"Must-read Mark Steyn" is the most overused phrase in the political blogosphere.
But this is a must-read Mark Steyn.
Not only does he remember the Iranian bombing of the Argentinian Jewish Community Center, he puts it in context. I mean, some of us have known about Iran for a long time.
RELATED: The Hamlet Party.
Also When self-defense is a crime.
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
"because an increasing number of them have realized that Saddam's regime had little, if anything, to do with the enemy that attacked us on 9/11 "
What evidence is there of that?! This is the rising star of the left? Somehow- not surprised.
I am increasingly shocked that so few people know anything about Iran's long history of terrorist activities and supporting terrorism by others.
That some politicians choose to profess ignorance of the history, for what I can only imagine is possible political gain, is reprehensible.
davod -
You mean like in Argentina?
A.L.
They won't. Which is why we are so very fortunate that Iran isn't really within a year of developing nuclear weapons.
Because compared to Iran, Iraq really is a cakewalk. Dealing with Iran militarily, should it come to that, will require a massive coalition of almost all the world's major powers including Russia and China. As much as a means to keep them from siding against us to fullfill their energy needs as to actually gain their assets and men. And there is no way that can be put together by the boy who cried wolfe.
It's unlikely any US leader would be able to do it short of Iran actually using a nuke.
We've been placed in a terrible position at an incredibly inopportune time and no amount of Mark or Trent's or Wretchard's cheerleading is going to change that. Our president has zero credibility with anyone other than his ever shrinking base. And at a time when we need strong leadership the most, he's incapable.
What's worse is that there's an excellent chance the democrats will win back one house of congress this year. This is, in my view, a bad thing because they will most definately utilize their subpeona powers to show what the American public really doesn't want to see. The knowledge that we were screwed by in idiot who's strings were being pulled by very intelligent, yet woefully misguided hawks who's interest in military affairs coincided roughly with the date they passed eligibility for military service might be redemptive for some, but it really isn't constructive.
As much as I'd love for Bush to be undeniably shown as the nude emperor that he is, it's not good for the country.
And I like to think I'm a bit more of a grownup than those who spent the last 3 years explaining how I hate my country and don't understand radical Islam despite having spent several years working in the region. You know, those who loudly proclaimed that there is no history of sectarian strife among Sunni's and Shia's, etc.
Basically, the loud and the ignorant loud.
hitchens hasnt been like Steyn, and Hitchens has not denied that Rummy has made terrible mistakes that have made things much worse in Iraq.
Because compared to Iran, Iraq really is a cakewalk. Dealing with Iran militarily, should it come to that, will require a massive coalition of almost all the world's major powers including Russia and China. As much as a means to keep them from siding against us to fullfill their energy needs as to actually gain their assets and men. And there is no way that can be put together by the boy who cried wolfe.
I assume you're talking about the occupation and not the actual invasion - because Iran and other Arab/Islamist countries don't have a history of winning wars. I don't completely agree with Steyn here, but I do agree with him when he said that these armies combined made "Belgium look butch".
These militarily weak Islamist/Arab nations can't win wars the old fashioned way, so they use terrorism and "insurgencies" as their weapon. I don't think we should go into Iran until we learn how to effectively dismember state-sponsored and local insurgent groups. The best way for our military to learn how to efficiently destroy this insurgent/terrorist weapon is to stay in Iraq. Unfortunately, with our current skills, it seems that dealing with two of these occupations would be crippling for the US financially and politically.
I'd guess that Iran's 'nuclear program' is like Libya's - lots of smoke and mirrors. That doesn't mean that they're not our enemy - we should have gone to war with them and defeated them a long time ago. But we shouldn't rush into some poorly planned action just because they're prattling about nukes. As we're currently seeing in the Sudan, Islamist aggression and hate is their most effective WMD. It's already killed millions
Mary,
I'd agree that no Islamic country stands a chance against the US in a war without goals of an occupation.
But if you aren't willing to occupy it what is the plan?
Invade, topple the regime, and then leave and wait for the new friendly regime to coalesce?
Seems like yet another poorly thought out plan to me.
Davebo is a Cubs fan. We can tell. It's always "wait 'til next year." Any day soon now there will be some 3rd World army which can stand up to ours.
Iran doesn't have an army. It doesn't have ground forces. It has several different regime-protection forces (Army, several different flavors of Revolutionary Guards, the Basiji and foreign mercenaries aka Lebanese Hezbollah) whose No. 1 job, all the time, is to not overthrow the regime, and whose No. 2 job is to watch the others. The Basiji and Hezbollah have a tertiary assignment - being beastly to civilians.
These guys will just be speed bumps when we invade Iran. Our No. 1 problem in Iran will be logistics - the place is much bigger than Iraq - and our No. 2 problem will be a terrain feature called the Zagros Mountains. Even speed bumps can cause significant delays in mountain passes.
That's the conquest campaign. I give it 3-4 months maximum from the time major American ground forces cross the border to elimination of the mullah regime, and probably more like two months.
What will be unshirted h**l for us will be the occupation campaign in Iran - that will make our occupation in Iraq look like a walk in the park for at least a year. That will be the real problem.
And Iran has a fortunately small minority group - the Baluchs - who regard everyone else as dang furriners, and don't like each other very much. Right now they are giving Iran's mullahs major problems in the Iranian held areas of Baluchistan, and ditto for the Pakistani army in the Pakistani-held areas of Baluchistan. I'm sure they'll be equally happy to see us when we show up.
The Baluchs make the tribesmen in the desert areas of western Iraq seem like cooing doves.
IMO we'll have significantly more real military problems from the mullahs during the bombing campaign before invading, when they dump their WMD on us, close the Straits of Hormuz and cause trouble in southern Iraq.
There will be a bombing campaign before our invasion simply because we won't bunch up our ground forces into convenient targets for WMD attack by having them concentrate into attack formations. We'll take out the mullahs' WMD delivery capability with bombing before we invade.
Only IMO we won't tell them that we intend to invade - we'll just bomb 'em and say that's all we're doing.
It is possible that the Bush administration has a plan calling for Iranian retaliaition for the bombing to create a justification for invasion, but I doubt it. They're not that Machiavellian, let alone that competent, and I doubt any of them look forward to the months of screaming while American gasoline prices are over $6-$7 a gallon.
"We'll take out the mullahs' WMD delivery capability with bombing before we invade."
If we can manage that, whats the point of invading?
Dealing with Iran militarily, should it come to that, will require a massive coalition of almost all the world's major powers including Russia and China.
With all due repect, what kind of fantasy world do you live in? They barely managed to hold off the assault of the Iraqi army during their eight year war. And how long did it take the US military to defeat that same Iraqi army? In the military conflicts of the present technology matters a lot. And the Iranian war technology is by current standards old and outdated. Whether in offense or defense, they would just be well-cooked meat ready for consumption.
Tcobb
You selectively quoted there. Will China and Russia sit by while we invade and occupy one of their primary sources of oil?
Who knows. But let's hope someone will consider the question prior to us "bringing em on".
Mary, in one sense even the British Army probably wouldn't hold up that way against ours. But I think you're underestimating Iran's strengths. To put it in perspective, Iran is larger than Alaska and has a population of over 68 million (two Californias). And its army hasn't been degraded by a decade of sanctions.
Yeah, I suppose we could defeat Iran's army with enough time and casualties. But staying there would make Iraq look easy. And, by the way, what happens in Iraq when Ayatollah Sistani issues a fatwa against our troops on Teheran's behalf?
Davebo - No. 9:
Now you are making sense. This is exactly the kind of criticism needed.President Bush lacks the expertise or character to resolve major conflicts in the advice he gets, and so goes for the lowest common denominator forming a majority in that advice. That's why our force levels in Iraq were so low after its conquest - those opposed to invading at all, together with rosy optimists like Rumsfeld, wanted the lowest possible force levels there after the conquest, and formed a majority among Bush's advisers. So he chose to do that despite the consensus of opinion in the military that we needed to reinforce the forces in Iraq after the conquest.
The same pattern is happening again concerning Iran. Those who oppose all military action are allying with the rosy optimists who say we don't need to occupy the place afterwards. The former have lost on the issue of not attacking at all, so now they're arguing for a minimal bombing campaign (they'll lose on that too, but AFAIK the issue is still sort of open), and are arguing against invasion, and against occupation if we do invade.
There are lots of others who definitely don't want us to stay on if we do invade.
I thoroughly agree that all this is flaming nonsense. The "slippery slope" argument certainly applies here. If we bomb at all, we'll end up invading, and if we invade, we'll stay on in occupation afterwards. But we'll do each of those less effectively than if we had planned on doing those from the beginning. This is why I predict that whatever we do will result in the maximum duration of the conflict, the maximum casualties for everyone, the greatest amount of destruction and the greatest amount of economic injury.
Trent Telenko calls this, "Incrementalism on the road to hell."
But there are all these people saying we don't have to bomb, we don't have to invade, we don't have to occupy ...
And President Bush doesn't know s**t from gold.
Bombing without invading does more harm than good.
Invading without providing for an acceptable postwar polity does more harm than good.
Generating a postwar Iranian governing class that's not implacably hostile to the US is impossible.
The mulllahs know all this (reading blogs and all), and they and their agents do what they can to make things more difficult and more impossible for our planners.
In this case, we either forswear Clauswitzian war... or we return to practicing it in the Old Way. The way it was done in WW2 and throughout most of history, with hundreds of thousands and more in casualties. Military and civilian.
The point in these cases is always to try and pick the least bad option. In this case, they are all very grim. With Iran, I expect I wouldn't take preemptive action in the absence of an Iranian causus belli. I'd hope that Aminejehad, Rafsanjani, Khatami, the IRGC, Hezbollah, and the other thugs and creeps would look down into the abyss, tremble, and hesitate. But based on their conduct to date, I think this is a pretty slim reed.
Davebo--
Will China and Russia sit by while we invade and occupy one of their primary sources of oil?
(1) you're evading the original point that I was criticizing your assertion that the Iranian military was such a formidable force that it would need a coalition of all the world's formidable powers to defeat. I still consider this to be a ridiculous notion.
(2) Iran is not one of Russia's primary sources of oil. Russia is a net EXPORTER of oil.
(3) China, despite its military prowess, is merely a regional power. It has no ability to project force much beyond the borders of its country. What, exactly, could it even do if Iran was invaded? Oh yes, I forgot, they could lodge a complaint with the UN.
Andrew --
A couple of things.
Steyn was right so far as fighting against Saddam's regime went. Did you miss the part where his army basically fell apart with the few "thunder runs" into Baghdad?
No military force can stand against the US Army heavy forces when supplied and equipped. Not Saddam's. Not Iran's.
You are confusing counter-insurgency / ethnic-sectarian conflict management with War. They are not the same. The aim of our military is to crushingly defeat all opposing militaries. It did that VERY well. In about three weeks.
No force since the late 1970's has been successful in crushing insurgencies or ethnic-sectarian conflicts because the Western Democracies shy away from the ruthless methods required: favoring one side then the other and tipping the balance of power from one group to the other to force a political settlement; OR simply wiping out the warring parties (Stalin's solution or Saddam's). Rest assured if we simply killed as many as Saddam did regularly they would to quote Curtis Le May "stop fighting."
The other issue is Iran as a threat. Since Iran has gone nuclear, and basically destroyed the NPT regime, the only question is how risky are they? What are their technical capabilities (quite large IMHO) in producing weapons and what are their intentions?
I've noticed you are unable to rebut Steyn's main point in that Iran feels no territorial or Westphalian limits in it's action, Iran believes it's laws and actions should extend to what you read, what you do, and if you live or die. Based on the universality of Islamic Law and divine mission to rule the world. Given Iran's insane leadership it's the height of stupidity to think that doing NOTHING won't cost you.
Unhatched Chickens? Can I quote you when the first city is nuked by Iran? How about Greenwald? The problem with you and Greenwald is one of basic perception. You think Iran is akin to colorful Methodists and play by rational rules. Iran went out of it's way to kill Jews in a remote part of the World with whom it had zero quarrel with aside from their faith. Even Hitler did not send the Einsatzgruppen into Argentina to kill Jews. If Iran will do THAT to Jews in Buenos Aires, what will they do to Americans?
For that you and Greenwald have no answer. Nothing but empty talk and pretending not to notice what's in front of your face. I am not happy with GWB's inaction wrt Iran (in my darker moments I suspect he wishes Iran to attack first, killing millions and giving him freedom to act without restraints, the Left being effectively destroyed politically by the fallout).
The Left faces a serious problem. The media cannot avoid because of the Penalty Phase of the Mousssaiou trial covering 9/11 again. More 9/11 movies are coming out. 9/11 Makes EVERYTHING the Left stands for and proposes claptrap and nonsense. Like a Peace Activist in 1942 or Ghandi advising Jews to go peacefully to the Gas Chambers. WHEN Iran inevitably nukes a city or two in the West, the Left will be exposed as intellectually bankrupt. Don't like Bush's policies? Fine then propose SOMETHING in it's place. Bomb Iran back to the stone age. Don't leave a single bit of power or running water in place. Invade and go home after breaking everything and killing masses of Iranian troops/militias. Invade and offer Iran's territories to Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan (Iran disappears as a state and other countries are "outsourced" as occupiers). ANYTHING so long as it's different and isn't the useless talk-shop we've had so far.
But if you aren't willing to occupy it what is the plan?
Invade, topple the regime, and then leave and wait for the new friendly regime to coalesce?
Seems like yet another poorly thought out plan to me.
Many young Iranians seem to have a better grasp of the value of democracy and freedom than some young Americans. But, since 'insurgents' are usually foreign fighters and die-hard supporters of the old regime, there is no chance that a friendly regime could successfully take power without fighting off the inevitable insurgency.
We're trying to install a Marshall plan-type of democracy in Iraq right now, but we're making this attempt while fascism is growing in the Middle East. The post WWII Marshall plan would never have worked if we'd tried to install it without getting rid of the fascists first. It's not likely to work this time either. Invading Iran while leaving surrounding fascist states intact will only make things worse.
Since I'd guess that Ahmadinejad is mostly bluffing, just like Gaddafi was, the best course of action is to do what we'd do if nukes weren't on the table. Getting lots of attention from Western powers gives him status. We should snub him, frequently, in favor of meetings with the Lebanese. Or the Turks. Or an African nation. Don't threaten him or appease him. Give all the attention to someone who is being good (it always works with toddlers)
We know that our 'friendship' with the Saudis scares the Russians and the Chinese. They know that their 'friendship' with the Iranians scares us. If we stop being visibly afraid of the Iranians, some of the value of an alliance with Islamists in general goes down.
Otherwise, we need to learn how to effectively fight the insurgency/terrorism tactic. We need to decide who we're fighting - are we fighting the Islamists or are we fighting the Russians and the Chinese? We need to re-evaluate our alliances. We can't fight a war against the Islamists by allying with Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and Yemen.
The Iranians saw how many benefits a pathetic excuse for a leader like Gaddafi gained from very slowly building up a nuclear program. I'm sure they'd like to get the same kind of completely undeserved respect.
I still havent seen a convincing argument against bombing that doesnt apply equally if not moreso to invasion. Aside from North Korean literally manufacturing working nuclear weapons for the Mullahs, the plausibility of which I leave open to comment.
As far as invasion goes, every plan is perfect until the first shot is fired.
-First off i want to know where the troops are coming from. If the answer is Iraq, what is the game plan for defending our single supply line that just happens to lead through the Shiia city of Basra should they decide to side with the Mullahs.
-Secondly, i want to know the gameplan should the Iranian military not play ball with us by coming out and getting killed, and decides to break their million men into small groups, settle into the mountains and harass our supply lines. There are veterans of Afghanistan, not to mention the Iran-Iraq war,in that outfit, and the terrain is brutal. Perfect for wearing down an armored force heavilly dependant on a 300+ mile supply line through the Zagros Mountains. Not in a day, but certainly over months.
There is an excellent reason we didnt send 100k troops into Afghanistan to trap OBL- to avoid this exact scenario. It is a dire mistake to equate our battles in Iraq's desert landscape and disinterested, starved military with a campaign to quell a mountainous nation that has proven it can field hundreds of thousands of religious zealots trained in terrorist/guerilla tactics.
Davebo is a Cubs fan. We can tell. It's always "wait 'til next year."
Funny, I thought that "wait 'til next year" was a damn good description of when our troops are coming home.
Mark,
It is more likely that you will turn inside out and explode a la the Galaxy Quest transporter scene than this happening - "should the Iranian military not play ball with us by coming out and getting killed, and decides to break their million men into small groups, settle into the mountains and harass our supply lines ...".
Andrew J Lazarus -- if "our troops come home" right now, what happens?
Who cares if the troops come home immediately and we get nuked? Conversely if the troops have to stay in Iran and Afghanistan and Iran and Pakistan and Saudi for generations, if it keeps us from getting nuked it's well worth it isn't it.
My criticism of your logic stands. You focus on lesser order objective ("troops come home") instead of the HIGHEST ORDER which is WHAT keeps us from getting nuked.
You plan, and that of the Dems, as far as I can see it, is to rely on the good will and mercy of Iran.
Good luck with that.
Mark Buehner:
"If we can manage (to take out Iranian WMD) what's the point of invading."
Air attack can wreck the nuclear programme; but can air/naval operations stop the Iranian counterstrikes against the Gulf oil flows (ignoring as secondary countermoves in Iraq, Lebanon and via global terror ops)?
If they cannot, then limited land operations along the Gulf coast may be required to reduce that threat (and possibly to secure the Iranian oilfields into the bargain). If littoral occupation (up to the Zagros Mts ?) is deemed essential, and if the campaign is likely to be prolonged, how vulnerable would occupation forces and supply lines be to Iranian responses?
If coastal occupation is both required and vulnerable, might it make more sense to go full-bore for Tehran in the first place? Whether for occupation in force, or just crash in, eradicate the regime and vacate ASAP is another matter.
It seems the question is whether the Gulf can be secured without land operations is the critical one; especially if air attacks have to prolonged for months, and, if the regime does not fall, repeated periodically for years or even decades.
If it can, airstrikes alone look the way to go. If not, the land option may be unavoidable, due to the economic catastrophe (and resulting political/international eruptions) that would result.
IMHO the point of decision has not yet arrived either way. 2008 seems more likely.
But absent Iranian backdown, regime change, or mass conversion of mullahs to Buddhism, leave things too long after 2008 and Seymour Hersh's nuclear pre-emption fable is going to be the real deal.
If our immediate concern is Iran's nuclear program, what's the (short-term) problem with simply bombing that program out of existance, bombing the Iranian Army into rubble, locking down the Iran/Iraq border, and waiting to see what results from the internal chaos?
Obviously that's a short-term solution, and doesn't stop the sponsoring of terrorism in the long run; but it does eliminate the nuclear threat, which ratchets down the potential for mayhem. If we can't handle an invasion of Iran now, why not nerf the major reason for invasion and kick the can down the road for a few years?
(Of course, this assumes the CIA has got around to extricating their heads from their posteriors, and actually knows where to strike.)
Those are interesting questions. It certainly might be necessary to grab the Iranian gulf coast (or parts of it) to prevent them from closing the sea lanes. That being said, I think there is an excellent opportunity for us to lean on the Iranians by threatening their own oil fields, ports, and pipelines if they attempt to do that. We can survive with Iran trying to impede Gulf oil much better than Iran can survive us mining their harbors and trashing their oil infastructure. They could well fold their hand.
I think seizing a peice of Iran, particularly the one containing their oil fields, is the worst option of all. It basically proves the idea here and more importantly in the region that we are out to seize oil. That could be disasterous globally.
"Whether for occupation in force, or just crash in, eradicate the regime and vacate ASAP is another matter."
There is this idea that we can just capture the enemy capital and the war ends, we win, end of story. That has never been a great strategy (ask Napoleon). Assuming the city of Tehran is Iran's center of gravity is a dangerous assumption. What happens when the Mullahs scatter to the four winds and rally every village and town in Iran to resist the invader (at the point of a gun of course)?
Crushing a government is easier said than done as we found out with Saddam and his boys, and this is infinitely more complicated because Iran is not that kind of single Big Man regime. There is an entire caste of leadership with fingers (Mullahs) in every two bit town. For every aspiring democrat rising up to support the American invasion, you could very well find a suicide bomber visiting his home and family. This tends to put a damper on pro-democracy zeal, or at least provokes enough chaos to keep the good guys from establishing order.
We could take Tehran for as long as we can stomach it but the hour we leave things could well be right back the way they were. What then? What are our victory conditions? If it is indeed regime change doesnt it follow that we must remain in occupation until a stable new government can care for itself?
This whole enterprise reminds me of the analogy of saddling a lion. Its a great ride until you realize you can never get off and never sleep.
There are two alternatives when bombing without invading:
1) stop bombing after a while;
2) keep on bombing indefinitely.
If we stop the bombing after a while, the mullahs will start up their WMD and missile programs, and we'll be right back to where we started.
Furthermore the mullahs will have every reason to provide full state-supported terrorism against us everywhere. With Al Qaeda operating from the Iranian U.N. mission in New York City.
Ditto if we don't stop the bombing.
Tell us how sanctions against Iraq could have been successfully continued forever. Then tell us how isolating Iran will be any different.
As for fantasies about regime change without invading, I am touched, touched, by your confidence in our wise, all-knowing and highly successful Central Intelligence Agency. Be sure to tell them that you think they are just wonderful.
'cuz ya believe in fairy tales.
"If we stop the bombing after a while, the mullahs will start up their WMD and missile programs, and we'll be right back to where we started."
Not quite. The Iranian system will be set back by some unknown amount (here we run into our lack of information dilemna). That buys us time which can be used to shore up Iraq, increase our army by a couple divisions, and look to take advantage of a favorable change in fortune in Iran.
"Furthermore the mullahs will have every reason to provide full state-supported terrorism against us everywhere. With Al Qaeda operating from the Iranian U.N. mission in New York City."
We're back to the fact that anthing they would have full reason to support during a bombing campaign, they would have even more ample reason to support during an invasion. Regardless, we are assuming this is an implacable enemy we will need to face sooner or later. Better to let them shoot their terrorism bolt sooner, take the stings, and let the bees die. Better our timing than theirs.
"Tell us how sanctions against Iraq could have been successfully continued forever. Then tell us how isolating Iran will be any different."
Sanctions cannot. Blockades can starve the regime.
I dont have any illusions about a popular revolution any time soon either (hope is not a strategy). A bombing raid will very likely rally the Iranian people together in the short term. In the long term depriving the Mullahs of nuclear weapons and putting a strangle hold on their oil lifeline will weaken them materially.
So rather than overthrow the mullahs, we let them stay in power to attack us everywhere. In Iraq too - a ground war where we let them have the initiatve all the time. We let them have Iran as a privileged sanctuary.
I especially like the pitch for a partial invasion of Iran.
This is a prescription for endless war. We heard that in Vietnam.
Do you people realize what a great case you are making for invasion and occupation? Everything you propose is worse. Far worse.
"So rather than overthrow the mullahs, we let them stay in power to attack us everywhere. "
The problem we are having here is that you are failing to recognize we do not have the ability to choose who rules in Iran without occupying the nation for an extended and unknown length of time. And it is problematic to do even that.
"This is a prescription for endless war. We heard that in Vietnam."
What do you call a half cocked invasion against a reasonably vibrant regime with no particular plans for occupation?
"Do you people realize what a great case you are making for invasion and occupation? Everything you propose is worse. Far worse."
I dont think you are hearing the things you don't want to hear Tom. Your idea for invasion is a prescription for exactly what you are describing, only with the US blood letting turned up considerably (not to mention Iranian). Lets try this:
-How long do you expect US forces to control Iran?
-What are the metric for withdrawal?
-How many casualties do you envision, best case and worst case?
Mark,
You just said that Iran's mullhs have a "reasonably vibrant regime".
Thank you for your candor.
"You just said that Iran's mullhs have a "reasonably vibrant regime".
Thank you for your candor."
Vibrant: pulsating with life, vigor, or activity.
Is there something about this regime that doesnt stand out as vigorous and active to your mind? What exactly are you accusing me of? You cant answer simple questions about your ideas for the future of our nation and fighting men so you try to slime me somehow?
I hate the Mullahs on a much more personal level than im betting you do, but more importantly i understand them a hell of a lot better. You seem to think Iran is even more pliable than Iraq, waiting to jump up and become the next Denmark. Well many Iranians are but many arent, and unfortunately the ones that arent have the guns and the bombs and are willing to die for what they believe in. The Democrats arent so sure, at least not in a battle they will lose at this point.
Do you know anything about how the theocrats maintain order in Iran? Huh? You know about the Revolutionary Guard and their quarter million fanatical soldiers trained to protect the mullahs and the revolution with their lives. But do you know about the Basij- the Revolutionary Guard reserve filled with Pasdaran veterans spread out in every city, town, and village in Iran to spy, maintain religious law, and keep people in line. Because there are 11 million of them. SS troops for all intents and purposes. What will happen when the Democratic reformers rise up in their towns when Tehran falls you might ask? These bastards will machine gun them and their families, thats what, because they are the fist of the Mullahs. Hussein would have given his soul for an enforcement mechanism like that.
So please stop with your dandy visions of flowers and American flags waving in Iran. What you are suggesting will be a blood bath- mostly for our supposed friends and supporters. And dont ever accuse me of apologizing for the Mullahs either. They arent going to roll over for you (or I) wishing it. You dont understand the reality on the ground in Iran, and you obviously dont want to know. That makes everything you say as dangerous as it is assinine.
Mark B wants us to trust and rely on a CIA to covertly detect Iranian nukes when it could not even predict that Hamas was going to win the Palestinian elections when we had CIA agents and diplomats on the ground in Gaza...?
Boggle!
"Mark B wants us to trust and rely on a CIA to covertly detect Iranian nukes when it could not even predict that Hamas was going to win the Palestinian elections when we had CIA agents and diplomats on the ground in Gaza...?"
This is coming from the guy claiming he knows for a fact Iran will have a working nuclear weapon within weeks. Boggle. Maybe we should put Trent in charge of the CIA and Tom in charge of the Defense department. All our troubles will be over by Christmas.
The Basij perform the same function for the Iranian regime that the "Dignity Battalions" did for "President for life" Norega of Panama.
They were notably ineffective when faced with real troops and could only be trusted to loot fellow Panamanians and run for it when the American invasion happened.
The the vast majority of the Basij are far less effective than the Panamanian "Dignity Battalions" because
1) They live in rural areas away from the big city democrats and
2) The Mullahs don't trust them with loaded guns in large numbers.
"The the vast majority of the Basij are far less effective than the Panamanian "Dignity Battalions" because "
Thank god you're here with an intelligence estimate. Who's Prince Charles sleeping with these days btw? Just curious.
"The Basij perform the same function for the Iranian regime that the "Dignity Battalions" did for "President for life" Norega of Panama."
Waht an idiotic statement, Noriegas band of thugs werent veterand of the Iran-Iraq war, didnt have any particular religious fanaticism to drive them, and didnt number enough to match up with a brigade of Basij.
You know the security guards at my local Walmart perform the same function as the Secret Service...
Mark,
You have me confused with Tom Holsinger. He says the Iranians with have them in several dozen weeks.
I say the Iranians not only have them now. It is my position that a number of their warheads are
a) Reliable and
b) Scud capable.
Unlike you, I base my position on the hard historical realities of nuclear weapons development including the secret nuclear programs of rogue states like South Africa and Iraq.
You on the other hand, are working from wishful thinking.
Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case.
I dont know how you argue with someone who is cocksure he has divined what every intelligence service on the planet is desperate to find out, and honestly i dont know why you'd want to. Tom and Trent I think have proven themselves so in love with their scenarios that anything casting doubt upon them is instantly dismissed. This isnt reason, this is religion.
Mark,
The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1987.
Today is 2006.
Do you sums.
How young are Basiji members today if they were 18-21 in 1987?
What is the average age of a well trained and first rate infantry platoon?
I know the difference between old, fat, armed thugs and soldiers.
You do not.
"How young are Basiji members today if they were 18-21 in 1987?"
Revolutionary Guard members were sent to Iraq as young as 9, male and female. That puts several million of them in their mid 40s.
"What is the average age of a well trained and first rate infantry platoon?"
Who cares. They dont need to be a well trained infantry platoon to machine gun the local newspaper.
"I know the difference between old, fat, armed thugs and soldiers.
You do not."
You're a jackass that doesnt even remember the context of what we were discussing. These old fat thugs dont need to stand up to US troops, they just need to keep the local villagers in line between stopover by US troops.
Before I go, i'd just like to throw some actual 'facts' Heckel and Jeckels way.
If we sent 200,000 troops into Iran (from god knows where)- thats 1 US soldier for every 8 square km of soil (largely mountains mind you), and 1 US soldier for every 350 Iranians (i guess we could kill a bunch and get that number down). It doesnt take Che friggin Guevera to chalk up a guerilla strategy under those conditions.
Mark Buehner is expressing deep reservations about how well we understand certain conditions in Iran. He is arguing that many of the key factors there are much less favorable to a good outcome than the proponents of an invasion are recognizing.
This doesn't make him a supporter of the mullahs. C'mon.
He has the 'easier' case, in that this is simply arguing for a realistic assessment of the obstacles the US would face. "Offer a better plan" is a good policy challenge, but not relevant if the issue is the more basic one of understanding the (potential) enemy and the conditions on the ground.
So far, I find Mark's points to be the more telling ones in this debate.
There is some threshold of ruthless fanatics and some threshold of people who will go along with the fanatics. The two together provide enough insurgent "fishes" and a deep enough civilian "sea" to provide the conditions for a successful post-occupation insurgency. "Successful" in this case doesn't mean "defeating the Americans," but "terrorizing would-be democrats, preventing the emergence of a civil society, keeping the country ungovernable, and ultimately stoking the resentment of the population against the occupiers."
It remains to be seen whether AQ, Sunni irredentists, and the Sadrists and Iranian cats-paws have accomplished this in Iraq. (I think that they are losing these battles.)
As Mark points out, the mullahs are in a much better position in a number of ways in this regard.
We can agree that this anti-occupation strategy would be profoundly immoral. That, alas for the Iranian people, doesn't make it less likely.
The short-term advantages of an invade-destroy-leave scenario don't seem to outweigh the long-term disadvantages that would likely accrue.
The last slew of comments came while I was writing #43. IMO, there is little to be gained by ratcheting up the rhetoric and making disagreements personal. The facts and the policy options are what they are. Easier for readers like me to self-educate when knowledgeable commenters stick to the subject.
AMac,
Mark is not raising doubts. He is alleging facts which are ludricrous on their face. If the mullah's regime is so vibrant, why did they bring in Arab mercenaries from Lebanon to oppress their own people? Buehner's credibility is gone.
I think that “vibrant” is a poor choice of words. How about “tenacious”? I agree with Tom's point above: stable regimes don't bring in foreign hired thugs to oppress their own people. That's one of my big concerns about the Iranian regime, BTW: that it's unstable.
Breaking - I sure hope this isn't true.
I sure hope this isn't true.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany#
Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says (Update2)
"April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.
``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.
The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.
``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.
Weapons-Grade Uranium
Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.
Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.
``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.
While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.
Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.
China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said."
"Mark is not raising doubts. He is alleging facts which are ludricrous on their face. If the mullah's regime is so vibrant, why did they bring in Arab mercenaries from Lebanon to oppress their own people? Buehner's credibility is gone."
Whatever Tom. It may not have been the greatest choice of words but anyone here knows damn well what it meant. If the vast majority of the Iranian people are so eager to see America kick out the Mullahs for them why isnt there a shred of evidence for it? Try listening to the Iranian communities here in America- you know, for once do some actual research instead of drumming up your moronic conclusions out of thin air. The Mullahs are relatively strong- they have a strong backing of a powerful portion of the Iranian people. The people with the guns, the money, and the will to do murder for there cause. There is a reason they are still in power. Invasion will make them more powerful still. This is not a people inflicted with death camps and torture rooms and 20 straight years of war and privation like Iraq. The Iranians will fight invaders and rally behind their leaders- even if they hate them. You wont even countenance that. You have no fallback plan if it is true. You refuse to even think about a worst case scenario- or even anything less than the success you envision. In and of itself that proves you are a worthless analyst and on a crusade to prove yourself right that cant be bothered with contrary evidence.
Im really tired of this. I'm i the only one who think Tom and Trent have drifted off into self-reinforcing la-la land? If i'm wrong, i'd love to hear it from some other voices. Otherwise, somebody call this bout on a TKO.
Well, Mark, I agree with you 100 percent on Iran. Simple arithmetic and geography suggests that Iran would be much, much more difficult than Iraq, and that doesn't even account for the likelihood that our invasion would split the anti-mullah Iranians and that many would take nationalism over secular democracy. We could capture Teheran, but our chances of any sort of occupation are dead flat zero. Tom and Trent are from the school where if the game doesn't work out, you just hit Ctl-Alt-Del and play again.
What I don't quite follow is why your analysis of Iraq and Bush-Cheney-Rummy's connection to Planet Earth doesn't run along the same lines.
I don't recall anyone else offering this solution, but here it is:
The rulers of Iran appear to want to go back to the Middle Ages. Fine. Let them.
Bomb them back into the middle ages, or further. Destroy every power station, factory, sewage treatment plant, university, school... OK, you get the idea. Let them live in the conditions the fundamentalists hanker for.
And at the same time, let it be known that any plane or ship entering Iranian territory will be destroyed, and any such leaving Iran will be impounded when it lands. Just to be sure they stay mediaeval.
And at the same time as all this; ban, permanently, the construction of new mosques and the production of halal meat in the countries signing up to this strategy - halal is an abomination to anyone with the slightest interest in animal welfare, in any case.
And if they still won't behave, well, the Light Bringer awaits.