Nor do we know what is being said in secret (and in Arabic). Some interesting Arab press news from Juan Cole

I suspect he'll have the television crews and reporters - the witnesses - stay back at base. The surge will probably be many things but pretty won't be one of them.

Julius Seizer

Likely air/naval strikes on Iran. Iran is the chief funder and organizer of the Shia Death Squads and the Sunni Al Qaeda death squads. So take down Iran and you take down a big part of the killing.

There are gaps in the plan. Iranian interference will be dealt with, but we don't now how.

So far, gaps in planning have generally not been filled in, rather costs have come due. It was hard for pundits to criticize the early planning for post-liberation of Iraq, lacking knowledge of the plan. Later it emerged that there wasn't one. It was hard to criticize the decisions to lose the first battle of Fallujah by leaving the enemy in possession of the battlefield, and to be defeated by Moqtada Al-Sadr by leaving him alive and free after promising to put him in jail or under ground, as bloggers didn't have the secret knowledge of the payoffs that justified these serious defeats. But no reasons ever emerged to justify our acts of submission to the enemy. There is a solid commitment never to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to get nuclear weapons. The current plan to achieve this seems to be to hope that it takes longer for Iran to get a bomb than the pledge runs, that is to the end of the second George W. Bush administration. Eventually, a lack of willingness to fight gets its logical consequence - the victory of the enemy - and we move on. (Or, we can revisit the issue as in the second battle of Fallujah and solve the problem. But normally we adjust to coming second.) That's how it's done.

Because of this, I'm not getting my hopes up about big secret solutions.

However, to address some of the problems, even without announcing any solution, is progress.

What could be better for a merciless attacker than to hit a target who's so afraid of a fight with you that he denies you're hitting him? That's as good as being invisible. And it's the sort of advantage Iran has enjoyed against us and that Saudi Arabia and Islam in general still does enjoy against us.

If George W. Bush's determination to cover the enemy with a cloak of invisibility eroded to a small extent in this speech, that's good.

David:

Well said, mate.

Regarding Iran and nuclear weapons, what I'll challenge David and Grim with is this: What could Bush say (anymore) about this subject?

In my opinion there is little left to be said. Until concrete (not circumstantial) evidence can be produced that Iran is actually constructing nuclear devices there will be little support or reason to directly attack Iran (wrt this issue.)

As far as Iran destabilizing the current Iraq government and arrangements, again what could be said was said. The task now is to actually capture and destroy what intervention Iran has inside of Iraq.

Also, why do people belive Iran is the "chief funder" of Sunni death squads?

Are we all just itching for a fight with Iran?

President Bush perhaps said all that could be said by a US President in a public speech.

Thanks for the kind words, Grim.

Freeto, in this speech, I think George W. Bush improved not just his position but America's position in relation to Iran. I wasn't asking for more. That's why I said this was good.

Some time back, I think George W. Bush should have said that if people were not going to stand up to Iran, there was going to be a nuclear Iran. America will not be the "bad cop" and fix this while being condemned by all other countries. There will be no more diplomatic free riding. I don't think that was a big mistake though, because I think other key countries such as Germany and France are so irresponsible that even if it was clear they couldn't play free rider they would still do the same bad things.

I think this wasn't the time to revisit that, because getting tolerance from the public and legislature for one last effort in Iraq had to be his sole concern in this speech.

It's not George W. Bush's fault there will be a nuclear Iran. This is happening on his watch, but the failure of social security reform happened on his watch too, and my point is that he's only the chief executive, and if people don't support him we can only expect so much from him, whether the issue is mundane or apocalyptic.

"Also, why do people belive Iran is the "chief funder" of Sunni death squads?"

I think, without being able to prove it, that Saudi Arabia, or its wealthy ruling class, is the foremost external funder of Sunni terror in Iraq. They have the money and the zeal for Allah's cause.

But Iran is being hostile too. We should expect nothing else from an Islamic state which was defined from its conception as anti-American.

Freeto: "Are we all just itching for a fight with Iran?"

I think we are in a war with Islam, and I want us to win it. I am itching for more operations like the one happening Africa right now. That is what I want, not Iraq II in Iran.

But at the same time, I don't want us to fight shy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Let them fight shy of us.

Yhe Islamic Republic of Iran is and has always been a militantly ideological state. It exists to pursue certain ends, including, as its founder defined it, harm to the Great Satan. It's not a question of wanting to get into a state of hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Our relations with it are hostile by definition - its definition. We can't avoid that. We can only hide our eyes from it, to our harm.

By contrast with Iran, the definition of the Turkish state does not require any hostility to America. Islamic sentiment one day may. Statecraft one day may. But the state itself does not. That is not how Mustafa Kemal built it. It is not that kind of revolutionary project.

Two things I've been pondering since 9/11:

1. The big ops like Iraq and Afghanistan draw all the attention but the quiet ops like our special forces work in the horn of Africa for the last 4 years are where a lot of our quiet victories are being won. If they are being won.

2. This is a hugely complex situation we face around the world. I wonder how any small group of people (the administration senior leaders) can understand it in detail and address all the factors well all the time. And adding more people (particularly Congress) doesn't make things better.

I'm no doubt missing something in my analysis, but I keep coming back to my conviction that we are facing a once-in-500-years or once-in-a-millenium tectonic shift around the globe. Triggered and sustained by revolutionary technologies which make the Internet, modern weaponry and spreading illicit trade networks tools for barbarians. But also sustained by ease of communications and movement that inevitably leads to pressures for immigration and wealth transfer.

Were the West still confident in its own worth and values, those pressures could be managed - even productively and towards increased freedom and prosoperity around the world. Cultures could coexist in mutual respect and the world's ignorant and poor could be helped towards better lives in sustainable ways.

Given the inner emptiness of so many in the West, however, and the open embrace of decadence by popular culture, the prospects of this working well for any of us are poor at best, I fear -- unless the West regains confidence in the values and traditions which distinguish it at its best.

The critical question right now is whether Russia will deliver fuel rods to the Bushehr reactor in Iran, which was scheduled to begin fuelling with them in March 2007.

Iran has two nuclear programs, one to enrich uranium and one (using reactors) that could produce plutonium for warheads with low-enriched uranium fuel. Once the Bushehr reactor goes hot, destroying it will expose the oil terminals in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to radioactive fallout.

The most urgent question right now is not our latest tactical shift in Iraq but whether the Russians will deliver fuel to Bushehr. If that happens, the United States will have only a brief interval to decide whether to launch a larger war with Iran by taking out the reactor.

"In my opinion there is little left to be said. Until concrete (not circumstantial) evidence can be produced that Iran is actually constructing nuclear devices there will be little support or reason to directly attack Iran (wrt this issue.)"

How about Iran's leaders from Khameni in the 1990's to Ahmadinejad saying they are making nuclear weapons? How's that for you?

"Also, why do people belive Iran is the "chief funder" of Sunni death squads?"

Captured documents, money, and Al Qaeda leaders in the company of Iranian secret agents inside Iran. Well documented. WaPo even has an article up yesterday detailing Iran's sending anti-armor specialized weapons to kill Americans in armored vehicles to various death squads.

Freeto is indicative of the lack of perception among the PC Multi Culti Left. They can't perceive that Islam is indeed the enemy, and support actively any attempt to kill Americans by Muslims in the belief that America is as their pals Ahmadnutjob or Chavez "the source of all evil in the world."

Consider: seizing our Embassy and torturing our people for 444 days (Ahmadnutjob one of the chief torturers). Seizing CIA station Chief Buckley and taking him to Tehran and torturing and killing him. Beirut Marine Barracks bombing killing hundreds and the Embassy bombing killing around 50. Khobar Towers bombing. Attacking US Naval vessels and US flagged ships in the Gulf.

These are all ACTS OF WAR by Iran against the US. People like Freeto prefer craven groveling towards Iran instead of actually fighting back against the aggressor because they despise the US (from a position of comfortable safety).

Once a few Iranian supplied nukes go off in LA and NYC and DC, killing tens of millions, well that will change and we will get into the horrible business of killing nations and peoples until they are not a threat anymore. Being dead and all.

Decadence only exists in comfort. Once the killing starts in US cities with Ahmadinejad's call to convert or die (already given btw) you'll see a terrible unity. A common enemy intent on wiping you out tends to do that.

I'm glad I saw NYC before it was nuked.

I don't know if NYC will be nuked by a nuclear-armed Iran or its proxies. It's quite possible the country will submit by degrees without it coming to that. Dhimmitude has its comforts for some.

I agree, however, that Ahmadinajad has carefully and formally issued the requisite call to convert or die which properly preceeds violent attacks of jihad.

bq Freeto is indicative of the lack of perception among the PC Multi Culti Left.

Funny thing is you would be the first one to have ever in my life associated me with the "PC Multi Culti Left"!

It is indeed the overheated hyperbole and polemics, such as Jim's, which I am questioning.

BTW, I never doubted that Iran is meddling in Iraq, what I took issue with was the claim that it was the "chief" funding source for the Sunni perpetrators.

The lack of clear headed and forward thinking on the part of many will only lead to worse problems. To try and resolve the issues of Iraq by engaging an even larger nation, Iran, ...... with it's own internal fractures (as a source of future chaos), and with the many international arrangements it has (which will lead to many complications for the US) ...... is folly.

Thus silent diplomacy and the drudgingly slow work in Iraq are what we are left with, which is pretty much why we heard what we did from Pres. Bush. US forces (and allies, and whatever Iraqi forces) are left with securing borders, rounding up intruders, uncovering caches, etc. Along the way there will be a few spectacularly publicized clashes with brigades of the rebellious and insurgents.

However, all of that is a far cry from attacking another country.

The only difference now is that more US soldiers will die while we babysit the Iraqi civil war. The best strategy for us would be to pull out now, like we did in Vietnam in 1973. Vietnam went through some upheavals after we left, but they survived. And so will Iraq.

'truthprobe' writes: "Vietnam went through some upheavals after we left, but they survived." Actually, hundreds of thousands of them did not survive, but were murdered, along with 2-3 million Cambodians and a lot of Laotians, by the people we were trying to keep from coming to power. It takes a very cold heart or a very empty mind to write "they survived" in this context. Ugh.

Ah, Weev, so many such comments about Iraq depend on that kind of ignorance for their self-persuasion.

Jim Rockford - Yup, yup. I agree completely. Until those sleeping in the West wake up and realize the threat from Islam and it's enablers, we have an uphill battle. Decadence can only be practiced in comfort. That is one of the reasons so many of us yack about the return to basic Judeo-Christian ethics.

Molon Labe also hits it out of the park. You guys put it all so much better than my simple attempts a few posts back.

Thanks...

I see.
First we were at war with the terrorists.
Then we were at war with radical muslims.
Now we are at war with Islam.
How will we win this war? When Islam surrenders? Will all muslims have to convert for this war with Islam to be over?

I guess I must be a pc multi-culti leftist commie pinko who despises America because I don't think we are or should be at war with one of the world's foremost religions. Not that I have any respect for Islam--to me, it's as nonsensical as Christianity--it's just that with over 1,000,000,000 adherents, Islam, a belief, is not a defeatable phenomenon. But you are right. I can't perceive Islam as the enemy.

Btw, if Islam is really the enemy why are we trying to empower all those muslims in Iraq? Why are we trying to establish an army there? Having crushed their army 3 years ago, why are we allowing them to rebuild?

I just want to say (being to distracted to sit down and write an essay on the topic, right away) that a wake-up need not depend on a successful attack by the Jihadists. This is a difficult war, and grasping it's nature is easier for some than others. The variable determining and appropriate grasp of the conditions may not be another attack, but an accurate and detail description with some dramatic value. It's what policy game theorists might call "an authoritative description". It won't be that long before people begin to see the holes in the MSM's description, at which point they'll lose their "authority"... and we'll be off to the races.

The authoritative description of the Cold War didn't take hold until a good five to seven years after the end of WWII, and although it was picked at for the next 40 years it held together. I still don't see any alternative strategy for fighting a globally distributed totalitarian enemy than the promotion of their nemesis: liberal democracy. Containment wouldn't work in this case any more than you could bear water in a sieve, which leaves only the administration of an antidote to the virus causing the affliction. It's primordial logic, and there really is no alternative. This is bound to dawn on people before too long, whether there's another attack or not...

There's a reason people are screaming for benchmarks. They need a corrective lens to see the landscape.

It also took several years, maybe more, for people to realize that the Marshall Plan was a good thing. That as frustrating as Europe and "its problems" were, they were problems that the United States seemed inextricably brought into so long as it was a global power. The plan was presented by avoiding the media and having a General sell it, instead of an unpopular president.

I similarly believe that a failed state in the Persian Gulf region must be avoided or the U.S. will be back in less advantagous terms.