, they have COMPLETE control of their press.

What's your back up plan, Major?

Might I ask what rank you held when you left the Navy?

As to my backup plan, it's build more PGMs and keep shooting. Eventually, the Iraqi people will say enough is enough and lynch their own leaders to stop the disruption of their lives. Which is why the leaders will at some point yell uncle.

Yes, and weapons.

But they agreed not to pursue such weapons. There's the problem. There is nothing wrong with their developing peaceful uses for radioactive particles. Noone is trying to stop them from doing that. The problem is that they've apparently decided to do something they agreed not to do ... build nuclear weapons. And they are doing that to make it harder for us to stop their support of terrorist movements. Or worse, they are doing it to supply terrorist movements with such weapons.

No, I wanted to know how you raise the force levels in Iraq without a draft.

I don't think a reading of your statement shows that's accurate. But in any case, I've not suggested an approach that would require large numbers of additional troops anyway. So your mentioning the draft must have been a red herring or a strawman (depending on how one looks at what you wrote).

grasshopper

Now you think I'm an insect?

Let's go on the premise that some of Saddam's team knew he was there. It's plausible.

It's not just plausible. We captured documents proving it.

Did they know his plans? Did they materially support him,

Difficult to know given that no one in custody from Saddam's regime would want to admit helping al-Qaeda or al-Zarqawi in plots designed to kill tens of thousands. Difficult to tell when Saddam's regime went to so much trouble sanitizing their files, computers and facilities of records thought related to something that the anti-war crowd insists Saddam didn't have. Since that doesn't make any sense, maybe it was material related to support of terrorists that they really destroyed.

or did they do as most Arab nations did, and still do, with a lot of the various terror organizations, and turn a blind eye?

Like I noted earlier, at one point they captured an associate of al-Zarqawi on serious charges that the arresting officer said he was convinced were accurate. Yet, orders came from top people in the Iraqi government (the CIA said Saddam himself) to release the man. There are also numerous sources indicating that Saddam's regime knowingly funded and trained terrorists in various facilities. Those terrorists included al-Qaeda. We know for a fact that one of the 1993 WTC bombers fled to Iraq and was then put on the payroll of the government and supplied a house. There are good reasons to believe that an Iraqi handler (in charge of special operations) met with Mohammed Atta on more than one occasion. They did more than turn a blind eye.

"Not operating here? Fine, keep your nose clean in my house, or your ass is on the street, and maybe in my hands."

You sure are trying hard to give Saddam's regime and Ahmadinejad's government the benefit of the doubt. ROTFLOL!

Saddam was not a fan of Islamists

Yeah yeah yeah. I've heard that chanted a time or two. Except that long before the invasion ... in fact, long before 9/11, Saddam was remaking his image into that of a friend of the Islamists. In 1994, he began to play the "faith card" big time. He built schools that promoted mandatory Qur'an studies. He built training centers for imams. And don't forget the Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Iraq's radio stations began airing Qur'anic lessons. Alcohol was banned in restaurants. Even Baath party officials were required to take courses in the Qur'an. Murals of Saddam sprang up all over with him shown in prayer. He built three huge mosques and even had a Qur'an written in his own blood. Take a close look at that mural I posted earlier of Saddam. And keep in mind that at the time of 9/11 and later, there were friendly contacts going on between Iraq and al-Qaeda officials.

Islamists also have bases in Saudi, numerous in Lebanon, and in Syria. Do we bomb them also?

I've seen no evidence that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria are training terrorists who are headed for Iraq or funding terrorists activities in Iraq. If you have such evidence, please present it. Otherwise, I'll just assume you were throwing out yet another red herring in this discussion.

I almost pissed myself laughing at your idea that we bomb Qatar.

Please don't misquote what I actually said. I might accuse you of putting words in my mouth.

One of the ideas I had pre 9-11 was to use of B-2's to bomb known terrorist training camps, in Iraq and elsewhere

But didn't you just get done telling us that air campaigns don't work? And what if those terrorists were operating out of places like ... Baghdad? That's where al-Zarqawi spent a lot of time. Indeed, now there are camps like that in Iran. Are you suggesting we send the B2's there? Won't that make Iran mad?

What does that do? It drives them into cities, to hide behind civilian skirts. What is the follow on of that? They get in local trouble, being crooks. Get in enough local trouble, be it in Iraq or elsewhere, and they either get sent elsewhere, or quietly taken down by the locals.

ROTFLOL! That's about the silliest thing you've said so far.

First we have an example in Iraq of al-Zarqawi's people being arrested by "local" security and then being ordered released by the top leadership. So the first problem is that your solution doesn't work when the top leadership are in cahoots with the terrorists. As in the case of Iran, right now.

In fact, there is no evidence in either Iraq or Iran (over decades) that terrorists were likely to get in trouble and be kicked out or "taken down". On the contrary, in Iraq, the government supported some with jobs and housing in their cities. Iran is now doing the much the same thing for al-Qaeda's leadership.

What makes you think terrorists will get in trouble? You called them crooks but they don't necessarily behave like crooks. We had these so-called "crooks" living in our country for quite some time under the radar without breaking any serious laws. And they didn't even share the language, religion or morality of most of the rest of us. Seems to me it would be even easier to stay under the radar in a country where most do share those things.

BAC - "Or was your plan to ignore them and send in the lawyers after they launched a successful attack?"

Trying to put words in my mouth again?

When I asked you what we should do about Iran's government helping kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, you responded by saying what "we can do is roughly the same thing we did about Iran backing people who killed Marines in Beirut, in 1983". When I asked you what specifically what we did then, you made some vague statement about four "standard" elements of power. Well so far the only specific action that's been identified during this discussion regarding our response to Iran's involvement in Beirut is a legal one. So I don't think I'm that far off when I suggest your plan is to send in lawyers after an attack. If there were other things done to Iran as a result of Beirut, feel free to list them now.

I think Iran wants nukes as a deterrent.

Now think about that. Why do they need a deterrent? Are they up to no good? And do you want them to get that deterrent? That's seems likely to happen if we allow them to keep stalling for time. What would be our options then?

BAC - And how is anyone to know? Will the Iranians perhaps fly some sort of pennant to denote the change of status?"

My view is colored by my military experience in real operations. What colors yours?

I notice you again didn't answer my question. You'd rather boast about your military *expertise*.

BAC - Out of curiosity, does your way of thinking apply to the use of ambulances too?

I note that you are stuck on stupid.

At least you listened to Rumsfeld on one occasion.

Sorry but I think that's a valid question given that you just told us the Iranians could legally convert a civilian object (a fishing boat) into a military object even if they do nothing to indicate it is now one to the other side in the conflict. So again, can ambulances be turned into military vehicles without doing anything to indicate it's being used for a military purpose (which in the Iranian case may mean a terrorist purpose)? Answer the question ... don't avoid it by taking something Rumsfeld said out of context.

BAC - "The objectives in bombing Iran would be far different than the bombing that was done in Vietnam. Surely this is obvious to someone with such an *extensive* military background. The goals would be MUCH more limited than they were in Vietnam."

OK, I'll play. Spell them out.

I already have several times in this thread. Stop being so obtuse.

Another way is that the US bombing Iran grants the Iranian politicans a common enemy

Except we're not bombing anything but instruments of a hated dictatorship. And the only thing we demand is something that most Iranians would probably view as reasonable (it certainly costs them NOTHING if the government complies). And if the Iranian people support their government initially, how long will that continue when they are greatly inconvenienced just because that government won't stop activities that even most Iranians should probably view as wrong if they are at all decent people?

So, it is possible that Iranians were aiding and abetting Hezbollah

Possible? Hezbollah is WIDELY acknowledged as closely tied to the Iranian government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm "The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money. In its early days, Hezbollah was close to a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel. As Hezbollah escalated its guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets in southern Lebanon, its military aid from Iran increased."

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368658 "Iranian influence over Hezbollah continues to be exercised through a multitude of individual and institutional relationships, especially through close relations between senior Iranian clerics and notably, the Ministry of Intelligence & National Security (MOIS), the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its elite unit, the Qods Force. ... snip ... The complexity of Iranian-Hezbollah relations is aptly reflected in the way different Iranian institutions influence different constituent organizations of the latter. The Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (MOIS), currently headed by Yunesi, has considerable influence over Hezbollah's ultra-secretive security and special overseas operations organization. [1] IRGC is largely responsible for arming and training Hezbollah's paramilitary forces. Furthermore various "Bonyads" (or semi-official foundations) exert influence on the political elites of Hezbollah."

There are many more.

Nope. Bomb them into docility, but no ground troops. That's your plan, in very simple terms.

Well I'm sure glad I have you around to summarize it. (sarcasm)

Now, if you please, tell me where the added troops come from, for Iraq, without a draft, given the current OPTEMPO and political climate in Washington, and given American security commitments around the Globe.

What added troops? For once you're going to have to be more specific.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz.

How curious. ElBaradei's statement is at odds with this report:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/01/1966708.htm "Iran speeds up nuclear enrichment, Posted Sun Jul 1, 2007 8:04am AEST,
Iran's envoy to the UN atomic watchdog says the country has stepped up its controversial uranium enrichment, which is at the core of an international stand-off over its nuclear program."

And what's this? There's suspicious construction going on near Natanz?

http://voanews.com/english/2007-07-09-voa15.cfm "IAEA: Iran Slowing Expansion of Nuclear Enrichment Capabilities
By VOA News
09 July 2007 ... snip ... In Vienna Monday, Mohamed ElBaradei said IAEA inspectors have seen a slowing in the installation of centrifuges that enrich uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. ... snip ... The Washington Post newspaper says the IAEA is concerned about construction seen in recent satellite photographs of a mountainside next to the Natanz facility. ... snip ... The newspaper says governments, intelligence agencies and nuclear experts are studying the satellite images to try to figure out if Iran is placing key parts of the nuclear facility underground to thwart any military strike against it."

Here's that WP article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070801307.html

Also, you do realize don't you that there are two other nuclear plants in Iran. What are they up to?

Finally, is there any sign they are slowing down their support of efforts to destabilize Iraq? Because that's the real issue here. And the clock in Iraq is still ticking...

I'll leave you with some thoughtful words written by Senator Joe Lieberman recently:

**********


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010302

Iran's Proxy War
Tehran is on the offensive against us throughout the Middle East. Will Congress respond?

BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
Friday, July 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Earlier this week, the U.S. military made public new and disturbing information about the proxy war that Iran is waging against American soldiers and our allies in Iraq.

According to Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, the Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members.

Gen. Bergner also revealed that the Quds Force--a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps whose mission is to finance, arm and equip foreign Islamist terrorist movements--has taken groups of up to 60 Iraqi insurgents at a time and brought them to three camps near Tehran, where they have received instruction in the use of mortars, rockets, improvised explosive devices and other deadly tools of guerrilla warfare that they use against our troops. Iran has also funded its Iraqi proxies generously, to the tune of $3 million a month.

Based on the interrogation of captured extremist leaders--including a 24-year veteran of Hezbollah, apparently dispatched to Iraq by his patrons in Tehran--Gen. Bergner also reported on Monday that the U.S. military has concluded that "the senior leadership" in Iran is aware of these terrorist activities. He said it is "hard to imagine" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei--Iran's supreme leader--does not know of them.

These latest revelations should be a painful wakeup call to the American people, and to the U.S. Congress. They also expand on a steady stream of public statements over the past six months by David Petraeus, the commanding general of our coalition in Iraq, as well as other senior American military and civilian officials about Iran's hostile and violent role in Iraq. In February, for instance, the U.S. military stated that forensic evidence has implicated Iran in the death of at least 170 U.S. soldiers.

Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan--where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders.

While some will no doubt claim that Iran is only attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq because they are deployed there--and that the solution, therefore, is to withdraw them--Iran's parallel proxy attacks against moderate Palestinians, Afghans and Lebanese directly rebut such claims.

Iran is acting aggressively and consistently to undermine moderate regimes in the Middle East, establish itself as the dominant regional power and reshape the region in its own ideological image. The involvement of Hezbollah in Iraq, just revealed by Gen. Bergner, illustrates precisely how interconnected are the different threats and challenges we face in the region. The fanatical government of Iran is the common denominator that links them together.

No responsible leader in Washington desires conflict with Iran. But every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that the U.S. military has now put before us: The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East.

America now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince Tehran to change its behavior, including the immediate cessation of its training and equipping extremists who are killing our troops.

Most of this work must be done by our diplomats, military and intelligence operatives in the field. But Iran's increasingly brazen behavior also presents a test of our political leadership here at home. When Congress reconvenes next week, all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to send a clear, strong and unified message to Tehran that it must stop everything it is doing to bring about the death of American service members in Iraq.

It is of course everyone's hope that diplomacy alone can achieve this goal. Iran's activities inside Iraq were the central issue raised by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in his historic meeting with Iranian representatives in Baghdad this May. However, as Gen. Bergner said on Monday, "There does not seem to be any follow-through on the commitments that Iran has made to work with Iraq in addressing the destabilizing security issues here." The fact is, any diplomacy with Iran is more likely to be effective if it is backed by a credible threat of force--credible in the dual sense that we mean it, and the Iranians believe it.

Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.

I hope the new revelations about Iran's behavior will also temper the enthusiasm of some of those in Congress who are advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Iran's purpose in sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, after all, is clear: It hopes to push the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so that its proxies can then dominate these states. Tehran knows that an American retreat under fire would send an unmistakable message throughout the region that Iran is on the rise and America is on the run. That would be a disaster for the region and the U.S.

The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on. The regime in Iran is betting that our political disunity in Washington will constrain us in responding to its attacks. For the sake of our nation's security, we must unite and prove them wrong.

***********

 

[Darth Rotor]

Fair enough.

We are almost at the point of talking to one another, rather than at one another. That is encouraging.

But there are other links showing that the Coalition has been operating inside Pakistan, including bombing from time to time both with manned and unmanned aircraft.

Loose lips sink ships. OPSEC, does it mean anything to you? It means a great deal to me.

I haven't claimed decisive action, only that Pakistan, unlike Iran, is actively trying to fight al-Qaeda ... probably to the best of its ability at this time.

That is correct, but you are incorrect that I was voicing displeasure. I was observing Mushmeister's own internal limitation, which if you'd read what I wrote, you would have recognized.

That's at odds with your claim that air campaigns have been and would be indecisive.

The historical record is clear, your powder blue propaganda is just that, Air Force spin. Better men than you have tried to sell me that soap.

The campaign against Serbia was almost entirely an air campaign and it was decisive.

That's one way to look at it. Your analysis ignores the fact that the mission in Kosovo continues, on the ground, and that troops on the ground were an integral part of the NATO posture.

Furthermore, for the missions that I've proposed in Iran, previous air campaigns can only be characterized as decisive.

No, they can only be characterized as air campaigns, or air operations. You assume decisiveness. I find your analysis shallow, and infested by Warden's rubbish.

The one thing you have correct is that the US Joint Force is good at takig down IAD networks. This is a good thing.

In those case, we've been able to intercept radio/phone communications and track the locations of enemy leaders, in some cases killing them.

Saddam lasted to December 2003. Zarqawi for over two years after Fallujah and four bodies on a bridge. Others have been dispatched with iron rain drops a bit more expeditiously.

And let's not forget that I'm not ruling out the use of special forces

You are late. See the Hirsch article (take his spin with a grain of salt) on Spec Ops doing reconnaisance now, in Iran.

. . . because the missions I've suggest to achieve it have all been decisively accomplished in all our recent air wars.

The historical record show one campaign as pretty successful, 99, and the rest not so. Your analysis is poisoned by standard Silver Bullet Air Force propaganda. I've had sharper folks than you try to sell me this soap, and it didn't work then.

We just want Iran to stop supporting efforts to undermine the will of the Iraqi people.

No question about that. Oh, wait, which Iraqi people? Your talking points are showing, BAC, as is your shill style.

Who said air campaigns never work. ROTFLOL!

No one, but the historical record does not agree with you, nor with your analysis.

Clinton's criminal activities and his wag the dog approach to military ventures was real life.

Wag the Dog was the name of a movie. What was real life, again?

The timing is suspicious given that it happened as the Cox Report, detailing treasonous behavior by his administration and the democRAT party, was released.

Your spin is showing. Losing cred, fast.

Clinton was looking a distraction to take his problems off the front page.

That is what you claim. I am unconvinced. The world continues to turn, and actors all over the world do what they do, regardless of who is, or is not, sucking the President's cock. It isn't all about the US, though I am biased enough to think a lot of it is. Sue me.

So don't try to tell me what is real life, sir. I am well aware of the true facts.

Your spin is showing, again.

As we write back and forth to each other, democRATS and some republicans have passed a resolution demanding withdrawal start in just a few months.

More spin. More shill. More talking points. You know I voted for Bush, right? And as much as the Swift Boat smear campaign pissed me off, I voted for him again, since I had no third choice and John Kerry simply isn't a leader. His record in the Senate gave me nothing to vote for.

As we sit here, Iran is working feverishly to refine enough weapons grade material to make a bomb. As we sit here, Iran goes about purchasing and installing weapon systems that will make any attack on Iran more difficult and costly.

Yes.

So you brought up the TOR missiles during this debate just to note they were adding targets for us to destroy? Obviously not.

Nope. Those are point defense missiles that I suspect will be used to defend high value targets, and the Iranians probably think that the multi track capability will solve their problem versus our air campaign.

Wise fools.

Actually, we also do air campaigns like no one else. But in any case, your statement doesn't change the fact that with each tic of the clock it gets harder to attack Iran without taking unacceptable casualties.

Hyperbole. Depending on force levels, the air campaign will peel back the onion either more slowly, or more rapidly, depending on other factors in theater.

Indeed, one mistake we made with Saddam was giving his regime too much time to prepare for our attack.

Twelve years? I suggest you take a good look at On Point, and see how the theater level and strategic posture was steadily grown that allowed the support and sustained operations in OIF. I also need to ask: how familiar are you with a TPFDD?

And you think you will get a decisive outcome by ineffectively dealing with Iran and ensuring our loss in Iraq?

Once again, with the words in my mouth attempt. Bad form.

If we should have learned anything from Vietnam, its that we won't win a war of attrittion. Our enemies threshold of pain for losses, be it North Vietnam or al-Qaeda, is much larger than ours ... especially if their leaders are safe. In fact, half this country (the democRAT half) have already said the losses have exceeded the threshold of pain. Some said it when the first soldier died.

The lesson I take from studying Viet Nam is that you can't take the support of the American people for granted, and that it is damned hard work to keep their support for a war in the long haul. Even FDR had to work at it. I am of the opinion that W and his team assumed the emotional energy they harnessed early on would sustain. I don't think they put in the work necessary to keep the support of the American people, and to put a fine point on it, the info campaign was clumsy, contradictory, and undermined by conflicting policy.

Not that big of if ... provided we can keep foreign troublemakers from stirring the pot. The Iraqi people voted by a large margin to move in the direction we wanted. They've demonstrated a willingness to shed lots of blood in that direction. That outsiders are causing much of the chaos has been apparent from day one and is even more so now.

Not just outsiders, BAC. It's many v many.

Our military leaders in charge of the surge say it is working.

I consider General P a credible witness. I look forward to hearing his report in September. I think he was an excellent choice for the job, and I admire his enthusiasm for a damned hard job.

Just curious, but why are you calling me Major? Is that meant to be an insult?

Nope.

It's a common question at staff college, when someone is briefing an absurd course of action, that the instructor ask him a hard question. "What do you do now, Major?"

It's a variation of what you ask the prospective aircraft commander at the board: Scenario thus and such, this surprise thrown in, what do you do now, Lieutenant?

It's a variation of the tactical problems you can find in the back of Marine Corps Gazette, each month: Here's what confronts you, what are your orders, Captain?

Now to respond to your question, according to the The Brookings Institution's July report, the unemployment rate now stands at 25 - 40 percent.

Good. The point is that part of the solution to Iraq's instability is fixing the economy, and part of the solution to fixing the economy is, of course, the instability. SASO is supposed to deal with the instability, on the one hand, and aid and abet the other as an outcome.

What do you think the US would look like with 25% unemployment? With 40% unemployment?

And who is behind Hezbollah? Iran. So if we get Iran to stop supporting terrorists, Hezbollah might also die on the vine. Yet another possible benefit of the strategy I propose.

If your "bomb them into docility" works, perhaps. Perhaps not.

100%. I've no doubt that Iranian leaders would decide at some point that their best chance to stay in power, stay alive, and keep Iran from becoming a fifth rate military power is to accept the conditions of the ultimatum we would make prior to bombing.

Right. You have convinced yourself.

Where is President Bush's political capital to draw on for this new war? He no longer has two houses in his party who will support him.

How does he sell this? Why should anyone believe him? That's the killer, the amount of credibility thrown away by an idiotic information campaign over seven years. *slams head on the desk*

All we would be asking them to do is stop activities that internationally are making Iran an outcast.

They chose that course about a generation ago. Why would that appeal resonate, at all, now?

Might I ask what rank you held when you left the Navy?

Commander.

As to my backup plan, it's build more PGMs and keep shooting. Eventually, the Iraqi people will say enough is enough and lynch their own leaders to stop the disruption of their lives. Which is why the leaders will at some point yell uncle.

Where is the political will in America to do that?

But they agreed not to pursue such weapons. There's the problem. There is nothing wrong with their developing peaceful uses for radioactive particles. No one is trying to stop them from doing that. The problem is that they've apparently decided to do something they agreed not to do ... build nuclear weapons.

Yep.

And they are doing that to make it harder for us to stop their support of terrorist movements. Or worse, they are doing it to supply terrorist movements with such weapons.

The former more likely than the latter.

I don't think a reading of your statement shows that's accurate. But in any case, I've not suggested an approach that would require large numbers of additional troops anyway. So your mentioning the draft must have been a red herring or a strawman (depending on how one looks at what you wrote).

Nope. Not at all.

Like I noted earlier, at one point they captured an associate of al-Zarqawi on serious charges that the arresting officer said he was convinced were accurate. Yet, orders came from top people in the Iraqi government (the CIA said Saddam himself) to release the man. There are also numerous sources indicating that Saddam's regime knowingly funded and trained terrorists in various facilities. Those terrorists included al-Qaeda. We know for a fact that one of the 1993 WTC bombers fled to Iraq and was then put on the payroll of the government and supplied a house. There are good reasons to believe that an Iraqi handler (in charge of special operations) met with Mohammed Atta on more than one occasion. They did more than turn a blind eye.

I am familiar with that narrative.

You sure are trying hard to give Saddam's regime and Ahmadinejad's government the benefit of the doubt.

Nope. I fully expect Saddam to do whatever it takes to keep Saddam in power. I also expect Saddam to do stuff he thinks he can get away with to get back at the US for the sanctions, and the ass kicking he got in 91. I don't expect him to leave a trail of breadcrumbs, or let someone else get him in hot water. A bit of a control freak, by all accounts.

I've seen no evidence that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria are training terrorists who are headed for Iraq or funding terrorists activities in Iraq.

I'll restate that in those nations, unlike in Lybia under Qadaffi, who actively set up training camps in the 80's, the scenario is more a "let them live here, turn a blind eye, can't do much about them" mode. There are wealthy Islamist sympathizers in every Arab nation in the Middle East. Think about the Irish pubs in places like Boston, DC, New York, and the hat passed for "the band." Something similar, but of course within the local cultural context. Arafat was fed millions through such networks, part of how he stayed top dog in the PLO, with his distribution of patronage.

But didn't you just get done telling us that air campaigns don't work? And what if those terrorists were operating out of places like ... Baghdad? That's where al-Zarqawi spent a lot of time. Indeed, now there are camps like that in Iran. Are you suggesting we send the B2's there? Won't that make Iran mad?

Given that Clinton had shown that he was not going to send anything into Iraq other than an occasional air strike, and given that Whiteman had by then full up B-2 squadrons, I figured "why not use this Stealth if you have it, and all you like using is the Silver Bullet?" Makes as much sense as launching Tomahawks at Afghanistan, and it is less traceable.

Iran is now doing the much the same thing for al-Qaeda's leadership.

Two points.

Is Osama in Iran?

Why would Iran be growing bolder? How do you think they got to here, what is going on in 2007, from a relative (and that is very relative) moderate being President in 2003? What did the US do to enable their brand of adventurism?

Now think about that. Why do they need a deterrent?

The U.S. We constrain their freedom of action in their own neighborhood. Think Monroe Doctrine, in Farsi.

1. Are they up to no good? 2. And do you want them to get that deterrent? 3. That's seems likely to happen if we allow them to keep stalling for time. 4. What would be our options then?

1. Yes.
2. No, but what I want is irrelevant.
3. If we can't muster international support to stop their program, yes, if we do the hard work at that level, no.
4. At such time as they successfully test a weapon, we are left with only your option, with that weapon's base/support as Target number one.
5. BMD is part of the counter to TBM's and ICBM's.

I notice you again didn't answer my question. You'd rather boast about your military *expertise*.

My experience with RoE and the requirements for VID of targets are, once again, lost on you at the tactical level. Again. You have to catch them at it or they aren't a target. Do you understand? You don't go blowing every fishing boat out of the water on the presumption that they are mine layers, you have to catch them at it to shoot. That's the RoE, that's real life, and that's the American way of war. A similar pattern of constraint governs our actions in Iraq, regardless of what the yellow press reports. Even tighter RoE in Afghanistan than in Iraq. (Caveat: my RoE knowledge in the CENTCOM AOR is current as of 2004, the relative tightness may have changed.)

At least you listened to Rumsfeld on one occasion.

IIRC, it was not Sec Def Rumsfeld but rather Lieutenant General Honore who was the origin of that sound byte.

Sorry but I think that's a valid question given that you just told us the Iranians could legally convert a civilian object (a fishing boat) into a military object even if they do nothing to indicate it is now one to the other side in the conflict.

Nope. I said they could do it successfully. The legality of that Ziggurat pointed to as dicey, which is correct, but you have to catch them at it, which is not a sure thing.

Except we're not bombing anything but instruments of a hated dictatorship.

Hated by us, sure. Hated by everyone in Iran? I am not so sure. Some of the international press point to considerable discontent, sure, but that does not mean that an attack on Iran will be greeted with joy by people who live there.

Let's pretend you are right. The hate runs deep. Bomb away. The Azeris and Kurds see a chance to break off. The long awaited revolutions begin.

Civil war in Iran.

Who comes in to fill the power vacuum?

Is that in American interests?

And if the Iranian people support their government initially, how long will that continue when they are greatly inconvenienced just because that government won't stop activities that even most Iranians should probably view as wrong if they are at all decent people?

That's the question, isn't it?

I don't know how Persians stack up to Viet Namese when it comes to a gut check, but I note that they managed to gut it out for eight years in a nasty war with Iraq. I think they have a great capacity for gutting it out. Can their leadership keep them on their side by an appeal to nationalism? Don't know. I think they can. You think they can't. Nothing you have typed so far gives me any reason to buy your assertion.

Possible? Hezbollah is WIDELY acknowledged as closely tied to the Iranian government.

Yes, the sugar daddy from Teheran.

Well I'm sure glad I have you around to summarize it. (sarcasm)

Given your bloviating, perhaps you'll consider brevity as a tool more frequently in the future.

What added troops? For once you're going to have to be more specific.

For all that the Surge may be having some positive effects, my experience with troop levels at roughly what they are now, in 2004, was that the peanut butter was spread too thin on the toast. What would happen is that as operations/incidents in the ring of fire around Baghdad increased, forces available to secure the Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian border were not available for the Screen/Guard mission needed to put a break on infiltration. The shell game never ended. Yet, it was known, day in and day out, that stopping infiltration along the Border was a critical mission.

Aside: One of my favorite utterances of General Abizaid, when a reporter cornered him on that matter, the obvious porousness of Iraq's borders, was

"Have you noticed how well we secure the Mexican American border?"

Cracked me up.

So, if you want to both have enough presence to keep Central Iraq resourced, and stop infiltration, you need the kind of footprint Shinseki was talking about: 200,000 plus. MOUT swallows up battalions like water soaks up a sponge. What is left for the Screen/Guard mission isn't enough for the size of the problem at current force levels.

Interesting links on the nuke deal. Some look familiar. No surprises there. Actions one can expect Iran to take.

I'll leave you with some thoughtful words written by Senator Joe Lieberman recently:

Shill status noted.

By the way, in an admin note, you may have violated Rule 4 with that, unless you are Joe Lieberman. Take a look at forum rules on the quoting in full. A link usually suffices, and some snippets.

Somehow, I think you are not Joe Lieberman, the Senator has a few more things on his plate than a discussion than this.

I hear he got some support to get the Senate to condemn Iran, 97-0. Bully for Joe.

You may get your wish.

DR

 

[Dorian Gray]

Holy Christ, I wish someone would clean up all the piss.