Invading Iran seems like a very bad idea, considering all the problems we've experienced invading a neighboring country less than half the size. If any Bush administration defense policy bigwigs are reading this, I just think that's something you might want to think about.
« Okay, one more time | Main | Ask me a hard one » Public service announcement06 Sep 2007 03:16 pm Comments (36)
I suspect that your right, liberalrob, but even bombing Iran seems to be an obviously stupid move unless we suppose that the Iranians will be content to just sit back and take it. If we're going to bomb them, it would seem to follow that either we'll need to occupy them or we'll need to resign ourselves to reprisal attacks. Now, I know that this seems utterly obvious to anyone with the least bit of foresight which makes me wonder why the administration seems determined to do just that. I've dismissed charges that the president and his staff are literally stupid as rhetorical hyperbole but if they can't see the obvious deficiencies of this course of action, it's going to be hard to draw any other conclusion. 
LRob is right, none of the wackos want to roll tanks into Tehran, but they do want to fly several thousand bombing sorties. That's a bad idea too, but a different bad idea.
There is a difference between invading a country and nation building. Our time in Iraq is being spent on activities we would probably avoid regarding Iran.
Look, it just doesn't make any sense to speak of "invading" a country. You have to identify a political objective, and then you have to identify what military objectives will help you in reaching the political objective. Speaking as one who has put his life on the line, the political objective should be related to the national security of the United States. For Iraq, this was relatively easy (unlike for Bosnia or Kosovo), the identification part, I mean. Political objective: deny Iraq to the terrorists. Do this by establishing a stable government, preferably a democracy. Military objective: eliminate the current government, and then provide forces to stabilize the country while Iraq can grow its own government and military forces. The projected time frame by me as well as others was 5-10 years to achieve this. We're at the 4.5 year mark, so it looks like my forecast was correct (so far). For Iran, what's the political objective? Overthrow the regime? Eliminate their nuclear power program? Reduce the influence the mullahs have on the country? Reduce their state sponsorship of terrorism? What exactly is the threat? Answer those questions and I'll opine as to whether our military is up to it or not.
Given that Iran is currently at war with us, a military response is not unreasonable. Iranian forces are directly attacking our soldiers in Iraq as well as training and supplying terrorists who attack our forces. To date, the US government has avoided too much discussion of this because we don't have the forces to invade Iran and we are hoping that moderates in Iran will have some influence. On the other hand, Iran is busily trying to develop nuclear weapons. If we are able to, bombing their nuclear weapon facilities would be an entirely reasonable thing to do. Whether or not it's the best option in the big picture is above my pay grade. Attacking Iranian training camps, supply depots/convoys, or other facilities used to support their efforts in Iraq would also be reasonable. But again, there may be big picture strategic and diplomatic reasons not to do so. I seriously doubt you are telling the administration anything they don't know. Do you have any other suggestions for how to deal with a hostile nation that is currently fighting a war with us? What should we do? Ignore them? "Not invading" is simplistic... we are going to have to deal with Iran at some point. Establishing ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good start, though... EI
Who wants to invade, or even bomb, Iran? I would think/hope that everyone would realize that it would be sowing the wind of the highest order. But I don't see anything like that on the horizon. What I see are a series of negotiations. Years of Euro-sponsored talks offered mostly carrots. Now the US is being asked to mention that it has some sticks. Keep in mind, too, that while folks here may be unhappy with the Iraq War, Saddam would be among the first in line for a do-over. Chaos on Haifa Street and hand-wringing in the Capitol do him no good. The mullahs are wearing shoes awfully similar to Saddam's, and they may be inclined to think hard before they go walking in them.
Given that Iran is currently at war with us I must have missed where this "war" was declared. none of the wackos want to roll tanks into Tehran Au contraire, they would dearly LOVE to roll tanks into Tehran. (I think we could even possibly do it.) They just know it's not sustainable; our brave troops would be surrounded, cut off, and systematically destroyed by superior numbers. By all accounts the Iranian army is unlikely to fold up like Saddam's did.
I must have missed where this "war" was declared. One of the deadliest threats to our Soldiers are explosively-formed projectiles (EFPs) manufactured in Iran and supplied to insurgents within Iraq. EFPs could potentially be made one-off by a very skilled machinist, but the numbers and quality we're seeing indicate a sophisticated manufacturing process in a purpose-built factory is being used to create them. That Iran was that source was known within the ranks well before the story broke within the media.
One of the deadliest threats to our Soldiers are explosively-formed projectiles (EFPs) manufactured in Iran and supplied to insurgents within Iraq. Another deadly threat are the thousands of weapons manufactured in the US and supplied to insurgents with Iraq. Are you advocating the bombing of the Pentagon?
Invading Iran may be a bad idea, but is it a worse idea than allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them?
The Turkish military has traced back captured weapons from Kurdish insurgents to the US. (if you don't believe me, look it up on Google) Does that mean we're engaging in a proxy war against the Turkish government? Iraq is an unstable country in the midst of a civil war. Is it really that hard to imagine neighboring countries getting involved without the knowledge or consent of their governments? And if you think that building sophisticated bombs is somehow beyond the Iraqis, well, then that's just silly. Iraq was a country armed to the teeth. We have armed it even more over the last 4 years. We can't account for where those weapons went because of a combination of incompetence and lack of controls. Finally, it is foolish to think elements in Iran would not take an active and/or covert role in a war in a neighboring country. Do you think some in the US wouldn't if Iran had invaded Mexico? Smart analysts who thought going to war with Iraq was a terrible idea in part pointed out the danger of sparking a regional war with Iran. And this little toxic mix of stupidity and warmongering could well lead to an act of war against Iran. And somehow, I won't be reassured by claims that we have "proof" that Iran was helping build IEDs, and therefore, airstrikes are really defensive in nature. Sorry, but hawks on Iraq have consistently overestimated the threat and underestimated the consequences of war. Color me incredibly unimpressed with this latest round of sabre-rattling.
Aside from the numberous statements to the effect that Iran would eventually destroy the US, Iran has been behind many terrorist attacks on the US, kidnapped US soldiers, and is currently supplying weapons, men, and training to the terrorists in Iraq. I'm not sure what else you'd call that. And what thousands of weapons manufactured in the US are being supplied to the insurgents in Iraq? I'm fairly certain that the Pentagon is working to keep weapons out of the hands of the insurgents. I've seen lots of pictures of Russian, Chinese, and other weapons that have been confiscated. EI
Supplying weapons is not a declaration of war. And we have not declared war on Iran, nor have they on us. We are not "at war" with Iran. Not yet.
I'm not sure what else you'd call that. Assertions without credible evidence, exaggerations, and no casus belli. You must have missed the story about the 190,000 US-supplied AK's and pistols that went missing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html There is an argument to be made that given the infiltration of the Iraqi army and police by sectarian militias, we have been arming and training all sides of the civil war.
Earnest Iconoclast wrote: "Aside from the numberous statements to the effect that Iran would eventually destroy the US, Iran has been behind many terrorist attacks on the US, kidnapped US soldiers, and is currently supplying weapons, men, and training to the terrorists in Iraq" When did Iran kidnap US soldiers? Can you provide a single news report to back up this claim? Of course not, because this didn't happened. And you're still asserting things without providing any proof of them. I can provide news reports about how Kurdish separatists in Turkey are using US weapons. Rob provided a news account of missing US arms. Heck, the Iraq study group documented the fact that the ministry of interior of Iraq was essentially arming the Shiite death squads, using our tax money, not to mention the fact that we're arming former insurgents on Al Anbar. Warmongers like you are peddling a pack of unverified assertions, half truths and full lies at great cost to the US. And if you get your way, the cost will be even greater. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were an Al Qaeda public relations operative paid to goad us further into implosion. But of course, I won't because your discredited side never stooped to the level of questioning the loyalties of domestic critics. Oh wait...
This comment deleted for trolling
Okay, Iran actually took soldiers, diplomats, and civilians hostage and held them for over a year. While those militant students may not have been official Iranian government agents at the time, they are now. Ahmadinejad was most likely one of the captors and others in the Iranian government were involved, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis They have continued to attack and support attacks against the US since then. They've used Syria and Hezbollah as their proxies. As far as the weapons go, losing weapons is not all that unusual. I seriously doubt that Iran lost the German sniper rifles that were found being used by terrorists in Iraq. Those rifles are rare and easily identified. Brand-new weapons with Iranian markings are being used by the terrorists. Members of the Quds force are in Iraq. Those guys are the personal force of the Ayatollah and they are not acting on their own. Some of the attacks against American forces have probably been the work of the Quds force. Why do Lefties love Iran so much, anyway? The government of Iran is about as far from a Lefty government as you can get. No civil liberties, a true tyrannical theocracy, no rights for women or gays, etc... I know, I know... Bush would probably do the same thing if he could. EI *GASP*
EI: It is truly silly to say that the Iranian hostage crisis from nearly 3 decades ago is causus belli for going to war with Iran now. Also, it is silly to say lefties love Iran. You see, we lefties have the ability that is nearly like magic of being both able to loath a regime as vile as the Iranian one and at the same time understand that the costs of military action would far outweigh the potential benefits. War with Iran is folly given the extremely low level of threat they represent to the United States, and the high likelihood of large number of casualties, of such a war. Not to mention the costs. And that any of these supposed intolerable aggressions would not be happening if we didn't have 150,000 of our soldiers in Iraq. And the thing that scares me about Bush is he just might be reckless enough in his belief about the efficacy of military force against Iran that he's going to make things even worse for us in that region and the whole world. I don't want to pay for another war brought to us by the same guy who gave us Iraq.
"At war" means something different than "supplying weapons to your enemies." Otherwise, we must have been at war with the USSR during their enjoyable stay in Afghanistan. Presumably, Iran has the same interests in Iraq that we had in Afghanistan when the USSR was occupying the place; they want to see us tied down and bled, because it makes their lives easier. (It's not like they're doing this for the good of the Iraqis.) If we could reliably eliminate their nuclear program, it would be worth doing. The world isn't going to become a nicer place the day after Iran sets off their first test and announces that they've joined the club. But can we manage it? And what will the cost be? Will we get dragged into a full-scale war in that case? (Could we avoid it, if the Iranian response to our bombing were a 9/11 scale attack in the US? Or even some clever and nasty military attack that involved a lot of casualties, like sinking a US carrier?)
This comment deleted for rampant trolling
We were at war with Russia for the entire Cold War... it was just that, a Cold War. We fought them on various battlefields, mostly through proxies, for decades. We ended up winning that war. It just wasn't a conventional soldiers shooting at soldiers on a battlefield type war. We've been at war with Iran in a similar fashion for decades, as well. It's just not a conventional war. We could cripple the Iranian economy pretty easily by taking out their fuel refining/importing facilities. I don't really want a shooting war with Iran right now. But I would like them to stop attacking us. I would also love for the theocracy to fall, especially to internal forces. And leaving Iraq wouldn't work... it would be losing a battle and giving them an advantage. EI
I seem to remember that in that very warlike Cold War which was never declared yet was nevertheless a War because the word "war" was right there in its name...in that War, a man named N.S. Khruschev said "we will bury you," sent nuclear missiles to Cuba, armed communist revolutionaries in countries around the world, and yet somehow we managed never to invade his country. We also didn't invade in 1948, before the USSR had the bomb, when they blockaded West Berlin and tried to starve us out. We managed to defeat them without a conventional soldiers shooting at soldiers on a battlefield type war, and they had enough nuclear weapons to incinerate the planet several times over. Now you're telling me that we simply must engage in such a war against a country that DOESN'T have that kind of nuclear arsenal, and won't for YEARS even if we left them strictly alone? A country a fraction the size of the old USSR, far poorer in resources and eminently weaker in all possible categories? We could cripple the Iranian economy pretty easily by taking out their fuel refining/importing facilities. Make sure you fill up before that happens, because the price of gas will break $8 a gallon the day after. And it won't come back down again for years. What effect might that have on our own economy? I don't really want a shooting war with Iran right now. But I would like them to stop attacking us. I would also love for the theocracy to fall, especially to internal forces. Then you should be at the front of the line marching against bombing Iran, because I believe nothing would be more certain to unite the Iranians behind their government than the big bad Great Satan dropping bombs on their territory.
Are you kidding? We fought a number of shooting wars during the Cold War. While we weren't directly fighting the USSR, we were fighting their proxies and our proxies were fighting their proxies. Also, the leadership of the USSR was interested in survival and was deterred by MAD. The theocratic leadership of Iran has stated that destroying Israel would be worth the deaths of millions of Muslims, all of whom would be martyrs. I'm not so sure that MAD would work against what appears to be a slightly deranged theocracy. Different enemies require different tactics. EI
Earnest, if you are going to comment on Iran, try having a few basic facts at hand. You advocate destroying their refineries, but anyone who knows the first thing about the Iran economy knows they are famously short on refining capability. See here for example. You also state, without support, that, "The theocratic leadership of Iran has stated that destroying Israel would be worth the deaths of millions of Muslims, all of whom would be martyrs." Can you provide a citation for this? Sounds like a Rush Limbaugh talking point, free of fact and full of bluster. And, don't, for a moment, leap to an absurd, Rush-Limbaugh-style retort, "All lefties love Iran." As szr noted so well, it's easy to both distrust a regime like Iran while also being careful to not let an incompetent Bush administration needlessly start another war while the real enemy, Osama Bin Laden, remains at large. Finally, if you are worried about women's rights and countries meddling in Iraq, check out Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a far more repressive regime than the one in Iran, and Iraq is flooded with Saudi fighters trying to kill US troops.
Earnest Iconoclast: If you use the term "war" to mean every long-running contest for dominance between countries, what do you call that thing where armies actually clash, shoot at each other, blow up each others' cities, etc? If Iran is immune to deterrence because they're all nuts, then why haven't they already openly attacked us and Israel. They can't win either of these wars, but they could certainly hurt us or Israel. They haven't because the know what the end of either of those wars looks like for Iran. How would that change with nukes?
I am aware that Iran's refining capabilities are limited as are their facilities for importing oil and gas. That is why they could be easily destroyed. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel should be destroyed and has stated that nuclear weapons are an option for doing so. Others in the Iranian government have stated the same things. Honestly, if Iran managed to hit Israel with a couple of nuclear weapons, what would we do? It would be a little late for the dead Israelis. They haven't attacked Israel, yet, because they can't. If they began moving conventional forces, we could stop them. Missiles with conventional explosives wouldn't destroy Israel. Nuclear weapons would be able to inflict enormous amounts of damage to Israel in a very short time. We could obviously retaliate but we could not prevent the attack. I am not a fan of Saudi Arabia. The problem is that the House of Saud, while bad, is probably better than what would replace it. At this point, Osama bin Laden is not the real enemy. Iran is the real enemy and has been for decades. Osama and his network of terrorists have been supported by states like Iraq, Iran, and Syria for years. If we capture or kill Osama, the Iranians will support someone else. EI
Honestly, if Iran managed to hit Israel with a couple of nuclear weapons, what would we do? With right on our side and in response to global revulsion at the first use of nuclear weapons since WWII, we would lead the largest military alliance in history in the forcible disarming of Iran.
Which would be made much more interesting, because Israel's retaliatory strike would probably leave a lot fewer Iranians than the current number around to be invaded and occupied.
Earnest, you backpeddle from, "The theocratic leadership of Iran has stated that destroying Israel would be worth the deaths of millions of Muslims, all of whom would be martyrs..." to, "Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel should be destroyed and has stated that nuclear weapons are an option for doing so. Others in the Iranian government have stated the same things." The second is as false as the first. Ahmadinejad has indeed said threatening things toward Israel, but never has been so specific as to mention nuclear weapons. Nor have any of the mullahs. Am I saying Iran is not a threat to Israel? Of course they are. But you are just inventing things here, and are not worth my time. Raise your game, brother.
Speaking of raising your game, I just re-read your comment and saw your Fox-news-provided canard that Iraq supported Al Qaeda. Tell you what, Earnest. Subscribe to the Atlantic (and, yes, read the articles), wean yourself of Fox News and Rush, and come back in a couple of years and join the adults. I won't hold my breath.
Charles, the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq are well documented. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not have any control over Al Qaeda, but Iraq definitely provided some level of support for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I don't get my news from Fox or Rush. I get my news from many different sources. Oh, and you've been following the mullahs around and recording everything they say? Your sure they've never mentioned nuclear weapons? I couldn't find any direct quotes (not that they'd be in English and googling Iran just pulls up hundreds of "No War with Iran" sites now) but I found several reports that Ahmadinejad specifically mentioned nuclear weapons as a tool to eradicate Israel. EI
And if you think that building sophisticated bombs is somehow beyond the Iraqis, well, then that's just silly. Iraq was a country armed to the teeth. We have armed it even more over the last 4 years. We can't account for where those weapons went because of a combination of incompetence and lack of controls. I'm going to be generous and assume you misunderstood me. The EFPs that we are encountering in Iraq have obviously been manufactured in an actual factory, due to the number and consistent quality. I'll be the last one to tell you the insurgents are stupid or incapable of building very good bombs, but these are not being created by some guy in his garage. It's the difference between a homemade car and a Cadillac. It's certainly possible for a sufficiently skilled person to create a homemade car of better quality than a factory-built one, but it takes the proper equipment and a massive per-unit cost with a low output. When you see thousands of cars of identical design and quality, you can safely assume that somebody has built a facility to make them. Some EFPs may be (almost certainly are) made locally by insurgent bombmakers, but there is an outside source for many of them.
Sorry for the 2x post... I thought of a better analogy than the car one. It's like ham radio--you can make one yourself, and it may be better than a factory built one. However, nobody will mistake a homemade radio for a factory-built one looking at it.
Earnest comes back here with more lame, unsubstantiated claims. Find something real and cite it here little man, or I am done with you. Oh, and in that other thread you sound like you are going to cry. Look, I am sorry to be the one to point out to you that you don't know how to argue. In the wingnut echo chamber, you are probably told again and again how clever you are. But you come up with one unsubstantiated claim after another. People point out the falsehoods or ask you to back them up, and you change the subject. Really, spend a few years reading seriously and try again.
Charles, Please stop projecting. You have slipped into total ad hominem mode. I don't really care if you are "done with me" or not. You can keep your head in the sand if you like and keep telling yourself that it's all the fault of Chimpy McBushHitler. At this point, I'd be worried if you did agree with me on anything. Those aren't tears of sadness... they are tears of laughter. EI
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The plan isn't to invade Iran, it's to bomb it. They'd LIKE to invade...but they know there just aren't enough troops. Not enough cannon fodder has volunteered to go fight their glorious democracy crusade.
Posted by liberalrob | September 6, 2007 3:41 PM