Officials Worried About Summer Attack

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threats

So officials are worried about a summer time terrorist attack in the USA. While I am concerned about possibly loss of life, I am more concerned about how the Bush administration might use such an event to his advantage.

If there is an attack this summer, such as subway bombings, mall bombings, or even a dirty bomb or chemical attack, what would the response of Bush be?

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

I'm sure it all depends on the severity of the attack, and who we end up blaiming. But I'm sure Bush has some exciting ideas of what he plans on doing once the next attack occurs.

[MelBrooksfan]

I don't think Bush would dare try to attack someone else at this point. If a terrorist attack were to occur over the summer, I think the people would likely react with a hardy, "You did this to us!" sort of exclamation.

[Thunder]

He is at the helm. He is incharge of keeping America safe. If we get hit again..and it turns out that again...he should have seen ths signs and connected the dots..then I will blaim him..and the terrorists..for whatever happens.

[gumboot]

He is at the helm. He is incharge of keeping America safe. If we get hit again..and it turns out that again...he should have seen ths signs and connected the dots..then I will blaim him..and the terrorists..for whatever happens.


You sound like Alex Jones when you say things like that...:rolleyes:

-Gumboot

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

I'm sure it all depends on the severity of the attack, and who we end up blaiming. But I'm sure Bush has some exciting ideas of what he plans on doing once the next attack occurs.

Hmmmm...is this a serious forum..or one that has been hijacked by anti-Bush nut jobs...for a forum that prides itself on debunking conspiracy theory's I think instead it draws weirdo`s.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I don't think Bush would dare try to attack someone else at this point. If a terrorist attack were to occur over the summer, I think the people would likely react with a hardy, "You did this to us!" sort of exclamation.

Of course...as a lefty you can`t wait...damn the people killed it`s all about demorats getting elected.

[Thunder]

There is nothing conspiratorial about demanding our leaders protect us and do whatever it takes to stop attacks. IF Bush had all the warnings he needed and did not act appropriately..then yes I would blaim him.

IF the attacks clearly could not have been prevented without there being a complete police state....then I would not blaim Bush. 7 years of a police state is not worth one day of stopping an attack. I'd rather live with moderate freedom and face the possibility of attack..then live without any freedom and hope that an attack has been prevented.

[strathmeyer]

I don't think Bush would dare try to attack someone else at this point. If a terrorist attack were to occur over the summer, I think the people would likely react with a hardy, "You did this to us!" sort of exclamation.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6691469435ced4cc0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6958)

[Random]

Rove probably has a couple of draft speaches already written up with blank spots that he can shove appropriate nouns into, and Bush is probably under orders to drop whatever he is doing and get out of public sight until he can be told what to do. They don't want another "concussed monkey" moment.

[gumboot]

IF the attacks clearly could not have been prevented without there being a complete police state....then I would not blaim Bush


So what previous attack could have been prevented without establishing a complete police state, which you blame Bush for?

-Gumboot

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Rove probably has a couple of draft speaches already written up with blank spots that he can shove appropriate nouns into, and Bush is probably under orders to drop whatever he is doing and get out of public sight until he can be told what to do. They don't want another "concussed monkey" moment.


Damn...strange stuff....

[SezMe]

That's an interesting chart strathmeyer posted in #8. Take out 9/11 and use the rest of the trend and what do you have today: a President with a roughly 0% approval rating.

[Augustine]

We would not need another attack to justify any attack on Iran. If the fact that Iranian forces are not only training, arming, and participating in attacks on US soldiers, but also kidnapping and executing them, has not inflamed public opinion enough, I don't think another terrorist attack will. Frankly, the Bush administration has downplayed Iranian involvement while it is a known fact among the military. I think a lot of the handwringing that "Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Iran" actually ignores the reality: that the US (and the UK as seen with the sailors) are doing their best to avoid conflict or escalation with Iran.

[firecoins]

Another terror attack WILL happen inside the United State irrelevant of who the president is.

If it happens this summer, and I hope not, Bush will be blamed. He will not get the reaction that he got after 9/11 because terrorism is now in the public's mind where 9/11 is was just not thought about. Bush is expected to prevent this attack because he has been office for 7 years where 9/11 happened 8 months into his first term.

I don't think the public trusts democrats on the protecting them from terrorism so a 2nd attack will not necessarily help democratic contenders in the 08 election.

[Random]

We would not need another attack to justify any attack on Iran. If the fact that Iranian forces are not only training, arming, and participating in attacks on US soldiers, but also kidnapping and executing them, has not inflamed public opinion enough, I don't think another terrorist attack will. Frankly, the Bush administration has downplayed Iranian involvement while it is a known fact among the military. I think a lot of the handwringing that "Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Iran" actually ignores the reality: that the US (and the UK as seen with the sailors) are doing their best to avoid conflict or escalation with Iran.

When did Iran do all this stuff? I’m not aware of any confirmed report of anything, just some incidental stuff that administration officials were trying to puff up into something big a while back. If Iran is attacking US troops, we need to hit back, if only through a quick air strike. Attacks on the US should not be tolerated. Our biggest problem in recent years is not that the US doesn’t retaliate, but that it retaliates against the wrong people.

[aggle-rithm]

He is at the helm. He is incharge of keeping America safe. If we get hit again..and it turns out that again...he should have seen ths signs and connected the dots..then I will blaim him..and the terrorists..for whatever happens.

Did Bush develop super powers when I wasn't looking? How can he possibly guarantee that every contingency is covered, especially when the terrorists know exactly what our strengths and weaknesses are?

I'm not worried, though. Even if there is a terrorist attack, odds are I (or any other American) will sooner be killed by an auto accident or a random act of violence than by jihad.

[Tailgater]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threats

So officials are worried about a summer time terrorist attack in the USA. While I am concerned about possibly loss of life, I am more concerned about how the Bush administration might use such an event to his advantage.

If there is an attack this summer, such as subway bombings, mall bombings, or even a dirty bomb or chemical attack, what would the response of Bush be?

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

I'm sure it all depends on the severity of the attack, and who we end up blaiming. But I'm sure Bush has some exciting ideas of what he plans on doing once the next attack occurs.

I feel sorry for you. You must have trouble sleeping at night knowing there might not be a tomorrow.

[Corsair 115]

Did Bush develop super powers when I wasn't looking? How can he possibly guarantee that every contingency is covered, especially when the terrorists know exactly what our strengths and weaknesses are?On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission report made a lot of recommendations in regards to strengthening America's defences against terrorists, and many of those recommendations still have yet to be implemented.

[Augustine]

When did Iran do all this stuff? I’m not aware of any confirmed report of anything, just some incidental stuff that administration officials were trying to puff up into something big a while back. If Iran is attacking US troops, we need to hit back, if only through a quick air strike. Attacks on the US should not be tolerated. Our biggest problem in recent years is not that the US doesn’t retaliate, but that it retaliates against the wrong people.

OSINT:


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

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/Press_briefings/2007/070702_briefing_transcript.pdf

Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat, R.I. on the Armed Services Committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/world/middleeast/27weapons.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5090&en=c6220eb9bdf58169&ex=1332648000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://reed.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=269509

[gumboot]

On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission report made a lot of recommendations in regards to strengthening America's defences against terrorists, and many of those recommendations still have yet to be implemented.


The US Government has to get lucky all the time. The terrorists only have to get lucky once.

-Gumboot

[Ziggurat]

If there is an attack this summer, such as subway bombings, mall bombings, or even a dirty bomb or chemical attack, what would the response of Bush be?

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran?

If the attack had Iran's fingerprints on it, quite possibly. If it's a nuclear weapon (not just a cheap dirty bomb), probably, even if Iran isn't tied to the attack (and there's a good game-theory reason for that too, BTW).

Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

You won't see a response even resembling that unless there's an actual nuclear bomb detonated. In which case, the gloves come off and it's anyone's guess what happens next.

[Random]

OSINT:



http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/Press_briefings/2007/070702_briefing_transcript.pdf

Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat, R.I. on the Armed Services Committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/world/middleeast/27weapons.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5090&en=c6220eb9bdf58169&ex=1332648000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://reed.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=269509

The explosively formed penetrator stuff has been pretty thoroughly gone over. While designing the device is complicated, once the pattern is out there, it is fairly easy to produce. Parts that could be used in EFPs were found in an Iraqi machine shop during a US raid. Even if they were produced in Iran (which is highly questionable), that does not mean they were provided to insurgents by the Iranian government. Lots of the insurgents have AK-47s, is Russia supporting the insurgents?

I don’t know enough about the Quds Force Operatives or the “training center” for the embassy attacks to make an analysis, but after Saddam’s nuclear program, biological weapons program, chemical weapon stockpiles, etc, I pretty much ignore anything that comes this administration either directly or indirectly until it has been independently verified.

This administration has lied about the freaking weather in Texas for crying out loud…

[Augustine]

The explosively formed penetrator stuff has been pretty thoroughly gone over. While designing the device is complicated, once the pattern is out there, it is fairly easy to produce. Parts that could be used in EFPs were found in an Iraqi machine shop during a US raid. Even if they were produced in Iran (which is highly questionable), that does not mean they were provided to insurgents by the Iranian government. Lots of the insurgents have AK-47s, is Russia supporting the insurgents?

I don’t know enough about the Quds Force Operatives or the “training center” for the embassy attacks to make an analysis, but after Saddam’s nuclear program, biological weapons program, chemical weapon stockpiles, etc, I pretty much ignore anything that comes this administration either directly or indirectly until it has been independently verified.

This administration has lied about the freaking weather in Texas for crying out loud…

This is not the administration, this is the U.S. military. The U.S. military and military intelligence community is not the administration. When Jack Reed, a Democratic Senator, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and gets high-level briefings on Iraq from military commanders and intelligence officers, can say that Iran is involved, I think we can safely say that this is not "administration lies".

This is one of the most frustrating things for many members of our armed forces. The U.S. military is NOT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION. When your soldiers tell you something, it is TRUE. ASK anyone who has served in Iraq and had access to the intel stream over there - the involvement of Iran is most definitely REAL. There is nothing political about the kidnap and murder of American soldiers.

[gumboot]

I don't know why Iran's involvement would surprise anyone. Just look at Iran's involvement in Lebanon and Syria. They love to meddle. Heck, unlike Iraq, Iran did actually get involved in the 9/11 Attacks, although only in a minor way.

-Gumboot

[Dorian Gray]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threats

So officials are worried about a summer time terrorist attack in the USA. While I am concerned about possibly loss of life, I am more concerned about how the Bush administration might use such an event to his advantage.

If there is an attack this summer, such as subway bombings, mall bombings, or even a dirty bomb or chemical attack, what would the response of Bush be?

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

I'm sure it all depends on the severity of the attack, and who we end up blaiming. But I'm sure Bush has some exciting ideas of what he plans on doing once the next attack occurs.
I think the Bush administration saw the new Transformers movie and just took it too far. We have to fight the Decepticons there so we don't have to fight them here!

It's also fearmongering for the failing 'troop surge'. Or else, why would Bush be so Adam Ant about all of us waiting until September to find out if it's working as opposed to, say, watching the news?

[BeAChooser]

"U.S. reconnaissance spacecraft have spotted a training center in Iran that duplicates the layout of the governor's compound in Karbala, Iraq, that was attacked in January by a specialized unit that killed American and Iraqi soldiers. The U.S. believes the discovery indicates Iran was heavily involved in the attack, which relied on a fake motorcade to gain entrance to the compound. The duplicate layout in Iran allowed attackers to practice procedures to use at the Iraqi compound, the Defense Dept. believes."

If this and all the rest of the Iran links are true, then Bush didn't really mean what he said about fighting terrorism. If this and all the rest are true, then Bush should be impeached for not doing anything about it. What in the world is he waiting for ... an invitation? A nuclear Iran? And if Iran goes nuclear does anyone seriously think they will suddenly behave? What is Bush waiting for? 0% approval so the polls no longer matter?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the Bush administration saw the new Transformers movie and just took it too far. We have to fight the Decepticons there so we don't have to fight them here!

It's also fearmongering for the failing 'troop surge'. Or else, why would Bush be so Adam Ant about all of us waiting until September to find out if it's working as opposed to, say, watching the news?

You really have your "Tin Foil Hat" on tonight...

HAAAAAAA....HAAAAAAA...

[Schneibster]

Mmmfff... OK. Reed is credible. Checked out his campaign financing, he's run-of-the-mill, and better'n most. Didn't like finding State Street on the list of donors, but it's only two grand, out of like several hundred thousand.

I'll admit that as a physics buff EFPs looked like one of those simple great ideas to me.

As far as the military's credibility, I find they're pretty much like anyone else: some are credible, some not so much. You gotta check. I will say that I don't apply any likelihood of bias to them any more than I do to members of the general public, other than an eagerness to apply their hammer to whatever problems come along. After all, what else do you go into the military to do? I wouldn't want people who didn't do that serving in my military. Why should I want it for my country's? But I account for it.

ETA: Not looking to make a nasty comment with that "great ideas" statement; I mean great as in a very creative use of physics, not great as in its great they're killing people with it.

[Corsair 115]

The US Government has to get lucky all the time. The terrorists only have to get lucky once.But the terrorists' odds of getting lucky can go up considerably depending on the situation in place.

[Puppycow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threatsWould he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

Unless it's a nuclear attack we're talking about, I think this is borderline tinfoil-hat grade paranoia.

[aggle-rithm]

On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission report made a lot of recommendations in regards to strengthening America's defences against terrorists, and many of those recommendations still have yet to be implemented.

True -- but I was reacting mainly to the common misconception that the President of the US can somehow foresee the future, stop hurricanes, control the economy, etc., etc. Therefore, anything bad that happens to the country is his fault.

[aggle-rithm]

But the terrorists' odds of getting lucky can go up considerably depending on the situation in place.

I agree. Terrorists are just like hackers. They aren't going to exploit a weakness that has already been patched, they going to go after a weakness that has been ignored or that no one has thought of.

[aggle-rithm]

....I am more concerned about how the Bush administration might use such an event to his advantage.


This statement just jumped out at me and I feel I have to respond.

I don't see how anyone could say that Bush's heavy-handed tactics over the last few years could be interpreted as being to his advantage. How has he benefited, exactly? His approval ratings are in the toilet, his party has lost control of Congress, and even die-hard political allies are turning their backs on him.

I think that Bush has been doing what he believes is right, however misguided that belief may be. His personality is such that, once he sets his mind to something, he can not be deterred, despite negative consequences. If he really cared only about his own personal advantage (whatever that may be), then he would take a more politically shrewd stand and take actions that would NOT guarantee he will go down in history as the worst two-term president ever.

[Darth Rotor]

Even if they were produced in Iran (which is highly questionable), that does not mean they were provided to insurgents by the Iranian government. Lots of the insurgents have AK-47s, is Russia supporting the insurgents?

I don’t know enough about the Quds Force Operatives or the “training center” for the embassy attacks to make an analysis.
I'll go a step in this direction. The US gave considerable support to the Muj in Afghanistan in the 80's. Did Russia declare war on the US? The Soviets gave loads of weapons and material to Viet Nam in the 1960's. Did the US go to war with Russia? (Yes, slightly different contexts, but theme is similar.) The US has a Monroe Doctrine, which it appeals to now and again, regarding foreign powers interfering within the American sphere of influence, the Western Hemisphere. Would it not be reasonable to expect Iran to have a similar policy within its neighborhood, the Persian Gulf region?

Iran was playing in Syria and Lybia, of course, but they were also involved (as were some Muj) in Bosnia.

Did the US declare war on Iran over that?

I could go on, but the fact that Iran is pursuing its aims in its own neighborhood by a variety of acts is hardly a casus belli, given the conditions under which the US entered the neighborhood recently. That does not quell my irritation that they are again involved with actions that get Americans killed, but it is understandable. While I would think that a stable Iraq is good for Iran, and an early end to the turmoil there of benefit to Iran, my point of view is not necessarily valid in Teheran.

DR

[Augustine]

If this and all the rest of the Iran links are true, then Bush didn't really mean what he said about fighting terrorism. If this and all the rest are true, then Bush should be impeached for not doing anything about it. What in the world is he waiting for ... an invitation? A nuclear Iran? And if Iran goes nuclear does anyone seriously think they will suddenly behave? What is Bush waiting for? 0% approval so the polls no longer matter?

I think it's an oversimplification to say that because Bush is not attacking Iran, he's not serious about fighting terrorism. I think it would be an oversimplification to say that because the American people are not advocating attacking Iran, they're not serious about fighting terrorism. Similarly, I think it would be an oversimplification to say that the American military are not serious about fighting terrorism, because there is no large movement afoot within the military advocating direct military action against Iran - if anything, quite the opposite. Iran poses a very difficult problem, especially so with their nuclear program, and there are no easy solutions. However, this argument that "Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Iran" ignores current reality.

[Augustine]

Mmmfff... OK. Reed is credible. Checked out his campaign financing, he's run-of-the-mill, and better'n most. Didn't like finding State Street on the list of donors, but it's only two grand, out of like several hundred thousand.

I'll admit that as a physics buff EFPs looked like one of those simple great ideas to me.

As far as the military's credibility, I find they're pretty much like anyone else: some are credible, some not so much. You gotta check. I will say that I don't apply any likelihood of bias to them any more than I do to members of the general public, other than an eagerness to apply their hammer to whatever problems come along. After all, what else do you go into the military to do? I wouldn't want people who didn't do that serving in my military. Why should I want it for my country's? But I account for it.

ETA: Not looking to make a nasty comment with that "great ideas" statement; I mean great as in a very creative use of physics, not great as in its great they're killing people with it.

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. I can't speak for other services, but in the Army, every officer, field grade and above, studies the elements of national power (DIME - Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic) as part of their professional military education. In strategic training scenarios at the schoolhouse, officers will advocate pursuing diplomatic solutions, applying economic sanctions, and using public affairs to solve realistic problems. It is far more common to see a non-military person believe that military action is a magic panacea - military personnel understand all too well the limitations of what can be accomplished through DMA, and the importance of integrating any military action (say, FDO) with the other elements of national power.

[brodski]

You sound like Alex Jones when you say things like that...:rolleyes:

-Gumboot

Not really, “let it happen through negligence or incompetence” (LIHTNOI) is a legitimate theory for many terrorist attacks, where as LIHOP isn’t.

[Random]

This is not the administration, this is the U.S. military. The U.S. military and military intelligence community is not the administration. When Jack Reed, a Democratic Senator, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and gets high-level briefings on Iraq from military commanders and intelligence officers, can say that Iran is involved, I think we can safely say that this is not "administration lies".

This is one of the most frustrating things for many members of our armed forces. The U.S. military is NOT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION. When your soldiers tell you something, it is TRUE. ASK anyone who has served in Iraq and had access to the intel stream over there - the involvement of Iran is most definitely REAL. There is nothing political about the kidnap and murder of American soldiers.

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

[Random]

I could go on, but the fact that Iran is pursuing its aims in its own neighborhood by a variety of acts is hardly a casus belli, given the conditions under which the US entered the neighborhood recently. That does not quell my irritation that they are again involved with actions that get Americans killed, but it is understandable. While I would think that a stable Iraq is good for Iran, and an early end to the turmoil there of benefit to Iran, my point of view is not necessarily valid in Teheran.

DR

The key point there is that the end of the turmoil in Iraq would be beneficial to Iran. With Iraq’s Shiite majority, any government that emerges from the system is almost guaranteed to be fairly sympathetic to Iran. I said in an earlier thread that this was my main problem with the idea of Iran providing weapons to the insurgents. The bulk of the insurgents are Sunnis who want to kill Shiites. It just doesn’t make any sense for them to provide weapons and training to anti-Shiite insurgents to destabilize a government that would probably be friendly to them once everyone got their act together.

[BeAChooser]

I think it's an oversimplification to say that because Bush is not attacking Iran, he's not serious about fighting terrorism.

If they have proof that al-Qaeda are operating freely out of Iran, using Iranian arms, and even building mockups in Iran of the facilities they will attack in Iraq, then the Bush administration has a responsibility to act on that information and stop it. If he does not, then he is not serious about winning in Iraq. Nor is he serious about defeating terrorists AND the allies of terrorists ... as he said he was going to do. That is not oversimplifying.

Similarly, I think it would be an oversimplification to say that the American military are not serious about fighting terrorism

Of course, I haven't said that. The military does what the President tells them to (as they should). The responsibility if the war in Iraq is lost because the insurgents were given a free pass in Iran and Syria rests solely at Bush's feet. Likewise, if Iranians build nuclear weapons and one of those ends up in terrorist hands, I will point my finger at Bush's failure to act when all the warning signs were present.

ran poses a very difficult problem, especially so with their nuclear program, and there are no easy solutions.

Iran is a lot more vulnerable than you seem to imagine. Iran's economy is extremely vulnerable. Shut down their oil facilities and you shut it down. It's airforce would fair no better than Iraq's did. And neither would its ground forces. But waiting is allowing Iran to acquire weapon systems that could cause immense damage to attacking forces. And of course once they actually do have nuclear weapons ...

However, this argument that "Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Iran" ignores current reality.

I agree. Bush seems to be doing everything he can to ignore the reality of the threat Iran poses now in Iraq and long term by NOT looking for an excuse to attack Iran.

[Badger]

Must purchase Haliburton stocks.

(Yes, I read Linda McQuaig http://www.lindamcquaig.com/index.cfm)

[Ziggurat]

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

Are you contending that Bush has given direct orders to lie?

As for what a given soldier would do if given a direct order to lie, that's purely speculation. But soldiers are not legally entitled to lie to Congress, orders or not. And soldiers are indeed legally required to disobey unlawful orders. They face much more severe consequences for lying than either politicians or journalists.

[Darth Rotor]

So if Bush ordered a soldier to lie to the press, that soldier would disobey?
Depends on the soldier. He could refuse the order as unlawful, and be free and clear. The trick is to recognize unlawful orders when they are given.

DR

[Augustine]

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

What is this, crazy hypothetical scenario day? Bush does not give orders to soldiers. Chain of command is Bush, SECDEF, COCOM Commanders (e.g. ADM Fallon). Order to deliberately lie is an unlawful order. Soldiers can disobey.

[Augustine]

The key point there is that the end of the turmoil in Iraq would be beneficial to Iran. With Iraq’s Shiite majority, any government that emerges from the system is almost guaranteed to be fairly sympathetic to Iran. I said in an earlier thread that this was my main problem with the idea of Iran providing weapons to the insurgents. The bulk of the insurgents are Sunnis who want to kill Shiites. It just doesn’t make any sense for them to provide weapons and training to anti-Shiite insurgents to destabilize a government that would probably be friendly to them once everyone got their act together.

Iran arms Shia insurgents such as the Mahdi Army. Iran is many complex factions, as is Iraq - even within Shias. Al-Maliki, who is Shia and certainly didn't help sectarian violence, has already warned Iran about engaging the US and using Iraq as a battlefield. Al-Sadr has given mixed signals whether he's going to work within the system or run away to Iran until the US leaves. Iran contributing to strife within the borders of Iraq (and contributing to deaths of American soldiers) is reality, deal with it.

[Augustine]

If they have proof that al-Qaeda are operating freely out of Iran, using Iranian arms, and even building mockups in Iran of the facilities they will attack in Iraq, then the Bush administration has a responsibility to act on that information and stop it. If he does not, then he is not serious about winning in Iraq. Nor is he serious about defeating terrorists AND the allies of terrorists ... as he said he was going to do. That is not oversimplifying.

Of course, I haven't said that. The military does what the President tells them to (as they should). The responsibility if the war in Iraq is lost because the insurgents were given a free pass in Iran and Syria rests solely at Bush's feet. Likewise, if Iranians build nuclear weapons and one of those ends up in terrorist hands, I will point my finger at Bush's failure to act when all the warning signs were present..

The military and the President also do what the American people support. If the public will is not there, not even initially, it will not happen. The military reality is that we do not have the manpower for anything more than small covert actions against Iran. The political reality is that the American public will not support anything more than that. The geo-political reality is that the Arab world and Europe won't support anything more than that.

Iran is a lot more vulnerable than you seem to imagine. Iran's economy is extremely vulnerable. Shut down their oil facilities and you shut it down. It's airforce would fair no better than Iraq's did. And neither would its ground forces. But waiting is allowing Iran to acquire weapon systems that could cause immense damage to attacking forces. And of course once they actually do have nuclear weapons ....

I would suggest you read Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, a publication by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center through the Army's War College Strategic Studies Institute. The last thing we need after our lesson in Iraq is to don rosy-color glasses to solve the Iran problem.


I agree. Bush seems to be doing everything he can to ignore the reality of the threat Iran poses now in Iraq and long term by NOT looking for an excuse to attack Iran.

We are close enough to agreement here, lot of variance on the fine details though...

[Darth Rotor]

Iran contributing to strife within the borders of Iraq (and contributing to deaths of American soldiers) is reality, deal with it.
The question is: why? What political end is achieved by doing so? One is to cause America political grief, both internally and externally. Other motives are not as clear to me.

I often wonder at the significant lack of effort to find a path to work with Teheran, particularly as there were some common (modest) efforts when OEF first began to cooperate where we could find a common interest: like the Taliban were needing a good whacking.

DR

[ambrose]

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

[Darth Rotor]

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

As a "devil's advocate" sort of counter, the ATF goes after those who sell illegal guns.

DR

[ambrose]

Here's another analogy, then.

Let's say somebody breaks into my house because they mistakenly believe I have stolen their golf clubs. This is later proven to be false. Let's then say my neighbors have come to my aid (perhaps out of their own self interest, perhaps not.)

Does the initial person who illegally/misakenly broke into my house then have the right to break into my neighbor's house?

[Augustine]

The question is: why? What political end is achieved by doing so? One is to cause America political grief, both internally and externally. Other motives are not as clear to me.

I often wonder at the significant lack of effort to find a path to work with Teheran, particularly as there were some common (modest) efforts when OEF first began to cooperate where we could find a common interest: like the Taliban were needing a good whacking.

DR

I am not so sure that there is much of a common path with Tehran on Iraq; I think our national interests in the region and theirs are too divergent. However, I also believe that we do not have a clear understanding of Tehran's national goals and objectives, or a comprehensive picture of all the different factions within their government. Within the Army, there is a spectrum of opinions on Iran ranging from almost ridiculously hardline (one officer I know frankly alarms me if he attains any kind of strategic planning position) to (IMO) dangerously naive. We need to refine our knowledge and certainly attempt to improve relations.

More importantly, IMO, is we need to engage other Arab nations in the ME who certainly have no desire to see Iran emerge as the most powerful regional player. This is a balancing act, admittedly, because no Arab government wants to be seen as the US's lackey. Backroom diplomacy needs to be exercised.

[Augustine]

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

It's not just weapons; more like weapons, financing, training, equipment.

[Badger]

I gotta say that all the hoo-haa about Iran sounds very familiar.

I know it sounds all "conspiracy theorist" I've yet to see anything more solid than the justifications for going into Iraq ended up being. Having been fooled once, I require greater proof this time.

[ambrose]

I gotta say that all the hoo-haa about Iran sounds very familiar.

I know it sounds all "conspiracy theorist" I've yet to see anything more solid than the justifications for going into Iraq ended up being. Having been fooled once, I require greater proof this time.

Fool me once, shame on.. shame on you.

Fooled me you can't get fooled again.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Fool me once, shame on.. shame on you.

Fooled me you can't get fooled again.


I guess all CIA intel should be disregarded until a Demorat admin is in place...then it will be all spot on...Maybe they will make "Secret Agent Woman" Val Plame the director of Intelligence?

Haaaaaaa...Haaaaaa...

[BeAChooser]

The military and the President also do what the American people support.

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?

This is not a democracy. It's a representative republic. The underlying principle is that elected leaders are to do what THEY judge best for the nation based on, for one, access to more information than you or I might have. We elect leaders to do that regardless of public opinion which varies from day to day depending on what the people have been told last and the loudest. Public opinion should be expressed in one place ... the ballot box ... if you are not satisfied with the last administration or a given congressperson.

It certainly shouldn't govern military decisions in a war once the elected officials have expressed the goals that are sought and the public agreed. Bush said early on that this is a war against terrorism and we will not tolerate states that support terrorism. And the people applauded. In fact, take a poll now asking if the government should do something effective about states that support terrorism and I imagine you will still find the overwhelming answer is "yes".

The other side in Iraq is clearly using terrorism to future its goals. The fact appears to be that Iran is heavily involved in supporting these al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations elsewhere. There is ample and still growing evidence that Iran is supplying arms, training and safe haven to those groups. There is evidence that Iranians are actually participating in the planting of bombs in Iraq. They are also participating in the firing of missiles into Israel.

If Bush and company are to obey the will of the people, they will stop these activities by whatever means necessary. If they don't, they should be held fully responsible when VERY bad things happen in the future as a result of ignoring the current activities of Iran.

The military reality is that we do not have the manpower for anything more than small covert actions against Iran.

This is nonsense.

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.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most. It would be a very lopsided victory. 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. Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment. 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. Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq, you would find the same thing happens as happened outside Baghdad to the Republican Guard during the last Gulf War when a relatively small group of second string US ground forces decimated (and I mean decimated) with air support the best forces that Saddam had ... forces just as capable as anything Iran now fields in its army. You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

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.

The political reality is that the American public will not support anything more than that. The geo-political reality is that the Arab world and Europe won't support anything more than that.

I think you are wrong. 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. 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. The only reason we were able to safely challenge Saddam in the first Gulf War is that Israel's action kept Saddam from getting the bomb by then. We face the same situation with regards to Iran today. 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?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This is nonsense.

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.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most. It would be a very lopsided victory. 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. Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment. 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. Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq, you would find the same thing happens as happened outside Baghdad to the Republican Guard during the last Gulf War when a relatively small group of second string US ground forces decimated (and I mean decimated) with air support the best forces that Saddam had ... forces just as capable as anything Iran now fields in its army. You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

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.


Agreed...BEER for you...

[Random]

This is nonsense.

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.

If they ignore that ultimatum, we should first dismantle their air defenses. That would probably take a few days or a week at most. It would be a very lopsided victory. 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. Then the ultimatum should be repeated.

If they refuse, we should set about destroying the rest of their military infrastructure and equipment. 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. Perhaps a DVD showing what happened to Saddam's government facilities during Shock and Awe will help them decide.

At any point should Iran try to throw it's army across the border into Iraq, you would find the same thing happens as happened outside Baghdad to the Republican Guard during the last Gulf War when a relatively small group of second string US ground forces decimated (and I mean decimated) with air support the best forces that Saddam had ... forces just as capable as anything Iran now fields in its army. You way underestimate US military capabilities, sir.

And if the Iranian government decides instead of open war to go for an Algiers/Vietnam/Iraq style cellular insurgency? We can't deal with Iraq under those circumstances. Iran has more than twice as many people, four times the surface area to cover, has not been crippled by a decade of sanctions, and if they have a lick of sense have been planning an insurgency type campaign for several years now.

Yes, the US can crush anybody under its heel in open war. But the lesson that everyone else is learning from Iraq is, "Don't fight America in open war, wait in the back alley with a lead pipe".

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And if the Iranian government decides instead of open war to go for an Algiers/Vietnam/Iraq style cellular insurgency? We can't deal with Iraq under those circumstances. Iran has more than twice as many people, four times the surface area to cover, has not been crippled by a decade of sanctions, and if they have a lick of sense have been planning an insurgency type campaign for several years now.

Yes, the US can crush anybody under its heel in open war. But the lesson that everyone else is learning from Iraq is, "Don't fight America in open war, wait in the back alley with a lead pipe


I love our Naval and land air power!!!!

[BeAChooser]

And if the Iranian government decides instead of open war to go for an Algiers/Vietnam/Iraq style cellular insurgency?

What Iranian government? The government in that case would be decapitated. For all intents and purposes, it would no longer exist, except in the most rudimentary fashion. We would control the skies over Iran in a way that we never controlled them over Vietnam. The remnants of whatever government remained would have to operate out of caves and use human couriers. All electronic communications in the country could be cut or intercepted. And we could do most of that without killing many innocent people. This is not the world as it was back in Vietnam.

Furthermore, there is no major power that will put it all on the line for Iran as the Soviets did for Vietnam. Not when all we are asking them to do is stop supporting terrorists. Technology has changed things and at least for a time we have a significant advantage over the Iranians.

Iran has more than twice as many people,

What can the Iranian government do with those people in this case? Arm them? Against what? I'm not suggesting an invasion of Iran. And no matter how many people they might arm, that militia (or more likely rabble) would likely turn their guns on the Iranian government should that government ask them to do something that would in effect be suicide ... like invade Iraq. In fact, the people might turn their guns on the government anyway for putting them in this situation. Especially when we make it clear to the Iranians via psyop materials that we are not invading their country but only asking that their leaders stop supporting terrorists.

four times the surface area to cover

So what? We aren't talking about trying to occupy that country. Just bomb it into submission. They have a choice ... stop terrorism or suffer the consequences.

has not been crippled by a decade of sanctions

But I'm not suggesting sanctions. I am suggesting they be told to toe the line. Act like a responsible state or we will reduce their military, government and, if necessary, portions of their economy to rubble. The stark reality is that the world can no longer tolerate state sponsored terrorism. Not in the age of WMD. Not after what happened on 9/11.

But the lesson that everyone else is learning from Iraq is, "Don't fight America in open war, wait in the back alley with a lead pipe".

No, you've completely missed the lesson in Iraq so far.

The real lesson is that you won't defeat terrorists operating in a country (and let's be honest here, it's FOREIGN terrorists who are causing most of the problems in Iraq now), unless you prevent those terrorists from acquiring safe havens (in which to train, etc) in nearby countries and prevent them from getting support from those countries. The real lesson is you will not defeat terrorism if you allow states to sponsor it.

The US military thought that by building forts along the Iranian and Syrian borders they could solve this problem. Well clearly that is not working. The solution is to carry the war to ANY government that allows al-qaeda terrorists to operate freely and supports them with funds, weapons and logistics. And that includes Iran, Syria, and yes ... even Pakistan. We either get serious about this threat or we might as well prepare for this:

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070126/allie.jpg

And don't think radicalism won't be following us home if we do.

[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?) :p 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 ****** 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 ****** 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. :p 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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes: 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? :D
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://forums.randi.org/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/printedition/asection/la-fg-pakistan15jul15,1,164788.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] (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86962&page=3)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mvP5GtIRVA) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fish_Called_Wanda) in old apartheid South Africa?

[Gurdur]

...This is not a democracy. It's a representative republic.
Don't be totally silly. No matter how much you hate democracy because people won't do what you hysterically order them to do, the USA is still a democracy; it is both a representitive republic AND a democracy.
Were the words short enough to understand?
If Bush and company are to obey the will of the people, they will stop these activities by whatever means necessary. If they don't, they should be held fully responsible when VERY bad things happen in the future as a result of ignoring the current activities of Iran.
McCarthy is dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy). Get over it already.

All I noted is that Israel did not violate a treaty to develop nuclear weapons
Strangely enough because it refused to actually sign any.

All I noted is that Israel is not sending people ... to kill our soldiers but Iran is doing that.
One of the sad and ironic facts of history is that official Israeli armed forces have killed many more official American armed forces than have official Iranian armed forces.
Don't think we didn't notice you avoiding the question.
Now THIS is REALLY weird. Do you always refer to yourself using the royal "we"?
:boggled:

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, no, wrong yet again on all counts. :)

Become Minister for Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fish_Called_Wanda) in old apartheid South Africa?
You two were having too much fun with the Viet Nam thing, I stayed out of it. Some of your revisionism I disagree with, but that horse is rather pasty at the moment. As that derail went south, I was far too busy in threads far too long with BAC, so I'll let the entertainment you two provided to all and sundry stand. :cool:

DR

[Gurdur]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Rotor]

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

It ran its course, and I find this continual appeal to "neo MaCarthyism" sloppy thinking.
The Democrats who were most gung-ho about Vietnam, since they were deadly afraid of being tarred as "soft on communism" etc.
JFK: pay any price, bear any burden, and oh, yeah, Diem has to go. :p So, now what do I do?
*bang*

We'll never know.

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

DR

[Gurdur]

I disagree. It was a natural populist reaction to what the myth of Communism represented. RRed Baiting was in fine form in the Thirties, MaCarthy didn't invent this mind set.
Hitler didn't really invent Naziism either, he was just its best illustration. The mess in the USA has many different causes; 1890-1895 and 1917 are extremely important, the creation and development of the AFL-CIO, depriving Eugene Debs of his constitutional rights etc., the anxiety to defend racist segregation etc..

McCarthyism represented one particular populist strand, but more importantly, it was the conscious development of a populist strand; it was indeed rule by fear, and self-perpetuating rule of fear. It was also sometimes down purely as financial blackmail -- firms during the Hollywood BlackList affairs made quite a lot of money out of "vetting" people.
It ran its course,
Not entirely whatsover.
The politics of artificial fear are very much still in evidence; as you can see from BAC, the strongman tactic of trying emotional blackmail is very much in evidence today still; and it really does poison political atmospheres.

Bluntly, the USA political atmosphere is still quite sick and could do with some major antibiotics to get a much more flourishing democratic process going; too much hidebound prejudices on all sides, too many clichés of no truth, regardless of what side you pick.
and and I find this continual appeal to "neo MaCarthyism" sloppy thinking.
1) Not an "appeal", a straight description of a particular tactic. It's either an accurate description or it isn't; if you think it's not accurate, say exactly why.
2) Merely because (as often) I deeply disagree with you, does not constitute sloppy thinking on my part -- I suggest it may well be on yours?
:p
JFK: pay any price, bear any burden, and oh, yeah, Diem has to go. :p So, now what do I do?
*bang*
More LBJ; perhaps his was the far greater tragedy.
I'll offer that a good, recent look at Viet Nam is by H.R. McMaster, a guy who a couple of years ago did some good work in North Central Iraq as Commander of the 3rd ACR. Dereliction of Duty is the book. Worth a look, he used stuff declassified in the mid to late 1990's as source material.
I'll take a look at it. Will take me about 2 months, I suppose, till I get around to buying it and reading it.

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

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[BeAChooser]

YOur posts come off like a Chickenhawk

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

The Brits fought the IRA for decades in Northern Ireland.

Talk about an irrelevant statement. :D

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

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


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

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

Why do you presume Iran is supporting Al Qaeda?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anything that floats can lay mines.

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

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

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

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

What means do you intend to use?

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

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

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

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

And should we really base our actions on their interests?

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

I don't see that ending.

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

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

Your answer is to start bombing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Chickenhawk talking points.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they would believe you . . . why?

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

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

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


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

Hunamitarian disaster pending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two can play that game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which conflict? The WoT or the War in Iraq?

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't know this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BeAChooser]

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

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

***********

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

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

... snip ...

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

**********

Weren't the Founders wise?

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

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

[BeAChooser]

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

Translation?

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

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

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

[Gurdur]

How can that be when these two forms of government are the antithesis of one another.
They're not.

You know, you really need to learn the difference between an unsubstantiated assertion and a reasoned argument; to put it even more plainly, you repeat your pet prejudices if somehow repeating them ad nauseum will somehow magically make them true. Reality check time for you.
Weren't the Founders wise?
Trying to quote definitions of English abstract nouns from a small group of people over 200 years ago as if they were still true is only displaying your own silliness.

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

Bloody stupid, what what?
Just precious.
To match you, Otto.
Translation?
If you can't understand plain English, this board is probably not the best venue for you. You really do want the bit in the middle explained again and again, eh?
Gurdur apparently doesn't believe
You have no idea what I believe. The fact you're willing to make things up simply means you are intentionally dishonest; it certainly does not mean I believe or disbelieve in various things.
As a liberal,
Since I'm not a liberal, there goes your dishonesty again.
I assume it was simply too hard for you to ask what my own politics are, but it really is bloody stupid of you.
Gurdur thinks about everything in terms of "feelings"
Only when I'm at the pub, Otto.
Gurdur thinks that facts counter to his claims poison the political atmosphere.
Wrong again.
ROTFLOL!
That seems to be the zenith of your intellectual potential -- the argumentum ad AOL. You need to add "eleventy-one!"

[Darth Rotor]

At least *mine* have the "hawk" part in them. :D
And? Are you implying that my not wanting to start a war with Iran makes me less than willing to use force? You spent how much time in war? I contributed my bit to help some Islamist scum meet Allah.
Talk about an irrelevant statement. :D
Relevant to the topic at hand, which you appear to misunderstand the time scale required to root out guerillas and create change.
You expect little Pakistan to do what we've not been able to do in either Afghanistan or Iraq?
Pakistan, and the Mushmeister, have the unique character of being local. I expect them to do what they can do, which is limited by local politics.
That's your only measure of whether they are any different than Iran?
Enough of the dishonest rhetoric already, BAC. You keep attempting to mischaracterize my remarks in such abosolutist terms that I tire of your blatant falsehood. Either honest up, or shut up.
At least, in comparison to Iran, they killed or captured a large number of al-Qaeda and turned some of them over to us for further questioning. That sort of cooperation is totally lacking with Iran and Iran appears to be actively helping al-Qaeda by supplying them arms and training, in addition to actively participating in operations against Iraq.
No surprise, Iran has been our political enemy since about 1979.
Wait! Just a moment ago you were trying to give us the impression that al-Qaeda and Pakistan are best friends.
No, you are lying in full now. That Pakistan allows a safe haven is a result of internal Pakistani political and ethnic concerns, not any love Islamists the Mushmeister and the Pashtun and various Al Q cells in Pakistan share.

Clue up.
Don't you pay any attention to the news or to the rest of this thread?
Yep. I read the news. Even sources from Canada, the US, France, elsewhere.
It's little things like this, posted by Augustine in #19: "U.S. reconnaissance spacecraft have spotted a training center in Iran that duplicates the layout of the governor's compound in Karbala, Iraq, that was attacked in January by a specialized unit that killed American and Iraqi soldiers.
Yes. Note above where I pointed out the Irani Spec Ops. I don't see how bombing Iran can eliminate that capability, though perhaps bombing some known Spec Ops facilities might do as the cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan (clinton) training camps did: slow it down a bit.
And this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran214.xml "According to recent reports received by Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians are training senior al-Qa'eda operatives in Teheran to take over the organisation when bin Laden is no longer leader."
Could be true.
And this: http://www.nysun.com/article/43442 "Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters to carry out attacks against coalition forces throughout the Middle East.
My only question is whether the fighters they are training are Al Qaeda, or are members of other factions. I don't consider the NY Sun as gospel, but its an interesting report. See my previous post, about Iran Spec Ops training people to infiltrate into Iraq. I do indeed pay attention. This is not news, it was going on when I was over there. What I want to know is, if this is so critical, why attacking Iran wasn't on your plate in 2004? Iin 2005?
The Iranian government has been providing a safe haven for fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group since they were forced to flee Afghanistan in late 2001.
Interesting. That is at odds with what other reports reflect, but it is certainly possible that Al Qaeda sorts are allowed to stay in Iran. They are also allowed to vacation in Qatar, where the US has a base or two, if the Emir's neutrality is respected. Should we now bomb Qatar? (This from a US Army counter intel briefing, 2004, but rather an open secret in the CENTCOM AOR at the time.)
But Western intelligence agencies now report that the Iranians are training Al Qaeda fighters at centers that were previously used by other Islamic militant groups, such as the Lebanese militia Hezbollah."
I again question the affiliation with Al Qaeda, but this is the same pattern of behavior Iran has pursued since 1979.

Why did we attack Iraq, rather than Iran, if this Gulf War is the War on Terror? What was the point? All it did was do Iran a favor, besides ridding the world of Saddam. (A good thing, from many angles.)
And this: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
Yep. Aware of that. Have the book.
And this: http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/iran_and_alqaeda_in.php "Further evidence of Iran's support of the Shia death squads and Sunni al-Qaeda has emerged. .. [and] information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq." Yep. Aware of that. We sell weapons to Israel. They shoot them into Lebanon. Is that our fault? I don't think so.
Again, I didn't have to dig to find those examples. They are out there by the hundreds. You just choose to ignore them.
Nope. Unlike you, I don't look at them through a paper towel tube.
"Save haven" might be the wrong word when al-Qaeda by the hundreds are being killed in that area by Pakistani troops.
Wrong again, if you bothered to read. For the last five years, Northwestern Pakistan has been a refuge, a safe haven for Taliban and Al Qaeda. That is a material fact, as it has been used to stage attacks into Afghanistan, and to retire to, relatively unmolested when compared to what is going on in Afghanistan, under the cover of local tribal chiefs and allies.
You mean send in the lawyers (I mean clowns)?
Nope. You said that, I didn't. Try to keep track of what I wrote, and what the voices in your head are screaming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2951938.stm "US federal judge has found Iran liable for the 1983 bombing of a US barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which left 241 marines dead."
Duh. We knew that back in 1983. How is this news? IIRC, that ruling helps defend the freezing of Iranian assets in the US, part of the full spectrum conflict between the US and Iran. Four standard elements of power:

Diplomatic
Information
Military
Economic
You mean the thousands of suicide bombers they claim to have trained? Frankly, I think you are just waving boogie men at us.
Look at what you just wrote. I am not the one waving boogie men about. Think again about the words you use, please.
Whether we do something about Iran or not, it appears suicide bombers are being used anyway. Iran is ALREADY helping suicide bombers who are targeting US assets and allies.
Yes. And given the pattern since the 1970's, will probably continue to do so.
That being the case, we might as well do something about the source and promote a change of government in Iran that will end that type of activity. I'm sure Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would agree.
They'd also agree with using spies and assassination against the Syrian and Iranian leadership. They would have suggested the sniper actually pull the trigger on Al Sadr in August of 2003, and in the spring of 2004, and in the summer of 2004. They'd also advise us to know the nature of the war being embarked upon, and the object. They'd also both suggest we know our enemy, and the people, as well as we know ourselves, which seems not to have been done in Iraq. Perhaps the people in Washington have learned, perhaps not. I am not bettig the over, given the rhetoric.

Your plan: bomb Iran into a regime change. Why would this work?
This is just another boogie man. There is no need to institute a draft for the approach I've outlined. We aren't going to invade Iran and should Iran try to send it's army our way, the existing forces are more than capable of dealing with it.
Right. If we bomb them, no ground troops, no decisive result, and no need for a draft. See again the dispersed nature of Spec Ops operations, who can continue to infiltrate people into Iraq regardless of how we make the rubble bounce. (Another argument for beefing up the Screen/Guard mission on the Iraq/Iran border.) How certain are you that the US has all Iranian Spec Ops facilities on the target list?
Until it is clear that Iran's government has stopped supporting/helping those trying to destabilize Iraq and has closed down all al-Qaeda operations in their country. Turning over the senior al-Qaeda in their "custody" might be a nice gesture too.
That would be a great move, what is the quid pro quo offered from Washington? Note, again, Persians have pride, and egos, also.
But not in quantity and at some point the use of small civilian craft becomes a violation of the Geneva Conventions. At some point, their use would make turning the Iranian coast into a "free fire" zone acceptable ... even to the world at large. How bloody this becomes over the question of whether they will stop acting like terrorists and supporting terrorists is really up to them.
Not a violation of Geneva, but a reclassification of the armed mine layers as combatant forces. This goes back to how you prove it was armed before you shoot at it. That is so we can stay on the good side of Geneva, for our own reasons.
How about concurrently? You seem to think the Iranian IAD will be effective.
No, though concurrent is not a bad idea. But it will take time (a few days) to take down the IAD network.
What do you base this on given the experience the US Air Force and Navy have had with suppressing and destroying air defense systems the last decade or so?
See above.
Good grief. You're not suggesting the Iranian government would hide the full transcript of an ultimatum from it's people just to get some of them killed?
No, but you just did. It may also be repeated far and wide to show what jackasses the US are. Not sure how the Teheran government would handle it.
And do you think only Iran can broadcast in Iran? You think the US can't deliver psyop materials to the country in the day's leading up to the attack? Even simple printed flyers delivered to the largest cities would spread the word quickly. You think we can't do that?
Knock it off with the attempts at mind reading and mischaracterization BAC, it is dishonest.
Wasn't one of the favorite lines of the anti Iraq invasion war crowd that the Iraqis deserved the government they had because they *allowed* Saddam to remain in control? Why didn't they just rise up? Well this isn't the same thing.
I don't ascribe to that position, never did, as I understand very well that Saddam ran an authoritatian, Stalinist/Ba'athist form of government. Blaming the victims was rather idiotic, wasn't it? The last time the Shia rose up, in the South, in '91, Pres Bush (and Schwarzkopf's team) sorta bailed on them, thanks in part to not prohibiting helicopter flights in the southern no fly zone after the cease fire.
What you forget is that unlike Saddam's Iraq, within a few days of Iran's government ignoring the third or fourth ultimatum deadline, there would be little in the way of organized government or security left.
Really? What I forget? I can't forget what hasn't happened, and I don't presume the enemy is stupid. On what do you base this assessment?
I'm almost certain that the security forces that allow Iran to maintain its control over it's people would be on the target list should we get to that stage of the crisis.
I am certain that security force C2 nodes would be targeted. I am also certain that the Iranians saw what we did in Iraq and have tried to develop plans that counter our approach there. We don't make much of a secret of our general methods. They can use the internet.
And don't you remember what unarmed crowds managed to do in the Soviet Union? Why couldn't the same thing happen in Iraq? Besides ... doesn't Iran claim to be a democracy? :D
No, your continued falsehood sustains my contempt for your style of discussion. Iran claims to be an Islamic Republic. Do I have to drag out that diagram again?

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

Look at who the supreme leader is, who is and is not elected, or appointed, who is secular, who is not.
And should we really base our actions on their interests?
No, we should base our actions on our long term interests.
So you find it acceptable as things now stand?
No, but I find your solution simplistic and moronic, as moronic as Rummy's assumption that he could fight a war, and an occupation, on the cheap. Check out the recent article on MRAP in 2003.
al-Qaeda having safe haven ... REAL safe haven ... in Iran?
The US had blinded its own Intel organs inside Iran, so the US is rather beholden to allied intelligence to provide intel inside Iran in support of much of anything. Knowing what Bush and team have done lately, what incentive do allies have to play along? The recent ops reported in the press down in Baluchistan were, IMO, a good idea, too bad they got public press. Blown OPSEC, again.
And getting enormous support to try and destabilize Iraq? You do realize that's a prescription for our losing in Iraq. And perhaps the War on Terror.
While the US can look bad in Iraq for a variety of reasons, the "win" of getting rid of Saddam, and of liberating the Kurds in Iraq is already achieved. "Losing" Iraq to an Islamist government is already taking place under our own noses. Maliki and his Shia sponsors are more likely to set up an Islamic Republic (and thus keep the civl war going for some time) than any other form of government, so in a sense that "loss" is already a fait accompli, based on our own actions, and regardless of Iran's influence, which is not trivial -- all Spec Ops, Al Quds, and support for guerillas and terrorists aside.

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

Not holding my breath.
My answer is a clear means to deal with it. What you offer is nothing but vagueness. You even seem to admit we might as well learn to live with it. Live with islamic terrorism? How many 9/11's will be acceptable each year?
Iran wasn't behind 9-11. Let's not try playing that card, shall we?

We've been "living with" Islamic terrorism since Munich 1972. I agree with you that our efforts to counter it need to improve. No question. We've also been dealing with Islamic terrorists in the Philippines for over a decade. Do you want to declare defeat there since we have not bombed Manilla?
We can't live with it because those Iranian actions will cost us victory in Iraq. And then perhaps elsewhere. And once Iran has the bomb the cost of doing something about Iran may be insurmountable.
Yes, Iran with a bomb allows a deterrent, no question. Thus, getting Russia to stop supporting their program is imperative.
What even Bush hasn't come to realize is that we are in a life or death struggle with islamofanatics.
Is it a long term war? Yes. Is Bush unaware? No. Is he dumb enough, or are his team dumb enough, to think this problem has a quick solution?. No, though some of the moves in Iraq make me wonder.
And time isn't on our side.
Depends on what your aims are.
You missed my point. The use of civilian fishing vessels to lay mines might be considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits hiding military articles in civilian infrastructure.
Nope. Using a fishing vessel to lay mines is a simple act of commandeering a civilian vessel into military use, and thus making it a viable target. It's that simple.
http://www.nysun.com/article/56188 "On Iraq's Border With Iran, Security Is Lax"
See my previous comments on what I'd do regarding the infiltration.
Of course not but what they are doing clearly isn't working. They've known about this problem for 3 or more years and still it is easy to find credible reports of Iranian supported/trained al-Qaeda carrying out attacks inside Iraq.
See my comments on troop levels, and the underresourcing of the effort.
I'll say it one more time. You know absolutely nothing about me. Actually, your use of the Chickenhawk label is rather laughable. It's a sign of weakness in your debate arguments. It is an attempt to stifle debate.
It's an attempt to label your talking points, as I noted. It is accurate. But enough, you are not a Chickenhawk. Happy?
Regardless of my background (and you actually know nothing about me), do you honestly think only people who have served in the military should be listened to when it comes to US foreign policy and defense matters?
Nope. Stop trying to put words into my mouth, thanks.
And just what sort of deal (or should we say blackmail payment?) do you envision? Lot's of cash? And how long will we be blackmailed?
We have been blackmailed by Egypt and Israel since about 1979 into 3 billion or so a year, apiece, to not fight each other. Camp David.
With respect to Iran, the Soviets ... I mean Russians ... could put a brake on shipment of nuclear related materials and high tech weaponry to Iran yesterday. But they haven't done it. No, they (and China) seem more than happy to supply Iran with materials that will help kill Americans should we try to stop Iran's terrorist related activities.
Yep. So, what now? Must we bomb Russia? China? They are, by this line of inquiry, aiding and abetting Iran by enabling their operations to cost America additional blood and treasure in our efforts in Iraq.
They've had no qualms about supplying Iran with TOR-M1 missile systems. That wasn't a responsible thing for Russia to do.
Why do you say that? We sell arms, the Russians sell arms. The French sell arms.
One more thing. Just how many times should we and Russian's send a "forceful" message to Iran about nuclear enrichment (that was all the latest meeting between Bush and Putin said they'd be doing)?
When the Russians suspend shipments, I'll consider their actions concrete. Until then, you are right, it's a lot of talk.
Stopping terrorist attacks by Iranians doesn't seem to be.
The art of geopolitics is to make it so. I also seem to recall a few years ago some cooperative efforts between Russia and US in terms of War on Terror, since Vlad and his bunch still have Islamists to deal with, for example in Chechnya.
They are already doing that. Bombing doesn't worsen that situation. What bombing does is put a clock on Iran's support of such activities. The longer they wait to end the bombing the weaker Iran becomes. At some point it may be weaker than all the neighboring countries. Now if I were an Iranian leader, that possibility would worry me. I'd look at that situation and see a losing cause ... one that might actually get me killed.
It might or might not have that effect. My concern is not the ability of the US to make the rubble bounce, it is, remember Serbia and 71 days, how long the air campaign takes and what cost is exacted, politically, for that.
Balderdash. Iran, unlike the US isn't a welfare economy. Destruction of the Iranian government may hardly affect the average person's lifestyle (except perhaps provide MORE freedom).
Heard of the gasoline subsidies in Iran? That's a form of welfare.
You just prove what I said ... that Iraq did not face our best units.
Nope.
I didn't say it wasn't. But it wasn't our heaviest or most lethal division. And that's all I said it wasn't.
I am curious as to how that matters. Are you saying that the 3d ID didn't succeed? How much faster, given a sand storm, operational tempo, and logistics trail problems do you think 4th ID would have gotten to Baghdad?
I understand logistics. In fact, one of the reasons we need Iraq to be successful is logistics. Again, the point I made is that Iraq did not face our best units ... nor the bulk of our army.
"The bulk of our army" could not get into the fight due to . . . logistics, and the hard political fact that along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia did not allow for an operation based from their soil.
You overlook the fact that it is a multi-staged campaign. Not all of that happens at once. And some of it doesn't happen at all (oil fields destroyed).
I overlook nothing. Your stage is one phase, an air campaign. Then what, Major? As to the oil fields, you noted them as an economic vulnerability yourself, now you take it off the table? OK.
Hardly any of that is likely to happen if the Iranian government shows ANY sanity.
They don't look at the world the way you do, so I'd not presume to guess what the Iranian leadership considers sane, but I do understand "stubborn."
If it doesn't, then we surely don't want Iranians armed with nukes helping islamic-terrorists who openly proclaim they seek the downfall of the west.
The Russians spent some decades, with nukes, pursuing the downfall of the west. We are still here. ;)
Why would that be pending when we haven't attacked civilian infrastructure or civilians? The power plants will still be intact. So will the water and sewer treatment plants. And the marketplace. Even the oil refineries shouldn't take long to get back up and running.
OK, so you limit the destruction the US does by air, but you wish away any damage done by any civil disorder fomented by government losing its grip.

Why?
Unless Iranians destroy them themselves. Sounds to me like you have created another non-existent boogie man to scare us from a course that needs to be taken.
Why do you assume them away?
That might be believable if Iran and al-Qaeda weren't already acting on that rhetoric. There are Iranian missiles launched by Iranians falling on Israel. Osama has set up operations in Gaza.
Really? Interesting. Got a source? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Lebanon? He seems to have people operating there.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They are acting like that.
Could be. We worked with some real ********* during the Cold War. We provided some help to Saddam to keep Iran busy with him.
Ah ... so it is YOUR solution that requires the draft.
Nope. The draft, we both seem to agree, is a non starter.
I just contend that if you allow al-qaeda a safe haven from which to destabilize Iraq and in addition add help from Iran, the likelihood of qwelling the insurgency in Iraq is nil.
It is low. The unknown is how badly infiltrated the current Iraqi government is, and what they can do once we leave.
Iraq is currently the most important front in the WoT. Failure in securing it would be a major blow in the WoT. Our victory would be a serious blow to the objectives of al-Qaeda.
Al Qaeda doesn't need Iraq as a base of operations to succeed. Didn't need it before 9-11, don't need it now, and if what you claim about Iran is true, they already have a secure base to work from.

It is not in Maliki's interests for Al Qaeda to set up shop in his nation, once we leave.
Like I told the other poster ... there is also an unknown of what happens if you don't. And those unknowns may be even bigger and potentially more serious.
Yes. No guarantees.
Just as long as it's not a pro-terrorist faction. Just as long as its a hands off Iraq faction. That would be sufficient.
Got anyone in mind? Or, are you wishing away the undesired outcome, that a similarly hard line faction replaces the current gang?
Just allowing al-Qaeda safe haven in Iraq, which he was already doing, would have caused serious problems for us. Like I said, what if al-Zarqawi kept launching mass casualty attacks against western allies from the safety of Iraq?
Good question. That concern was one of the reasons a pre-emptive war was chosen, to forestall it. Now, let's look at the outcome.

Is it as desired?
And that attack, by the way, had the US embassy in Amman as a target. Do you care about the occupants of that embassy? Or any US embassy?
More than you'll ever know. Saddam, regardless of how other factors played out, was a guy who looked after number one first. He had to assess the risks of being tied to successful terrorist attack staged from his country. Al Zarqawi being in Iraq and active is a subtly, but importantly, difference from Saddam actively encouraging him to act. What Saddam could also do, if such an attack were successful, is choose to round up Al Zarqawi, or some of his soldiers, and turn them over as his "contribution" to reducing Islamist terrorism. Not sure if he could have gotten away with it, but Saddam was not a big fan of Islamists, given his generally "progressive," modernist nature as a Ba'athist.
If al-Qaeda says creating a safe haven in Iraq is important to their long term plans, then shouldn't you believe it has something to do with the WoT?
It does now, certainly, since the conditions on the ground are more favorable to Al Qaeda than they were when Saddam was in charge.
Well maybe there isn't a difference. I just don't want to ruffle the feathers of folks on your side of the aisle. A lot of them seem to object to implying the other side is fascist. They all KNOW that Bush is the real fascist. :D
I am on my own side of this discussion, BereftofACerebrum. If you want to agrue about Bush = Fascist, go talk to Ion. He's about your level of dishonest poster. I believed Colin Powell, and I understood the mid term (5-10 year) problem of his nuke and chem, and perhaps bio, programs being left unchecked. My bigger concerns were five in number.

From a recent discussion, now in the archives, one of my pearls of wisdom. :p
Why are you asking me? I am not Paul Wolfowitz. I would get a kick out of planning and coordinating a half dozen B-2's, filled with 2000 and 5000 pound PGM's, in a planned strike on the black stone of Meccah in the middle of the Haj.(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Supplicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca%2C_ Saudi_Arabia.jpg/800px-Supplicating_Pilgrim_at_Masjid_Al_Haram._Mecca%2C_ Saudi_Arabia.jpg)j.

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

I don't see it happening any time soon, which is probably just as well for world peace.
When you can have a conversation that does not include continued attempts to put your words in my mouth, that might be nice. Until then, we have beaten this horse about into glue, and we are not going to agree on the core matter:

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

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

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2053068&postcount=31

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

DR

[Ziggurat]

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

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

[Darth Rotor]

Minor point: it COULD be that simple. But if the sailors on that boat aren't in military uniform, and go out to drop mines while trying to look like civies, that is indeed a violation of the Geneva conventions, and it would complicate countermeasures.
How is that? Are Special Operations by rule a violation of the Geneva conventions? I don't think so.

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

You could also call it a simple crime.

Deception is part of war.

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

DR

[Ziggurat]

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

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

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BrayingAssConehead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong. Other reports reflect this, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, but you just did.

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

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

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

You seem to have problems seeing question marks.

Iran claims to be an Islamic Republic.

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

Best we tell the NYTimes too ...

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

ROTFLOL!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Iran wasn't behind 9-11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am curious as to how that matters.

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

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

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

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

And you objected to that.

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

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

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

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

And you objected to that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Really? Interesting. Got a source?

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Darth Rotor;2775822] Al Qaeda doesn't need Iraq as a base of operations to succeed. Didn't need it before 9-11

They had Afghanistan. They no longer do.

, don't need it now,

They said they needed it in captured documents.

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

But they don't "own" that one.

Saddam was not a big fan of Islamists

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg

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

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

I believed Colin Powell

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

[Darth Rotor]

I find folks who engage in this sort of nonsense during a debate are usually losing that debate. But then, that's just my observation.
You continual attempts to put words in my mouth is insulting, so I choose to respond in kind. If you don't like being insulted, don't try putting words in my mouth. It's that simple.
Did you miss the question mark following what I wrote? I was asking if that was your only measure.
More dishonest BS from you.
First of all, your use of the phrase "safe haven" is dishonest.
Nope, you are wrong. It is their operating base, and has been for years, for operations into Afghanistan, where they don't have to face the Coalition forces thanks to the Mushmeister's own choices, and his internal problems. That his people occasionally have a success does not change the fact that many of the leaders in those areas are hostile to his government, and sympathetic to Islamists. This provides cover and support for groups who would otherwise be vulnerable to Coalition efforts in the WoT.

You don't understand. The bombing campaign isn't designed to eliminate that capability although it might put a dent in it. It's designed to change the mind of the leaders of Iran so they don't send such forces to Iraq or against us elsewhere. The leaders will come to view the cost as too great very quickly if you start eliminating all their big and expensive toys.
Another disciple of Warden. Wonderful. I'd like to know how you support this assertion based on the historic indecisiveness of air campaigns, on their own.
And yes, I know it's not just al-Qaeda that Iran is helping:

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell ... snip ... Caldwell also said on Wednesday that the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters."
Yep. This is not news.
How do you know it wasn't? I've been consistent in saying that the US cannot allow Iran to destabilize Iraq and should send them a "message" ... and I wasn't talking about something on paper.
I understand that. Clinton also sent occasional messages to Saddam during the 1990's. Note how effective that was.
I've been highly critical of the Bush administration in this regard.
I was critical of the Clinton administration in that regard.
Don't you think it's about time to put an end to it? Especially in this post 9/11 world?
That was the idea of the War on Terror, as advertised. Instead, we attacked Iraq.
For one, Saddam was perceived as more unstable than the leaders of Iran at that time and thus more likely to do something rash. Remember that Iran's current leader was not yet in power. So the pronouncements emanating from Iran were much more moderate in tone at the time. Not lightning rods like Saddam's statements about leading his army to conquer Israel. Saddam openly applauded the 9/11 hijackers. Iran's leaders did no such thing.
What makes you think the hardliners will not be replaced without the US bombing them?
The judgment about Saddam's irrationality seems more than sound, especially in hindsight. We now know that Saddam ordered the use of WMD against a non-combatant in the first Gulf War. That's not a rational act. We've always known he tried to assassinate an ex-president of the US. In fact, looking back, one can see he was so crazy that he willing to let his country be invaded, his army and ambitions for arab world dominance be destroyed, and he himself be put on the run, rather than cooperate with UN inspectors in proving that he didn't have WMD ... something the anti-war movement claims he didn't have.
Yep, he was stubborn and proud.
Here's another reason Iraq was chosen. We were already at war with the regime. Gulf War I never ended. In fact, the audio tapes captured in the invasion of Saddam and his aides meeting during the cease fire era show they viewed themselves still to be at war with the US.
Yep. The cease fire had never been resolved, so one of the arguments was that his material breach left him subject to a continuation of that operation.
But now, time is on Iran's side. The longer we wait, the stronger Iran becomes.
You seem to forget that Iraq and the US have not been firing missiles into Iran. Whereas, Iran supported terrorists in Lebanon have been firing them into Israel. Israel is entirely justified in attacking Israel where has Iran has no legitimate excuse for helping terrorists attack Iraq and participating in attacks in Iraq.
Don't forget, not at all. Israel is more than capable of handling its own security problems. I tend to agree with the latter, from my pont of view, but their operations in Iraq are easily understood as an attempt to influence the shape of post war Iraq, just as our attempts to install democratic governance there is an attempt to influence the shape of post war Iraq. They can't confront us directly, no, they are not that strong, but they can, being local and having local connections in Iraq, attempt to influence who doesn't come into power. It is in the interest of Islamic Republic of Iran for Iraq to become an Islamic Republic, not a Western oriented democratic or constitutional republic.
So you are claiming there have been no Pakistani government attacks on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in "northwestern Pakistan"? You are claiming that Pakistan has insisted the US not attack al-Qaeda and Taliban in "northwestern Pakistan"? Hmmmm?
No, I am not so claiming, but I'll point out to you that attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda by Pakistan, which are not and cannot be followed up with occupation or conquest that renders that operating area unsafe for Al Q and Tal to stage from, are at best spoiling attacks. They don't change the nature of support and succor provided there, and cover from the Coalition in Afghanistan.
Of course they would. But first and foremost they were proponents of TOTAL WAR. I rather think they'd laugh at your proposed solution to the Iranian problem. (By the way, are you proposing that we assassinate the Syrian and Iranian leaders?)
Why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth. I pointed out to you what Sun Tzu would recommend, and you try to once again put words into my mouth. You dishonesty is disgusting.
I've already made clear my reasons why I think bombing would bring Iran back into the fold of non-terrorist supporting nations. I suggest you go back and re-read the thread if you missed them.
Bombing North Viet Nam brought them into the fold of non Communist nations, right? (On the other hand, it seems the Christmas bombing did get them to finally agree to some of the provisions in Paris, and a return of the POW's, so maybe the bombs can make some difference. Maybe. The Serbia scenario shows that it can, under certain conditions, though it only solves a temporary problem. Is Serbia your template for this presumption that Iran can be bombed into docility?)
That's only your opinion. I think that Iran's leaders will be willing to give up their support of terrorists (who by the way aren't much happier about Iran's government than they were Iraq's), rather than watch their own country's military and governmental power be quickly diminished to the point that their power and lives are at risk. Because I don't think they are as crazy as Saddam.
I disagree, I think they are just as stubborn. We'll leave it at that. IF they wren't, they'd be working a better deal with the IAEA and UN to get the nuclear power projects moved forward openly to increase their energy production capacity.
And you don't think we have the military power to do this without a draft?
There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. Up yours.
We are not talking about armed mine layers. We are talking about small fishing boats.
I am talking about "by any means necessary" to achieve the denial of the Straights of Hormuz.
No, I did not. I've made it clear from the beginning that I think the Iranian people will be aware that the US said it is not an invasion or attempt to occupy Iran. You are the one who suggested they would not. And the only way they could not is if the Iranian government did not tell them the content of the ultimatum.
I think there is enough tech in Iraq that the contents of the ultimatum would become known, one way or another, if only by rumor.
As moronic as thinking the same methods we've used for two decades to unsuccessfully curb Iran's use of terrorists and nuclear program will now suddenly work? As moronic as thinking we can win in Iraq when the insurgents and terrorists have a safe haven in nearby Iran? As moronic as thinking you can ignore evil and it will go away?
The War on Terror is, as currently being waged, increasing the opportunity for terrorists to operate. Before we invaded Iraq, it was working in the other direction. Missed opportunity, not sure how long to recover from it.
By the way, here's a little history lesson because your perceptions of things is wrong (too much liberal press listening?). Rumsfeld actually wanted to go in big, topple the government and get out fast.
Which is, of course, an idiot's plan.

It occurs to me that two bad plans is a poor way to prepare to import democracy into Iraq.
The problem is not losing Iraq to an Islamic government but losing Iraq to an Islamic government that supports terrorism and al-Qaeda. There is a difference.
Yes, true enough.
Your pessimism doesn't mean that's not the right thing to do. Especially if you look at the long term consequences of doing nothing and watching oil rich Iraq fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda supporting Iraqis.
There was no need to invade Iraq to get at Al Qaeda.
Not if you look at the consequences of Iraq falling into the hands of elements aligned with another oil-rich, WMD armed, terrorist supporting state.
Like, for example, Pakistan if the Mushmeister fallst to an Islamist party. (Don't think it's gonna happen, but it might.) ;)
Yet Iran is harboring top leaders of the very group that committed 9/11. And Iran is training and funding the group. Do you think the objectives of al-Qaeda have changed? No. They've been promising attacks even bigger than what we saw on 9/11.
Yep.
So I'll ask you again, since you seem content to let al-Qaeda go on using Iran as a safe haven and funding/training source, how many 9/11's a year are you willing to tolerate?
As many as you are.
True, but 9/11 was an event that showed Islamic terrorists were willing to cross the WMD threshold in their attacks.
An aircraft is not a WMD, please stop it. It's a guided missile, in that case, a kamikaze style guided missile.
It's for this reason that we can no longer just live with their terrorism.
I completely agree. The initial War on Terror announcement told me that we'd take it to them on their own turf, globally, in parallel, and a lot of it was going to be via Special Operations, covert operations, use of intel and economic pressure to get "blind eye turners" to cough up some miscreants, and to set an example in Afghanistan of what can happen to those who openly support terrorists.

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

One military principle often taught is "weight the main effort." That was clearly violated.
Sooner or later one of those groups is going to get access to something that will kill millions. Best we stay on the offensive and make sure no country wants to be seen as friendly with them.
Had we not squandered a lot of our blood and treasure, and for that matter, political good will, in Iraq, we might still be able to take that idea and run with it.
Be honest. Iran is probably past the point of needing anything from Russia in order to complete development and fielding of nuclear weapons. All they need at this point is time. So are we going to give that to them?
Not sure if they have reached the tipping point yet, I am not privy to that level of intel.

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

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

If Iran doesn't change course, the opportunity to take down their program won't go away. What is being allowed at the moment is a chance to work a deal. No, it doesn't look promising at the moment. Nor did the Cold War in 1981.
"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations."
That is not what fisherman, or sailors posing as fishermen, laying mines in the Gulf would be doing. The human shields issue is not the same thing as a covert operation making a VID of who is a mine layer more difficult. You aren't applying the rules to the scenario we were discussing.
In this case, they would be using the normal movement of their civilian population to shield their military operations from attack.
I think you mistake the use of covert operations for a violation of Geneva. If that is the case, the US violates Geneva every day in Afghanistan.
The conventions further state that "No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects." Civilian objects. A fishing boat would certainly qualify.
Correct. As I pointed out, a fishing boat used to lay mines is no longer a civilian object, it has been commandeered into military use and is thus a legitimate target. What is going over your head is the requirement of determining that before you go weapons free and launch the Hellfire.
Be honest. Iran has no where near the welfare economy that the US does. The bulk of Iran's people do not depend on the government. Without a government, they probably wouldn't see much difference in their day to day lives.
That may or may not be true, though your lead in comment rings true.
You obviously can't read. Or are just choosing to be obtuse. The air campaign consists of a series of stages. At the beginning of each, an ultimatum is issued and Iran is given a chance to comply. Each stage of the attack is progressively more harmful to Iran.
So, your plan, is to bomb them into docility. That was tried against North VietNam. It didn't work.

Why would it work now, with Iran?
Like you wish away the civil disorder fomented by Iranian supported terrorists in Iraq?
There you go, lying again.
I tell you what. After we take down the Iranian government, the Iranian people can make of their country whatever they want. If they want to destroy their own infrastructure, that's their choice. All I want them to do is stop destroying the infrastructure of Iraq's people.
Got it. "Let 'em play." I felt the same way about Bosnia. If that is your political strategy, fine, it is an option. How realistic is it, today, in 2007, that "the world" adopts the "let 'em play" approach to Iran?

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

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

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51075 "Iranian Revolutionary Guard Units reportedly stationed in Lebanon fired many of the Hezbollah missiles that have slammed into the Jewish state the past few days, multiple sources told WorldNetDaily. ... snip ... Israeli security officials told WND today they have "concrete information" Iranian soldiers stationed at Hezbollah positions in Lebanon have aided in efforts to fire missiles into Israel since Wednesday. Jordanian officials told WND they are "100 percent sure" Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit soldiers have fired rockets into Israel. "
OK. A source. WorldNetDaily. Hmmm.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18182 "Al-Qaeda Comes to Gaza"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6288554.stm "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Hamas of allowing al-Qaeda into the Gaza Strip."
Interesting.
Just so you know. When someone starts insulting my intelligence and playing games with my screennames, it's usually a sign they are losing the debate AND KNOW IT.
You have asked for it, pal, with your continual attempts to put words in my mouth, and your false representations of a position you wish to pigeon hole me into which for one thing is not mine, and for another, is conveniently framed as a particular side.

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

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

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

Does this sound familiar to you?

DR

[BeAChooser]

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

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

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

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

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

More dishonest BS from you.

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

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

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

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

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

You must have missed articles like these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, he was stubborn and proud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

As many as you are.

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

An aircraft is not a WMD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well let's see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. A source. WorldNetDaily. Hmmm.

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

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

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

[Darth Rotor]

ROTFLOL!
More of your wit, I notice.
Perhaps your problem is you don't know how to interpret the "question marks" at the end of sentences. ==snip== One might think you protest too much, sir.
I understand the dishonest artifice of using a question to make a statement. I was born at night, not last night. You get called on your BS.[/QUOTE]
You must have missed articles like these:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/afghanistan_us_.html "Afghanistan: U.S. Forces Attack Suspected Al-Qaeda Hideout, March 03, 2007 ... snip ... For the past two days, U.S. and NATO forces have been conducting a major attack against a compound in a remote area of eastern Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden or another senior al Qaeda leader may be in hiding, ABC News has learned. According to eyewitnesses and local reporters in Kunar province, coalition forces launched a fierce attack on a small enclave in the village of Mandaghel, approximately 17 miles from the border with Pakistan on Friday afternoon. Warplanes pounded the positions; U.S. special forces and Afghan National Army soldiers moved in shortly afterwards."What does that have to do with Pakistan? We've been fighting Al Q and the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. How is this news?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IG03Df03.html "Jul 3, 2007, US to hunt the Taliban inside Pakistan
... snip ... Since last September, North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan have been pressing Islamabad for the right to conduct extensive hot-pursuit operations into Pakistan to target Taliban and al-Qaeda bases.
According to Asia Times Online contacts, NATO and its US backers have gotten their wish: coalition forces will start hitting targets wherever they might be."
I'll believe it when I see it, and I fervently hope, against hope, that this is not more media bullspit. At long last, privileged sanctuary overcome.

*crosses fingers*

Your body count links only tell us that the war continues. That isn't any indication of decisive action, though it does my heart good to hear that Taliban and Al Q ********* are meeting Allah.
Indecisive? I have to disagree. I'd say the most recent air campaigns (the ones since PGM usage became widespread) have been very decisive. In 1991, 2001 and 2003.Part of a combined arms campaign. Air and ground, full spectrum warfare.

Next, or are you going to play this "glassy eyed Warden Disciple" game yet again? Have you memorized his seminal work, the Five (Cock) Rings of Air Power? :rolleyes:
So I'd like to know why you don't think it will be decisive in Iran, where nothing of the sort will be demanded of Iran's leaders and where all we would be asking is that they stop helping terrorists attacking Iraq and kick al-Qaeda out.
Because no air campaign, on its own, has ever been decisive before, though I have seen and heard arguments, some of them good, that the Serbia op in '99 was "decisive" as an air campaign. Mind you, these arguments tend to ignore that there were troops deployed in neighboring countries who could have been sent across the LD. And after the bombing stopped, guess what? Foreigners in Kosovo, troops on the ground.
ROTFLOL!
Such wit.
Clinton did what he did because he needed a distraction from something he was criminally up on any given day.
Nope. You can pretend that's why he did a great many things, but let's confine our discussion to real life, not political cartoons.
Something to do with the way Iran conducts "free" elections? Tell us, is there ANY sign of that change happening?
Their elections are an interesting institution, but the real power, the decisions, tend to be led by the unelected/appointed sorts. See the diagram I previously posted. That said, Mahmoud the Funny Guy in the Jacket was elected. He can be fired by the Mullahs pretty much at will, and another mouthpiece elected.
Remember, the clock is ticking in Iraq and the WoT. The democRATS and some republicans are already demanding we cut and run. Remember, every second we wait is a second Iran is closer to nuclear weapons. Every second Iran gets better armed with conventional weapons
Hyperbole. As Saddam amply demonstrated, buying more conventional weapons merely gives our pilots, gunners, soldiers, tankers, etc, more targets to destroy. We do combined arms warfare, full spectrum warfare, like no one else, and the next best group, the Brits, are a distant second in raw capability.
I'll point out to you that the bulk of the WoT is nothing more than spoiling attacks. Why should operations in Pakistan be any different at this time? We do things to try and keep the other side on the defensive, gather intelligence about their planned attacks so we can foil them, disrupt their command and control, kill their top leaders, prevent training camps from springing up, and keep our allies from being toppled by al-Qaeda's efforts to destabilize them.
We don't disagree on that, at all. I pointed to the lack of a decisive outcome, so far. Perhaps this war of attrition is the only way, and we need to settle in for another few decades of this stuff.
Iraq is the one place where an attempt is being made to change the whole equation, create an arab/muslim society that is hostile to islamo-fanatic terrorists.
I read the Op Plan, thanks.
It's an attempt to create an arab society that is a vibrant, wealthy, successful western style republic rather than a dictatorship that keeps the bulk of it's people in squalor. The possibility of making that change that is highest in Iraq. And if it can be shown to work, the rest of the arab world will notice.
Yes. If. It's a big if, and the If was the biggest, some will say ballsiest, gamble that GWB chose to take. What's the unemployment figure in Iraq today, Major?
Remember all the movement towards democracy after the Iraqi elections in countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
I do. I also note that Hezbollah has also added to its political base in Lebanon. One step forward, one step back, muddling along. I note that the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well in Egypt. No decisive change, as of yet.
Stop the help Iran is giving terrorists in destabilizing Iraq and the likelihood of seeing that attempt to change the arab world succeed is significantly increased.
I understand the theory, rather well, thanks, its been in papers and talking points for years, from a variety of think tanks and card carrying smart guys.

"How" is the thorny bit, and I find your "bomb them into docilty" lacking as a method.
What I propose for Iran does not have as it's objective trying to change the form of Iran's government. We aren't asking them to stop being muslims, either. And you are correct ... bombing of North Vietnam did bring them to the negotiating table. Do that here and perhaps we can get them to stop helping al-Qaeda and stop their own efforts at destabilizing Iraq.
Perhaps. And if not, what does the bombing accomplish? How confident are you that Iran will come to the table if we bomb them? What motive does any politician or general in Iran have, internally, in meeklly kneeling before The Great Satan and being given orders? I"m sorry, as I see human nature, and the nature of people in power, stubborn overcomes your wishful thinking.

What's your back up plan, Major? What are you other branches, your other serials?
You really think Iran's interest in nuclear particles has to do with energy production?
Yes, and weapons. Both. The last estimate I read was (The Economist) that the Iranian petrol reserves had about 10-15 years left. They have a motive for alternative power sources, and since I am a fan of nuclear power generation, for about 30+ years a fan, I would encourage them to take that path, on the condition that, like Japan, they stick to that. As of this writing, that seems a low odds bet.
ROTFLOL!
I see, more of your wit.
There you go again, misinterpreting or ignoring a question mark. Look, you earlier implied that a draft would be needed to close the border. Here, from your post #79.
No, I wanted to know how you raise the force levels in Iraq without a draft. That is not the same as me advocating a draft. I am against it. The All Volunteer force works, both in its political intention as proposed by the military, as policy, back in the 1970's, and as a professional fighting force now. The question is intended to direct you, grasshopper, to the realities of what American commitments are, as balanced against resources at hand, and the material and political cost of moblizing more of the force at a higher OPTEMPO.

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

Now tell me you can get 300,000 without instituting a draft. If you weren't suggesting the need for a draft to do this, where exactly were you proposing that the extra 200,000 (or so) come from give our current forces worldwide?
Did you answer the question? No. Care to try, now that I have given away half of the answer?
Iraq wasn't cooperating in the WoT. Before Iraq, al-Qaeda was openly moving into Iraq and operating from there. They had a large camp in Northern Iraq and captured terrorists openly boasted about having free run of the country. They were so confident that al-Zarqawi even met the terrorists, that he sent to kill tens of thousands of innocents in Jordan, in the heart of Iraq's capital, Baghdad. And apparently Saddam's government knew he was there.
Let's go on the premise that some of Saddam's team knew he was there. It's plausible. Did they know his plans? Did they materially support him, or did they do as most Arab nations did, and still do, with a lot of the various terror organizations, and turn a blind eye?

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

Last I checked, Saddam was not a fan of Islamists, as they were a threat to his more secularist regime. Of course, he's dead now. Sucks to be him.
At one point, Saddam's security arrested one of al-Zarqawi's people and Saddam personally ordered his release. Sorry, sir, but the signs were there that Saddam's regime was growing bolder in assisting terrorists. He had a whole section of his military organized to operate as terrorists (under the leadership of one of his sons).
Indeed, and? Islamists also have bases in Saudi, numerous in Lebanon, and in Syria. Do we bomb them also? I almost pissed myself laughing at your idea that we bomb Qatar. Any idea why?

Here's a hint: what happened to PSAB?
Our invading troops encountered many foreigners and people who told them such people were being trained as terrorists. The troops found suicide bomb making factories in the course of the invasion. The troops were attacked by people using terrorist tactics.
Yep.
You ignore the obvious.
Nope. I draw a different conclusion.
Iraq was invaded to keep suspected WMD materials from falling into terrorist hands and to keep al-Qaeda from securing it's base of operations there.
Among other reasons.
Now I'm just curious. How were you suggesting we eliminate the northern camps and the free run of Iraq (even the capital) that al-qaeda affiliated and friendly terrorists seemed to have?
One of the ideas I had pre 9-11 was to use of B-2's to bomb known terrorist training camps, in Iraq and elsewhere, rather like the way Clinton went after (sporadically) terror training camps in Afghanistan. Whose gonna know, or be able to point the finger? Plus, the US already had ownership of Northern and Southern Iraqi airspace in Northern Watch and Southern Watch. Rather trivial to now and again lay a little love from above on places like Ansar Al Islam's camp, or other camps, and for sure make them paranoid as hell.

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

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

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

There are some big political problems with that idea, of course, which doubtless contributed to that method not being used, but I would have thought that post 9-11 those could be more easily overcome.
Or was your plan to ignore them and send in the lawyers after they launched a successful attack?Trying to put words in my mouth again? Go piss up a rope.
For some reason I don't think so. Not when you seem to be advocating the use of lawyers. ROTFLOL!
Another falsehood. And more of your wit.
Not if you pay attention to where al-Qaeda was shifting the main effort. They were interested in obtaining WMD and Iraq was where they were most likely to obtain such materials.
My guess would have been Pakistan, but Iraq, given the fact that the programs existed, in whatever condition, was certainly a potential source. I hope you realize that I believed Powell's speech, and I was basically resigned to us having to "do it" (12 years of UN asshattery being inconclusive), though I was worried as hell about all the things that can go wrong.
So you think their possession of nuclear weapons wouldn't matter?
In Iran? I think Iran wants nukes as a deterrent. They want to join the Big Boy club. They want to be perceived as having large penises.
US covert actions do not invite attacks on civilians. The action you suggest by Iran clearly would.
By design, no, US covert actions do not target civilians. Occasionally, civvies get hit.
How convenient for your view of things. So it "IS" no longer a fishing boat? And how is anyone to know? Will the Iranians perhaps fly some sort of pennant to denote the change of status?
My view is colored by my military experience in real operations. What colors yours?
Out of curiosity, does your way of thinking apply to the use of ambulances too? ROTFLOL!
I note that you are stuck on stupid.
The objectives in bombing Iran would be far different than the bombing that was done in Vietnam. Surely this is obvious to someone with such an *extensive* military background. The goals would be MUCH more limited than they were in Vietnam.
OK, I'll play.

Spell them out.
The weaponry available now is much more precise and destructive than what which was available in Vietnam. That precision gives us options we did not have in Vietnam.
True.
The ability to locate leadership elements in Iran would probably far better than our ability to locate North Vietnamese leaders. The NV leaders were never in any danger from the bombing but the leaders of Iran might have to be constantly on the move.
Got it, so far.
The war in Vietnam was already viewed as won by the NV at the time we bombed NV. The North's leaders therefore, saw no reason to give up after a few days of bombing. The hold the leaders had on NV certainly wasn't detrimentally affected by the bombing. They knew there was no chance the NV people would revolt against the communists because of the bombing.
I see that the same way.
On the other hand, the danger of the Iranian populous rising up and toppling the Iranian dictatorship should the government's military and security apparatus be crippled is considerable. The longer Iran waits to acquiesce, the more that apparatus is dismantled under the approach I suggest.
That's one way it might turn. Another way is that the US bombing Iran grants the Iranian politicans a common enemy, who they spin as (add your favorite Great Satan characteristic here) and rally support against The Foreigners.

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

Is that a US policy aim? ;)
Sorry, but I'm not trying to save Iran. I want to save Iraq.
OK.
Actually there are multiple sources that quote Israelis saying that Iranians were helping fire the missiles. And apparently some sources in Jordan said the same thing. Our own government appears to believe it, too. But you doubt it? Why?
My experience with the information war, from both the inside and the outside, makes me skeptical of a lot of what you and I read in the press. I got to watch a lot of what I was involved in be reported in the press. The fidelity to fact was low. So, it is possible that Iranians were aiding and abetting Hezbollah, and for that matter Hamas, and to support that guess, they had dickheads in Bosnia ten years ago, adding to the fun and games there.

They could be doing it again.
Oh I think my arguments were a *little* better than that. ;)
Nope. Bomb them into docility, but no ground troops. That's your plan, in very simple terms.

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

I am all ears.

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

Note of interest:

From this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.
A key issue regarding Cheney's impatience with Iran, and his desire to use strong armed measures, is that before Iraq, Bush could go to Congress and get authorization to use force.

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

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

DR

[BeAChooser]

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

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

What does that have to do with Pakistan?

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hyperbole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I read the Op Plan, thanks.

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

If. It's a big if

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your back up plan, Major?

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

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

Yes, and weapons.

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

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

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

grasshopper

Now you think I'm an insect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saddam was not a fan of Islamists

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to put words in my mouth again?

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

I think Iran wants nukes as a deterrent.

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

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

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


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

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

I note that you are stuck on stupid.

At least you listened to Rumsfeld on one occasion.

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

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

OK, I'll play. Spell them out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's that WP article:

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

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

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

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

**********


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***********

[Darth Rotor]

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

But there are other links showing that the Coalition has been operating inside Pakistan, including bombing from time to time both with manned and unmanned aircraft.
Loose lips sink ships. OPSEC, does it mean anything to you? It means a great deal to me.
I haven't claimed decisive action, only that Pakistan, unlike Iran, is actively trying to fight al-Qaeda ... probably to the best of its ability at this time.
That is correct, but you are incorrect that I was voicing displeasure. I was observing Mushmeister's own internal limitation, which if you'd read what I wrote, you would have recognized.
That's at odds with your claim that air campaigns have been and would be indecisive.
The historical record is clear, your powder blue propaganda is just that, Air Force spin. Better men than you have tried to sell me that soap.
The campaign against Serbia was almost entirely an air campaign and it was decisive.
That's one way to look at it. Your analysis ignores the fact that the mission in Kosovo continues, on the ground, and that troops on the ground were an integral part of the NATO posture.
Furthermore, for the missions that I've proposed in Iran, previous air campaigns can only be characterized as decisive.
No, they can only be characterized as air campaigns, or air operations. You assume decisiveness. I find your analysis shallow, and infested by Warden's rubbish.

The one thing you have correct is that the US Joint Force is good at takig down IAD networks. This is a good thing.
In those case, we've been able to intercept radio/phone communications and track the locations of enemy leaders, in some cases killing them.
Saddam lasted to December 2003. Zarqawi for over two years after Fallujah and four bodies on a bridge. Others have been dispatched with iron rain drops a bit more expeditiously.
And let's not forget that I'm not ruling out the use of special forces
You are late. See the Hirsch article (take his spin with a grain of salt) on Spec Ops doing reconnaisance now, in Iran.
. . . because the missions I've suggest to achieve it have all been decisively accomplished in all our recent air wars.
The historical record show one campaign as pretty successful, 99, and the rest not so. Your analysis is poisoned by standard Silver Bullet Air Force propaganda. I've had sharper folks than you try to sell me this soap, and it didn't work then.
We just want Iran to stop supporting efforts to undermine the will of the Iraqi people.
No question about that. Oh, wait, which Iraqi people? Your talking points are showing, BAC, as is your shill style.
Who said air campaigns never work. ROTFLOL!
No one, but the historical record does not agree with you, nor with your analysis.
Clinton's criminal activities and his wag the dog approach to military ventures was real life.
Wag the Dog was the name of a movie. What was real life, again?
The timing is suspicious given that it happened as the Cox Report, detailing treasonous behavior by his administration and the democRAT party, was released.
Your spin is showing. Losing cred, fast.
Clinton was looking a distraction to take his problems off the front page.
That is what you claim. I am unconvinced. The world continues to turn, and actors all over the world do what they do, regardless of who is, or is not, sucking the President's cock. It isn't all about the US, though I am biased enough to think a lot of it is. Sue me. :p
So don't try to tell me what is real life, sir. I am well aware of the true facts.
Your spin is showing, again.
As we write back and forth to each other, democRATS and some republicans have passed a resolution demanding withdrawal start in just a few months.
More spin. More shill. More talking points. You know I voted for Bush, right? And as much as the Swift Boat smear campaign pissed me off, I voted for him again, since I had no third choice and John Kerry simply isn't a leader. His record in the Senate gave me nothing to vote for.
As we sit here, Iran is working feverishly to refine enough weapons grade material to make a bomb. As we sit here, Iran goes about purchasing and installing weapon systems that will make any attack on Iran more difficult and costly.
Yes.
So you brought up the TOR missiles during this debate just to note they were adding targets for us to destroy? Obviously not.
Nope. Those are point defense missiles that I suspect will be used to defend high value targets, and the Iranians probably think that the multi track capability will solve their problem versus our air campaign.

Wise fools.
Actually, we also do air campaigns like no one else. But in any case, your statement doesn't change the fact that with each tic of the clock it gets harder to attack Iran without taking unacceptable casualties.
Hyperbole. Depending on force levels, the air campaign will peel back the onion either more slowly, or more rapidly, depending on other factors in theater.
Indeed, one mistake we made with Saddam was giving his regime too much time to prepare for our attack.
Twelve years? I suggest you take a good look at On Point, and see how the theater level and strategic posture was steadily grown that allowed the support and sustained operations in OIF. I also need to ask: how familiar are you with a TPFDD?
And you think you will get a decisive outcome by ineffectively dealing with Iran and ensuring our loss in Iraq?
Once again, with the words in my mouth attempt. Bad form.
If we should have learned anything from Vietnam, its that we won't win a war of attrittion. Our enemies threshold of pain for losses, be it North Vietnam or al-Qaeda, is much larger than ours ... especially if their leaders are safe. In fact, half this country (the democRAT half) have already said the losses have exceeded the threshold of pain. Some said it when the first soldier died.
The lesson I take from studying Viet Nam is that you can't take the support of the American people for granted, and that it is damned hard work to keep their support for a war in the long haul. Even FDR had to work at it. I am of the opinion that W and his team assumed the emotional energy they harnessed early on would sustain. I don't think they put in the work necessary to keep the support of the American people, and to put a fine point on it, the info campaign was clumsy, contradictory, and undermined by conflicting policy.
Not that big of if ... provided we can keep foreign troublemakers from stirring the pot. The Iraqi people voted by a large margin to move in the direction we wanted. They've demonstrated a willingness to shed lots of blood in that direction. That outsiders are causing much of the chaos has been apparent from day one and is even more so now.
Not just outsiders, BAC. It's many v many.
Our military leaders in charge of the surge say it is working.
I consider General P a credible witness. I look forward to hearing his report in September. I think he was an excellent choice for the job, and I admire his enthusiasm for a damned hard job.
Just curious, but why are you calling me Major? Is that meant to be an insult?
Nope.

It's a common question at staff college, when someone is briefing an absurd course of action, that the instructor ask him a hard question. "What do you do now, Major?"

It's a variation of what you ask the prospective aircraft commander at the board: Scenario thus and such, this surprise thrown in, what do you do now, Lieutenant?

It's a variation of the tactical problems you can find in the back of Marine Corps Gazette, each month: Here's what confronts you, what are your orders, Captain?
Now to respond to your question, according to the The Brookings Institution's July report, the unemployment rate now stands at 25 - 40 percent.
Good. The point is that part of the solution to Iraq's instability is fixing the economy, and part of the solution to fixing the economy is, of course, the instability. SASO is supposed to deal with the instability, on the one hand, and aid and abet the other as an outcome.

What do you think the US would look like with 25% unemployment? With 40% unemployment?
And who is behind Hezbollah? Iran. So if we get Iran to stop supporting terrorists, Hezbollah might also die on the vine. Yet another possible benefit of the strategy I propose.
If your "bomb them into docility" works, perhaps. Perhaps not.
100%. I've no doubt that Iranian leaders would decide at some point that their best chance to stay in power, stay alive, and keep Iran from becoming a fifth rate military power is to accept the conditions of the ultimatum we would make prior to bombing.
Right. You have convinced yourself.

Where is President Bush's political capital to draw on for this new war? He no longer has two houses in his party who will support him.

How does he sell this? Why should anyone believe him? That's the killer, the amount of credibility thrown away by an idiotic information campaign over seven years. *slams head on the desk*
All we would be asking them to do is stop activities that internationally are making Iran an outcast.
They chose that course about a generation ago. Why would that appeal resonate, at all, now?
Might I ask what rank you held when you left the Navy?
Commander.
As to my backup plan, it's build more PGMs and keep shooting. Eventually, the Iraqi people will say enough is enough and lynch their own leaders to stop the disruption of their lives. Which is why the leaders will at some point yell uncle.
Where is the political will in America to do that?
But they agreed not to pursue such weapons. There's the problem. There is nothing wrong with their developing peaceful uses for radioactive particles. No one is trying to stop them from doing that. The problem is that they've apparently decided to do something they agreed not to do ... build nuclear weapons.
Yep.
And they are doing that to make it harder for us to stop their support of terrorist movements. Or worse, they are doing it to supply terrorist movements with such weapons.
The former more likely than the latter.
I don't think a reading of your statement shows that's accurate. But in any case, I've not suggested an approach that would require large numbers of additional troops anyway. So your mentioning the draft must have been a red herring or a strawman (depending on how one looks at what you wrote).
Nope. Not at all.
Like I noted earlier, at one point they captured an associate of al-Zarqawi on serious charges that the arresting officer said he was convinced were accurate. Yet, orders came from top people in the Iraqi government (the CIA said Saddam himself) to release the man. There are also numerous sources indicating that Saddam's regime knowingly funded and trained terrorists in various facilities. Those terrorists included al-Qaeda. We know for a fact that one of the 1993 WTC bombers fled to Iraq and was then put on the payroll of the government and supplied a house. There are good reasons to believe that an Iraqi handler (in charge of special operations) met with Mohammed Atta on more than one occasion. They did more than turn a blind eye.
I am familiar with that narrative.
You sure are trying hard to give Saddam's regime and Ahmadinejad's government the benefit of the doubt.
Nope. I fully expect Saddam to do whatever it takes to keep Saddam in power. I also expect Saddam to do stuff he thinks he can get away with to get back at the US for the sanctions, and the ass kicking he got in 91. I don't expect him to leave a trail of breadcrumbs, or let someone else get him in hot water. A bit of a control freak, by all accounts.
I've seen no evidence that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria are training terrorists who are headed for Iraq or funding terrorists activities in Iraq.
I'll restate that in those nations, unlike in Lybia under Qadaffi, who actively set up training camps in the 80's, the scenario is more a "let them live here, turn a blind eye, can't do much about them" mode. There are wealthy Islamist sympathizers in every Arab nation in the Middle East. Think about the Irish pubs in places like Boston, DC, New York, and the hat passed for "the band." Something similar, but of course within the local cultural context. Arafat was fed millions through such networks, part of how he stayed top dog in the PLO, with his distribution of patronage.
But didn't you just get done telling us that air campaigns don't work? And what if those terrorists were operating out of places like ... Baghdad? That's where al-Zarqawi spent a lot of time. Indeed, now there are camps like that in Iran. Are you suggesting we send the B2's there? Won't that make Iran mad?
Given that Clinton had shown that he was not going to send anything into Iraq other than an occasional air strike, and given that Whiteman had by then full up B-2 squadrons, I figured "why not use this Stealth if you have it, and all you like using is the Silver Bullet?" Makes as much sense as launching Tomahawks at Afghanistan, and it is less traceable.
Iran is now doing the much the same thing for al-Qaeda's leadership.
Two points.

Is Osama in Iran?

Why would Iran be growing bolder? How do you think they got to here, what is going on in 2007, from a relative (and that is very relative) moderate being President in 2003? What did the US do to enable their brand of adventurism?
Now think about that. Why do they need a deterrent? The U.S. We constrain their freedom of action in their own neighborhood. Think Monroe Doctrine, in Farsi.
1. Are they up to no good? 2. And do you want them to get that deterrent? 3. That's seems likely to happen if we allow them to keep stalling for time. 4. What would be our options then?
1. Yes.
2. No, but what I want is irrelevant.
3. If we can't muster international support to stop their program, yes, if we do the hard work at that level, no.
4. At such time as they successfully test a weapon, we are left with only your option, with that weapon's base/support as Target number one.
5. BMD is part of the counter to TBM's and ICBM's.
I notice you again didn't answer my question. You'd rather boast about your military *expertise*.
My experience with RoE and the requirements for VID of targets are, once again, lost on you at the tactical level. Again. You have to catch them at it or they aren't a target. Do you understand? You don't go blowing every fishing boat out of the water on the presumption that they are mine layers, you have to catch them at it to shoot. That's the RoE, that's real life, and that's the American way of war. A similar pattern of constraint governs our actions in Iraq, regardless of what the yellow press reports. Even tighter RoE in Afghanistan than in Iraq. (Caveat: my RoE knowledge in the CENTCOM AOR is current as of 2004, the relative tightness may have changed.)
At least you listened to Rumsfeld on one occasion.
IIRC, it was not Sec Def Rumsfeld but rather Lieutenant General Honore who was the origin of that sound byte.
Sorry but I think that's a valid question given that you just told us the Iranians could legally convert a civilian object (a fishing boat) into a military object even if they do nothing to indicate it is now one to the other side in the conflict.
Nope. I said they could do it successfully. The legality of that Ziggurat pointed to as dicey, which is correct, but you have to catch them at it, which is not a sure thing.
Except we're not bombing anything but instruments of a hated dictatorship.
Hated by us, sure. Hated by everyone in Iran? I am not so sure. Some of the international press point to considerable discontent, sure, but that does not mean that an attack on Iran will be greeted with joy by people who live there.

Let's pretend you are right. The hate runs deep. Bomb away. The Azeris and Kurds see a chance to break off. The long awaited revolutions begin.

Civil war in Iran.

Who comes in to fill the power vacuum?

Is that in American interests?
And if the Iranian people support their government initially, how long will that continue when they are greatly inconvenienced just because that government won't stop activities that even most Iranians should probably view as wrong if they are at all decent people?
That's the question, isn't it?

I don't know how Persians stack up to Viet Namese when it comes to a gut check, but I note that they managed to gut it out for eight years in a nasty war with Iraq. I think they have a great capacity for gutting it out. Can their leadership keep them on their side by an appeal to nationalism? Don't know. I think they can. You think they can't. Nothing you have typed so far gives me any reason to buy your assertion.
Possible? Hezbollah is WIDELY acknowledged as closely tied to the Iranian government.
Yes, the sugar daddy from Teheran.
Well I'm sure glad I have you around to summarize it. (sarcasm)
Given your bloviating, perhaps you'll consider brevity as a tool more frequently in the future.
What added troops? For once you're going to have to be more specific.
For all that the Surge may be having some positive effects, my experience with troop levels at roughly what they are now, in 2004, was that the peanut butter was spread too thin on the toast. What would happen is that as operations/incidents in the ring of fire around Baghdad increased, forces available to secure the Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian border were not available for the Screen/Guard mission needed to put a break on infiltration. The shell game never ended. Yet, it was known, day in and day out, that stopping infiltration along the Border was a critical mission.

Aside: One of my favorite utterances of General Abizaid, when a reporter cornered him on that matter, the obvious porousness of Iraq's borders, was

"Have you noticed how well we secure the Mexican American border?"

Cracked me up.

So, if you want to both have enough presence to keep Central Iraq resourced, and stop infiltration, you need the kind of footprint Shinseki was talking about: 200,000 plus. MOUT swallows up battalions like water soaks up a sponge. What is left for the Screen/Guard mission isn't enough for the size of the problem at current force levels.

Interesting links on the nuke deal. Some look familiar. No surprises there. Actions one can expect Iran to take.
I'll leave you with some thoughtful words written by Senator Joe Lieberman recently:
Shill status noted.

By the way, in an admin note, you may have violated Rule 4 with that, unless you are Joe Lieberman. Take a look at forum rules on the quoting in full. A link usually suffices, and some snippets.

Somehow, I think you are not Joe Lieberman, the Senator has a few more things on his plate than a discussion than this.

I hear he got some support to get the Senate to condemn Iran, 97-0. Bully for Joe.

You may get your wish.

DR

[Dorian Gray]

Holy Christ, I wish someone would clean up all the piss.

[Darth Rotor]

Holy Christ, I wish someone would clean up all the piss.
Why? Have you drunk your fill? :p

What did you expect, Dorian?

This is the Politics forum. It's all about taking the piss, taking a piss, and pissing contests.

DR

[BeAChooser]

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

Yes, one can hope. It helps if one notices question marks, acknowledges when one was wrong about something (like I just did), and refrains from insults. ;)

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

So are you agreeing that coalition forces are operating in Pakistan or not?

The historical record is clear, your powder blue propaganda is just that, Air Force spin.

Are you claiming the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and the opening period of Iraq 2003 didn't accomplish what they set out to do in record time? All I can do is laugh at such denial of reality. They clearly demonstrated the ability to defeat modern air defense systems like that of Iran's, selectively destroy targets in the midst of urban areas without significant collateral damage, locate and attack essential military, government targets and communication targets, and locate and attack leadership or at least put it on the run. Just the sort of missions I've envisioned in Iran.

Your analysis ignores the fact that the mission in Kosovo continues

That's beside the point. I'm not proposing an occupation in Iran. How many times do I have to repeat that before you understand?

No, they can only be characterized as air campaigns, or air operations. You assume decisiveness.

I assume nothing. Regardless of how the overall war turned out, Serbia's air defenses were never able to stop attacks on the type of targets I propose attacking in Iran. And they had good air defenses. Iraq's air defense system was crushed in the opening hours of 1991. They too had good air defenses. And then again in 2001, Iraq's air defense system was knocked out quickly.

And in all three cases, the US demonstrated the ability to delivery thousands and thousands of PGMs in a matter of days and keep it up hour after hour for days on end. And delivere them with extreme accuracy and little collateral damage. Both Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated our ability to use special forces to direct air attacks against leadership targets and certain other types of targets.

Saddam lasted to December 2003.

Saddam and much of his government was constantly on the run. And effective control of the country and his military was taken from him the opening night of the war. We know for a fact he was out of touch with the reality of the situation and had lost command and control of large portions of his army.

Zarqawi for over two years after Fallujah and four bodies on a bridge.

True, but he was also on the run most of the time. Time and time again, Coalition forces just missed capturing him. He was forced to leave everything he had with him to make his escape. Hence, the capture of items like that computer of his, an intel bonanza. And if the US went after the leaders in Iran they'd have to live a life on the run too and be careful about every communication they made. I'm sure they'd find that a great inconvenience given that all we want them to do is stop their interfering in another country using terrorists.

You are late.

Doing something with that intel ... like sending in the bombers ... is what's a little late.

The historical record show one campaign as pretty successful, 99

You are absolutely wrong for the reasons I noted above. And your continuing use of these silly adhominems is only making YOU look foolish. Hardly "officer and a gentleman" conduct.

Your talking points are showing, BAC, as is your shill style.

Yet another tactic used by people who are losing arguments in debates AND KNOW IT.

Wag the Dog was the name of a movie. What was real life, again?

I gave you JUST two of the examples I could have named. That you won't acknowledge their factual validity only makes you look bad. Of course, I gather you served in Clinton's military so you might have a desire to defend whatever actions it took.

Your spin is showing. Losing cred, fast.

I don't try to hide my dislike of the current democRAT party or the Clintons. And I'm more than willing to discuss why that is any day of the week. Campaign finance violations; tampering with elections; Chinagate; Filegate; Emailgate; abuse of the military; abuse of the FBI and IRS; a number of very suspicious deaths; efforts to nationalize the health system; the failure to understand the effect of taxes on the economy; their bankrupt welfare theories; their victicrat mentality; their inability to stand in "judgement" of people who commit evil; their underlying dislike of the military; their foreign policy; and I could go on and on. That doesn't mean I find the Bush administration and recent republican conduct all that wonderful either. I don't ignore improper or foolish behavior by either party. Do you? It would seem so.

You know I voted for Bush, right?

Did you vote for Clinton in 96?

Those are point defense missiles that I suspect will be used to defend high value targets, and the Iranians probably think that the multi track capability will solve their problem versus our air campaign.

It won't. But it does complicate it. And the longer we wait, the more opportunity we give to Iran to complicate it further. There might come a time when they actually can make it so costly that we can't stop their support of terrorist activities. Then what do you suggest? Send in the clowns (errr ... lawyers)?

BAC - "Indeed, one mistake we made with Saddam was giving his regime too much time to prepare for our attack."

Twelve years?

Do you practice being obtuse or does it come natural?

The lesson I take from studying Viet Nam is that you can't take the support of the American people for granted

Then you learned the wrong lesson in Vietnam. Because as far as the support of the American people is concerned, they did support the war effort ... up until the mainstream media (in guise of Cronkite and many others) lied to the American people about progress in the war and a specific battle in that war. They turned a huge victory (Tet) into a perceived loss and broke the will of the American people. And unfortunately, the President at that time lacked the backbone to stand against the media and set the record straight ... in sharp contrast to the current President.

You can't really blame the people for giving up on the war. Where else were they supposed to go to find out the facts. Wasn't Cronkite called "the most trusted man in America"? And he lied (by omission, if nothing else) to the American people. No, the fault clearly lies with the liberals who ran and still run the mainstream media. It was/is their civic responsibility to accurately report the facts and they have miserably failed in that task for decades and decades.

That bias is why many people never heard there were credible allegations of rapes by Bill Clinton. Or the real story in Filegate or the death of Ron Brown. One reason I think the liberals are so eager to control talk radio today is because they realize it might actually be informing a large segment of the populace as to the true facts in the WoT. No, I'm afraid democRATS and liberals can't tolerate the notion of an informed populace. So they give us glowing accounts of pajama parties and efforts to end the war on a day when our military say the surge is working.

Not just outsiders, BAC.

The military says its mostly outsiders that are instigating the problems that grab our liberal media's attention (like bombings). Don't you believe our military leaders?

It's a common question at staff college, when someone is briefing an absurd course of action, that the instructor ask him a hard question. "What do you do now, Major?"

In other words, it was meant to be an insult. It's a way of trying to demean one's opponent by implying they having less expertise. It's an appeal to authority rather than debating the facts. In short, it's a logical fallacy ... especially given the fact you know anything about me.

The point is that part of the solution to Iraq's instability is fixing the economy

Do you think this little ol "major" doesn't know that, *admiral*?

What do you think the US would look like with 25% unemployment? With 40% unemployment?

Unemployment rose to 25% during the Great Depression. There were a few riots but things remained mostly calm and the people worked hard to get the economy going again. We actually came together and helped one another. Of course, there wasn't an outside influence like al-Qaeda and Iran setting bombs off daily in an effort to start ethnic warfare. What do you think Iraq would now look like if al-Qaeda, Iran and Syria had not been infiltrating terrorists and fomenting trouble the last 4 years? I bet things would look pretty good. So who is to blame that it isn't?

Where is President Bush's political capital to draw on for this new war?

He's not running for reelection. And he's also the Commander In Chief. He doesn't really need political capital to make it happen. Just the will to do the right thing.

They chose that course about a generation ago. Why would that appeal resonate, at all?

Gee ... I think I mentioned something about bombing the things the leaders of Iran hold dear?

Where is the political will in America to do that?

If you look around, it's still there ... provided the American people get told the truth rather than the lies and distortions that the mainstream liberal media have been feeding them for 4 years.

BAC - "And they are doing that to make it harder for us to stop their support of terrorist movements. Or worse, they are doing it to supply terrorist movements with such weapons.

The former more likely than the latter.

You hope.


I am familiar with that narrative.


It may be a narrative but can you say anything in that paragraph is untrue?

BAC - "I've seen no evidence that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria are training terrorists who are headed for Iraq or funding terrorists activities in Iraq."

I'll restate that in those nations, unlike in Lybia under Qadaffi, who actively set up training camps in the 80's, the scenario is more a "let them live here, turn a blind eye, can't do much about them" mode.

That hardly fits the facts in Saudi Arabia. They have done a lot to target al-Qaeda in their country. Syria may be doing what you suggest but they are not the source of most problems in Iraq. Likewise, Lebanon. Their focus is more on Israel and I think Israel is more than capable of dealing with them as needed. But I do think that were we to do as I've suggested in Iran, they'd get the message too. Call it a hat trick with one shot.

Is Osama in Iran?

His son apparently is, as well as a bunch of other top officials. And it is Iran's government that is funding and helping terrorists bound for Iraq, not Pakistan's government. When is that little fact going to seep through your skull?

Think Monroe Doctrine, in Farsi.

So you think their motives are as pure as President Monroe's? Like I said, you sure are going out of your way to put Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and objectives in the best light possible. ROTFLOL!

3. If we can't muster international support to stop their program

So you believe we must always have international support for everything we do in our own national interest? You and Dean.

4. At such time as the successfully test a weapon, we are left with only your option, with that weapon's base/support as Target number one.

You would attack Iran after it demonstrably had nuclear weapons? Yikes!!! What guarantee would you have that the nuclear weapons they'd built to that moment in time weren't somewhere else? Would you warn them or make it a sneak attack? If you warn them, aren't they likely to disperse the remaining bombs or critical equipment/materials? If you make a sneak attack, wouldn't that really give their government something to motivate their people against us? At least my plan has us telling the Iranian people what's coming. What guarantee do you offer that in the time between now and then they wouldn't have hardened the facilities to the point that only nuclear weapons could destroy them? Remember ... there are signs they are already trying to harden their nuclear facilities. Give them enough time and they will succeed and then you really have a problem.

And what would your attack solve vis a vis the underlying topic of our discussion; namely, their behavior with regards to Iraq? Wouldn't your approach only give Iran reason to intensify it's activities in Iraq and against us elsewhere with still no motivation to change that behavior since you are so reluctant to deal with the source of those activities? Why wouldn't those activities grow and spread faster as a result of your suggested aggression?

It's seems to me that sooner or later you'd find yourself forced to go in and try to stop Iran's terrorist support. Now the question becomes how would you do that? Would you do exactly what I've suggested? By that time Iran might have improved its air defense system to the point they could make the sort of attack I envision quite costly to us. Or would you invade (since you claim air campaigns don't work)? Only problem is that by that time the Iraq situation might have deteriorated to the point where Iraq was considered unsaveable by even our military and we were in the process of pulling out. In which case, we wouldn't have as secure a base for launching the assault. And why would we expect success in an invasion of Iran when we failed in Iraq? One more obstacle. By then we may have a democRAT President. One willing to wait until the Iranian bomb gets tested on a US city.


That's the RoE, that's real life, and that's the American way of war.

Rules of Engagement can be changed. Afterall, necessity is the mother of invention.

Perhaps we need only follow the Australian example ...

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133375.php "Australian Navy told to fire on illegal fishing boats ... snip ... December 6, 2006 - Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson has agreed to new rules allowing the Navy to fire on illegal fishing boats..."

In any case, I think if, as intelligence suggests, Iran actually does have a fleet of more than 1000 FPBs around the straight of Hormuz armed potentially with missiles and torpedos, anything we see coming from Iran is going to get sunk. Fishing boat or not. Afterall, those fishing boats could hide missiles or torpedos, just as easily as mines, too. In this missile age, he who shoots first may win. That's a reality of war. Therefore, our warships cannot be expected to wait till attacked to respond. Indeed, don't the rules of engagement say that each commander's first responsibility is to the safety of his ship and crew? That's why Iranian fishermen better heed the warnings we issue at the start and not venture out into what will be a very dangerous environment given the planned swarming tactic announced by Iran.

IIRC, it was not Sec Def Rumsfeld but rather Lieutenant General Honore who was the origin of that sound byte.

I stand corrected.

BAC - "Except we're not bombing anything but instruments of a hated dictatorship."

Hated by us, sure. Hated by everyone in Iran? I am not so sure.

Hated by everyone in Iran? Of course not. But I think it's safe to say that the majority of Iranians would be just as happy to see the dictatorship end as the Iraqis were happy to see Saddam go.


I note that they managed to gut it out for eight years in a nasty war with Iraq.

Yeah, but that was a war where Iraq invaded Iran and tried to occupy it's territory. That's not what I've proposed. (Why do I have to keep telling you this?)


So, if you want to both have enough presence to keep Central Iraq resourced, and stop infiltration, you need the kind of footprint Shinseki was talking about: 200,000 plus.,

But I'm not proposing changing anything we are currently doing inside Iraq or at Iraq's borders. The goal is not to stop infiltration at the border but at the source. The goal is to convince Iran's leaders that THEY should stop terrorists from entering Iraq via Iran. If necessary THEY can put 100,000 on the border to do it.

Shill status noted.

Shilling for who? I think Lieberman made some very good points and noted some facts that hadn't yet been mentioned. Labeling me (or him) a shill does not address those points or facts. It's simply a way of avoiding those points and facts.

By the way, you may have violated Rule 4 with that, unless you are Joe Lieberman. Take a look at forum rules on the quoting in full. A link usually suffices, and some snippets.

Thanks for pointing that out. I may have indeed violated that rule. I'm new here and I'll try to be more careful.

I hear he got some support to get the Senate to condemn Iran, 97-0. Bully for Joe.

Hey, maybe that's where Bush will get the political capital to do what I suggest. :D

[Darth Rotor]

So are you agreeing that coalition forces are operating in Pakistan or not?
I don't think you understand, at all, what I wrote.
Are you claiming the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and the opening period of Iraq 2003 didn't accomplish what they set out to do in record time? All I can do is laugh at such denial of reality.
No, I do not claim that, but you attempt, once again, to put words in my mouth. My patience with this bullspit of yours is finite, and besides, if you laugh at that, you are laughing at your own creation.
That's beside the point. I'm not proposing an occupation in Iran. How many times do I have to repeat that before you understand?
I understand, completely, that you operate under the assumption that air alone is politically decisive. You and I will never agree on that, and you are quite simply wrong, particularly as the 1991, 2001, and 2003 air campaigns were integral parts of Joint Campaigns and Joint Operations.
True, but he was also on the run most of the time.
Yes, and each day he was free was a day that critical American political objective was not achieved. Comprende?
Of course, I gather you served in Clinton's military so you might have a desire to defend whatever actions it took.
Another marker of why you are a contemptible person. That idiotic sound byte, "Clinton's Military." We in the military did not get to pick the President, the American people do, and did. I served under

Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush

President is Commander in Chief.

If you might recall, WJC was not particuarly popular among the uniformed, or maybe you selectively ignore, or forget that, in your desire to create an empty ad homenim attack.

You again show your profound dishonesty.

When you use the words of a Neocon Shill, Bac, you can expect to be recognized as one, or mistaken for one, whichever is the actual case. As it is, you are obviously sold on Silver Bullet rhetoric.
I don't try to hide my dislike of the current democRAT party or the Clintons.
Funny, I vote Republican more often than not, and I sent money to James Webb's campaign. You got a problem with Webb?
I don't ignore improper or foolish behavior by either party. Do you? It would seem so.
More attempts to construct, for me, a position that has no basis in fact, nor my opinion of a wide variety of politicians, suits, and charlatans.

How about you stick to your positions, of whatever merit, and don't try to manufacture out of your fantasies a position for me?
Did you vote for Clinton in 96?
No. Why would I have done that? He was mid way through trying to gut the world's best military out of an ideological need. I took that rather personally. He also cut the force in Somalia by a third, then asked them to do what 20,000+ were doing. I took that personally as well.
Then you learned the wrong lesson in Vietnam.
I think I looked a little deeper into that, since I didn't and don't use partisan blinders in my studies. It isn't important that Johnson was from the Democratic party, it was important that he, and some of his cabinet officers, and for that matter some of his generals, completely missed the point on the nature of the war they were engaged in. (Two well discussed commentaries on that include Harry Somers, On Strategy, and HR McMasters, Dereliction of Duty. If you)
the death of Ron Brown.
Tell me everything you think you know about that VIP transport mission. I have read a couple of conspiracy theories on that mishap that stagger the imagination.
Don't you believe our military leaders?
I am not sure why you ask that question, I've found that what the generals tend to say, when they speak freely, often contradicts the rhetoric out of the suits.

Tell me, do you believe General John Batiste, or not? He led the First ID in Iraq, he led 2d Brigade of the 1st AD into Bosnia in 95, he was on the fast track, was a close aide to the assistant Sec Def, when Wolfowitz had that job, and after a successful deployment to Iraq, and a hard damned fight thre, he turned down three stars, and Third Corps command.

Why do you think a rising star in the US Army did that? Why do you think he resigned? Having met the man -- a finer officer and gentleman you won't meet -- I was shocked at the personal attacks he was subject to from the usual suspects when he spoke freely.
It's an appeal to authority rather than debating the facts.
It is not an appeal to authority when I actually have some expertise in Joint and Combined Operations, Joint and Combined Air Operations, and am formally schooled and trained in Joint Doctrione and Operations. I have had to both study it and apply it. It's hard to get right.

You?
He's not running for reelection.
True. He also, if he is to be as loyal to his party as he has generallly been, has to consider his party's long term interests, which includes winning the 2008 election.
And he's also the Commander In Chief. He doesn't really need political capital to make it happen. Just the will to do the right thing.
How does he get Congressional support/agreement to attack Iran without political support? Did you miss the part in October - December 2002 where he went to Congress for authorization to start a war, or if you will, use force, and got it? Did you miss what his father did in 1990? Did you miss the part where Clinton, to get Congress to agree with him to go into Bosnia, asserted (and we all knew it was a complete load of bollocks) that the mission was only for a year, to get the OK to deploy into Bosnia? (Last US left Bosnia in 2006. One year my butt.)
That hardly fits the facts in Saudi Arabia.
Then answer me this:

Why is PSAB no longer the US' main Air Base in the Middle East?

Why was Saudi soil not available to stage attacks into Iraq? You want to talk about a lightining campaign, what was going on there?
And it is Iran's government that is funding and helping terrorists bound for Iraq, not Pakistan's government. When is that little fact going to seep through your skull?
Since Pakistan's area of interest is, at the moment, terrorists in Afghanistan and of course importing some into the UK (recall the bombers last year?) and not so much Iraq, I am not sure what you are going on about here.
So you think their motives are as pure as President Monroe's?
No, I am pointing out to you that any nation state, whether we like them or not, is going to have a proprietary interest in matters within their region. Their interests include an Islamic, or Islamist, republic next door, ours does not. A regime friendly to the US is, for them, sorta like 1980's all over again, when Saddam (whatever the actual level of support he may have gotten from us, be it small or more) was absolutely not a friendly neighbor.
Like I said, you sure are going out of your way to put Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and objectives in the best light possible. ROTFLOL!
More of your wit noted. No, it is Iran's, whether Mahmoud the Mouth is saying it, a mullah is, Khatami is, Rafsinjani, or whomever.
So you believe we must always have international support for everything we do in our own national interest?
That's part of the US national security strategy, to fight with partners and coalitions. We went into Iraq with a coalition. We brough NATO allies with us. Remember? It is common sense to seek and build a bundle of international support in any international action, be it truly multilateral or only partly so. That's smart politics.
You and Dean.
Attempt at poisoning the well noted. I am trying to figure out how Howard Dean got into this conversation. Check you meds, eh?
Remember ... there are signs they are already trying to harden their nuclear facilities. Give them enough time and they will succeed and then you really have a problem.
True.
And what would your attack solve vis a vis the underlying topic of our discussion; namely, their behavior with regards to Iraq?
You want to go back to the concept of weighting the main effort? The key goal is to get to the point where we can leave. Then, they get to deal with Iran. :p This year? In three years? Five years?

Don't know.
Rules of Engagement can be changed. Afterall, necessity is the mother of invention.
This is true. I'd be surprised to see American RoE get much looser, but it might. Depends on how much risk, and stomach, the suits in DC have for criticism. My experience that the most willing to use force suits, that would be Bush's team, were, once Saddam was captured, incredibly sensitive to collateral damage, and remarkably unwilling to loosen RoE. It cost us at least three chances to hit Zarqawi, from the air, in 2004. That's right, newsflash: Rummy was timid, or at least, the implementation of the rules and policies that came from his office made it end up that way. ( I have no doubt he wanted Z's head as badly as anyone did.)
In this missile age, he who shoots first may win. That's a reality of war.
That is the battle of the first salvo, and in a general sense, I agree. Does that mean that tomorrow morning, Vice Admiral Walsh should attack the Iranian subs in harbor, and destroy them, to ensure they don't go to sea to lay mines or lurk about with their torpedoes?

Why isn't that done, tomorrow? The answer lies in the political sphere, not in the military sphere.
Therefore, our warships cannot be expected to wait till attacked to respond. Indeed, don't the rules of engagement say that each commander's first responsibility is to the safety of his ship and crew?
Yes, but legally, the Captain has to have a good indication of 'hostile intent' in order to use fires to ensure same safety of ship and crew. Captain Rogers was, after all, exonerated. So too the Marine 2d Lt at Cape Haiten, 1994.
That's why Iranian fishermen better heed the warnings we issue at the start and not venture out into what will be a very dangerous environment given the planned swarming tactic announced by Iran.
I see, a free fire zone in Iranian waters: if it moves, we sink it. Combatant or not. Back to the VID issue. And back to the simple Laws of Armed Conflict, where you don't deliberately strike non combatants. No matter what the press tells you, our people generally don't, and generally use incredible restraint. That's how we do it. Again, unless you have a VID on a combatant, you don't engage it. Some of that is fire discipline, but some of it is the reality of politics and image, which is a hard fact of war in the 21st century. You don't get left alone to have your war and report out later, you have to fight it under a microscope. That's reality.
Hated by everyone in Iran? Of course not. But I think it's safe to say that the majority of Iranians would be just as happy to see the dictatorship end as the Iraqis were happy to see Saddam go.
Could be.
Yeah, but that was a war where Iraq invaded Iran and tried to occupy it's territory. That's not what I've proposed. (Why do I have to keep telling you this?)
Because attacking them changes our relationship with "the Iranian people" and opens the very real option for a loss in the information campaign, and politically within Iran. That is not within American interests.

Or, it makes them all throw confetti with glee. I am not convinced of the latter, see eight years of being bombed on and off by Iraq, Scuds hitting their cities, and don't understand why you think more of the latter is likely. Their soldiers were dying from gas attacks. They didn't quit.
But I'm not proposing changing anything we are currently doing inside Iraq or at Iraq's borders. The goal is not to stop infiltration at the border but at the source. The goal is to convince Iran's leaders that THEY should stop terrorists from entering Iraq via Iran. If necessary THEY can put 100,000 on the border to do it.
Yes, they could, but what is their incentive for doing so? Part of politics is making a deal. They are harder to work with than most, no question, but impossible? I don't buy it.

But back to your point, first step in doing that, as I see it, was taken July 11th. In the Senate. It might be a bluff, it might not, the guys in Teheran may or may not know. The apparent divide between Bush and the Senate takes a different turn by a public condemnation of Iran.
Shilling for who? I think Lieberman made some very good points and noted some facts that hadn't yet been mentioned. Labeling me (or him) a shill does not address those points or facts.
Your shilling was reinforced by your "Clinton military" crap (I recall that epithet being thrown at Zinni, as though Anthony Zinni hadn't served for thirty plus years for a number of presidents). As noted above, if you use their rhetoric, don't be surprised to be recognized as, or mistaken for, a shill.
Thanks for pointing that out. I may have indeed violated that rule. I'm new here and I'll try to be more careful.
I would not know if someone else hadn't gotten a warning and I saw a red mod tag, so I re looked at that rule. Admin stuff.

I get hammered for rule 8 violations now and again for calling a c[rule8] a c[rule8]. Even got suspended for calling one of the twoofers on the CT forum the names he richly deserved.

DR

[BeAChooser]

I don't think you understand, at all, what I wrote.

I'm not sure how I could be expected to, given the way you go back in forth in your statements on Pakistan and other topics. :rolleyes:

BAC - "Are you claiming the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001 and the opening period of Iraq 2003 didn't accomplish what they set out to do in record time? All I can do is laugh at such denial of reality."

No, I do not claim that

Gee ... I wonder how I came to the conclusion you were saying that the air campaigns in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan didn't accomplish what they set out to do? Let's see ...

I made the assertion "The bombing campaign ... snip ... is designed to change the mind of the leaders of Iran so they don't send such forces to Iraq or against us elsewhere. The leaders will come to view the cost as too great very quickly if you start eliminating all their big and expensive toys."

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

I responded "Indecisive? I have to disagree. I'd say the most recent air campaigns (the ones since PGM usage became widespread) have been very decisive. In 1991, 2001 and 2003. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and very quickly. Even in Serbia, where only air was employed, it was decisive. Afterall, it brought a surrender by Serbia even knowing that their top leaders were going to face war crime trials."

You responded, cryptically, "art of a combined arms campaign. Air and ground, full spectrum warfare" and interjected that there were still ground troops in Kosovo.

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

You responded "the historical record is clear, your powder blue propaganda is just that, Air Force spin."

Yes, I see why I came to that conclusion.


I understand, completely, that you operate under the assumption that air alone is politically decisive. You and I will never agree on that, and you are quite simply wrong, particularly as the 1991, 2001, and 2003 air campaigns were integral parts of Joint Campaigns and Joint Operations.

You keep dishonestly overlooking the two constraints I stated in my scenario. That occupying the targeted country or a portion of it with ground troops is not an objective as it was in each of the other campaigns. That we aren't talking about demanding a change of leadership or surrender of that leadership to judgment in our courts, as was done in the other cases. Under those constraints, I think an air campaign can reasonably be expected to achieve the objective I've identified. Why? Because in each of those cases, our Air Force was able to complete the type of missions needed to convince the leadership of Iran that they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain; namely, defeat the air defense system, destroy high value terrorist, government, military, communication and leadership targets, force leadership into hiding, and do all the above without undo collateral danger to the civilian population and it's infrastructure. And because Iranian leaders are not as crazy as Saddam was so they won't want to lose their power, pleasures and perhaps even their lives. "Comprende?"

We in the military did not get to pick the President

Actually, you did get to participate in the election if you wished. Now those who chant "chickenhawk" would presumably like to insure that anyone not in the military have no say.


Tell me everything you think you know about that VIP transport mission. I have read a couple of conspiracy theories on that mishap that stagger the imagination.

Let me direct you to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011 and you can respond to my post #22 on this subject. Fair enough? Let's see if you have answers to any of the questions I asked.


I am not sure why you ask that question

Well ...

Is Iran behind most of the bombings and many of our soldiers deaths in Iraq? Our current military leaders say yes. You seem somewhat doubtful. Are they lying?

Is the Surge working? Our current military leaders say yes. You seem somewhat doubtful. Are they lying?

Did the air campaigns in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan accomplish the missions assigned to them? Our military leaders say yes. You say no. Are they lying?


It is not an appeal to authority when I actually have some expertise in Joint and Combined Operations, Joint and Combined Air Operations, and am formally schooled and trained in Joint Doctrione and Operations.

That's not an appeal to authority? ROTFLOL!

How does he get Congressional support/agreement to attack Iran without political support? Did you miss the part in October - December 2002 where he went to Congress for authorization to start a war

Did you read the 2002 authorization to use force carefully? It says "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." A failure of mission in Iraq (i.e, takeover by Iranian backed terrorists) would make Iraq a continued threat to the national security of the United States. Thus the President already has all the authorization he needs to deal with Iran in the manner I have suggested.

The joint resolution also states that "the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. So Bush can attack and then report to Congress.

Furthermore, as Joe Lieberman pointed out "The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East." A President has an inherent authority as CIC to respond to acts of war as appropriate.

Why is PSAB no longer the US' main Air Base in the Middle East?

Well unless you tell me that it's now used by terrorists or used to train terrorists who attack us in Iraq or elsewhere, I don't think you have a point of any relevance to what we were discussing.

No, I am pointing out to you that any nation state, whether we like them or not, is going to have a proprietary interest in matters within their region. Their interests include an Islamic, or Islamist, republic next door, ours does not.

You sure are working hard to excuse Ahmadinejad's support of terrorists.

It is common sense to seek and build a bundle of international support in any international action, be it truly multilateral or only partly so. That's smart politics.

But is it always in the interest of the US to delay the amount of time needed to build international support for an action? In an age when dictatorships can prevent any vote from passing in the UN, should we place our nation's security in it's hands? Should we put French, German, Russian or Chinese interests ahead of ours? Should we trust them when we know they brokered deals with Saddam and in some cases even supplied information and materials just prior to the invasion that endangered our soldiers?

I am trying to figure out how Howard Dean got into this conversation.

Dean was keen on our getting international approval before we embark on anything.

The key goal is to get to the point where we can leave. Then, they get to deal with Iran.

Then you haven't listened from the very beginning of this discussion. Because we will not get to the point we can leave Iraq (at least in any rational person's mind ... pajama party attendees excluded) unless we deal with Iran's actions in supporting the terrorists who are destabilizing Iraq.

It cost us at least three chances to hit Zarqawi, from the air, in 2004.

The difference between that case and the Iran case is that Iraqi civilians had no option with regards to being in the vicinity of al-Zarqawi. In the action I propose, Iranian fishermen will know that if they take their boats much beyond the coast of Iran, they will be sunk as a threat to international shipping and our navy.

Does that mean that tomorrow morning, Vice Admiral Walsh should attack the Iranian subs in harbor, and destroy them, to ensure they don't go to sea to lay mines or lurk about with their torpedoes?

If they put to sea after the ultimatum is issued, they should be sunk. If they are already at sea and move in any manner deemed a threat to our ships or international shipping, they should be sunk.

Yes, but legally, the Captain has to have a good indication of 'hostile intent' in order to use fires to ensure same safety of ship and crew.

After the ultimatum is issued, hostile intent will be determined by where Iran's navy, FPBs are, and fishing fleet are located. If they come out much beyond the coast, they should be sunk.

Laws of Armed Conflict

I've got news for you. International law prohibits terrorism. Yet Iran is supporting that and using it to kill Americans. If Iran violates that "law", they reap what they sow. If Iranian fishermen are not smart enough to heed the warnings that will be given, call it evolution in action.


Yes, they could, but what is their incentive for doing so?

Gee ... I seem to recall something about bombing designed to put the continued power, pleasure and lives of the leadership at risk.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure how I could be expected to, given the way you go back in forth in your statements on Pakistan and other topics.
The movement is due to your continued attempt to mischaracterize my comments, to restate something not my position as a question, and pretend it is my position. I have written very plainly. I have also attempted to use brevity, not always with success.

If you'd stop trying to confuse what I wrote with what you wish I had written, you'd not be confused.

To put a finer point on it, what you failed to understand, in that terse remark of mine, is the word OPSEC.
You responded "I'd like to know how you support this assertion based on the historic indecisiveness of air campaigns, on their own."
Which is still true, though the argument will never end from the Powder Blue crowd regarding the Kosovo/Serbia campaign. It is certainly as close as air has come to decision, on its own.
You keep dishonestly overlooking the two constraints I stated in my scenario.
You are wasting time, and effort, on trying to sell Silver Bullet soap to me. You don't make any headway by repeating yourself, and still have nothing new to offer.
Actually, you did get to participate in the election if you wished. Now those who chant "chickenhawk" would presumably like to insure that anyone not in the military have no say.
That's one of the dumber things you've posted. Depending on who is doing the analysis, between half and three quarters of the military was assessed to have voted Republican in 92 and 96. Furthermore, there are, or were, about 1.7 million on active duty, not all of whom voted, and the population eligible to vote was well over 100 million. Since I vote in Texas, have since 1980, I want to know how I was supposed to have picked Clinton, particularly as I didn't vote for him.

How is throwing that "Clinton's Military" slur at me anything other than sheerest partisan bullspit? You are not talking to Wesley Clark here, not talking to a politician. I voted for GHW Bush twice, though Perot '92 was a tempting choice until he got cold feet and dropped out for a while.

You might want to remember, before you spit that bile out of your mouth again: It's America's military, and has been since Washington took command. That you stoop to that partisan "Clinton's Military" crap is despicable.

I'll take a look at your CT claims on Secretary Brown's death in an airplane accident another time. Thank you for your link.

We are beating the dead horse, and are back to talking at each other. No value added.

Good day.

DR

[BeAChooser]

I have written very plainly.

Yeah. Sure. Frankly, I don't think anyone here has the slightest idea what you think we should do to stop Iran's support of the terrorists in Iraq or even if we should do so now or at any time in the future.

You are wasting time

I've known that for some time. Just the fact that you keep ignoring the constraints that I noted in my proposal clued me into that.

That's one of the dumber things you've posted.

Now why is it dumb to observe that you could vote in 1996 after you made the statement "we in the military did not get to pick the President"?

I want to know how I was supposed to have picked Clinton, particularly as I didn't vote for him.

You are almost as good at parsing language as Clinton was. :D

How is throwing that "Clinton's Military" slur at me anything other than sheerest partisan bullspit?

You are just overly sensitive. I noted you were in "Clinton's military" because you were in the military when President Clinton was President.

I'll take a look at your CT claims on Secretary Brown's death in an airplane accident another time.

Why not now? Then we can decide if Clinton used the military as if it were his own. And by the way, perhaps you give yourself away by assuming is was an "accident"?

[Darth Rotor]

Now why is it dumb to observe that you could vote in 1996 after you made the statement "we in the military did not get to pick the President"?
Go back, read, numbers, party, check dates, then think on it, OK?
You are almost as good at parsing language as Clinton was. :D
Not even close. I haven't his gift with ************
You are just overly sensitive. I noted you were in "Clinton's military" because you were in the military when President Clinton was President.
Liar. I know exactly how that term is used.
Then we can decide if Clinton used the military as if it were his own.
That isn't even in question. I was in the military the whole time Clinton was the Pres, and if there is one thing he tried to do, regardless of resistance from Congress or the brass, it was to try and use the Military for reasons of his own. Each president does that to one degree or another, being Commander in Chief, and President, but for my money, Clinton, thanks to the Pax Americana of the time, or the illusion of it, set a new standard for "well, we have it, we spend money on it, we need to use it for something," with the usual follow on of "let's use it for something altruistic, I don't care if anything needs to be maintained. Let someone else worry about that . . . think of the children!" :p
And by the way, perhaps you give yourself away by assuming is was an "accident"?
Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact. The term used is CFIT.

Before we go further, you need to tell me the following facts:

How many hours do you have of actual instrument time?

How many hours of actual instrument time as aircraft commander?

How many officers did you know on the 16th Air Force staff, in 1996?

How many non precision instrument approaches have you shot to minimums, in weather below VMC?

How many of those to a landing on an unfamiliar field?

Have you read the USAF AFI 51-503 report on the T-43 aircraft mishap?

How many Class A mishaps have you been in?

How many CLass A mishaps have you investigated?

How many Class B?

How many Class C?

How old were you in April in 1996?

Answer those and we will proceed. If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.

DR

[BeAChooser]

Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact.

Since you insist on debating this in this thread ...

For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton. In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brown_crash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Now why do you suppose this is important? Well, the Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". Indeed, DoD Instruction 6055.7 (http://public.scott.af.mil/hqamc/library/facts/aib.htm) states "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and [b]to determine the cause(s) of accidents." 6055.7 states "Accident investigations are separate from, and independent of, safety investigations. Accident investigations provide a publically releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened." That statement of opinion, by the way, is supposed to be drawn from facts that come from the SIB. Further, "An Accident Investigation Board investigative team, using Air Force Instruction 51-503, gathers and preserves evidence that can be used to support claims, litigation, disciplinary and adverse administrative actions. AIB reports provide a personal brief to the families of anyone killed in the accident and to individuals seriously injured in the accident." And finally, "Safety investigations normally take precedence over accident investigations, although they may overlap in time. In the event of conflicts between the two investigations regarding access to the scene, acquiring and examining evidence, and interviewing witnesses, safety investigations have priority."

So it's curious that they skipped the SIB (the phase with priority and which is charged with determining the cause) and proceeded immediately to the AIB, when at the time the had absolutely no idea why the plane went down. Let me remind you, this was even a war zone. It could have been shot down. No, in this case, the top brass (that would be General Fogelman) ruled it an accident and directed his staff to proceed from that assumption.

Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

The final report also does not explain the simultaneous the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site. Isn't this curious if the plane just happened to run into a mountain? Now something caused that. Why doesn't the report answer that question? Why didn't Fogelman mention that happening and explain why? These were two seperate systems and either something major in a mechanical way happened on that plane to shut them down or they were deliberately shut off. Yet Fogelman and his "investigators" ignored this?

Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash". I wonder who that other survivor was? I wonder which family didn't get told their loved one survived the crash and died later? Tell us, were General Fogelman and his "safety investigation" team trying to spare that family? If so, why didn't they spare the other one to?

Because of this "accident" report, the families (and lawyers) of the victims never looked any further. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family. In exchange, they presumably agreed not to pursue further lawsuits (and thereby ask questions). And curiously, the payout agreement stated as the reason for the crash ... weather. Yet the AIB report (and General Fogelman) states that weather played no significant role in the crash.

Did General Fogelman mention any of these things in the interview I linked? No. Instead, he just told the public that it was pilot/crew error and an improperly designed approach procedure. Do you think he was perhaps unaware of these facts? I rather doubt it, if he's as competent as you claim. So what's going on here, DR?

Now remember the military photographer and pathologists I mentioned above? Let's ask you some of the questions I posted on the other thread and see what happens ...

1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian, (except for one ... that being the head of AFIP, and who it can be proven lied about both the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff) who have made public statements said the wound in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Note that some of these declarations were made DURING the examination of the body at Dover AFB. Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, looked at the wound and remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen. And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?

3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

4) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? I'm just curious.

5) Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Didn't regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes? Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? Or did General Fogelman say to "skip that"?

6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case? This occurred during a time when a gag order was in place preventing any of the officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was presumably ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions.

Gormley immediately attacked the pathologists who were saying there should have been an autopsy. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied claims by the official military photographer, Captain Janowski, that two sets of x-rays existed.

Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound. Colonel Gormley ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible in the photo, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry.

Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's photos from the first set of x-ray slides of Brown's head. He immediately changed his story and claimed that a first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. Presumably, it was the second set whose images were put in the Accident Investigation report. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm" (a telltale sign of gunshot), which Gormley didn't refute.

Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley? Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in the Department of Commerce (the folks hiding the fact that there was a second survivor and the department where numerous Chinagate violations under Brown's leadership were alleged), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (that would be General Fogelman) and the Whitehouse (i.e., President Clinton). Care to explain what happened at those highest levels, DR?

7) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP, in response to the controvery, had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous. Care to explain why the AFIP chief and public relation dweeb lied about the opinions of AFIP's staff?

8) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?

9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? It is a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer of AFIP, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP heads did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews. Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue? Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle? Strange, yes?

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years. For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers who only raised what appear to be valid questions?

12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

Peters letter said "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies as I've already proven.

He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

Peters letter said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus.

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, who was a democrat, was politically biased or a liar in this matter?

Answer those and we will proceed.

Red Herring. I claim no expertise on this or any subject. But I can smell smoke when there is fire. And I know how to locate facts and the opinions by people who are experts. Like those I listed above.

If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.


Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions regarding the circumstances of Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt which I doubt you will), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. We can discuss those, too. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.

[Darth Rotor]

Since you insist on debating this in this thread ...

And the usual CT style smoke screen.
Just asking questions, eh? Right.
Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions regarding the circumstances of Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt which I doubt you will), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. We can discuss those, too. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.
Brown boarded the T-43 alive. The T-43 flew to Dubrovik, with the intention to land at the civil airfield servicing Dubrovnik.

The T-43 experienced CFIT in the course of either completing a non precision approach, or executing the Missed Approach (unclear which) in conditions below VMC.

(Again, how many non precision approaches have you flown to minimums, in conditions below VMC, to an unfamiliar field?)

Had the field been VMC, they's have flown a contact approach and landed.

All occupants on the T-43 died in the crash.

So, given those simple elements of fact, you, the detective, must ask:

What is the motive any shooter on board that plane had for comitting suicide?

Your scenario has to play out in this fashion: the shooter shoots Ron Brown in the head, and then dies himself, purposely, with all others who boarded the T-43. Note, other than the crew, these were businessmen sent to explore business development in the Former Yugoslavia, and all of them were potential campaign contributors to the Dem party. They had to die in a crash, with the shooter, for

What Motive?

We can take the rest of this to the CT forum, where it belongs. I cut and pasted my questions, which you failed to answer, no surprise, there in the thread you linked to, thanks again, in our earlier disagreement.

While we are at it, BAC, who killed Admiral Mike Boorda?

Did Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon?

Did Alan Shepard hit a modified six iron on the moon?

DR

[Random]

Wait, people are still arguing about the Ron Brown death? You have got to be kidding me! That didn’t even pass the smell test the first time around!

Look, in order to believe that Ron Brown was shot, you have to believe one of three possibilities.

Theory one, Where Eagles Dare: The plane crashes into a mountain. A crack team of mountain climbing assassins get to the crash site before the rescue teams arrive, sift through the wreckage, find a severely injured or dead Ron Brown, shoot him in the head and escape.

Theory two, Passenger 57: A crack assassin is placed on the plane with Ron Brown. At some point during the flight, he shoots Ron Brown in the head in front of all the other passengers. The plane then crashes.

Theory three, Weekend at Bernie’s: Ron Brown is shot in the head. His dead body is then placed on the plane before takeoff by a crack team of baggage handlers. The rest of the passengers don’t notice. The plane crashes.

If he was shot, it must have happened before, during, or after the flight, and all three sound silly. If they wanted Brown dead, why not just stage a car accident, or a heart attack? Much easier and far less convoluted.

[BeAChooser]

Just asking questions, eh?

Yes, questions that you don't seem to want to answer.

We can take the rest of this to the CT forum, where it belongs. I cut and pasted my questions, which you failed to answer, no surprise, there as well

Sorry I missed seeing that post yesterday. Nothing personal and certainly I wasn't trying to avoid your non-personal questions. We can now move this discussion there. I'll repost my previous post there and respond to the content in this post regarding Ron Brown.

While we are at it, BAC, who killed Admiral Mike Boorda? Did Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon? Did Alan Shepard hit a modified six iron on the moon?

Nice try. That's the same tactic that the mainstream media used when they mentioned the allegations about Ron Brown's death. Linked it with UFO conspiracists. And by way, I most certainly believe Neil Armstrong and bunch of other men walked on the moon. And I don't believe I've ever made a post about Mike Boorda either. So now try HONESTLY debating the topic on that other thread. If you dare.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, questions that you don't seem to want to answer.
Since they are irrelevant, I am under no obligation, but again, we'll take it up on the CT forum. Thanks.
Nothing personal and certainly I wasn't trying to avoid your non-personal questions.
Got it.
And by way, I most certainly believe Neil Armstrong and bunch of other men walked on the moon. And I don't believe I've ever made a post about Mike Boorda either.
Good, I like to check, now and again, it is sort of a litmus test. Thanks, again.
So now try HONESTLY debating the topic on that other thread. If you dare.
What you claim is "a debate" is what I see, clearly, as the propagation of a lie. We can discuss that on the CT forum, see you there.

Cheers. :)

DR

[BeAChooser]

Wait, people are still arguing about the Ron Brown death? You have got to be kidding me! That didn’t even pass the smell test the first time around!

If you'd like me to address your assertion, repost it on this thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011

and I will be happy too. That way we can keep the topic on Iran here.

[BeAChooser]

it is sort of a litmus test.

Mine is Ron Brown. When someone refuses to even discuss what the x-ray and photos show, the statements of the pathologists and photographer, the conduct of AFIP management and the content of the Accident Investigation report, just for starters, all sorts of red flags go up.

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks to DR and newcomer BAC for this show. Didn't understand half of the alphabet soup being thrown around, but it was still quite entertaining. Entertaining and unusual. Unusual in the sense that DR was suddenly the rational, enlightening part. A part, I suspect, he is unused to.

[BeAChooser]

Unusual in the sense that DR was suddenly the rational, enlightening part.

I wonder if you'll show up on that other thread to prove the rationality and enlightenment in failing to address any of the verifiable facts and questions I listed? :rolleyes: