Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Seems to me that you're also complaining that we didn't just continue forward in WW2 and take out the Russians, or invade North Vietnam. The point being that there are political limits set for wars and Iran has continued to operate under those limits in the context of an asymmtrical engagement. Iran may not be Russia or China, but they will get plenty of help from both and may or may not have nuclear weapons. An invasion also gives them an incentive to attack civilians inside the US with all the political cost that entails. Ergo, opening up a new war against Iran is not in the political cards, which leaves us with another unwinnable war where the enemy is given sanctuary to attack us as he pleases and which negates our military power. So Rand, can we call this a "Quagmire" yet?

Posted by K at January 6, 2007 11:13 AM

Why is that anytime anyone states that we need to be tougher with Iran and realize we are actually at war with Iran someone always replies with talk of an invasion of Iran?

There is many many things we could and should be doing to Iran well short of an invasion.

The only quagmire is the one some peoples thinking is stuck in.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 6, 2007 11:49 AM

Why is that anytime anyone states that we need to be tougher with Iran and realize we are actually at war with Iran someone always replies with talk of an invasion of Iran?

Yes, I wonder that, too. Cecil. Straw men abound.

At the very least, we should be flattening the factories where they're manufacturing the IEDs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2007 12:01 PM

...opening up a new war against Iran is not in the political cards, which leaves us with another unwinnable war where the enemy is given sanctuary to attack us as he pleases and which negates our military power.

You miss the point. We don't have an option of not "opening up a new war against Iran." We have been at war with Iran since 1979, in various ways. We have simply been pretending that's not the case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2007 12:03 PM

Any war against Iran, invasion or no invasion, would mean that we would essentially have to give up on the democratization of Iraq. Wash your hand off Maliki and the Iraqi fig leaf government and you could wage an exapanded war in the region bringing Iran under fire. We won't be able to have it both ways, that much should be clear.

Posted by Offside at January 6, 2007 12:58 PM

"The only quagmire is the one some peoples thinking is stuck in."

Well said!

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 6, 2007 12:59 PM

Bill,

While airpower cannot alone change a regime, it can reduce a nations economy and also reduce their abilities to interfere in the business of their neighbors.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 6, 2007 04:21 PM

Once again, r = 1.0 between pseudonymous cowardice and idiotic strawman arguments pathetically attempting to refute Rand.

Having said that, I'd still prioritize doing something about SA and/or Pakistan above Iran and Syria. It's long past time to start permanently disabling the barbarians, and if the Wahhabi and the ISI aren't barbarians, the word has no meaning. Too bad the Administration is in bed with them ...

Posted by Jay Manifold at January 6, 2007 04:26 PM

President Bush warned 5 years ago that much of this war would be fought in the shadows. That doesn't necessarily mean that it would be fought extra-legally. Rather, subtle moves would occur largely out of public consciousness.

For example, Iran is having trouble maintaining its energy exports. Why? 2 reasons:

1. Iran's energy industry is the corrupt gov't's cash cow, so it doesn't get investment from revenues.

2. The US has "read the riot act" to capable energy exploration companies and financiers. Cooperating w/ Iran = cutoff from US finance networks. End result: Very limited foreign capital available for Iran's energy sector.

This gradual starvation of Iran's cash source leads to increasing limits on the mullah's freedom of action.

The big question, as always, is what happens next? By itself, this may not be decisive. However, if one thinks of it as "preparation of the battlefield" by non-kinetic means, one begins to see some interesting possibilities.

Just a few musings. I don't claim to be a soothsayer, and your mileage may vary.

Posted by MG at January 6, 2007 06:00 PM

We've gone as far as 9/11 will take us. The adrenaline from that attack has been spent and we all want to go sit in our Barcaloungers and watch "Deal or No Deal." It will take a new round of terror attacks to get us to deal with Iran.

Remember, it took Pearl Harbor, not Poland or Nanking or Paris to get us into WW II. We're not very good at pre-emption. We're just the world's baddest dudes when it comes to counter punching.

Posted by K T Cat at January 6, 2007 07:12 PM

Well said, unfortunately.

Posted by Leland at January 6, 2007 08:00 PM

Remember, it took Pearl Harbor, not Poland or Nanking or Paris to get us into WW II.

9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of this war. Apparently it wasn't enough for some. I hope their cities are targeted next time.

Posted by lmg at January 6, 2007 08:18 PM

"Their" cities?

Al Qaeda ain't got no cities. That is part of why this conflict is so tough.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2007 08:26 PM

Bill, try that again. "their" refers to the "some" at the end of the previous sentence. The "some" are people who were not rallied for war because "it" being 9/11 was not "enough" of a reason as Pearl Harbor.

No where is Al Qaeda mentioned.

I think the point is that IMG hopes that any future ambush attacks occur against the disinterested people, rather than the ones who give a damn.

Posted by Leland at January 6, 2007 08:39 PM

Okay, if "their" cities means other cities in America rather than al Qaeda cities attacked in retaliation (nuking Tehran seems to be a hot topic, which fueled my confusion) I merely ask how does your average New Yorker votes?

In 2006, it looked like the NY State GOP essentially collapsed.

Being the target of 9/11 doesn't seem to have made New York particularly supportive of the President.

Posted by Bill White at January 6, 2007 08:54 PM

Being the target of 9/11 doesn't seem to have made New York particularly supportive of the President.

Fair enough.

Posted by Leland at January 6, 2007 09:04 PM

Giving further proof of how stupid NY liberals are.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 7, 2007 07:35 AM

Or perhaps shows how stupid New York liberals think Bush was to take us to war with a country that had little to nothing to do with 9/11...meaning Iraq, while the nation was essentially united on what we had to do and yet need to do in Afghanistan....

Posted by Offside at January 7, 2007 07:46 AM

What Jay Manifold said above is well worth repeating:

On the other hand, having removed Saddam's regime (Sunni/Baath) we kinda have to take down the Shia a notch or three to help keep the Shia / Sunni balanced.

There is an interesting analogy to the Thirty Years War in which the French King alternated support between German Protestants (Luther) and German Catholics to encourage mass self inflicted slaughter among the Germans. Ginning up a really big Shia - Sunni civil war and helping whichever side is losing from time to time is a somewhat plausible strategery even if I can think of a gadzillion downside risks.

Posted by Bill White at January 7, 2007 08:20 AM

leland also forgets the Pentaon on 9-11.

The greater Metro area was atttacked, particularly,
Arlington Virginia.

In the immediate aftermath, the GOP did very well, with
2003 rolling in a GOP governor in maryland (First since agnew),
and a big surge in virginia federal GOP members.

Now in 2006, The Maryland GOP is in shambles,
with only 2 house GOP members at the federal level,
the statewide party is shattered. It's non-existent in
montgomery county and prince george's county.

DC, well, tha'ts a democratic city,

as for virginia, Jim Webb was elected defeating a
GOP presidential candidate (dark horse), the state
level is mostly democrats, and Arlington county
where the 9-11 attacks occurred, has almost
cleaned out the GOP.

Bill white has already discussed the NYC issue.

Maybe the people who have been under attack,
actually dislike phony wars that have led to a
diversion of homeland security efforts.

Simberg may beat the drums for war with Iran,
but, he'll never know the sound of a rifle being loaded.

Posted by anonymous at January 7, 2007 10:01 AM

Having read David Brooks piece in todays NY Times, I confess to a change of heart. If the surge we plan for Iraq is of a sufficient size, and given the leadership of Petraeus, there is a chance that we can stabilize Baghdad. With this perhpas we can do what we could have done in 2003, which is to provide the security these people need to rely on something other than tribalism. This tribalism is at the root of both the Sunni terrorism and Shia violence. The root driver for the violence is security and meeting the needs of the group. It isn't al-Qaeda or hatred of the West, radical Islam or whatever some here seem to fixate on; it's basic stuff like who will keep me safe and feed me.

Much better than amoral theorizing about wiping out lots of people or expanded wars based on a grudge from the '70s.

I guess it's takemn a while but that old liberal analysis of root causes has finally worked its way into David Brooks conservative soul.

Go Bush (can't believe I'm saying this) !

Posted by Offside at January 7, 2007 10:25 AM

I'm quite familiar with the sound of a rifle being loaded, Anonymous Moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 7, 2007 10:27 AM

Unlike Anonymous who does not know which end of the tube the round comes out of.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 7, 2007 10:44 AM

This tribalism is at the root of both the Sunni terrorism and Shia violence. The root driver for the violence is security and meeting the needs of the group. It isn't al-Qaeda or hatred of the West, radical Islam or whatever some here seem to fixate on; it's basic stuff like who will keep me safe and feed me.

First, I agree with the above.

Second, how do you propose to end tribalism? Terrific objective, but how long do you think that will take to accomplish?

Posted by Bill White at January 7, 2007 11:20 AM

leland also forgets the Pentaon on 9-11.

Only if you are illiterate can you come to such a conclusion. Try reading what I wrote, instead of imagining what I wrote.

Posted by Leland at January 7, 2007 12:12 PM

On second thought, don't worry about it, anonymous. I did forget that you think John Kerry won a Silver Star for saving a soldier's (sic) life. Considering that tidbit of knowledge, you no doubt will be incapable of understanding what I, or anybody else, wrote.

Posted by Leland at January 7, 2007 12:28 PM

"as for virginia, Jim Webb was elected defeating a
GOP presidential candidate (dark horse), the state
level is mostly democrats, and Arlington county
where the 9-11 attacks occurred, has almost
cleaned out the GOP."

I think Arlington has been predominently Democratic for many years. At the time of the 9-11 attacks, the county board was Democratically controlled.

Bush and company refused to invite any of the Arlington elected leaders to the official memorial service held at the Pentagon several weeks after the attack. This despite all the work that the county put into dealing with the fire and the aftermath. Arlington officials ended up having their own ceremony at a high school football stadium a few weeks later (the very day we invaded Afghanistan, ironically).

The official reason given was that this was a military service. However, elected Republican officials from other local communities were there. So, that explanation made little sense.

There are other theories. Arlington's Democratically-led government had been in a dispute with Congress over how to pay for renaming the Metro station at National Airport after Bush's role model, Ronald Reagan. The chairman of the county board was openly gay (Arlingtonians didn't much care, but it wouldn't have sat well with the president's religious base). Or they didn't want to acknowledge that they needed help from civilians (at least ones who were not working for Halliburton).

Whatever the reasons, the action indicated a lack of gratitude that certainly didn't help Bush make many in-roads there. It came off as an early sign of how Bush partisan and vindictive could be even at a time of deep national mourning and his tendency toward stage managing reality.

Posted by at January 7, 2007 12:49 PM

I agree. But why should we simply bomb a few factories? If we're really going to teach Iran a lesson, we should use nukes. Let them smell the burning flesh of their dead children. That'll show 'em we mean business!

Posted by Brandt Ambler at January 7, 2007 04:57 PM

Bill, it seems to me that the only way to give them something that can keep tribalism suppressed is jobs, schools, health-care all of which operate relatively efficiently. After all, under Saddam there was some form of this, so it isn't completely unknown to these folks. Basically we have to reach back in time to 2003 and do all the things we didn't do. The other option may be to facilitate the already happening separation of the communities as Biden has suggested and do all of the above in such a federation. It seems we are talking a permanent surge and a very long term commitment in money, troops and civilian support. At least this might make sense and will fulfill a responsibility we owe the Iraqis while hopefully in the long long term generate a democracy in the form Bush was told would happen so easily. We can't walk away as the Democrats suggest. It would be wrong in every sense.

Posted by Offside at January 7, 2007 04:59 PM

The US has "read the riot act" to capable energy exploration companies and financiers. Cooperating w/ Iran = cutoff from US finance networks. End result: Very limited foreign capital available for Iran's energy sector.

Last I heard, China was plenty happy to provide them with the capital and expertise.

Anyway, if you force this nonsense in Iran and/or Syria to escalate to a shooting war, the UK, Poland and Australia have made it clear that we're very much out and Uncle Sam is on his own.

Posted by Adrasteia at January 7, 2007 05:13 PM

March 13, 1969 For heroic achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 13 March 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94, one of five boats conducting a SEA Lords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerrys calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry is authorized to wear the Combat V.

----------

leland

what do you call this?

Posted by anonymous at January 7, 2007 05:29 PM

Unofortunately, as much as the SURGE seems the moral thing to do as Offside says, it may not work according to Wes Clark (someone who has actually done something like this successfully):

--------
Writing exclusively in The Independent on Sunday, General Clark said the time for a military solution was long past, that US troops lack the skills and the political legitimacy to pacify the conflict-ridden regions, and that the only way forward was a political initiative encompassing the entire region.

"We've never had enough troops in Iraq," writes General Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato forces from 1997-2000. "In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq, that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops so adding 20,000 now is too little, too late."

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace," he added.

----
Heck of a situation..crikey....might as well bomb Iran or something to take the attention away from Iraq, heh ;-) time for an adult beverage as Rand says.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 7, 2007 06:32 PM

Hoving slaked my thirst on an adult beverage, one sees new facts, such as that one has to quibble with Wes Clarks calculation. If the 20,000 troops were entirely for Baghdad, that would make the ratios comparable to Kosovo, right? So why is he calculating using the entire population of Iraq? Sleazy bugger.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 7, 2007 06:36 PM

"In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq, that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops so adding 20,000 now is too little, too late."

What a simplistic analysis. Makes it hard to take anything he says seriously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 7, 2007 07:04 PM

Count on Simberg to call a rhodes scholar simplistic.

Count on Rand Simberg to take the opinion
of a four star general with experience in
occupation and denigrate him.

Next thing you know, Simberg is going to be
saying he faked his medals

Simberg is just another crappy neo-con without the intellectual
skills

Posted by anonymous at January 7, 2007 08:49 PM

Having said that, I'd still prioritize doing something about SA and/or Pakistan above Iran and Syria. It's long past time to start permanently disabling the barbarians, and if the Wahhabi and the ISI aren't barbarians, the word has no meaning. Too bad the Administration is in bed with them ...

And we all know this because no matter how much Hillary Clinton and the Democrats beg the Administration to open the continental shelves and ANWR to more drilling, they won't, instead demonizing "big oil" and pretending that's a strategy...

OOPs, I forgot, I got my parties mixed up.

Jay, you may want to double-check which political party ACTS like an ally of ISI and the Wahabbis.

Posted by Phil Fraering at January 7, 2007 09:22 PM

If the 20,000 troops were entirely for Baghdad, that would make the ratios comparable to Kosovo, right?

The population of Baghdad Province is 6.5 million according to several sources. You would therefore need 120,000 troops to achieve the same density there as in Kosovo. But this is also a limited point of view, because of course securing Baghdad is not enough to secure Iraq. It's only a necessary condition.

Posted by at January 7, 2007 10:01 PM

So, you think the surge will not be sufficient to secure Baghdad? From that ratio test, and given that it appears Baghdad is much harder than Kosovo, you are probably right. Well, if it is just dragging out the inevitable - a US withdrawal with its tail between the legs and an Iraq on fire - why the heck would folks like Petraeus sign up to it then? Having messed up so much already, I can't believe Bush can't have someone do the numbers at this stage and get it right...if its just a temporary facade what is the bloody point?

Posted by Offside at January 8, 2007 05:09 PM

petraeus may feel it's his duty to try even an
unlikely strategy, rather then preside over withdrawal.

it's sad, because, more men will die over a fatally flawed policy.

I say men, i wouldn't care if Simberg and the Neo-cons
were willing to risk death over their policy ideas.

Posted by anonymous at January 8, 2007 05:47 PM

anonymous, I must admit that you are persistent in wanting Rand to join the forces !!

Posted by Offside at January 8, 2007 06:20 PM

what do you call this?

Proof you are a moron who never served in the military.

Posted by Leland at January 8, 2007 08:02 PM

For further clarification, if you see a person wearing a V on their Silver Star, then they are violating US Code Title 18 Section 704 subsections B and D, and can be fined and imprisoned for up to 1 year.

Good job, Anonymous Moron, in providing ample evidence of your ignorance of the military.

Posted by Leland at January 8, 2007 09:41 PM

Since there were a few comments thrown in about Maryland politics, I will weigh in with a few observations.

Ben Cardin, who did win the Senate race, is an opponent of the war in Iraq. That was far from the only issue in the race, however. O'Malley and Brown, who did win the gubernatorial race, have mentioned bringing DHS jobs to Prince George's County. That, though, can be seen more in economic terms than anything else (my opinion, for what it's worth). Brown, interestingly enough, is a full colonel in the reserves who has served in Iraq.

Ehrlich (the outgoing governor) and Steele (outgoing lieutenant governor and Senate candidate) managed to alienate quite a few independents in this state. That's suicidal when you consider the huge registration edge the Democratic Party has in Maryland -- something like 2:1. Ehrlich won in 2002 mostly because the Democratic candidate was so poor and ran such a poor campaign.

Treating the 2006 Maryland election as just a referendum on the war on terror is really missing the mark.

Posted by Chuck Divine at January 9, 2007 01:21 PM

leland

What, you don't know that's from Kerry's Bronze Star
award?

Even drunks on the street and in the white house
know Kerry won the Bronze star too.

Posted by anonymous at January 13, 2007 11:09 PM

Post a comment