Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

There is one simple reason why the US should not declare war on Iran and Syria. It's the US is out of troops. The army is seriously
bent and the reserve and guard are busted. Syria is a medium
sized country, Iran is a big country. Syria is about as large as
Iraq, Iran is twice the size in terms of population.

The Neocons have an agenda to level the middle east,
this agenda does not match US National interest.

Posted by anonymous at December 22, 2005 06:15 PM

The Neocons have an agenda to level the middle east,
this agenda does not match US National interest.

Posted by anonymous at December 22, 2005 06:15 PM

There is one simple reason why the US should not declare war on Iran and Syria. It's the US is out of troops.

Did you miss the part where I said "we don't necessarily have to do anything about it immediately"?

What would be the dire consequence of declaring war (which is a state of diplomacy, not necessarily military activity) on them?

Why would we need troops? We would deal with them militarily as our ability to do so evolved. But having a formal state of war is a useful thing. They certainly have no qualms about declaring war on us and Israel without the forces to back it up...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 22, 2005 06:37 PM

They certainly have no qualms about declaring war on us and Israel without the forces to back it up...
==========

I'm terribly sorry, I must have been at a holiday party.
When did Syria declare war on the US?
When did Iran?

Posted by anonymous at December 22, 2005 07:16 PM

Poor A. Nonny Mouse has never heard of jihad.

Posted by Toren at December 22, 2005 07:26 PM

As G.H.W. Bush might say: "I wouldn't be prudent." Not that it's a bad idea, but flexibility can be an important asset. So also is ambiguity. One of Hitler’s biggest errors was to declare war on the US on December 11. We hadn’t an excuse to go to war against him until he did that. The preferred tactic here is to allow internal dynamics to knock the mullahs off. Many fear that the Shia of Iraq will be unduly influenced by the Shia of Iran. I have a better Idea: let the Shia of Iraq unduly influence the Shia of Iran, and let the Sunni of Iraq unduly influence the Sunni of Syria. Special Note: we grab the Bekka Valley long enough to vaporize Saddam’s toys.

Posted by Craig Zimmerman at December 22, 2005 07:38 PM

Bold as he is, I think that Bush won't be able to move until it's too late. I wonder if Israel will act alone again?

Posted by at December 23, 2005 07:30 AM

We could reduce the military capabilities of Iran and Syria for years before we put one Infantryman on the ground.

How many years did we bomb Germany before we invaded nothern Europe?

"There is one simple reason why the US should not declare war on Iran and Syria. It's the US is out of troops. The army is seriously
bent and the reserve and guard are busted. "

Speaking as a former servicemember, that is pure leftist propaganda hyperbolic bullshit. Just beause you repeat something ad-infiniteum in leftist chat rooms does not make it so.

Strained? Somewhat. Out of troops? Not nearly, one tenth of our forces are deployed in theatre, nine tenths are not. We are now a seriously battle hardened force and the best urban fighting force on the planet bar none save the British. If we ever got into a real war, the US could muster millions in a short time, there are plenty of former servicemembers such as myself that could be pressed back into service with next to no new training.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2005 07:56 AM

We couldn't declare war because, after four years of Democratic and far-Left propaganda and disinformation, the national psyche may no longer support the effort of will needed to pursue (the completion of the) war with Iran and Syria to a victorious conclusion.

Posted by DaveP. at December 23, 2005 10:12 AM

I would also like to note that we currently have less than one percent of our GDP devoted to the GWOT. We had around fifty percent devoted to WWII. We have a lot of reserve capacity yet we could exploit if push came to shove.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2005 10:44 AM

This development should not come as a surprise.

During the decade-long Iran-Iraq War, Syria and Iran were also allied. While Syria did not throw too many troops into the mix, it apparently kept several brigades on the Iraqi-Syrian border, tying down several brigades of Iraqi troops. Syria also helped front arms purchases and intelligence sharing for the Iranians.

Despite the fact that Syria and Iraq were both ruled by Ba'athist parties, and despite the fact that Syria is secular and Iran is a theocratic state.

Posted by Lurking Observer at December 23, 2005 11:22 AM

"Despite the fact that Syria and Iraq were both ruled by Ba'athist parties, and despite the fact that Syria is secular and Iran is a theocratic state."

Come on now Lurking Observer! That is as silly as Al Quedia and Saddam having ties ;)

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2005 11:40 AM

"There is one simple reason why the US should not declare war on Iran and Syria. It's the US is out of troops."

Silly of us to forget the many decades of the American Left's lonely voice in the night, warning us of the danger of letting our strength decline.

Nah, I'm just jerking your chain, anonymous. We're all friends here, so we can go ahead and say out loud that the American Left has never given a shit about the "troops", which at least keeps the discussion at a barely honest level.

The only use you guys have for the "troops" is to serve as victims, when that is useful to advance your cause, or if some of them will considerately commit some crimes, so that you might calumniate them.

Posted by Mike James at December 23, 2005 12:20 PM

I guess I am still confused.

I asked where Iran and Syria had declared War on the US.

Somebody somewhere mentioned Jihad, which is nice but uniformative. That we have difficult, strained even a state of
active despite against Syria and Iran, I believe. That we have
a state of war, i'm dubious on.

As for the folks who volunteer to spend more money on war, that's fine, let's raise taxes to pay for it. As for those who volunteer to fight the war, please do so now. Nothing is
preventing it.

I'm all in favor of killing terrorists, but, the military is a poor instrument. It's chasing flies with howitzers. Give me 200 translators, a team of Delta force operators, and a couple of soldering irons. I'll get Bin Laden, I'll get Zarqawi, and I won't
spend $300 Billion.

Posted by anonymous at December 23, 2005 01:48 PM

I'm not sensing a lot of military acumen, recent historical context, or ability to see much beyond a "Bush lied, people died" mantra on the part of our anonymous commenter.

Any bets that if his/her "soldering iron" campaign were actually carried out and investigated by the NY Times, this bastion of military genius would vocalize support for the effort?

Not likely.

Posted by Tom at December 23, 2005 03:22 PM

Iran has been in a de facto state of war with the US since 1979. Carter completely blew the opportunity to distance himself from the Shah in 1977 and was notoriously unable to successfully resolve the hostage crisis. Reagan betrayed American interests by selling Iran arms in a (vain) attempt to free hostages and by sending the Marines to Beirut to rescue the PLO (and by very short extension, the Syrian occupiers of Lebanon) from the IDF. Bush 41 refused to finish the job in Iraq in 1991, largely due to appeasement of Syria to keep them in his "coalition." Clinton actually came close to getting rid of Saddam in early 1998, but the Republicans decided Monica Lewinsky was more important. So the job fell to W, who has finally begun taking truly constructive action in southwest Asia.

As noted above, Syria and Iran were and are allies. Since we have permanently eliminated the greatest threat to both those countries, they should be profoundly grateful to us, and indeed most of their inhabitants are. The regimes, however, are still viciously authoritarian and interventionist.

I agree about voluntary payments for the war. But taxes are not voluntary, and would be wasted on transfer payments and other forms of social parasitism; in any case, Federal revenues have increased by several hundred billion dollars per year since 2002. Having said that, there should be a mechanism for people who support the war to send more of their money to DC, earmarked for that purpose. Military service is already voluntary, and re-enlistments are at historical highs. (First-time enlistments are not, because the economy has improved so much over the past three years and unemployment is now lower than it was at any time between 1975 and 1995.)

300B 2005 USD is cheap. We were spending that much money every year in the 1980s on NATO, liberating no one and subsidizing the Western European welfare state. We have liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and -- so far -- entirely prevented terrorist attacks on the US. I am not convinced that Iran and Syria should be next; I would reserve that honor for our friends the Pakistanis and Saudis. But if they want open war, they'll get one.

Soldering irons?

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 23, 2005 05:59 PM

A reason to not declare a war? I would say certain navigational difficulties by oil tankers passing a mined Strait of Hormuz...

Posted by jv at December 23, 2005 07:06 PM

"A reason to not declare a war? I would say certain navigational difficulties by oil tankers passing a mined Strait of Hormuz..."

That is why we have minesweepers. Besides, we could quickly remove their ability to effectively deploy mines by sinking their Navy. That would take about all of one hour.

Iran has about as much of a chance of effectively blocking the straight of Hormuz as I have of effectivly pitcing a no-hitter in a series playoff game.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2005 08:42 PM

I hate to break this to you but .. um .. Delta is part of the military. More - you can't simply hire those guys off the street. Every one is and must be an experienced trooper before joining that unit.

More still, you'll find it damned hard to get those guys anywhere without a crack logistic and transport system. Which by no small coincidence the US military has.

Still more - Delta generally operates with the support of larger units. You know - the military you don't need.

I'm tempted to chuck in Kipling's Mr. Atkins at you but you'd not get the reference.

Posted by Brian at December 23, 2005 10:25 PM

> Give me 200 translators, a team of Delta force operators, and a couple of soldering irons.

Someone is too self-impressed by getting his paladin to 20th level.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 23, 2005 10:33 PM

LOL Andy. Thank you.

Posted by David Wyman at December 24, 2005 11:18 AM

Did I miss the retraction of the Israeli deadline on Iran? Rummy had BETTER keep troops in Kuwait! And I bet he hasn't forgotten, as everyone here apparently has. The US may not get the chance to declare war on either country until after they act, God forbid.

Posted by azredneck at December 24, 2005 11:39 AM

While we're at it, why don't we just declare war on anyone we don't like.... Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran... Putin hasn't been acting very democratic nor capitalistic in Russia lately- let's add them too. "We don't necessarily have to do anything about it immediately."
I'm sure our declarations of war will have all these outlaws shivering in their boots- since we've shown them in Iraq that it takes 'the most powerful nation on earth' nearly three years to get a foothold- and probably decades to actually "win." To clarify- I don't fault our gallant troops in the field for this shortcoming; I fault their inept management in DC.

Posted by SpaceCat at December 24, 2005 04:03 PM

Anybody else noticing a correlation between silly, sniping criticism and the use of pseudonyms? It's not 100%, but it's high. Do they think Andy, Mike J, me, Mike P, Rand, David, and Craig are going to beat them up?

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 24, 2005 08:19 PM

"Mirecki" them, I mean. ;^)

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 24, 2005 08:20 PM

While we're at it, why don't we just declare war on anyone we don't like...?

Ummmm...let's see...

How about, because I didn't say that we should declare war on them just 'cause we don't like them?

Are you in the strawman manufacturing business, by any chance? If so, I'd order some, if they were of any use to me. Or anybody.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 24, 2005 08:23 PM

I'm sure our declarations of war will have all these outlaws shivering in their boots- since we've shown them in Iraq that it takes 'the most powerful nation on earth' nearly three years to get a foothold- and probably decades to actually "win." To clarify- I don't fault our gallant troops in the field for this shortcoming; I fault their inept management in DC.

Don't be a chowder head. We took Iraq down in a month. You couldn't drive a convoy from Kuwait to Baghdad under peace time rules faster than we drove our tanks there, fighting one of the best armies in the Mid-East along the way. A foothold? Sweetheart - we had the country by D+ 40. Not a bit of the country, not a growing embarkation zone in a Middle Eastern Normandy - the entire thing.

Shivering in their boots? No doubt. Unlike you they're not getting their intel from faulty sources or wishing really for reality to conform to their desires.

Posted by Brian at December 24, 2005 08:53 PM

Certainly there are bad people in the middle east, but,
the key question is what is the strategy that will most
improve US National Security. I do differentiate between
the Security of this country and the security of Israel.
The Israeli's are big kids, they can take care of themselves.

1) The US should be properly investing towards Missile defense
and launch detection. That means fixing the pathetic programs
in SBIRS, Space Based Radar, etc.

2) We should be actively crushing the saudi wehabists. Financial
manuevers, political pressure, maybe full out military action.

3) This country needs an energy strategy beyond middle eastern oil. That means Nukes, conservation, new technology, changes in lifestyle, tax incentives for conservation, efficiency,,,

Sre, we could bomb syria, we could bomb iran. We could
bomb Libya. To what end goal? Are we supposed to occupy
the whole place? Far better to fix the islamists. Far more
effective too.

Posted by anonymous at December 24, 2005 09:52 PM

No one said anything about bombing them. Or even occupying them. There are many ways to fight a war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 25, 2005 07:23 AM

I'll assume the previous commenter is an entirely different "anonymous" -- certainly doesn't sound much like the first one.

I, as it happens, don't differentiate (at least, not much) between the security of the US and the security of Israel. Anti-Americanism is the new anti-Semitism, and what is done to Israel today will be done to us tomorrow.

Having said that: missile defense, yes; pressure on the Saudis, yes; "energy strategy," well ... as long as it's decentralized, maybe. Nanotech will eliminate dependence on the import of nearly any physical commodity. Massive tax and (de-)regulatory initiatives are in order.

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 25, 2005 07:24 AM

"No one said anything about bombing them. Or even occupying them. There are many ways to fight a war."

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 25, 2005 07:23 AM

{ This assertion is preceded by}

"We could reduce the military capabilities of Iran and Syria for years before we put one Infantryman on the ground.

How many years did we bomb Germany before we invaded nothern Europe?"

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2005 07:56 AM

========

It does appear at least Mike Puckett is proposing we bomb
Syria and Iran in order to Reduce their military capabilities.

Now, I'm sure Rand will argue that Mike is not explicitly
calling on the bombing of the Axis of Evil, but, a reasonable
observer would have different conclusions.

I still have real fundamental questions about what our US
national strategy should be. We have committed into
a military strategy in Iraq that has been orders of magnitude
more difficult then the Administration predicted, we lack
an energy strategy, we have failed to engage and destroy
the wehabists in their nests, and still people propose
military action in iran and Syria?

US Physical casualties now run about 20,000 people. We have 140,000 troops in iraq. The Neocons propose declaring war
on Syria and Iran. Okay. Let's say we do.

Declare War on Syria and Iran.

Now Put on the turban of a Mullah and the Shoes of Assad.

Put them in the same room.

Ahmadinajad : The american Infidel dogs mean to do to us what
they did to that Pig Hussein.

Assad : Truly it was uncomfortable to watch their air force demolish his forces and take Baghdad in a month.

Ahmad: But, it was instructive to see the battles of Nasariyah, Najaf and Fallujah.

Assad : Yes. While they commanded the skies and the seas,
our brave mujahideen and shiite militia made them bleed for weeks.

Ahmad : Soon they will come for us.

Assad : So we must fight them now, force them to defend their flanks, limit their movements.

Ahmad : They cannot attack us from Turkey, Nor Pakistan.

Assad : No their bases are in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmad : We must widen the fighting.

Assad : I shall increase smuggling across the border, we will
send regular army units in mufti to Ramadi, fallujah, Hasabayah,
and down the Tigris and Euphrates.

Ahmad : We shall increase money and material to our friends
in Najaf, Sadr City, Kandahar and Peshawar.

Assad : Should we spread our reach into the Former Soviet countries?

Ahmad : Not today, No, we will bleed their rear areas, we will
set their pants on fire, so they must sit in a bucket of water.

Assad : But they shall bomb us.

Ahmad : Let them bomb. They bombed Saddam, they Bombed
Bin Laden, They fly in circles, but, rarely hit one of us.

Assad : So it Begins.

------

That we can declare war, sure.
That we can bomb Irana nd syria, Sure.
That they can really step up the iraqi inurgency, Sure.

We will need to increase US Troops in Iraq to 300,000 to
secure this insurgency.

Posted by at December 25, 2005 09:04 AM

"Now, I'm sure Rand will argue that Mike is not explicitly
calling on the bombing of the Axis of Evil, but, a reasonable
observer would have different conclusions."

Notice I prefaced my remarks by the phrase "We could", not "We should". Pesky little words mean things. Such should be a last resort but an option we should retain our right to exercise in the absolute.

"We will need to increase US Troops in Iraq to 300,000 to secure this insurgency."

I think not, the insurgencies sugar daddies in Iran and Syria will be preoccupied hiding in bunkers, dealing with the loss of infrastructure and equipemnt and whatnot. I believe support for the insurgency will rapidly move down their priority list when they have real immeadiate physical crisies at hand to confront.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 25, 2005 10:54 AM

Brian, I happen to be on the US side in this- but basic math does not tell me "we took Iraq down in a month." In that first month (plus 12 days from the prior opening month) there were 172 coalition fatalities (139 were Americans).... since then- over an additional 32 months, there has been an additional 2,197 coalition fatalities (2,029 were Americans.)
Iraq is a third-world nation not much bigger than Texas. What this tells me, sadly- that under the current administration if Texas were to secceed from the union and the Feds decided to fight them to make them come back- Texas would stand a good chance of winning.
I don't think Reagan would have fooled around like this. What we really need- is another Barry Goldwater.

Posted by SpaceCat at December 25, 2005 08:27 PM

The dilemma is that this is not an academic seminar. The problem of Hormuz is quite real. Physically securing the area is one thing, Guaranteeing safety of tanker traffic is another, and even Katyushas would give an insurance company fits when it came time to underwriting a policy. All the more reason to calibrate our actions carefully. We must identify our aims and develop a set of strategies that allow a successful outcome. We must win the war. We don’t want a situation which plays to our enemy’s strengths. We want one which plays to our strengths. The current Readers Digest quotes Reagan to the effect that his “strategy” for dealing with the Soviet Union was “We win, they lose.” Very elegant. And didn’t tip off the Soviets unduly. It turned out our strength was our economy. (Liberals and others who don’t believe in the “Laffler Curve may hum to themselves here.) This chattering that we should “declare war” may seem appropriate if our aim is to be fully prepared for legal challenges, but as for winning…. An Analogy: Consider a fire engine which cannot start unless everybody is belted in, a breathalyzer has evaluated the driver’s alcohol level (first two drivers were at .09 and had to switch seats), and we did a complete safety and emissions check of the fire truck before starting. Too damn bad the house burned down before we got to there!

Posted by Craig Zimmerman at December 25, 2005 10:48 PM

We have the troop levels to fight a war with Syria and Iran. What we don't have is the national resolve to make the declaration and follow through until Syria and Iran are truly at peace with the US. Personally, I think we would do better against Iran than Syria.

Posted by Leland at December 27, 2005 06:38 AM

We have the troop levels to fight a war with Syria and Iran. What we don't have

--------------------

What we don't have is the troop levels to occupy even one province
of Iran. We are short 200,000 troops in Iraq to maintain a stable
occupation, and have paid a terrible price due to this shortfall.
It is the agenda of the Neocon's to fight a larger war in the Middle East. It is the obligation of the US when we fight a war to win the peace.

Posted by anonymous at December 27, 2005 05:53 PM

"What we don't have is the troop levels to occupy even one province
of Iran."

Balderdash!

Posted by Michael Puckett at December 28, 2005 09:37 AM

Mr Puckett

If you believe we have the troop levels to occupy Iran, I
suggest you go to Baghdad and spend a week touring
the city. Direct air service is available.

Posted by anonymous at December 30, 2005 08:14 AM

Post a comment