Officials Worried About Summer Attack

[Darth Rotor]

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

Some truth in that.

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

That forces your enemy to adapt, not give up.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most.

Yep, except for hand held MANPADS.

It would be a very lopsided victory.

Define "victory" in terms of the end state.

At that point, known terrorist facilities should be destroyed along with all nuclear facilities that are thought to be violation of the nuclear proliferation agreement Iran signed.

And the following week, we also bomb Israel's nuclear facilities, (who have not bothered to sign the NPT?) North Korea's? India's? Pakistan's?

Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

And all the while, the rest of the world sits on their hands?

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment.

By this time, the Straights of Hormuz is mined. Heavily mined. Tankers burn and sink. Oil flow out of the Gulf has slowed to a crawl. And the rest of the world sits on its hands? China and Japan get a lot of oil from the Gulf. They are major trading partners. Do you see them doing nothing? You are paying about five dollars a gallon at the pump. Europeans, eight to nine.

If that doesn't change their minds about engaging in terrorism, their economic infrastructure (in particular, their oil industry) should go on the chopping block. Or perhaps at that point we save the environment and just we tell them the choice is between stopping terrorism and government decapitation.

You will note that the decap strikes on Saddam DIDN"T EFFING WORK! He survived nine more months, and that was after an invasion and a months long man hunt.

Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

The Mullah's understand The Riddle of Steel. Do you?

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq,

They are not that dumb. They know that, with Americans around, if you move, you are a target, unless you can hide behind an innocent's skirt.

You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

When it comes to blowing stuff up, yeah, no one comes close, but for what long term end are you blowing stuff up? What do you do when the rubble stops bouncing? Wait for the living to start tossing flowers at you? IED's? Pipe bombs? Molotov Cocktails? What happens tomorrow?

*voice of Annie*

The sun will come up, tomorrow, tomorrow
It'll be Groundhog Day, tomorrow.

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

If we do as you previouslly suggested, and did all that bombing in Iran, I am going to take a wild guess that the will of the Iranian peoples, be they Azeris, Persians, Arabs, Baluchis, or whatever, will tend to align thusly, in Farsi, and with feeling, and particularly among the Persians:

F*** you f***ing American F***ers and every f***ing f***er who f***ing looks like you.

Or words to that effect.

The Mullah's may be a-holes, but they are their a-holes.

I think most Americans and most in the Arab world and Europe would breath a huge sigh of relief at the passing of Iran's growing threat.

Maybe, and maybe not. Many would also breath easier if they quit hearing people like Senator Lieberman barking out bellicose threats of the US bombing Iran.

Just like they quietly applauded when Israel took out Iraq's reacter a couple decades ago. By the way, there was a lesson in that for us.

And for Saddam. And for Teheran. A lot of people paid attention to that.

There is going to be a war with that country sooner or later. Mark my words. The question is do you want it to be now while we still can easily prevail or later when the cost will be much, much higher?

A civil war, or one the US starts?

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

That forces your enemy to adapt, not give up.

Adapt how? Be specific given the scenario I just described.

Define "victory" in terms of the end state.

As far as the air war is concerned? Victory is our Air Force gaining the ability to fly with impunity over all of Iran, delivering precision guided munitions whenever and where ever they please ... with the Iranians having NO means to prevent it. "Lopsided" means losing very few assets on our part to accomplish that aim.

And the following week, we also bomb Israel's nuclear facilities

Sorry, but Israel has violated no arms agreements having to do with the development and possession of nuclear weapons. Iran apparently is violating such agreements. Furthermore, Israel has acted responsibly when it comes to the possession of said weapons. Iran's top leaders, before they have even obtained them, are not. And finally, Israel is not sending terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers. Iran is, and for that we should prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

North Korea's?

Actually, North Korea is just a good example of the problems we will have once Iran has nuclear weapons. Thank you for providing it.

India's? Pakistan's?

Again, India and Pakistan have violated no arms agreements that they willingly signed with regards to nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the last time I checked the governments of those countries were working to stop terrorists, rather than aid them as Iran's government seems to be doing. You do understand the difference, right?

And all the while, the rest of the world sits on their hands?

That's about it. Just what do you think the rest of the world can do? They will have no choice but to watch.

By this time, the Straights of Hormuz is mined. Heavily mined.

Really? You seem to forget that we also have a very powerful navy. You'd be surprised at the power two or three carrier task force groups can project. I rather doubt Iranians would be doing much of anything at sea. In fact, I bet one of the opening actions of any US attack would be to disable Iran's ability to lay mines.

Tankers burn and sink.

Whose tankers? Is Iran going to attack the oil tankers of non-involved nations because we ask them to stop supporting terrorists and they refuse? That would be an act of war against those non-involved nations. That would be terrorism. That you think Iran would act that irresponsibly is even more reason to suggest Iran is a problem that needs to be dealt with before it acquires nuclear weapons. Sorry, but I think that if Iran tried to close international waters to oil traffic and sank ships flying under the flag of countries like Japan and China, then Iran would only be making itself even more of a outlaw among nations. Then nations would breath an even bigger sigh of relief when we got done dealing with the threat.

You will note that the decap strikes on Saddam DIDN"T EFFING WORK! He survived nine more months, and that was after an invasion and a months long man hunt.

First of all, Shock and Awe wasn't meant to just kill Saddam. It was meant to break up the government. And in all the ways the really matter, it did that. Iraq's government essentially ceased functioning after those attacks. Plus those attacks were one reason Iraq was unable to stop the advance of what were essentially 2nd string US forces into the heart of Iraq and it's capital. The goal of an attack on Iran's government would not be to kill all Iranian leaders, but make it impossible for them to govern their own country and effectively lead their military. Keep in mind that most of those 9 months Saddam spent running, never sleeping in the same place twice, and eventually we dug him out of the ground looking like a homeless vagrant. I tell you what ... along with that DVD of Shock and Awe, send the Mullah's a picture of Saddam crawling out of his hole in the ground. Maybe that would give them food for thought.

They are not that dumb. They know that, with Americans around, if you move, you are a target, unless you can hide behind an innocent's skirt.

Good. I'm happy you agree that this tactic will not work and that Iran's leaders are just the sort to hide behind an innocent's skirt (i.e. terrorists).

When it comes to blowing stuff up, yeah, no one comes close, but for what long term end are you blowing stuff up? What do you do when the rubble stops bouncing? Wait for the living to start tossing flowers at you?

I think I told you why we would be blowing things up. To get them to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in any way and turn any al-qaeda they currently have over to us. This isn't about making friends. Because even if we do nothing there is no prospect that Iran is going to become our friend given it's current leadership.

IED's? Pipe bombs? Molotov Cocktails?

If they do that, they haven't learned their lesson. At some point, my guess is they will turn those things on their leaders so they can end the attacks and get back to the business of just living and not bothering anyone else.

If we do as you previouslly suggested, and did all that bombing in Iran, I am going to take a wild guess that the will of the Iranian peoples, be they Azeris, Persians, Arabs, Baluchis, or whatever, will tend to align thusly, in Farsi, and with feeling, and particularly among the Persians:

And I'm going to guess you are wrong. I'm going to guess that if we make no attempt to invade but make it clear that our only wish is they stop their support of terrorist activities in other countries, the average Iranian will yawn and be more angry with their own leaders than anyone else. You forget that we are talking about the use of precision munitions to accomplish what I outlined in which case very few innocent Iranians will be hurt.

Consider Iraq. The Iraqis (even most Sunnis) have expressed their relief that Saddam is gone. It was overwhelming during the initial attack on Saddam's government. Their problem with us was the perception of occupation which I'm not proposing in the case of Iran. I'm proposing that if the Iranian government insists on acting irresponsibly and in an outlaw manner, we deal that government such a blow that it will be difficult for them to maintain control of the Iranian population.

The Mullah's may be a-holes, but they are their a-holes.

I suspect after a few decades of their insane rule, most Iranians would be very happy to see them weakened to such an extent that they could be toppled ... by Iranians. I suspect most decent Iranians see the bellicose statements of their leader and it chills them to the bone. As you said, they are not stupid. And if they are so stupid as to actually believe the insanity their leader spouts, they are also a threat to world peace.

And for Saddam. And for Teheran. A lot of people paid attention to that.

And what was that lesson in their eyes? Saddam obviously didn't learn it. So what lesson do you think Teheran got from the destruction of Iraq's reactor.

A civil war, or one the US starts?

Iran's leaders are calling on the arab world to obliterate another country (Israel) and all it's people ... wiping it off the earth ... even at the cost to the arab world of hundreds of millions of lives. They already have personnel helping aim and fire missiles ... Iranian missiles ... at that other country's civilian population. They are arming terrorists groups whose avowed goal is to push Israel and all it's inhabitants into the sea. Iran's leaders are supporting terrorists who are now killing tens of thousands of completely innocent Iraqi civilians every year. Through that terrorism, Iran's leaders and it's terrorist allies are trying to foment a civil war in another country. Tell me, what is your plan to curb this behavior? Just to close your eyes and ears and hope that Iran's leaders stop?

 

[luchog]

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

It would depend on the circumstances, but as a rule, yes. If he was a good soldier.

Now, withholding information is an entirely different matter.

 

[luchog]

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

Ridiculous non-sequitor, and complete ignorance of military tactics.

One of the most important things that can be done, when fighting any kind of enemy, is to disrupt his logistics, cut off his supplies; particularly of weapons and ammunition, but also food, reinforcements, etc. There is no way to stop it entirely, but disrupting the supply chain sufficiently will greatly weaken enemy forces, reducing their ability to fight effectively.

The problem with most people is that they get most of their knowledge about just about everything from movies, television, and other popular entertainment sources. They have no clue how things work in real life.

 

[Schneibster]

Just a comment on your view of the military's "eagerness to apply their hammer": this is not Dr. Strangelove, and your view that the military seeks "to apply their hammer to whatever problems come along" is so far off base it's troubling.

That you ignored the rest of my post speaks volumes. It very nearly proves that what I said is true.

 

[Schneibster]

Ridiculous non-sequitor, and complete ignorance of military tactics.

One of the most important things that can be done, when fighting any kind of enemy, is to disrupt his logistics, cut off his supplies; particularly of weapons and ammunition, but also food, reinforcements, etc. There is no way to stop it entirely, but disrupting the supply chain sufficiently will greatly weaken enemy forces, reducing their ability to fight effectively.

That's how wars are fought. Hannibal knew it. Much is made of his tactics; but people who know much about war know that Hannibal's great genius was not tactics, but logistics. Read Sun Tzu, he knew it too. So did Julius Caesar. Check out the battle of Alesia sometime.

The march to Moscow defeated two great powers: Napoleon, and the Wehrmacht. They didn't falter because they were outfought, or outgunned, or outmanned. They faltered because they didn't have anything to eat.

The problem with most people is that they get most of their knowledge about just about everything from movies, television, and other popular entertainment sources. They have no clue how things work in real life.

My favorite misquote: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Adapt how? Be specific given the scenario I just described.

Disperse. That's what a lot of the Iraqi army did when I MEF and 3d ID rolled north.

As far as the air war is concerned? Victory is our Air Force gaining the ability to fly with impunity over all of Iran, delivering precision guided munitions whenever and where ever they please ... with the Iranians having NO means to prevent it.

Do you know what a MANPAD is? The condition you describe is in place in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but the US cannot fly with "impunity" over either country due to the known existence of SA-7, 13, 16, 18 and Stinger type MANPADs.

Sorry, but Israel has violated no arms agreements having to do with the development and possession of nuclear weapons.

Right. Israel developed nuclear weapons, and because they didn't sin the NPT, they are in no way part of the proliferation problem that Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are? How are they coming to court with clean hands?

Granted, I think they are a bit more likely to just use their nukes as a deterrent, but you logic is broken. Of course, if I were an Israeli minister in the 1960's, I'd want a nuke deterrent. Look at the numbers.

Furthermore, Israel has acted responsibly when it comes to the possession of said weapons.

So too is North Korea: the have not nuked anyone yet. Nor has Pakistan. Nor India. Those two have deterrents. Iraq never nuked anyone.

Iran's top leaders, before they have even obtained them, are not.

You are leaping to conclusions.

And finally, Israel is not sending terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

So? I'd be surprised if they did, or are, but that has nothing to do with linking air attacks on nuclear facilities to American positions in the Gulf.

Iran is, and for that we should prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran is arguably more stable that Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda seems to be reconstituting in Pakistan's northwestern regions, and in Waziristan. But Iran's the problem? Iran is a problem, sure, but The problem?

Actually, North Korea is just a good example of the problems we will have once Iran has nuclear weapons.

I find your cookie cutter approach disappointing. Each nation state needs to be handled in its own context. (Hence the idiocy of Axis of Evil rhetoric.) Korea has, in its context, China. There is no China involved in this Middle East issue, and not much Russia other than providing Iran with some equipment and material.

Thank you for providing it.

Thank you for showing me how narrow your perspective is.

Again, India and Pakistan have violated no arms agreements that they willingly signed with regards to nuclear weapons.

Yet.

Furthermore, the last time I checked the governments of those countries were working to stop terrorists, rather than aid them as Iran's government seems to be doing.

India, maybe, Pakistan backed down in the past six months and scaled back, not increasing, its anti terrorist efforts in the north west. Musharraf has to live with those people, and his internal politics are not black and white. Hence: Al Q has a safe haven in his country.

You do understand the difference, right?

Magwa understand English very well, thanks.

That's about it. Just what do you think the rest of the world can do? They will have no choice but to watch.

Really? Four elements of national power:
Diplomatic
Informational
Military
Economic.

They can flex whichever of those muscles they like.

Really? You seem to forget that we also have a very powerful navy.

Nope, I forget nothing. I spent 25 years in the USN, retired a couple of years ago. I suspect I understand the capabilities and limitations of the USN rather well, and perhaps better than you do. Stopping mine laying is extremely difficult, given the various families of mines available these days.

You'd be surprised at the power two or three carrier task force groups can project.

No, not at all, I know what a CVBG can do. This has nothing to do with Iran's mine laying capability, which is a matter of a thing called Sea Denial. (Julian Corbett for fifty, Alex.)

I rather doubt Iranians would be doing much of anything at sea.

I rather think they will, particularly with regards to mines.

In fact, I bet one of the opening actions of any US attack would be to disable Iran's ability to lay mines.

While that is a priority for Fifth Fleet's commander, VADM Walsh, the plan and the execution run into the problem that anything that floats can lay mines.

Anything.

Fishing boats.

Tankers

Container ships.

You going to bomb every fishing boat in the PG? You think the US can get away with that, politically? I don't think the RoE would permit that in any case, something about innocent passage and non combatants.

Whose tankers? Is Iran going to attack the oil tankers of non-involved nations because we ask them to stop supporting terrorists and they refuse?

No, if we attack them, they mine the straits, and tankers hit mines. This all happened twenty years ago in the Gulf, under a different scenario.

That would be an act of war against those non-involved nations. That would be terrorism.

And you think this statement means anything? You forget that no one declared war on Iraq, or Iran, in the 1980's over their mining various parts of the PG during their war.

That you think Iran would act that irresponsibly is even more reason to suggest Iran is a problem that needs to be dealt with before it acquires nuclear weapons.

Get the blinders off, please, and put yourself in Teheran. What leverage do you have? If someone is going to screw with you, what can you do to screw back? Asymmetrical warfare. Going head to head with the US is a non starter.

Sorry, but I think that if Iran tried to close international waters to oil traffic and sank ships flying under the flag of countries like Japan and China, then Iran would only be making itself even more of a outlaw among nations.

Perhaps, but once the US gets froggy, they may do it anyway under the "nothing to lose" rubric and the "we are mining to sink American bully ships, sorry if you tankers got hit" game. Plenty of useful idiots would buy into that.

Then nations would breath an even bigger sigh of relief when we got done dealing with the threat.

In your dreams. I think your perspective is a bit narrow here. It isn't black and white in the PG.

First of all, Shock and Awe wasn't meant to just kill Saddam.

First of all, there were three separate Decap Strikes, none of which got him.

It was meant to break up the government.

And to disable both military C2 nodes, government to military C2 capability. Go back about five months, search Shock and Awe, and you will find that I linked to the concept paper on that tactic.

And in all the ways the really matter, it did that.

Iraq's government essentially ceased functioning after those attacks.

I am sure Baghdad Bob agrees with you. So too a guy named Al Douri.

Plus those attacks were one reason Iraq was unable to stop the advance of what were essentially 2nd string US forces into the heart of Iraq and it's capital.

The Third ID and the I MEF were "Second String?"

Get your head out of your arse.

Combined Arms warfare, for fifty, Alex.

The goal of an attack on Iran's government would not be to kill all Iranian leaders, but make it impossible for them to govern their own country and effectively lead their military.

Bombing C2 nodes in Teheran might make it harder, and more difficult, but it won't shut them down.

Land lines.

Cleft Sticks.

Mail.

This stuff all works.

Keep in mind that most of those 9 months Saddam spent running, never sleeping in the same place twice, and eventually we dug him out of the ground looking like a homeless vagrant.

This is apropos of what?

I tell you what ... along with that DVD of Shock and Awe, send the Mullah's a picture of Saddam crawling out of his hole in the ground. Maybe that would give them food for thought.

They could send back a DVD of Berlin, bombed to hell and back, that didn't crumple until the Red Army showed up.

Good. I'm happy you agree that this tactic will not work and that Iran's leaders are just the sort to hide behind an innocent's skirt (i.e. terrorists).

They know it is an effective tactic versus the US, so they use it. War is not a sport. The idea is to win, or at least survive.

I think I told you why we would be blowing things up. To get them to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in any way and turn any al-qaeda they currently have over to us.

NATO bombed Serbia for 71 days to help Kosovo. It's 8 years later. Check the news, everything in Kosovo and Serbia is sweetness and light today, right?

Look at the map.

See Iran.

See Serbia.

What are you thinking now?

This isn't about making friends. Because even if we do nothing there is no prospect that Iran is going to become our friend given it's current leadership.

I tend to agree with that.

If they do that, they haven't learned their lesson.

Nor have you learned the lessons of some recent attempts to solve things with Air Power. It's a tool, not a solution set.

At some point, my guess is they will turn those things on their leaders so they can end the attacks and get back to the business of just living and not bothering anyone else.

Hard to say. Crystal ball hazy.

And I'm going to guess you are wrong. I'm going to guess that if we make no attempt to invade but make it clear that our only wish is they stop their support of terrorist activities in other countries, the average Iranian will yawn and be more angry with their own leaders than anyone else.

Sure, just as most Americans were mad at Bush and not at Al Qaeda and Arabs in general after our country was bombed. Right.

You forget that we are talking about the use of precision munitions to accomplish what I outlined in which case very few innocent Iranians will be hurt.

I am very, very familiar with the uses, tactics, and limitations of precision weapons used by the US Air Order of Battle, thanks. Generally, not many folks would die who weren't intended to get hit, but that was also generally true in Iraq. Did you bother to read the papers? Information War, check it out.

Consider Iraq. The Iraqis (even most Sunnis) have expressed their relief that Saddam is gone. It was overwhelming during the initial attack on Saddam's government. Their problem with us was the perception of occupation which I'm not proposing in the case of Iran. I'm proposing that if the Iranian government insists on acting irresponsibly and in an outlaw manner, we deal that government such a blow that it will be difficult for them to maintain control of the Iranian population.

Take your cookie cutter and park it. Iran is not Iraq.

A after a few decades of their insane rule, most Iranians would be very happy to see them weakened to such an extent that they could be toppled

Really? You are an expert on internal Iranian politics? Somehow, I think not. How do you intend to support that claim as other than wishful thinking?

... by Iranians. I suspect most decent Iranians see the bellicose statements of their leader and it chills them to the bone.

Could be, but I would not base a war policy on that assumption.

As you said, they are not stupid. And if they are so stupid as to actually believe the insanity their leader spouts, they are also a threat to world peace.

If Americans are so stupid as to attack Iraq when it didn't have WMD, they are also a threat to world peace. Do you realize how silly your comment looks? Iran is all about a region. Their 'hood.

And what was that lesson in their eyes? Saddam obviously didn't learn it. So what lesson do you think Teheran got from the destruction of Iraq's reactor.

Buy Russian missile systems, the TOR 1, among other things.

Iran's leaders are calling on the arab world to obliterate another country (Israel) and all it's people ... wiping it off the earth ... even at the cost to the arab world of hundreds of millions of lives. They already have personnel helping aim and fire missiles ... Iranian missiles ... at that other country's civilian population. They are arming terrorists groups whose avowed goal is to push Israel and all it's inhabitants into the sea. Iran's leaders are supporting terrorists who are now killing tens of thousands of completely innocent Iraqi civilians every year. Through that terrorism, Iran's leaders and it's terrorist allies are trying to foment a civil war in another country. Tell me, what is your plan to curb this behavior? Just to close your eyes and ears and hope that Iran's leaders stop?

Yes, the mullah's are dicks. They have been dicks since 1979.

So? For this we should expand a war?

Maybe the Serbia example is a good one, and a three month bombing campaign would "solve" something. I don't think so, but it is possible. Low probability.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Disperse. That's what a lot of the Iraqi army did when I MEF and 3d ID rolled north.

Except the scenario I indicated doesn't have us rolling into Iran the way they rolled into Iraq. It starts with aircraft destroying an air defense system. Just how does that "disperse" and still work?

Do you know what a MANPAD is?

Certainly do. Now you tell me how effective MANPADS are against stealth aircraft or aircraft flying at high altitude dropping PGMs. Or against cruise missiles. You see, that's how Iran's military, infrastructure and government would be attacked. Not by low altitude aircraft and gravity bombs. If Iran's air force rises to the occasion rather than be destroyed on the ground, it dies. If ships leave port, they die. If they don't, then they don't prevent the attacks that will be aimed at terrorist camps, nuclear installations, government buildings, shipyards, air bases, naval bases, etc. It's a lose-lose situation for Iran if we deliver an ultimatum and they ignore it. And they know it. So they will most likely capitulate. And if they are stupid enough to not do it, then there is a hairs difference between their stupidity and Saddam's and it's best he world be rid of them.

Israel developed nuclear weapons, and because they didn't sing the NPT, they are in no way part of the proliferation problem that Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are?

That's right. They legally acquired nuclear weapons according to international law whereas Iran and North Korea both (apparently) violated international agreements they signed with respect to nuclear weapons. Do international agreements that countries sign mean nothing to you? Should none of them matter?

So too is North Korea

Acting responsibly? North Korea broke international law and agreements it made with us to acquire nuclear weapons. That's not acting responsibly. And it is not acting responsible when it fires missiles that could contain such weapons towards countries (like Japan) during tests. Korea is also not acting responsibly when it spends its limited resources to develop nuclear weapons while the bulk of its people are literally starving and without electricity. Israel has done none of the above.

BAC: Iran's top leaders, before they have even obtained them, are not.

You are leaping to conclusions.

No, I'm looking at what Iran's top leaders have actually said about how they would use nuclear weapons and how many Arab lives they would be willing to shed in order to kill all Jews in Israel.

BAC: And finally, Israel is not sending terrorists into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

So?

So? So you see no difference between two countries even though one is sending people into Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis while the other is not? That says a lot about you.

Iran is arguably more stable that Pakistan

The only reason Pakistan is unstable is that Pakistan is fighting the same group of islamo-fanatics that Iran is supporting.

Al Qaeda seems to be reconstituting in Pakistan's northwestern regions, and in Waziristan. But Iran's the problem?

The Pakistan government is not complicit in sending terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans and destabilize Iraq. Iran's is. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Korea has, in its context, China. There is no China involved in this Middle East issue, and not much Russia other than providing Iran with some equipment and material.

Which is exactly why dealing with Iran the way I suggest would work while trying to deal with Korea is more complicated.

Again, India and Pakistan have violated no arms agreements that they willingly signed with regards to nuclear weapons.

Exactly. Apparently Iran has.

Pakistan backed down in the past six months and scaled back, not increasing, its anti terrorist efforts in the north west.

It's not all roses for al-qaeda.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/03/a53e30c1-5fca-46dc-9833-8a5fb84ad30d.html "March 30, 2007 -- Pakistani authorities say at least 56 people have been killed in a troubled tribal region near the Afghan border, when local Pashtun tribesmen clashed with foreign Al-Qaeda militants. ... snip ... Thousands of Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants fled into Pakistan's tribal areas after the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in late 2001. Relations between the foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen have deteriorated since then. ... snip ... Local residents say as many as 500 Uzbek and Chechen fighters are now besieged by about 1,500 Pakistani tribal fighters in the region's mountainous areas* of Azam Warsak, Shen Warsak, and Kalusha."

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20070213.aspx "February 12, 2007: Pressure from armed tribesmen and the Pakistani army has forced many foreign al Qaeda to spend the Winter across the border in Afghanistan. Many Afghan tribesmen will tolerate these foreigners as long as they pay for things and don't misbehave. This is how these foreigners survived in Pakistan since 2001. But increasing pressure from the army and tribal chiefs in Pakistan has forced the al Qaeda men to seek safer hideouts."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1956208.htm "Jun 20, 2007 ... snip ... Around 30 suspected Al Qaeda militants, including several foreigners, have been killed in a blast at a training camp in a Pakistani tribal area bordering Afghanistan, officials said."

And what about this?

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14490704 "Wage holy war against Pakistan: Al-Qaeda
Thursday, 12 July , 2007 ... snip ... Al-Qaeda's new video came as Pakistani commandos cleared the Red Mosque complex of its last die-hard defenders on Wednesday and the army said it counted the bodies of 73 suspected militants."

Four elements of national power:
Diplomatic
Informational
Military
Economic.

They can flex whichever of those muscles they like.

Go ahead, tell us specifically how those would stop us telling Iran to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq or else, and then carrying out the else if Iran failed to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq? All I see from you is generalities while I've told you specifics.

I spent 25 years in the USN, retired a couple of years ago. I suspect I understand the capabilities and limitations of the USN rather well, and perhaps better than you do. Stopping mine laying is extremely difficult, given the various families of mines available these dayse.

To lay mines the Iranians would have to send "something" out to do it. Yes? No? Just as we did in the Gulf War, we can track these movements. In fact, we can do it far better now. Yes? No? Those somethings are then vulnerable to all sorts of US weapon platforms. Yes? No? It seems to me that in that first ultimatum we just tell Iran that ANYTHING we construe as an attempt to mine the strait will be met with devastating force. In short, we will sink or shoot down ANYTHING that looks like it is laying mines. You don't think we can do that? Yes? No?

And once again, let me remind you that they will be laying mines in INTERNATIONAL WATER. That's a highly irresponsible act that might even be construed as the action of terrorists. Yes? No?

BAC:
You'd be surprised at the power two or three carrier task force groups can project.

No, not at all, but this has nothing to do with Iran's mine laying capability, which is a matter of a thing called Sea Denial.

Iran might obtain the ability to keep our carriers out of the area in time but they don't as yet have that. That's the point. Right now we can do something about Iran without too much in the way of losses. Later that may not be the case. Again, you only demonstrate why we need to do something about Iran now.

anything that floats can lay mines.

Anything that floats can be sunk. All you are making is the case that in addition to taking out Iran's air defense system immediately, we should sink anything that might drop mines. Given that Iran has a far smaller number of floaters than we have weapons that can detect and sink floaters, the outcome is obvious.

You forget that no one declared war on Iraq, or Iran, in the 1980's over their mining various parts of the PG during their war.

But that doesn't mean they were happy with Iran about it or unhappy when we captured an Iranian ship and bombed an oil facility as a result of that mining.

Get the blinders off, please, and put yourself in Teheran. What leverage do you have? If someone is going to screw with you, what can you do to screw back? Asymmetrical warfare. Going head to head with the US is a non starter.

No, you get the blinders off. They are ALREADY engaging in asymmetrical warfare. They are arming and supporting terrorists who are killing our soldiers and allies. They are trying to destabilize a country using asymmetric methods that we need to be stable. And what are we doing in response? Apparently nothing. Which is a losing strategy.

BAC:
Then nations would breath an even bigger sigh of relief when we got done dealing with the threat.

In your dreams. I think your perspective is a bit narrow here. It isn't black and white in the PG.

You are entitled to your opinion. But that is all it is.

BAC: First of all, Shock and Awe wasn't meant to just kill Saddam.

First of all, there were three separate Decap Strikes, none of which got him.

Shock and Awe consisted of far more than 3 strikes, so as I said, it wasn't just meant to kill Saddam as you first suggested. And Saddam was particularly squirrelly since for years he had been using doubles and sleeping in different places night to night so he was a hard target to get. Do the Iranian leadership do that? Do the Iranian leadership want to live like he did after we decide to go after them? That's a question they will have to answer if we ever get around to telling them to stop causing problems in Iraq or else.

BAC: Iraq's government essentially ceased functioning after those attacks.

I am sure Baghdad Bob agrees with you.

You didn't notice that Baghdad Bob was completely out of touch with reality. Looked a little bedraggled too.

The Third ID and the I MEF were "Second String?"

I'm not saying they weren't top notch units but the 4th ID (which really didn't get into combat until it was basically over) was much more lethal (because it was digitized at the time and the 3rd was not) and very little armor was committed to the campaign.

This stuff all works.

Cleft sticks? ROTFLOL!

BAC: Keep in mind that most of those 9 months Saddam spent running, never sleeping in the same place twice, and eventually we dug him out of the ground looking like a homeless vagrant.

This is apropos of what?

You tried to paint picture that he survived Shock and Awe and successfully ran a government for months afterwords. Let me repeat ... we found him in a tiny hole in the ground looking like a vagrant who had not slept or washed in weeks.

They'd send back a DVD of Berlin, bombed to hell and back, that didn't crumple until the Red Army showed up.

No, Berlin only kept fighting BECAUSE the Red Army was coming. But we won't be coming to Iran. The Iranian people will have nothing to fear from us. Just their leaders.

They know it is an effective tactic versus the US, so they use it.

They are already using it and you don't seem to care. Which I find interesting. And you haven't demonstrated how that tactic is going to keep us from taking Iran's military, government and economy (if necessary) apart. Then just how much asymmetric warfare will they be conducting in Iraq? Will the Iranian people be much interested in hurting a few Americans in Iraq or will they just want their own government to stop the insanity. Because we will constantly be telling them that the moment that government stops supporting al-Qaeda and stops trying to destabilize Iraq, we will stop the attacks and, if they wish, be the best of friends. Hmmmmmm?

NATO bombed Serbia for 71 days to help Kosovo. It's 8 years later. Check the news, everything in Kosovo and Serbia is sweetness and light today, right?

But NATO is an occupier over there. That's not what I'm suggesting we do in Iran. Do I need to keep repeating that?

just as most Americans were mad at Bush and not at Al Qaeda and Arabs in general after our country was bombed.

I'm sorry. Did al-qaeda give us a warning that they were going to do it? Did they tell us they wouldn't if we'd stop supporting terrorists (and PLEASE ... don't call Israel terrorists because that's just like calling someone a Nazi in an argument). Sorry, but your statement is a very tenuous and weak comparison. Can't you come up with something better?

I am very, very familiar with the uses, tactics, and limitations of precision weapons used by the US Air Order of Battle, thanks. Generally, not many folks would die who weren't intended to get hit

I'm glad you agree. In which case the Iranian people will have very little reason to get really mad at us ... especially since we won't be making any attempt to conquer and occupy their land.

BAC: Consider Iraq. The Iraqis (even most Sunnis) have expressed their relief that Saddam is gone. It was overwhelming during the initial attack on Saddam's government. Their problem with us was the perception of occupation which I'm not proposing in the case of Iran. I'm proposing that if the Iranian government insists on acting irresponsibly and in an outlaw manner, we deal that government such a blow that it will be difficult for them to maintain control of the Iranian population.

Take your cookie cutter and park it. Iran is not Iraq.

In other words, you can't muster a logical argument against what I just suggested? Why would the human reaction of ordinary people be any different in Iran than it was in Iraq?

BAC: after a few decades of their insane rule, most Iranians would be very happy to see them weakened to such an extent that they could be toppled

Really? You are an expert on internal Iranian politics? Somehow, I think not.

So you don't think there is discontent within Iran?

BAC: ... by Iranians. I suspect most decent Iranians see the bellicose statements of their leader and it chills them to the bone.

Could be, but I would not base a war policy on that assumption.

I'm not.

I'm basing it on the fact that Iran appears to be committing acts of war against the US and Iraq. There is evidence they are aiding al-qaeda and even sending their own forces into Iraq to place bombs and foment trouble. I'm curious why you choose to simply ignore this activity?

I'm basing it on the fact that we currently have an overwhelming advantage against Iran militarily but that advantage will shrink if we let Iran continue to arm itself and if it obtains nuclear weapons. I'm curious why you choose to ignore this growing menace.

I'm basing it on the fact that Iran is a dictatorship and dictatorships tend to be unpopular (if the citizens can freely express their views). I'm curious why you think Iranians love their government.

I'm basing it on the fact that dictatorships have trouble controlling their people when the means by which the dictatorships do that are destroyed. I'm curious how you think that government will maintain control once the leaders are living in caves.

If Americans are so stupid as to attack Iraq when it didn't have WMD, they are also a threat to world peace.

When Saddam was acting like he had something to hide? And it turns out that Iraq did have WMD. That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves it. The contents of that shell in the wrong hands could have killed thousands.

Tell me, if they had no WMD, why do you think Iraq went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities that the ISG says were involved in WMD work right before, during and even after the invasion? That's what the ISG said they did. What were they hiding?

What was in the trucks seen moving to Syria right before the war? The ISG said they have a credible source that said Iraq moved WMD related items to Syria before the war. The ISG said they were stopping the investigation because it was becoming too dangerous for their personnel. Not because they proved there were no WMD.

There are all sorts of unanswered questions about the status of WMD in Iraq. But we know for a fact that Iraq was not supposed to have that binary sarin munition and that it was still viable enough to have been used by terrorists to kill thousands of Americans. My advice is don't always believe the American media's presentation regarding Iraq not having WMD.

And by the way, had we not invaded, Iraq would have been given a clean bill of health by the international community and sanctions would have been dropped. And interviews with Saddam and other top Iraqis show that by now Iraq would have reconstituted its WMD arsenal. And then what would you have done the next time Saddam caused trouble? What would you have done with al-Zarqawi launching mass casualty terrorist attacks out of Iraq like the one they fortunately stopped in Jordan? The one that would have killed tens of thousands and everyone in the US embassy had it been successful?
Nothing? Just like you want us to do nothing about Iran's support of terrorism?

Let's get to the heart of the matter. Do you think the War On Terror is real? Do you think we face a threat from islamofanatics who wish to kill as many of us as they can at one time? Or do you think it's all a fantasy of Bush and his cabal? Hmmmmm?

 

[Darth Rotor]

"More Silver Bullet Bullspit."

BAC, making the rubble bounce does not solve the political problem.

Korea is also not acting responsibly when it spends its limited resources to develop nuclear weapons while the bulk of its people are literally starving and without electricity. Israel has done none of the above.

That is rather irrelevant.

No, I'm looking at what Iran's top leaders have actually said about how they would use nuclear weapons and how many Arab lives they would be willing to shed in order to kill all Jews in Israel.

Indeed, a bellicose bit of rhetoric from Teheran. Were I an Israeli, it would bother the hell out of me. I am thinking the BMD program and Arrow need more resources. Get working, gents.

So? So you see no difference between two countries even though one is sending people into Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis while the other is not? That says a lot about you.

Tell ya what, Chickenhawk, go f*** yourself. I did not say I see no difference, you claim I did, but I find your blind loyalty to Israel au outrance an obstacle to your ability to analyze the matter.

The only reason Pakistan is unstable is that Pakistan is fighting the same group of islamo-fanatics that Iran is supporting.

Did you drink Stupid Juice this morning? Pakistan is unstable for a host of reasons, one of which is Islamist, another is overpopulation, another is the mix of nationalities and ethnic groups, and others include corrupt government.

"Only Reason?"

The Pakistan government is not complicit in sending terrorists into Iraq to kill Americans and destabilize Iraq. Iran's is. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Yes, Pakistan is, and has been for five years, providing privileged sanctuary for Islamist Terrorists by precluding US operations in Northwest Pakistan since about 2002. Open Your Freaking Eyes. The reasons rather make sense if you are sitting in Karachi, but it does not change the fact that Pakistan is a haven, a refuge, for a load of Taliban and Al Q operatives and Operations.

Which is exactly why dealing with Iran the way I suggest would work while trying to deal with Korea is more complicated.

Yes, Korea is more complicated, but Iran, being dealt with via Silver Bullet Diplomacy "works" how, in the long term?

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14490704 "Wage holy war against Pakistan: Al-Qaeda
Thursday, 12 July , 2007 ... snip ... Al-Qaeda's new video came as Pakistani commandos cleared the Red Mosque complex of its last die-hard defenders on Wednesday and the army said it counted the bodies of 73 suspected militants."

It's a bit early to tell how this incident, very recent, will play out in the mid to long term. It was nice to see the Pakistanis actually take a few ears.

Go ahead, tell us specifically how those would stop us telling Iran to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq or else, and then carrying out the else if Iran failed to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq? All I see from you is generalities while I've told you specifics.

All you have done is foam at the mouth, and claim that the Silver Bullets will solve political problems.

Sorry, they don't.

To lay mines the Iranians would have to send "something" out to do it. Yes? No? Just as we did in the Gulf War, we can track these movements. In fact, we can do it far better now. Yes? No? Those somethings are then vulnerable to all sorts of US weapon platforms. Yes? No?

It takes time to find and clear out mines. Any and all ships are vulnerable to them. Seeding the straights with mines, depending on how well the USN S & R plan is put together, and the weather (IR does not work well through clouds and rain). It only takes a few mines hitting tankers to stop the flow. Assets assigned to mine sweeping, and lane clearance (See reflagged Kuwaiti tankers) are constrained in their support to other missions.

It seems to me that in that first ultimatum we just tell Iran that ANYTHING we construe as an attempt to mine the strait will be met with devastating force.

Why do you think that hasn't been done so far? Go back to the Cold War, and war by proxy, and see how things work.

In short, we will sink or shoot down ANYTHING that looks like it is laying mines. You don't think we can do that? Yes? No?

Can? Yes, the capability to blow stuff up is there, and if the RoE permit it, anyone seen dumping stuff over the side that looks like a mine might be considered a legit target. Engage. Good stuff, blowing things up. I am a fan, in a general sense. Captain Rogers was right.

Then, when the first fishing boat or RO RO gets hit with a Harpoon or Hellfire missile that wasn't mining anything, but rather dumping trash or putting nets over the side, the political storm would all of a sudden see a change in the RoE. Or worse.

BAC, how much time have you spent subject to RoE in your life? It's a bloody pain in the ass. If not for how tight the RoE were, Zarqawi would have been dead in June 2004, and that sonof abiznatch was Public Enemy Number Two, Number One in Iraq.

And once again, let me remind you that they will be laying mines in INTERNATIONAL WATER.

And?

That's a highly irresponsible act that might even be construed as the action of terrorists. Yes? No?

I will ask you again: who declared war on Iran and Iraq for doing just that in 1981-88? No one. I don't see the UNSC doing so this time, though they might surprise me. China does like its Mid East oil.

"Construed as the action of terrorists." You and I agree that it is a belligerent and irresponsible act, but that is irrelevant. What do the political leadership of all UNSC members and 170 nations states choose to view it as. Rational counter to an overly aggressive America? You can bet a few will. Maybe more than a few. If enough on the UNSC do, political deadlock.

Iran might obtain the ability to keep our carriers out of the area in time but they don't as yet have that. That's the point. Right now we can do something about Iran without too much in the way of losses. Later that may not be the case. Again, you only demonstrate why we need to do something about Iran now.

"Do something."

To you, that is bomb Iran. That is one "something" and there are others, which at the moment, the Bush admin is working on. Why are you so impatient? Got a game coming on in a few hours, and you need this solved the way Iraq got solved?

Anything that floats can be sunk. All you are making is the case that in addition to taking out Iran's air defense system immediately, we should sink anything that might drop mines.

Any fishing boat can put a few mines over the side. Any idea how many dhows and fishing boats are in the Persian Gulf?

Given that Iran has a far smaller number of floaters than we have weapons that can detect and sink floaters, the outcome is obvious.

I think you have no clue. The Iranians are not fool enough to constrain themselves to using obviously naval craft to undertake such an endeavour. They didn't in the 80's.

No, you get the blinders off. They are ALREADY engaging in asymmetrical warfare. They are arming and supporting terrorists who are killing our soldiers and allies. They are trying to destabilize a country using asymmetric methods that we need to be stable. And what are we doing in response?

Surge. SASO.

The Russians did the same thing in Viet Nam, and Korea, and we did the same thing in Afghanistan.

And no war.

Hello? This is not a movie.

Apparently nothing. Which is a losing strategy.

Nothing? FFS, BAC, what do you call the last three years of dealing with Iran's nuclear posture? Nothing? Nothing seems to me to be your "if we aren't bombing them, we are doing nothing" strawman while real politics continues apace, to include Sec State Rice inching toward formal relations with Iran.

Nothing? You are not paying attention.

Shock and Awe consisted of far more than 3 strikes, so as I said, it wasn't just meant to kill Saddam as you first suggested.

No kidding? How about you learn to read. I said there were three Decap Strikes, and NONE OF THEM WORKED. I did not say, as you just did, that Shock and Awe was solely the three strikes. How about you get your head out of your arse?

I'm not saying they weren't top notch units but the 4th ID (which really didn't get into combat until it was basically over) was much more lethal (because it was digitized at the time and the 3rd was not) and very little armor was committed to the campaign.

The 3Rd ID is a heavy division, which other than the Force XXI and M1A2 gucciness, is not much different from any other Heavy Division. Certainly, 4th ID would have been nice to have, but the TPFDD didn't work that way, and the third prong through Turkey (why Rummy assigned 4th ID to that I am not sure, would have to ask around) was euchered by the Turks.

IIRC my ToE, a Mech Division has 4 armor battalions and 5 or 6 Bradley Battalions, and is otherwise very much aligned the way an armored division is.

There was plenty of Armor in Iraq, thanks.

You tried to paint picture that he survived Shock and Awe and successfully ran a government for months afterwords.

No I don't, you just did. You are making stuff up that I did not say.

Let me repeat ... we found him in a tiny hole in the ground looking like a vagrant who had not slept or washed in weeks.

Yes. And? What has that to do with an All Air Campaign in Iran? You will notice that the campaign in Iraq was a Combined Arms fight. Ground, Air, and all else.

No, Berlin only kept fighting BECAUSE the Red Army was coming. But we won't be coming to Iran. The Iranian people will have nothing to fear from us. Just their leaders.

If you say so. Your Silver Bullet BS is pathetic.

They are already using it and you don't seem to care. Which I find interesting. And you haven't demonstrated how that tactic is going to keep us from taking Iran's military, government and economy (if necessary) apart.

Who benefits from the US ruining the Iranian economy? What is the point of that, if you posit previously that the people of Iran have nothing to fear? Are you reading your own posts?

Then just how much asymmetric warfare will they be conducting in Iraq? Will the Iranian people be much interested in hurting a few Americans in Iraq or will they just want their own government to stop the insanity.

Don't know, though you claim you do. I would hope they do, but, I repeat, am not fool enough to make that a planning assumption for a war policy.

You apparently are.

Because we will constantly be telling them that the moment that government stops supporting al-Qaeda and stops trying to destabilize Iraq, we will stop the attacks and, if they wish, be the best of friends.

Is that your information campaign? A foreign politician making promises to Iranians?

You are kidding, right?

But NATO is an occupier over there. That's not what I'm suggesting we do in Iran. Do I need to keep repeating that?

No, you keep your Silver Bullet game going.

I'm sorry. Did al-qaeda give us a warning that they were going to do it? Did they tell us they wouldn't if we'd stop supporting terrorists (and PLEASE ... don't call Israel terrorists because that's just like calling someone a Nazi in an argument).

I don't call Israelis terrorists, I leave that to The Fool, AUP, JM777, MaGZ, and other Pal huggers. I leave that to Neo Nazis, to White Nationalists, to Troofers, and to a whole circus full of clowns who have a particuarly anti Israeli, anti Zionist agenda. The Pals and Israelis are welcome to one another, I wish them much luck in killing each other until they tire of it. Better they tire sooner than later, but I have no control over that.

But what has Israel got to do with this? Osama had been making noise for some years, and IIRC, was involved in

Embassy Bombing in Kenya
Embassy Bombing in Tanzania
USS Cole Bombing
Khobar Towers Bombing.

You don't warn people about a surprise attack, BAC, it ruins a surprise.

Sorry, but your statement is a very tenuous and weak comparison. Can't you come up with something better?

Yes. You Silver Bullet idiots make me sick.

I'm glad you agree. In which case the Iranian people will have very little reason to get really mad at us ... especially since we won't be making any attempt to conquer and occupy their land.

Can I get a set of credentials on your Farsi Mind Reading Qualification?

In other words, you can't muster a logical argument against what I just suggested? Why would the human reaction of ordinary people be any different in Iran than it was in Iraq?

You assert one, I suggest it isn't that simple, and that the unknowns are greater than you assume, and you consider yourself logical?

So you don't think there is discontent within Iran?

"So you don't" is a strawman construction. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, BAC, it obstructs the conversation.

I'm basing it on the fact that Iran appears to be committing acts of war against the US and Iraq. There is evidence they are aiding al-qaeda and even sending their own forces into Iraq to place bombs and foment trouble. I'm curious why you choose to simply ignore this activity?

I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out to you that this is how the game is played, and has been played, for a very long time.

I'm basing it on the fact that we currently have an overwhelming advantage against Iran militarily but that advantage will shrink if we let Iran continue to arm itself and if it obtains nuclear weapons. I'm curious why you choose to ignore this growing menace.

I am not ignoring it. I am also not getting my panties in a bunch over it. I don't find the Chicken Little approach to be a valid policy. I do find the painful and mind numbingly nuanced effort to work with Russia and China on the UNSC (remember, Russia is a major supplier, and may be open to a quid pro quo in other areas of interest with us) and others a possible road to resolution, but not a guarantee. The Russians are a HUGE player in the Iran issue, and they are who we need to sell on getting on board. Not amused with Bush's latest Russian work, but at least that is a work in progress. Vlad's being a bit of a prick himself.

If you want a guarantee, I suggest you go buy a car. You get no guarantee in realpolitick.

I'm basing it on the fact that Iran is a dictatorship and dictatorships tend to be unpopular (if the citizens can freely express their views). I'm curious why you think Iranians love their government.

Since I did not claim Iranians love their government, you strawman crafting cretin, this is more BS from you.

"They may be a-holes, but they are our a-holes."

Where does that show love? It is possible that hating their government, they still don't care for foreigners screwing with their country. I didn't much care for President Bill Clinton, but had some one tried to assassinate him, I'd have wanted their blood.

I'm basing it on the fact that dictatorships have trouble controlling their people when the means by which the dictatorships do that are destroyed. I'm curious how you think that government will maintain control once the leaders are living in caves.

You presume a level of targeting and intel, to include the domain of time, that is Hollywoodish in its simplicity. It may be that a Decap Strke might work, and it might not. The track record to date is mixed. We had people on the ground all over the place in Iraq, and it took over two years to get a successful decap strike on Zarqawi. We don't have that kind of coverage in Teheran, as far as I know. (If we did, that would be another story.)

It may well be that an American air strike is the catalyst to a civil war breaking out in Iran. Based on what I read in the press about Iran, particularly the press from places other than the US, I don't think so.

When Saddam was acting like he had something to hide? And it turns out that Iraq did have WMD. That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves it. The contents of that shell in the wrong hands could have killed thousands.

You have your Santorum moment. Please, don't let me stop you.

Tell me, if they had no WMD, why do you think Iraq went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities that the ISG says were involved in WMD work right before, during and even after the invasion? That's what the ISG said they did. What were they hiding?

Two things.

The programs, which were alive, but in crappy shape, and the fact that their programs were in crappy shape, (recall the strategic need to bluff Iran as a deterrent), which was a point extremely well made in 2004. IN a WSJ article, (Jan or Feb IIRC,) interview with an Iraqi scientist who worked on the chem programs. The Iraqi program managers did what American defense companies do to Congress and DoD: Lie about how well they are doing. In their case, they lied most likely out of fear for punishment from Saddam if things weren't going swimmingly.

What was in the trucks seen moving to Syria right before the war? The ISG said they have a credible source that said Iraq moved WMD related items to Syria before the war. The ISG said they were stopping the investigation because it was becoming too dangerous for their personnel. Not because they proved there were no WMD.

An interesting point that has not, in three years, born much fruit beyond an estimate. There might have been chem or nuke weapons, but we don't know. Could be. Only Assad knows for sure, I suspect, and a few of his bubbas.

There are all sorts of unanswered questions about the status of WMD in Iraq.

Yes. Still. To this date, four years after we broke the goose open to find the golden eggs.

But we know for a fact that Iraq was not supposed to have that binary sarin munition and that it was still viable enough to have been used by terrorists to kill thousands of Americans. My advice is don't always believe the American media's presentation regarding Iraq not having WMD.

You adivse me? That's rich, tenderfoot. The state of the nuke programs were my biggest worry.

And by the way, had we not invaded, Iraq would have been given a clean bill of health by the international community and sanctions would have been dropped.

Wait a minute, had we not invaded, we also might still have them in an embargo, and still be dealing with the international crybabies claiming how many millions were dying of the sanctions. Where do you get off asserting this counterfactual as though it were true?

And interviews with Saddam and other top Iraqis show that by now Iraq would have reconstituted its WMD arsenal.

Likely, very likely. That is a point pro for the pre emptive war, and one of the better supporting points.

And then what would you have done the next time Saddam caused trouble?

Were I still in uniform, doubtless been deployed to deal with it.

You?

What would you have done with al-Zarqawi launching mass casualty terrorist attacks out of Iraq like the one they fortunately stopped in Jordan?

What are you talking about? He was bombed to death in Iraq. Are you referring to an attack that was thwarted? (My own memory hazy, I seem to recall something around 2005 in Jordan.)

The one that would have killed tens of thousands and everyone in the US embassy had it been successful? Nothing? Just like you want us to do nothing about Iran's support of terrorism?

Stop attempting to claim what I don't want to do, and stop presuming that I would do nothing. There are a lot of options between bombing Iran and doing nothing, between invading Iraq and doing "nothing."

You are bordering on earning the Liar tag that I am loathe to use.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. Do you think the War On Terror is real?

I have two medals that say it is, but Iraq has bugger all to do with it.

Do you think we face a threat from islamofanatics who wish to kill as many of us as they can at one time?

Given that I spent some time on the Beirut gun line while you were still trying to figure out how to jack off, I would tend to say yes.

Or do you think it's all a fantasy of Bush and his cabal? Hmmmmm?

There you go with strawmen, again, you despicable piece of crap. I was actively involved in missions dealing with Islamists, in Lybia, Lebanon, the Achille Freaking Lauro, and in the Philippines, before any useless c***s like you started braying like a herd of asses with this noise about "Islamofascists." They aren't Hitler, they are their own animal. The modern Islamist has been emboldened by a whole cartload of useful idiots the world over, under the premise that their use of terror is justified due to the West being so evil. Similar claptrap to Soviet era anti Imperialist rhetoric, with a few twists.

We used to call them ragheads, though Islamist, or Islamist thugs, is a far more correct and accurate descriptive.

You have shown your colors. And your biases. And your tunnel vision.

Anything else you want to show me, besides your ass, and your inability to think beyond a black and white fantasy?

DR

 

[Gurdur]

Ridiculous non-sequitor, and complete ignorance of military tactics.

Fallacy of complete lack of humour, luchog, and also fallacy of lack of insight.

Ambrose was making a funny remark about the gun ownership debate in the USA, and also thereby commenting on the logic used, and in how one faction can use one argument for one situation and then shamelessly turn 180° in another situation.

Come on, it was really easy to understand.

The problem with most people is that they get most of their knowledge about just about everything from movies, television, and other popular entertainment sources. They have no clue how things work in real life.

Yeah, sure, next thing you'll be telling us it's all in The Matrix and most people aren't in real life at all.

 

[Gurdur]

BAC.....You adivse me? That's rich, tenderfoot.

No bloody wonder I respect Darth Rotor. Great post. Informative, too.

Fine, fine, I'm being all complimentary, but truthfully so. Sue me. I'm sure I'll find something to flame though later.

 

[Dorian Gray]

To get back to the OP:

The only thing I see coming from this is Bush telling Chertoff to STFU. The surge can't be working if there's an impending attack here - because we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, remember? And if an attack does happen, the next sound you hear will be all the counters of all the people who stupidly claim "since 9/11 there hasn't been an attack on US soil, so Bush is protecting us."

If Bush and Chertoff are NOT operating independently of one another, then the only conclusion is that Bush is trying once again to drum up fear. But this attempt would be severely misguided, because there's no upside to this type of fear right now for the Bush administration.

Quick Joke:
Bush's approval rating walks into a bar. The bartender says 'Hey, you can't come in here." Bush's approval rating says "Why not?"

The bartender says "Because you're under 21."

 

[Darth Rotor]

No bloody wonder I respect Darth Rotor. Great post. Informative, too.

Feeling feverish?

Fine, fine, I'm being all complimentary, but truthfully so. Sue me. I'm sure I'll find something to flame though later.

If you didn't, I'd be worried sick.

As to Dorian's attempt to get us back OT, Chertoff's hunch reading seems to be rather blind when it comes to our southern border for the past few years.

DR

 

[BeAChooser]

Tell ya what, Chickenhawk,

You don't know anything about my life or life experiences, sir.

I find your blind loyalty to Israel

All I noted is that Israel did not violate a treaty to develop nuclear weapons but Iran appears to be doing that. All I noted is that Israel is not sending people to Iraq to kill our soldiers but Iran is doing that. And that is an important difference in how we treat the two countries. That hardly makes me blindly loyal. But the fact that you want to treat them the same makes you blind.

Pakistan is, and has been for five years, providing privileged sanctuary for Islamist Terrorists by precluding US operations in Northwest Pakistan since about 2002.

I just provided you various links showing that Pakistan is actively fighting al-Qaeda in their country. Didn't even have to dig much to find them so I imagine there are many more. That's not to say the Pakistani government can't do better but their *support* of al-qaeda hardly equals that of Iran's. Furthermore, we haven't determined that the leaders of Pakistan's military/government are helping the insurgents in Iraq ... as we have Iran's. Like YOU said: "Open Your Freaking Eyes."

Iran, being dealt with via Silver Bullet Diplomacy "works" how, in the long term?

I believe I explained that quite clearly. I'm still waiting to hear what exactly you will do about Iran's government helping kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq.

BAC - Go ahead, tell us specifically how those would stop us telling Iran to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq or else, and then carrying out the else if Iran failed to stop supporting terrorists in Iraq? All I see from you is generalities while I've told you specifics."

All you have done is foam at the mouth, and claim that the Silver Bullets will solve political problems.

Regardless of your opinion about the plan I've offered, I've at least supplied far more details than you have. Still waiting to hear what you will do to stop Iran's efforts to destabilize Iraq and kill Americans. Or are you just going to ignore those efforts?

It takes time to find and clear out mines.

But it doesn't take much time to see naval and air traffic leaving Iran. Even small stuff. Nor, in most cases, much time to identify that traffic. Nor does it take much time to send something to destroy whatever it is, especially if you're waiting for it and we would be in this case. Not when you have 2 or 3 carrier groups sitting off the Iranian Coast, a bunch of assets based in nearby countries and you've issued an ultimatum. More likely, very few mines will actually get laid ... especially since the vessels most capable of mine laying will be destroyed in the opening minutes of the conflict for the same reason we will be taking out the air defense network.

Yes, the capability to blow stuff up is there, and if the RoE permit it

In the scenario I described, the rules of engagement will permit it.

Then, when the first fishing boat or RO RO gets hit with a Harpoon or Hellfire missile that wasn't mining anything, but rather dumping trash or putting nets over the side, the political storm would all of a sudden see a change in the RoE.

The accidental death of a fishing boat or two in a situation like this isn't likely to change the RoE. There is too much at stake. We blew up facilities filled with Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War and that didn't stop the bombs from falling on similar facilities. Iranian civilians will know this is coming. We will tell them. Iranians should understand that if they allow their government to continue doing things that are helping to kill Americans and undermine our efforts in Iraq, some of them may die accidently if we have to stop it by force of arms. A statement to that effect will probably be part of the ultimatum.

I will ask you again: who declared war on Iran and Iraq for doing just that in 1981-88?

And I will ask you again, who applauded them for mine laying in international waters? Doing that isn't going to make any friends in the international community. It's only going to further demonstrate that Iran is a rogue nation.

You can bet a few will. Maybe more than a few.

Condemn us? Like North Korea and Syria? ROTFLOL!

To you, that is bomb Iran. That is one "something" and there are others

Specifically what others? All I hear from you is vagueness or silence. I'm waiting to hear specifically how you will end Iran's efforts to support the al-qaeda terrorists and troublemakers in Iraq.

Why are you so impatient?

Impatient? This behavior by Iran has been going on for several years now. And maybe you haven't noticed but the clock is ticking in Iraq and American soldiers keep dying due to those Iranian supported/supplied terrorist attacks. The question is why are you so slow in reacting to this threat? Maybe you just don't care. Or maybe you didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam.

Any fishing boat can put a few mines over the side. Any idea how many dhows and fishing boats are in the Persian Gulf?

Not so many that most of them couldn't be sunk in very short order if the need were there to do so. You must think America is short of bullets and missiles. I suggest Iranian fishermen not let their government seize their fishing boats without a struggle or force them at gun point to carry mines into a combat zone.

The Iranians are not fool enough to constrain themselves to using obviously naval craft to undertake such an endeavour. They didn't in the 80's.

All the more reason to consider anything leaving the Iranian coast during this conflict hostile. The Iranian people should be so advised, so that none of them get killed "by accident". And by the way, if they are laying mines with civilian craft that might be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

BAC - "No, you get the blinders off. They are ALREADY engaging in asymmetrical warfare. They are arming and supporting terrorists who are killing our soldiers and allies. They are trying to destabilize a country using asymmetric methods that we need to be stable. And what are we doing in response?"

Surge. SASO.

Don't think we didn't notice you avoiding the question. If "surge" is your answer then nothing effective is being done to keep Iran from interfering in Iraq. Obviously, SASO hasn't solved the problem either. If Iran kills Americans and stymies US strategic objectives is that ok with you? Seems to be ...

what do you call the last three years of dealing with Iran's nuclear posture?

I call it wasting time while Iran gets closer and closer to building a nuclear weapon and arming itself with more modern weapons ...
wasting time while Iran continues to help al-Qaeda terrorists kill Americans and destabilize Iraq. Sooner or later we need to wake up and smell the roses if we are going to prevail in Iraq and the War On Terror. Ignoring Iran's activities only emboldens them.

Nothing seems to me to be your "if we aren't bombing them, we are doing nothing" strawman while real politics continues apace, to include Sec State Rice inching toward formal relations with Iran.

Neville Chamberlain ring a bell? Rice's efforts may gain equal stature when history looks back on this period.

How about you learn to read. I said there were three Decap Strikes, and NONE OF THEM WORKED.

How about you learn to read? You introduced your statement about strikes on Saddam when I first mentioned "GOVERNMENT decapitation" as a goal of the bombing. I was clearly talking about a lot more than just attempts to kill the top leader since government is more than just the top leader. I doubt we lack the ability to bring Iran's government to a virtual stand still.

The 3Rd ID is a heavy division, which other than the Force XXI and M1A2 gucciness, is not much different from any other Heavy Division.

That's not true. The 4th ID was considerably more digitized than the 3rd and the Army will tell you that digitization equates to more lethality. Maybe you, being Navy, don't understand land combat. Or are you just brighter than the Army's best minds? The 4th ID really was Force XXI at the time. The military was very disappointed when Turkey prevented the 4th from participating in the invasion.

There was plenty of Armor in Iraq, thanks.

A fraction of what we could field and only elements of units like the 1st Armored. And in case you forgot, 2nd Armored became the 4th ID in 1995. The 3rd ID, on the other hand, has as its roots the 24th Infantry Division. Like I said, the Iraqi's didn't face our best units. If push came to shove, Iran might.

Who benefits from the US ruining the Iranian economy? What is the point of that, if you posit previously that the people of Iran have nothing to fear? Are you reading your own posts?

I said the Iranian people need not fear an invasion and occupation. And the Iranian economy can be brought to a standstill by putting one thing ... their oil refineries ... out of commission. And that could be done withOUT destroying the entire oil infrastructure. Do you not understand my posts or the vulnerabilities of Iran?

BAC - Then just how much asymmetric warfare will they be conducting in Iraq? Will the Iranian people be much interested in hurting a few Americans in Iraq or will they just want their own government to stop the insanity."

Don't know, though you claim you do. I would hope they do, but, I repeat, am not fool enough to make that a planning assumption for a war policy.

War policy is always based on assumptions. This one seems quite reasonable. With very clear objectives and end conditions. Isn't that what folks like you have been demanding?

But what has Israel got to do with this?

I guess you really haven't been paying attention to the rhetoric from Iran's leaders or from Osama. Or for that matter many of the folks on your side of the fence in this debate (they like to claim Israel is behind every action we take or bad thing that happens). ROTFLOL!

You don't warn people about a surprise attack, BAC, it ruins a surprise.

Then your comparison of what I suggest we do in Iran with 9/11 doesn't make much sense. Because we would warn them.

BAC - "I'm basing it on the fact that Iran appears to be committing acts of war against the US and Iraq. There is evidence they are aiding al-qaeda and even sending their own forces into Iraq to place bombs and foment trouble. I'm curious why you choose to simply ignore this activity?"

I am not ignoring it.

Well it looks to me like you are since you still haven't told us what you would do to get Iran to stop helping terrorists in Iraq. Your two suggestions ... SURGE and SASO ... surely haven't worked ... and it doesn't appear that Rice is getting anywhere either. By the way, why don't you tell us exactly what stability and support operations have been aimed at stopping Iran's interference? Or at least explain to us why they haven't worked and how you would change that. That is, if you really do think we should do something about Iran's activities in this regard.

I am pointing out to you that this is how the game is played, and has been played, for a very long time.

And I'm pointing out to you that this is not a game. Real people are dying and the future of Iraq, and perhaps the war against islamofanatics, hangs in the balance. 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.

BAC - "I'm basing it on the fact that we currently have an overwhelming advantage against Iran militarily but that advantage will shrink if we let Iran continue to arm itself and if it obtains nuclear weapons. I'm curious why you choose to ignore this growing menace."

I am not ignoring it.

Well it looks to me like you are since you seem to be more than willing to give Iran all the time it needs to develop nuclear weapons, train additional terrorists to disrupt Iraq and threaten other US interests, and shrink the advantage we have in arms (which is what it is now doing).

Since I did not claim Iranians love their government, you strawman crafting cretin, this is more BS from you.

I'm glad to hear you don't think Iranians love their government. So tell us again how the Iranian government will get them to hurt us if we go after the Iranian government for sponsoring terrorists?

BAC - "I'm basing it on the fact that dictatorships have trouble controlling their people when the means by which the dictatorships do that are destroyed. I'm curious how you think that government will maintain control once the leaders are living in caves."

You presume a level of targeting and intel, to include the domain of time, that is Hollywoodish in its simplicity. It may be that a Decap Strke might work, and it might not.

Again, I spoke of GOVERNMENT decapitation. I think we are in a position to put a great deal of pressure on Iran's ability to control their people. Especially if we target certain government facilities. Like those of the security forces. And I hope you won't mindlessly claim we don't know where they are located.

BAC - "When Saddam was acting like he had something to hide? And it turns out that Iraq did have WMD. That binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED after the invasion proves it. The contents of that shell in the wrong hands could have killed thousands."

You have your Santorum moment. Please, don't let me stop you.

I notice you don't offer any facts to counter those I just noted.

BAC - "Tell me, if they had no WMD, why do you think Iraq went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities that the ISG says were involved in WMD work right before, during and even after the invasion? That's what the ISG said they did. What were they hiding?

Two things.

The programs, which were alive, but in crappy shape, and the fact that their programs were in crappy shape, (recall the strategic need to bluff Iran as a deterrent), which was a point extremely well made in 2004.

But at that point in time, it would make no difference whether anyone knew their programs were in "crappy" shape. The end result of the inspection process (and the invasion) was going to be NO programs, full disclosure, and no Saddam. Why would the Iraqis sanitize WMD related items while the invasion was going on and even after it was complete? The ISG said they did that. Especially, if as you claim, they had no WMD? What was the purpose? Your explanation here is very muddled.

BAC - "What was in the trucks seen moving to Syria right before the war? The ISG said they have a credible source that said Iraq moved WMD related items to Syria before the war. The ISG said they were stopping the investigation because it was becoming too dangerous for their personnel. Not because they proved there were no WMD."

An interesting point that has not, in three years, born much fruit beyond an estimate. There might have been chem or nuke weapons, but we don't know. Could be.

Well if there were chemical weapons in those trucks, then by definition Iraq had WMD. Why do folks claim with assurance that Iraq had no WMD if a doubt like this still exists? (And yes, Bush may even have said this, but at this point in time I can see his motivation for not wanting to open up this bag of worms.)

The state of the nuke programs were my biggest worry.

Well perhaps if you were worried about Iraq using them, but not if you were worried about Iraq supporting terrorism. Far more likely was that terrorists would acquire chemical or biological materials from Iraq. View it this way ... the contents of that one binary sarin shell turned IED was enough sarin to kill as many as died on 9/11. And very easy to produce (for Iraq). And much easier to smuggle into the US and use than nuclear materials.

Wait a minute, had we not invaded, we also might still have them in an embargo

An embargo? On what basis? Remember, the UN inspectors would have just given them a clean bill of health. We'd no longer have a rationale for insisting on an embargo. Certainly not one that the world community would buy. Certainly not one that would justify more people dying because of sanctions. France, Germany, Russia and others were eager to get the sanctions removed. They even had lucrative oil, industrial and munitions contracts lined up with the Iraqis in anticipation of that event. Sorry, but the likelihood of maintaining an embargo after the UN inspectors got through was nil.

BAC - "And then what would you have done the next time Saddam caused trouble?"

Were I still in uniform, doubtless been deployed to deal with it.

So tell me, if Saddam were then found to be helping al-Qaeda destabilize another country and kill thousands of that country's civilians, as well as a number of Americans who were in it, would you be deployed to deal with it?

BAC - "What would you have done with al-Zarqawi launching mass casualty terrorist attacks out of Iraq like the one they fortunately stopped in Jordan?"

What are you talking about? He was bombed to death in Iraq. Are you referring to an attack that was thwarted? (My own memory hazy, I seem to recall something around 2005 in Jordan.)

You don't know the details in that case? A dozen admitted al-qaeda terrorists were convicted in Jordan of a plot to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman using a big, chemically laced bomb. Those terrorists admitted to having been sent on their mission and funded by al-Zarqawi. They met with al-Zarqawi in Iraq ... in fact, in Baghdad ... then moved to Syria to prepare for the attack. The meeting in Iraq took place BEFORE the invasion.

One reason that plot may have failed is that once we invaded, al-Zarqawi was kept too busy running to provide further assistance and oversight to the terrorists. He never met with them again. Indeed, they may have been caught as a result of intel gathered during operations in Iraq against al-Qaeda. Remember how we were capturing little things like al-Zarqawi's computer during raids (albeit that particular event happened after the Jordan terrorists were already in custody). But maybe they found something since the terrorists were intercepted crossing the border into Jordan.

The point is that had no invasion occurred, there is no reason to think al-Zarqawi's efforts would have stopped with that one attack or that he would have been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam. Indeed at one point prior to the invasion, a member of al-Zarqawi's organization was captured by Iraqi security and then ordered released by Saddam himself. Now what would you have done about that? Waited until he actually did kill tens of thousands? And then what? Invaded Iraq? Is your suggestion we wait until tens of thousands have been killed by terrorists operating out of Iran before doing something? Oh wait! Those terrorists already have killed tens of thousands. So what are we waiting for now?

BAC - Let's get to the heart of the matter. Do you think the War On Terror is real?

I have two medals that say it is, but Iraq has bugger all to do with it.

Really? Then explain what al-Zarqawi was doing in Iraq before the invasion. Explain why captured al-Qaeda documents show they want Iraq as a base of operations (even after we are gone). Explain why al-Qaeda has shed so much blood in Iraq if it has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

I was actively involved in missions dealing with Islamists, in Lybia, Lebanon, the Achille Freaking Lauro, and in the Philippines, before any useless c***s like you started braying like a herd of asses with this noise about "Islamofascists."

Have I used the word islamofascist here? No. So is that a strawman? Guess we can both use them.

 

[Random]

Iran is providing weapons and training to terrorists.
Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Iran is run by dangerous extremists.
Iran is a threat.
The Iranian government can be quickly taken out with a decapitation strike.
The Iranian military is no match for ours.
The Iranian resistance can be cowed into submission if our attack is ferocious enough.
The Iranian people want to get rid of their leaders and form a new, democratic country.

Does any of this sound familiar to anybody? Anybody at all? Can anyone think of a situation where we have heard things like this about an oil-rich country in the middle-east?

Look, I don’t know all the facts on Iran. I don’t know all the details of running a military campaign. I don’t know how things would turn out if we attacked or invaded Iran. But can people at least acknowledge that the anti-war side might have some legitimate questions and concerns here?

 

[INRM]

I wouldn't be suprized if Bush would take complete advantage of a terror attack, and exploit it for all it was worth.

Most people don't think rationally when scared to death. And Bush and Cheney know this. Their approval ratings were highest when people were scared the most. When the terror levels went up, the more approval Bush got. And I personally think that if a terror attack occurs, people will act just like they did after 9/11. And Cheney and Bush will likely get Carte Blanche

I would not be suprized if he would use it as an excuse to attack Iran, and who knows what else

Tony L

 

[BeAChooser]

Feeling feverish?

Perhaps Gurdur chimes in to support you only because he's mad at me for what I've done to his arguments here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86962&page=3

 

[BeAChooser]

But can people at least acknowledge that the anti-war side might have some legitimate questions and concerns here?

Sure. If the anti-war side can at least acknowledge that the first three items in your list are probably true and then acknowledge that the consequences of NOT doing anything about them might be very serious down the road. The problem is that many on the anti-war side don't even believe we are threatened by islamo-fanatics. Their solution is for us to withdraw completely from throughout the Arab world, stop all support of Israel, leave countries that have been supporting terrorists alone, and do nothing to provoke the radicals that are leading that movement. Seems to me there are considerable unknowns in that approach too. And some of those unknowns might have very serious consequences for the West and US. Wouldn't you agree? At least if we deal with Iran now, the scope of the problem is contained somewhat and thus so are the uncertainties.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You don't know anything about my life or life experiences, sir.

YOur posts come off like a Chickenhawk, right down to the talking points, but if you aren't one, fine.

All I noted is that Israel did not violate a treaty to develop nuclear weapons but Iran appears to be doing that. All I noted is that Israel is not sending people to Iraq to kill our soldiers but Iran is doing that.

The first is not irrelevant, politically, the latter is completely irrelevant, a red herring you tossed in for your own reasons.

And that is an important difference in how we treat the two countries.

Not really, we treat them differently, since 1979, because one has remained an ally and the other has become one of our more energetic enemies. The result, which you mistake for a cause, is that Iran sponsors operations to frustrate us, not only in Iraq now, but in Beirut in the 80's, and in Bosnia in the 90's.

That hardly makes me blindly loyal.

True enough.

II just provided you various links showing that Pakistan is actively fighting al-Qaeda in their country.

No kidding. The Brits fought the IRA for decades in Northern Ireland.

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.

From yesterday's Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...15jul15,1,164788.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Los Angeles Times July 15, 2007 By Zulfiqar Ali and Laura King
Militants Kill 34 Pakistani Forces In Border Region

MIRAM SHAH, PAKISTAN — In the deadliest suicide attack in many months in Pakistan's tribal borderlands, a car bomber struck a military convoy Saturday, killing 24 troops and injuring nearly 30 others, authorities said.

At least 10 more security forces were killed today in a confrontation in the mountainous frontier region of Swat, police and military officials said. A gun battle broke out after a military convoy was hit by an explosion, either from a suicide attack or a roadside bomb, the officials said.
==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.
==snip==
Radical groups have vowed to avenge the government's storming of the Red Mosque and the killing of one of two brothers who presided over the complex.
==snip==
In November, 42 army recruits were killed when a suicide bomber attacked a recruitment center in the border region of Malakand.

Taliban commanders have set a deadline of today for troops to remove recently established checkpoints in North Waziristan, the scene of a controversial pact last year under which troops were to remain in their barracks and Taliban-linked fighters were to refrain from cross-border attacks in Afghanistan. The accord, signed in September by the government and tribal elders, is widely viewed as a failure. Cross-border attacks became frequent.

The outcome is very much in doubt. The Mushmeister may win throgh, or not.

Didn't even have to dig much to find them so I imagine there are many more. That's not to say the Pakistani government can't do better but their *support* of al-qaeda hardly equals that of Iran's.

Why do you presume Iran is supporting Al Qaeda? There are a number of Shia factions, and other factions, they support without having to get in bed with Al Q, though if they do, I'd not be that surprised. Arms trafficking under the table puts a lot of interesting weapons into the hands of various people. See also Iran Contra.

Furthermore, we haven't determined that the leaders of Pakistan's military/government are helping the insurgents in Iraq ... as we have Iran's. Like YOU said: "Open Your Freaking Eyes."

Pakistan's policy, to date, has provided a safe haven in Northwest Pakistan for both Al Q, Taliban, and other Islamist jerks. That happens to be where the War on Terror's first front is being fought.

I believe I explained that quite clearly. 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. Your Air Campaign is all well and good until you get to the part of "no troops on the ground" at which point you end up with "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" in Teheran after the rubble settles. Or is there a Chalabi you think can be inserted into Teheran?

Regardless of your opinion about the plan I've offered, I've at least supplied far more details than you have. Still waiting to hear what you will do to stop Iran's efforts to destabilize Iraq and kill Americans. Or are you just going to ignore those efforts?

I don't see that Spec Ops program that Iran has, of whatever level, is stoppable at an acceptable political cost. The US going into Iran to bomb solves little. 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.

But it doesn't take much time to see naval and air traffic leaving Iran. Even small stuff.

As I understand you, the waters off of Iran are to become a free fire zone? Is that your angle?

Nor, in most cases, much time to identify that traffic.

How much time have you done on MISO?

Nor does it take much time to send something to destroy whatever it is, especially if you're waiting for it and we would be in this case. Not when you have 2 or 3 carrier groups sitting off the Iranian Coast, a bunch of assets based in nearby countries and you've issued an ultimatum.

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

More likely, very few mines will actually get laid ... especially since the vessels most capable of mine laying will be destroyed in the opening minutes of the conflict for the same reason we will be taking out the air defense network.

No, anything that floats can lay mines. Anything. GPS is cheap. You and I could, with a small winch on a fishing dhow, go out and lay a few mines using American sourced GPS for location, Garman would be fine, while we were fishing. The odds of detection? Depends on how many sets of eyes are assigned to a given square 100 mile sector of the sea. Ever done a SSSC patrol, at night, over a fishing fleet of small boats?

In the scenario I described, the rules of engagement will permit it.

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?

The accidental death of a fishing boat or two in a situation like this isn't likely to change the RoE. There is too much at stake.

"The accidental death of a few civilians in a hunt for Al Zarqawi isn't likely to make for an overly restrictive RoE."'

Oh, wait, it did. Took us over two years to get him, damnit.

And given my experience with RoE as it actually gets written and implemented, your free fire zone is not going to happen.

We blew up facilities filled with Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War and that didn't stop the bombs from falling on similar facilities.

Yes.

Iranian civilians will know this is coming. We will tell them.

What means do you intend to use?

Iranians should understand that if they allow their government to continue doing things that are helping to kill Americans and undermine our efforts in Iraq, some of them may die accidently if we have to stop it by force of arms. A statement to that effect will probably be part of the ultimatum.

"If they allow their government." You glibly say that as though it has meaning. As it stands right now, the dissent in Iran is present, but muted, and "their allowing their government to do X, Y, or Z" is not on the table.

And I will ask you again, who applauded them for mine laying in international waters? Doing that isn't going to make any friends in the international community. It's only going to further demonstrate that Iran is a rogue nation.

That's one read on it, and for sure some countries, particularly our allies like Japan and the Brits, will probably agree with you. And the Aussies.

Condemn us? Like North Korea and Syria? ROTFLOL!

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

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. Our Spec Ops guys currently undertake missions in places, like near Venezuela, that run counter to what the government there wants. Iran is doing something similar. Iran believes it has enough support among some European nations, and China as well as Russia (again, who is supplying their material and equipment for their reactors?)

Impatient? This behavior by Iran has been going on for several years now. And maybe you haven't noticed but the clock is ticking in Iraq and American soldiers keep dying due to those Iranian supported/supplied terrorist attacks.

The question is why are you so slow in reacting to this threat? Maybe you just don't care. Or maybe you didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam.

Why am I so slow? What the hell are you talking about? As to who learned what from Viet Nam, you are out of line. 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.

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?
Why am I so slow? Your email needs to go somewhere else. And just maybe, consider that not everything is this mess is hardware solvable at an acceptable cost. The people who decide that cost are suits, not soldiers, not sailors.

Not so many that most of them couldn't be sunk in very short order if the need were there to do so. You must think America is short of bullets and missiles. I suggest Iranian fishermen not let their government seize their fishing boats without a struggle or force them at gun point to carry mines into a combat zone.

I am sure Iranian fisherman will hang on your every word. Does it occur to you that Iranian fisherman might be sympathetic to their country's cause? Some might not. How will you, BAC, tell the difference? What's in your HUMINT?

All the more reason to consider anything leaving the Iranian coast during this conflict hostile.

I see. Free fire zone. So fisherman are now combatants. Are you sure Geneva supports that RoE?

The Iranian people should be so advised, so that none of them get killed "by accident". And by the way, if they are laying mines with civilian craft that might be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

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.

It's not a matter of being short on bullets. Not hardly. It's a matter of all of the things adding up, which includes the critical matter of a VID that permits an engagement.

Free Fire zone is not within LOAC, nor the CENTCOM RoE that I am/was familiar with.

If "surge" is your answer then nothing effective is being done to keep Iran from interfering in Iraq.

Really? You presume that nothing has been done to increase the Screen/Guard mission on the Eastern border? Are you guessing, or do you know? You presume "nothing."

Based on what?

Put a different way: do you actually think that CENTCOM and the CFLCC in Iraq are ignoring the infiltration along the Eastern border? They weren't ignoring it when I was "over there" three years ago, I seriously doubt it is being ignored now.

Obviously, SASO hasn't solved the problem either. If Iran kills Americans and stymies US strategic objectives is that ok with you? Seems to be ...

Nope, that is more crap from you trying to put your thoughts and assumptions into my mouth.

Solved or reduced the problem?

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. BAC, you overlook the a core element of Iran's program, which is Russia. Cut a deal with VLAD, and voila, the flow of stuff to Iran stops. That doesn't stop the undercover stuff, but it puts the brakes on the nuke program. Is stopping the Iran program now important enough to cut a deal with Vlad? Why is he all of a sudden someone we can't work with? Four years ago, he and W signed an historic accord that drew down both our nuclear arsenals by about 70%. What the hell happened?

wasting time while Iran continues to help al-Qaeda terrorists kill Americans and destabilize Iraq.

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.

Sooner or later we need to wake up and smell the roses if we are going to prevail in Iraq and the War On Terror. Ignoring Iran's activities only emboldens them.

They are not being ignored, unless by ignored you mean "we are not bombing Teheran yet."

Neville Chamberlain ring a bell? Rice's efforts may gain equal stature when history looks back on this period.

Don't know yet, we'll see.

I doubt we lack the ability to bring Iran's government to a virtual stand still.

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

The 4th ID was considerably more digitized than the 3rd and the Army will tell you that digitization equates to more lethality. Maybe you, being Navy, don't understand land combat.

Not as well as my friends in the Army, though I have been to NTC. *eye opener*

Or are you just brighter than the Army's best minds?

Not hardly, though I met a few.

The 4th ID really was Force XXI at the time. The military was very disappointed when Turkey prevented the 4th from participating in the invasion.

Comanche was also part of Force XXI. Oh, wait, it never showed up, but no matter, other platforms sufficed. That doesn't change the fact that 3d ID was a Heavy Division. Go back to the TPFDD: why was 3d ID sent ahead of 4th ID? IIRC, this was addressed by both Fonetnot and his team who wrote On Pont, and by the guys who wrote Cobra II, but I'd have to go reference them both to dig out the detail. Memory fuzzy.

A fraction of what we could field and only elements of units like the 1st Armored.

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.

And in case you forgot, 2nd Armored became the 4th ID in 1995. The 3rd ID, on the other hand, has as its roots the 24th Infantry Division. Like I said, the Iraqi's didn't face our best units. If push came to shove, Iran might

.
I was working with the Army when those units got reflagged. Much gnashing of teeth. 4th ID moved its flag from Carson to Hood, IIRC.

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

And they would believe you . . . why?

And the Iranian economy can be brought to a standstill by putting one thing ... their oil refineries ... out of commission. And that could be done withOUT destroying the entire oil infrastructure. Do you not understand my posts or the vulnerabilities of Iran?

Magwa understands English very well. Magwa has seen target lists. I suspect they have since been updated.

War policy is always based on assumptions. This one seems quite reasonable. With very clear objectives and end conditions. Isn't that what folks like you have been demanding?

Yes, necessary assumptions, not wishful thinking. 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

Hunamitarian disaster pending.

Now what, Major? What's your next move? None of that stops dispersed cells from training and making small, man portable weapons and sneaking them to cells in Iraq, or training small teams and infiltrating them back into Iraq.

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

Or for that matter many of the folks on your side of the fence in this debate (they like to claim Israel is behind every action we take or bad thing that happens).

That lot need to sniff less glue.

Then your comparison of what I suggest we do in Iran with 9/11 doesn't make much sense. Because we would warn them.

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

If you get out, you won't be hurt."

That approach makes lots of friends.

Well it looks to me like you are since you still haven't told us what you would do to get Iran to stop helping terrorists in Iraq. Your two suggestions ... SURGE and SASO ... surely haven't worked ... and it doesn't appear that Rice is getting anywhere either.

Short attention span, but 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. (Give or take.) We've been underresourced for four years, and the surge, while interesting, doesn't materially change that.

But bombing Iran will?

By the way, why don't you tell us exactly what stability and support operations have been aimed at stopping Iran's interference?

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.

Within Iraq proper in places of high activity, aka Central Iraq, you are dealing in standard police work and "spy versus spy" operations, multi agency.

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?

As currently resourced, the "Baghdad / put out the media storm" mission trumps Iran support to some fraction of the Anti Coalition Forces. So, it becomes part of the general MOUT operation against ACF. If one chose to make the Anti Iran effort The Main Effort, I'd assign forces as described above from other missions to that mission set, with the objective of reducing the impact/frequency of Iranian sponsored factions operating. Permissive RoE. HUMINT heavy. OGA support required.

That is, if you really do think we should do something about Iran's activities in this regard.

You do what you can, with the forces assigned. You seem to think the Iran factor is the predominate factor in Iraq.

I don't. It's a media pigeon for sharpshooters to blaze away at. Or did you qualify as Expert?

And I'm pointing out to you that this is not a game.

No kidding? I used to play tag with the Russians, and that wasn't a game either. Some people got blinded by lasers in that "game." Some died. (See "By Any Means Necessary" for an earlier version fo that game, before my time.)

Real people are dying and the future of Iraq, and perhaps the war against islamofanatics, hangs in the balance.

Oh, excuse me, no one but you gets this. I see you used "Islamofanatics" rather than "Islamofascists." Some distinction. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. We used to just call them "Shi'ite heads" and be done with it. Bernard Lewis' "Islamist" strikes me as the best descriptive.

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?

Well it looks to me like you are since you seem to be more than willing to give Iran all the time it needs to develop nuclear weapons, train additional terrorists to disrupt Iraq and threaten other US interests, and shrink the advantage we have in arms (which is what it is now doing).

Keep making stuff up, be my guest. When you are done, we might continue the conversation.

I'm glad to hear you don't think Iranians love their government. So tell us again how the Iranian government will get them to hurt us if we go after the Iranian government for sponsoring terrorists?

This is not a board game. The unknown is, if you "attack the government" you do attack Iran. This will guarantee a portion of the population as your enemy, and most of the military, though the Kurds and Azeris may be pleased up north. You also don't know who steps in to fill the vacuum.

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

Well perhaps if you were worried about Iraq using them, but not if you were worried about Iraq supporting terrorism. Far more likely was that terrorists would acquire chemical or biological materials from Iraq.

That was the theme from Washington, and thanks to the very human nature of the problem, difficult to pin down one way or the other. Cheney's worst case planning was one way to look at it. It was not without merit, if one looked at Iraq in isolation.

An embargo? On what basis? Remember, the UN inspectors would have just given them a clean bill of health.

You don't know this. But let's say that 1441 got Saddam to fess up. 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. He had to, as he saw it, to deter Iran, and perhaps to deter Israel.

We'd no longer have a rationale for insisting on an embargo. Certainly not one that the world community would buy. Certainly not one that would justify more people dying because of sanctions. France, Germany, Russia and others were eager to get the sanctions removed.

Money talks.

They even had lucrative oil, industrial and munitions contracts lined up with the Iraqis in anticipation of that event. Sorry, but the likelihood of maintaining an embargo after the UN inspectors got through was nil.

After. While Saddam was alive and in power, I don't see that as having ever happened. See above about the bluff.

So tell me, if Saddam were then found to be helping al-Qaeda destabilize another country and kill thousands of that country's civilians, as well as a number of Americans who were in it, would you be deployed to deal with it?

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

You don't know the details in that case? A dozen admitted al-qaeda terrorists were convicted in Jordan of a plot to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman using a big, chemically laced bomb. Those terrorists admitted to having been sent on their mission and funded by al-Zarqawi. They met with al-Zarqawi in Iraq ... in fact, in Baghdad ... then moved to Syria to prepare for the attack. The meeting in Iraq took place BEFORE the invasion.

I'll look it up, sounds familiar.

The point is that had no invasion occurred, there is no reason to think al-Zarqawi's efforts would have stopped with that one attack or that he would have been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam. Indeed at one point prior to the invasion, a member of al-Zarqawi's organization was captured by Iraqi security and then ordered released by Saddam himself. Now what would you have done about that? Waited until he actually did kill tens of thousands? And then what? Invaded Iraq? Is your suggestion we wait until tens of thousands have been killed by terrorists operating out of Iran before doing something? Oh wait! Those terrorists already have killed tens of thousands. So what are we waiting for now?

I am trying to figure out why I care that a few thousand Jordanians die in an inter Arab squabble. So far, I can't.

Explain why al-Qaeda has shed so much blood in Iraq if it has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

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. The Syrian border leaked like a sieve. Another problem under resourcing aided and abetted.

Have I used the word islamofascist here? No. So is that a strawman? Guess we can both use them.

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

Care to explain?

DR

 

[Gurdur]

Perhaps Gurdur chimes in to support you only because he's mad at me for what I've done to his arguments here:
[thread]

Uh, no, wrong yet again on all counts.

1) I don't support anything yet in this thread at all. I DID appreciate Darth Rotor's smack-down of you, because it made very clear some elements that were essential to understanding where you're coming from:

• the chickenhawk element in your preaching
• your ignorance, whether feigned, real or willful on many factual issues
• and the Silver Bullet clichés you use

What was also made clearer here was the McCarthyist and weird position you're pushing. Your jumping up and down on a smallish-medium-size bulletin-board trying to whip up jingoistic war hysteria, your anxiety to send off others to fight, your telling anyone who points out the facts of life to you that you'll basically have them hauled up in HUAC, and your stupid and quite nutty McCarthyism against the Democrats, all these became much clearer here.

What I found quite baffling before was your historical revisionism; the fact you tried resurrecting the old Domino Theory and the Comintern hysteria, even though USA State Dept officials themselves said it was invalid way before 1964, and it was all so much disproven so long ago. I mean, coming across you is like coming across an angry but ineffective dodo or brontosaurus; one is more baffled by the appearance of a brontosaurus than one is alarmed.

2) You haven't "done" anything to my arguments, all you've done is spout a lot of quite nutty assertions, and then you told me that you were running away from the argument, like Nixon from Vietnam. Oh yes, you used excuses, like Nixon did. I find it quite weird you worship Nixon so much and you're trying to rehabilitate him; you might as well worship William Hung or Brown of FEMA. But the fact I find it weird to encounter your type -- since I like to actually understand everyone -- does not mean you bother me. You're basically just a novel type of ineffectual flamer with really strange obsessions. Oh, and I always appreciate someone who really does know what they're talking about slapping down a flamer.

3) Is that all clear? Or would you like me to use small words instead? Would you like me to explain the bit in the middle again? What's your next move: given your penchant for trying to resurrect and revise dead history utterly unrealistically, what do you do next? Become Minister for Justice in old apartheid South Africa?