Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

How many more American soldiers must die by Iranian weapons before Bush decides to do something?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 24, 2007 07:25 PM

Iran seems to be doubling down

Iran is doing no such thing; it isn't playing black jack at all. What Iran is actually doing is buying a fourth row of houses from Pacific to Boardwalk. It is acting in support of its declared friends and allies who are the elected government of Iraq.

Posted by at September 24, 2007 07:42 PM

Anyone have a Moronese to English translator which can be used to decode anonymous' hallucinogenic rants?

Posted by Crispytoast at September 24, 2007 10:13 PM

Crispytoast: What part of "Iran and Iraq are allies" do you not understand?

Posted by at September 24, 2007 10:35 PM

What part of "Iran and Iraq are allies" do you not understand?

I guess what people don't understand is the reason why someone would say such a thing. An "ally" doesn't fund insurgencies in your country.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at September 24, 2007 11:02 PM

I guess what people don't understand is the reason why someone would say such a thing.

Why did Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki describe Iran as an ally? Why did he lay flowers in the grave of the Ayatollah Khomeini? If you read his biography, you will see that he had plenty of reasons.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5E986105-EBB4-418A-8951-5E0D44DB6605

An "ally" doesn't fund insurgencies in your country.

But Iran isn't funding "insurgencies", it's funding the Shiite militias that dominate the Iraqi government. So Maliki has no reason to object to this funding, no more than Eamon De Valera would object to IRA money from the United States.

Of course militia rule in Iraq doesn't do the United States any good. So the US should have joint meetings with Maliki and Ahmadinejad to get them to change course, instead of pretending that Tweedledum is a friend and Tweedledee is an enemy. (And now would be a good time since both men are in New York City. But it is not to be.)

Posted by at September 24, 2007 11:40 PM

Of course, when both men were in New York, then would have been a good time to grab them both, shoot them and throw them in the nearest cesspit - and world opinion can go hang. But that wasn't to be, either.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 25, 2007 12:07 AM

But Iran isn't funding "insurgencies"

Ooops, you went around the bend again dude.

Anon, do you really believe that Iran IS NOT aiding / supporting / arming foreigners who go into Iraq to fight? Surely your view of the Iraqi situation is not that limited.

Posted by Steve at September 25, 2007 04:24 AM

Iran has declared war on the United States, we have simply chose to not respond. I think that will change within the next 12 months or so, I certainly hope so. And the sooner the better.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 07:04 AM

Anon, do you really believe that Iran IS NOT aiding / supporting / arming foreigners who go into Iraq to fight?

The Iraqi government either doesn't believe it or doesn't care. Whatever toe in the water Iran may or may not have with the Sunnis, it mainly supports the Shiite militias that dominate the Iraqi government.

Posted by at September 25, 2007 07:52 AM

In warfare, externally visible events often conceal underlying realitities.

For example, is Maliki doing Iran's bidding? Or, is he luring Iran into overly visible commitment, so that a joint US / Iraq action defeats or destroys the mullahcracy?

Most importantly, how could we tell the difference at this time?

War is all about deception, including deceiving one's own people. C'est la guerre.

Posted by MG at September 25, 2007 08:07 AM

In warfare, externally visible events often conceal underlying realitities.

For example, is Maliki doing Iran's bidding? Or, is he luring Iran into overly visible commitment, so that a joint US / Iraq action defeats or destroys the mullahcracy?

Most importantly, how could we tell the difference at this time?

War is all about deception, including deceiving one's own people. C'est la guerre.

Posted by MG at September 25, 2007 08:07 AM

Is Maliki doing Iran's bidding?

Iraqi Shiite revolutionaries like Maliki and Iranian Shiite revolutionaries like Ahmadinejad have been on the same side for 30 years. They're peas in a pod; they don't have to bid, beg, or even ask for cooperation.

What is true is that because of manipulators like Maliki (and before him, Chalabi), the US is doing Iran's bidding.

How could we tell the difference at this time?

By reading Maliki's biography.

Posted by at September 25, 2007 09:05 AM

" ",

In short, my question is, how do we ascertain who is playing whom? What evidence do we use to evaluate TODAY's state of play.

Biography can be useful, but is not determinitive.

Posted by MG at September 25, 2007 09:14 AM

Not worth discussing. Kill 'em all and let their Gods sort 'em out. Let's get this nonsense sorted out once and for all!

Posted by Andy Clark at September 25, 2007 12:14 PM

MG Says:

War is all about deception, including deceiving one's own people. C'est la guerre.

(Should one ask if Bush is Deceiving the american people?)

It's great that Andy Clark is all in favor of a war with Iran,
given the strains on the army, what recruiting station should
I meet him at to buy him a beer as he signs up?

That applies to Cecil also.

Posted by anonymous at September 25, 2007 07:04 PM

Anonymous coward moron, who said ANYTHING about the US Army attacking Iran?

Sure wasn't me.

Take some reading comprehension classes and while you're at it how about trying to round up enough courage to sign your name to your idiotic opinions.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 08:48 PM

Anonymous,

If you were to review the basics of diplomat-speak, you would recognize that implications and inferences often do not coincide.

If you were to review the annals of warfare, you would recognize that neither the military nor political leadership reveal strategy or operational plans. Nor should they. Indeed, misdirection will often occur. As an adult, you should expect that, and accept that.

When we Americans are at war, we should not expect our government to reveal how it is fighting the war. When rogue agents within the government DO reveal such information, they undercut our information warfare, and result in more Americans dying.

"Loose lips sink ships" isn't yet relegated to history.

Posted by MG at September 25, 2007 10:59 PM

PS: Anonymous, 'tis a pity you duck the opportunity to grapple publicly with the question I posed. Cowardice?

Posted by MG at September 25, 2007 11:00 PM

Cecil

If the question you posed was who said anything about
the Army attacking Iran, I suggest you look at
Andy Clark and his rather pointless statement.

"Not worth discussing. Kill 'em all and let their Gods sort 'em out. Let's get this nonsense sorted out once and for all!

Posted by Andy Clark at September 25, 2007 12:14 PM"

If anyone wants to know why Iran wants the Bomb, a
brief look at Andy Gives them reason alone.

or Look here at a word from Cecil Trotter

"Iran has declared war on the United States, we have simply chose to not respond. I think that will change within the next 12 months or so, I certainly hope so. And the sooner the better.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 25, 2007 07:04 AM"

Urging War, declaring war? Hm, Sounds like you think the
Army should be over in Tehran.

Will you be signing up for this one? Can I walk you to
a recruiting station? There is a bonus for immediate
volunteers for Iraq.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 06:39 AM

I see Rand is deleting comments again. I guess simple soldiers (with a PHd in physics) such as Andy Clark are not welcome.

Posted by at September 26, 2007 06:54 AM

I see Rand is deleting comments again.

I've never deleted a comment, other than spam. You apparently see things that don't occur here on my blog, just as you're out of touch with reality with the rest of the world.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 26, 2007 07:19 AM

"If anyone wants to know why Iran wants the Bomb, a
brief look at Andy Gives them reason alone."

This falls into the "too stupid to let pass by" category.

The mullahcracy has reasons to have nuclear weaponry that are INDEPENDENT of the US.

Andy's call for annihilating (all? some? the leaders of?) the people of that part of the world is obnoxious, but is irrelevant to the Islamic Republic's plans.

" ", here is another pointed question for you. When a thug proclaims a desire to dominate you, do you:

a. Try to make yourself as inoffensive as possible?

b. Prepare to combat the thug?

And, if you have the 'nads, reply to my earlier question.

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 07:29 AM

Any reason why you can't completely fill the strategic petroleum reserve over the next couple of months then carpetbomb the shit out of them? Take out all their military bases, transport, and water/power utilities, blockade the border, then leave them to rot. Problem solved.

Posted by Adrasteia at September 26, 2007 07:42 AM

Dear "Anonymous coward moron with reading disability", I am going to let you in on a closely held secret: The US military consist of MORE than just an Army. Don't tell anyone that I told you.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 26, 2007 08:06 AM

MG There is a ton of evidence that Iran and Iraq are now allies. It is not as if Maliki is one weird exception in the halls of Iraqi politics. The only other democratically chosen Iraqi prime minister, Jaafari, also laid flowers at the grave of Khomeini. Virtually the entire Shiite Iraqi political cadre came in from Iran. Iran's support for these people, going back decades, is abundundantly documented.

But the minute that I start to spoon-feed some of this very basic information to you, you get this "prove it" attitude. Alliance between Iran and Iraq is obvious to everyone except ostriches. An ostrich mentality is encouraged from the top: from the White House on down they dwell on clues in the shadows about Iranian "infiltration", but they ignore high-level invitations and open expressions of alliegance. Well, dude, if you don't want to be an ostrich, you should research the basics yourself.

As for your new question, basically you are asking, should we kiss ass or kick ass? But the whole problem with White House foreign policy right now is that it's either kiss ass or kick ass, or it's no policy at all. They don't respect anything in between --- containment, treaties, trade agreements, soft power, carrots and sticks, etc. --- because they think that it's all "nuance". But with Iran, they're stuck. They want to kiss Maliki's ass and kick Ahmadinejad's ass, but they know, even though they won't admit it, that these guys and their governments are on the same side. Besides, they are so busy kicking ass in Iraq that they sprained their ankles. They won't kick ass anywhere else in the world until they retreat from Iraq.

Also, another problem with your question and their mentality is that they casually think of each country in the world as just one person. In fact, Ahmadinejad is not even the first in command in Iran; the real leader of Iran is Ali Khameini. Moreover, Iran is vastly more complicated than just these two people. For example, it has 18 million Internet users, according to the CIA factbook. Basically Iran is too complicated for the patience of this White House. Iraq is not exactly simple these days, but it's Chutes and Ladders compared to Iran's SimCity 4.

Posted by at September 26, 2007 08:12 AM

Ladies, Gentlemen and Anonymous(e),

Doing nothing about any of the problems in which we find ourselves today smacks of appeasement - even if only by neglect. Appeasement does not work, we know this, and yet we pursue the language of appeasement because we find it preferable to the language of war.

What, exactly, do you think the language of the Iranian President is - if not the language of war?

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of going into Iraq we are there and we have to make something work - win, lose or retreat. The war in Iraq seems to be degenerating into a war of attrition. It is precisely this circumstance that allows for the infiltration of both politically destabilizing and terrorist elements.

We see ample evidence of these proxy fighters from the weapons they are using, the origin of which can be reasonably established. Now, whether or not the fighters are supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or by Al Quaeda does not matter. The training will be essentially the same.

This begs the question about who we are really fighting; Al Quaeda, Revolutionary Guards from Iran, plain vanilla opportunistic terrorists with no particular allegiance, just plain bad guys like Saddam or the nation of Islam?

Perhaps it really does not matter who we target because dealing with any of these organizations is like dealing with the Hydra: there are many heads and removing one just causes more to grow. In these circumstances we have to go for the body. Hence my cryptic and bellicose posting earlier.

I wonder how many people in this thread have been in uniform, heard a shot fired in anger or been under bombardment? Been there, done that; and for the uninformed you get scars - not T-shirts!

Do not forget that it is people like me from my generation, my parent's generation in War 2 and my children's generation now that have preserved and are preserving your right to freedom of speech and action. If you wish to keep that right and other freedoms you should be prepared to fight for them. You also have to accept that you may not get to choose the time or place of those fights.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

BTW, just in case you are wondering I never post anonymously!

Posted by Andy Clark at September 26, 2007 09:34 AM

"Also, another problem with your question and their mentality is that they casually think of each country in the world as just one person. "

"There is a ton of evidence that Iran and Iraq are now allies."

So, who exactly is thinking of countries as just one person?

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

The past history of Iraqi parliamentarians does NOT indicate what the current state of play is. The Iraqi parliament is replete with factions, and Byzantine scheming behind the scenes.

Do you wish to try to convince me that you understand it? You have yet to explicitly recognize that it exists.

Laying wreaths is a diplomatic nicety. It MAY indicate that Maliki is the mullah's agent, or it may be just a diplomatic nicety. Between these two options, how do you decide which is more accurate?

I reject your conclusions because I reject the analytical tools you apparently use to analyze the data you "spoon feed" me. And then you engage in ad hominem?

The current state of play in Iraq is in flux. Even IF the Shia leadership is to a man a puppet of the "Islamic Republic", what happens when the Persian empire collapses? Do they stay bought?

Short of such a collapse, what do these alleged Iranian agents in Iraq's government do, if Iraqis achieve political peace and security? In the face of that, do you suppose they will be able to make Iraq a puppet of the Persian Empire?

--------

"But the whole problem with White House foreign policy... They won't kick ass anywhere else in the world until they retreat from Iraq."

This planet you live on... does it have 20/80 oxygen / nitrogen atmosphere?

Every sentence in the quoted paragraph is counterfactual. For example, if we are kissing Maliki's ass, why has Maliki demanded of President Bush that Petraeus be replaced? And been rebuffed? If we are kissing Maliki's ass, why does he announce that Blackwater is no longer welcome, and yet Blackwater continues?

The final sentence of your paragraph demonstrates a laughable ignorance of US power.

In the event of open hostilities, the territory of Iran that the US might want to occupy is that which the Islamic Republic can least defend. Example: Kharg Island. The major American tools against the Persian Empire are / will be financial networks, telecommunications, the ethnic groups subject to the Persian's imperial government, and (kinetically) airpower.

So, " ", who exactly has his head in the sand?

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

I reject your claims because your demonstrated analytical tools are inadequate to the task, and conclusions you reach are counter to the facts.

-----------

Just so you have an indication of my credentials...

USMA, AR, OD, ABN, 44--1

My contemporaries are completing battalion commands throughout the CENTCOM AOR.

My credentials do not make my writings authoritative. Their only role is to suggest to you that calling me an "ostrich" is a really stupid idea.

--------

SO, your turn. Do you want to step out at all from behind your anonymity?

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 09:49 AM

So, who exactly is thinking of countries as just one person?

You can write down long lists of leaders in Iran and Iraq that are now and have always been Shiite revolutionaries. They aren't "bought" any more than Fidel Castro "bought" Hugo Chavez. They have a common ideology. And it's not just gangs at the top. These people in both Iran and Iraq also win elections.

For example, if we are kissing Maliki's ass, why has Maliki demanded of President Bush that Petraeus be replaced?

Here you do point to an interesting twist on the truth. Even though Bush said that Maliki is a "good man" and "I support him", there is no evidence that he really means it. (After all, Bush would be an idiot if he did mean it.) As Maliki pointed out in the Blackwater incident, this White House has no real respect for Iraqi sovereignty --- exempting Blackwater from both American and Iraqi law tells you how they really see it. When I said that they want to kiss Maliki's ass, I meant, just in public. Behind the scenes they yank him around at every turn, or try to. If they didn't think that they could, they would overthrow him.

The final sentence of your paragraph demonstrates a laughable ignorance of US power.

The issue is not what the US could do in theory, but fundamental US interests. Even if you have sprained your ankle kicking one guy's ass, you could still punch another guy in the face and take a bat to a third guy's car. It would just be a really dumb idea. There is still a layer of competent people in the Pentagon who realize that the US is full up in Iraq and shouldn't start any new wars. The line that "we're already at war with Iran" doesn't fool them.

Posted by at September 26, 2007 10:17 AM

the issue is that we are actually in two war scenario.

We have a lot of men in afghanistan too.

Iraq while intensive, is not as risky as afghanistan.

We could lose the expeditionary force in the Hindu Kush.

Cecil seems to think we should triple down on Iran,
and Rand wants us to attack Syria.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 11:59 AM

Anonymous coward seems to think he's talking about some banana republic rather than the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 26, 2007 12:04 PM

Rand wants us to attack Syria.

You lead a not-so-fascinating fantasy life. Can you provide a citation for that? The Great Kreskin you're not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 26, 2007 12:20 PM

" "

"There is still a layer of competent people in the Pentagon who realize that the US is full up in Iraq and shouldn't start any new wars."

Citation? Names?

With whom in the Pentagon, if anyone, are you acquainted? I assert that you are winging it with this statement. With respect, I don't buy it. But, if you want to offer evidence, I'll happily reconsider my skepticism.

Do you really suggest that it is NOT in the US national interest to thwart the mullah's drive for nuclear / radiological weapons?

If you agree that it IS in the national interest to stop the mullahs, then please answer this question:

What limits on American actions are you willing to place, even if those limits might allow the mullah's nuclear / radiological weapons program to succeed?

Just wondering, because I would hate to think that you are, you know, an ostrich, with your head in the sand.

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 02:09 PM

Andy Clark Says :

"Do not forget that it is people like me from my generation, my parent's generation in War 2 and my children's generation now that have preserved and are preserving your right to freedom of speech and action. If you wish to keep that right and other freedoms you should be prepared to fight for them. You also have to accept that you may not get to choose the time or place of those fights"

It might ring a little more true if you actually said something
about the comments that call for executing treasonous
democrats etc.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 05:36 PM

Cecil:

"So we are the most powerful nation in the world,"
Does that mean you are willing to sign up, carry a rifle
and execute this policy?

Because we are no stronger then your will to exert this policy.

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 05:37 PM

Proving your ignorance in two sections at once, wow anonycoward you really are the overachiever!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 26, 2007 06:29 PM

For the Anonymous(e),

There is a long-standing rule in this and other countries that before you execute someone there has to be a trial. To my knowledge no democrat has been accused of treason and tried for the offence, let alone been convicted.

You have the right to complain and perhaps to level charges but you do not have the rights of Judge, Jury and Executioner.

At the most these democrats may be guiltyof impaired judgement and until a jury of their peers finds them guilty of treason, they are, by definition, innocent.

Several people on this thread have called you a coward for remaining anonymous but I disagree with that assessment of you. I think that your behaviour is childish and I do not believe that you are yet good enough to be a coward. In short, you do real cowards a great disservice. But, take heart, when you grow up you may become a fully fledged coward.

Posted by Andy Clark at September 26, 2007 07:33 PM

"...until a jury of their peers finds them guilty of treason, they are, by definition, innocent."

I hate to pick nits, but IIRC, they are PRESUMED innocent of charges, not ARE innocent.

Posted by MG at September 26, 2007 08:32 PM

OK, the presumption is of innocence not guilt. You can still be guilty but the case can be unproven. Scottish law has this provision but not English law. I don't think we have this over here in the US either. So, if "not proven" are you by definition "not guilty"?

I think I stand by my comment that if they are subject to trial by jury and found "not guilty" then they must be innocent.

Interesting point , I will have to give some thought to it.

Posted by Andy Clark at September 26, 2007 08:46 PM

Cecil

You appear to want other people to fight your wars.

Are you willing to serve in Iraq or Iran?

If not, why not?

Posted by anonymous at September 26, 2007 08:55 PM

Citation? Names?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff advised Bush not to attack Iran, and here is a citation:

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/cheneys_iran_fantasy.html

What limits on American actions are you willing to place, even if those limits might allow the mullah's nuclear / radiological weapons program to succeed?

You phrase the question so as to suggest that restraint and self-protection are opposites. They aren't. As Abraham Lincoln put it, right makes might. Prudence and decency make you stronger.

There would be nothing prudent or decent about bombing Iran. It would destory very little nuclear infrastructure, because Iran's nuclear program is still in its early stages. It would instead turn Iran from a half-adversary to a full enemy: no people of any nation in history have ever wanted to be bombed. Iran could in response unleash a vast terrorist network that has mostly lain dormant for a decade, evil though it may be. Now it has been said here that this is World War IV and we can't afford to be afraid of Iran, but the bomb-Iran plan is the opposite of fighting a total war. The insane idea is that bombing alone is supposed to unleash a miracle of liberation, that it's a simple substitute for deploying a million troops. Of course, it isn't. It's a sure-fire way to endanger America and rip away even the fig leaf of success in Iraq.

If you insist on thinking of this in terms of setting "limits" or a lack thereof, then here are two: If Bush wanted to stop Iran, he should absolutely not have kicked Saddam Hussein's ass, because Hussein was Iran's worst enemy. Second, he absolutely should not kiss Putin's ass, because Putin's government is building Iran's nuclear reactor. But Bush already busted the first limit and I doubt that he wants to step back behind the line on the second one. He wants to believe that he has a magic hand at Russian diplomacy, so he will continue to explain what a great pal Putin is instead of pressing him for a useful agreement.

Basically at this point American government influence is far more devalued than the American dollar. The dollar is down by 25%, Washington's influence is down by 60%. A cash-vs-sanctions approach with Iran in cooperation with Europe is a long shot, but it's about all that they have left.

Posted by at September 26, 2007 11:54 PM

I see that Anonymous Moron Number 2 is trotting out the discredited chicken hawk argument again. I'm starting to think that it's the same Anonymous Moron that I banned a few months ago.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 27, 2007 05:58 AM

" "

"Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop "surge" in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed."

Is the immediately preceding sentence in the article you linked. Were the Chiefs correct on this?

Rather than ducking my questions, why not answer them head-on? I would prefer a dialogue with you, rather than two parallel monologues.

Regrettably, what you apparently believe to be argument, is in fact a revealing declaration of what you want to be factual, not what IS factual.

But, since you insist, prepare for your Fisking. It won't hurt; I'll use lube.

"As Abraham Lincoln put it, right makes might. "

from Wikipedia, in regards to his 1860 Cooper Union speech...

"in his attempt to defend a policy of neutral engagement with those who practice slavery. "

What I find interesting in your selection of quotes is that it ignores the subsequent 4 years of military operations, and the military government of the 12 years after that. During THAT time, might made right.

"Iran's nuclear program is still in its early stages"

And your evidence is? Your expertise with which to evaluate this evidence comes from where?

"It would instead turn Iran from a half-adversary to a full enemy"

Um, which part of the Islamic Republic's acts of war don't you understand? Seizing an embassy and taking its personnel as hostages is an act of war. The Islamic Republic has been at war with us, openly and by proxy, since 1979. They are indeed a "full enemy".

Please note that I distinguish between the government and its people. The Islamic Republic is not a democratic republic; the government is not an expression of its subjugated peoples.

"The insane idea is that bombing alone is supposed to unleash a miracle of liberation"

From where comes this straw man? Is there ANYONE in authority in the Administration that has seriously proposed this as an executable policy? Citation, please?

"Hussein was Iran's worst enemy."

His control over Iraq was in substantial decline. The Islamic Republic was busily planting networks of agents in the Shia areas, in preparation for Saddam's eventual demise. Not "kicking his ass" would have allowed the Islamic Republic to dictate the post-Saddam realities in Iraq. Instead, Iraqis, with Coalitin assistance, get to work things out for themselves.

As for "kissing Putin's ass" -- somehow I doubt our support for Ukraine, the Baltic Republics, and the Republic of Georgia fits into your mental image. Somehow, I doubt emplacing ballistic missile defenses in central Europe over Putin's objections constitutes "kissing Putin's ass".

Perhaps you are overly distracted by the diplomatic niceties of public appearances?

"Basically at this point American government influence is far more devalued than the American dollar."

How do you support such a claim? What is your evidence?

The dollar has dropped against a number of other currencies. I would expect nothing less, seeing as we have low interest rates. At least you have an empirically verifiable statement, so someone else can evaluate it.

The rest of it is your (underinformed) opinion.

Opinions are like sphincters -- everybody has one.

Cheers, " ". Construct an argument next time, and respond directly to my questions, instead of talking about whatever you want. And I'll give you comparable respect.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 07:44 AM

Were the Chiefs correct on this?

Absolutely. The Iraq war is a heroin addiction and the surge is one last rush to stave off the pain of withdrawal.

First you demand proof that anyone in the Pentagon is resisting the idea of bombing Iran. As if I had made it all up. But since I cited the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now you say that the joint chiefs make mistakes.

The short and long of it is that Bush is not going to bomb Iran unless he decides that he is smarter than his generals. He is an extremely arrogant man and he is not above such decisions, but he is still mired in the consequences of the last time that he played it that way. So he probably won't bomb Iran. If that makes no sense to you, then you can make big bucks on Intrade.

The Islamic Republic was busily planting networks of agents

Duh, MG, those agents now run the Iraqi government. Maliki himself is one of many; that is what I've been saying. You have this theory that even though he was an Iranian-backed agent from 1980 to 2003, and even though he still says that he loves Iran, maybe now he's just tricking Iran and his own people. Even if your wild theory could possibly be right, what would it say about Iraqi "democracy"?

Posted by at September 27, 2007 09:49 AM

"Um, which part of the Islamic Republic's acts of war don't you understand? Seizing an embassy and taking its personnel as hostages is an act of war. The Islamic Republic has been at war with us, openly and by proxy, since 1979. They are indeed a "full enemy"."

Okay, in 1979

"A mob in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, has burned the US Embassy to the ground, killing a US marine.
The five-hour siege began as an organised student protest outside the locked gates of the embassy compound.

But the demonstration grew violent as protesters pulled down part of the outer wall and broke into the compound itself.

Gunfire broke out, and the marine, who was standing on the roof of the building, was shot."

We give pakistan Billions, they support Al-Qaeda.

WTF?

Posted by anonymous at September 27, 2007 12:31 PM

"First you demand proof that anyone in the Pentagon is resisting the idea of bombing Iran. As if I had made it all up. But since I cited the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now you say that the joint chiefs make mistakes."

Mr. Anonymous,

I requested evidence, not proof. The latter only occurs in mathematics.

I did not offer an opinion on the JCS. Rather, I asked for your assessment.

For the record, the JCS do in fact come to communal judgements that events later prove to be incorrect. The Inchon landings in 1950 are a useful, early example.

The JCS are a committee, and their members are resourcers, not commanders. They can offer recommendations, but the theater commander is the relevant voice for that theater.

--------

I have done you the courtesy throughout this thread of commenting on what you actually wrote, and have not put words into your mouth.

Please extend to me the same courtesy and respect.

------
WRT to Maliki et al:

My questions consistently ask, "How do we predict the future"? I don't deny that Maliki and his ilk could have every intent of turning Iraq into a puppet of the Islamic Republic. I don't believe they have the ability to do so.

You may try to convince me that they do, but neither your evidence nor your (to be charitable to you) reasoning suggest that you have the capacity to craft even a tenuously argued position.

------

WRT Pakistan:

Do you see any distinction between an attack on an embassy that is state-sponsored and state-sanctioned, and one that is not?

The Islamic Republic attacked our embassy, occupied it, and kidnapped its staff. It held the staff as hostages for 444 days, with the (at least) acquiescence, and the political support, of the government of the Islamic Republic.

The example you offer has only one thing in common: "students" attack our embassy. What actions did the government of Pakistan take after that?

Here is another example: Chinese "students" attack the US embassy, and beseige Ambassador Sasser. The Chinese government steps in to dispel the confrontation. An act of war? No. A provocation? Yes.

Do you see a distinction between the actions of the Islamic Republic in 1979, and the Pakistani example you offer? Or the Chinese example I offer?

'Tis a simple yes or no question, but you can explain your position, should you care to.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 01:57 PM

In the case of the pakistani government the
students were acting as foils for the government
in the case of Iran, the students were
carrying out an overt policy.

I note you don't respond to the fact pakistan funded Al-qaeda

Posted by anonymous at September 27, 2007 04:28 PM

Anonymous,

There are so many of my questions or comments that you have not responded to, that I shan't deign to dignify your post further.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 05:46 PM

Anonymous,

There are so many of my questions or comments that you have not responded to, that I shan't deign to dignify your post further.

I think you've spent far more time on the anonymous coward than it deserved, since it exhibited typical anonymous cowardly behavior.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 27, 2007 05:49 PM

Amen to that. Much more patience with this particular clockwork ding-dong than I do!

Posted by Andy Clark at September 27, 2007 07:50 PM

Rand, Andy,

Thanks for your comments. I agree, but I am not writing for the benefit of " " or Anonymous. I write for my benefit, and for the readers who receive historical and military context from my writings.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 09:29 PM

to the marines killed in the Pakistani embassy atack
it isn't any different dying in a provocation vs
state policy

much as it didn't matter much to the soldiers who died in
the Korean police action vs the Great War

Posted by at September 28, 2007 02:35 PM

" ",

For the deceased, the events surrounding their deaths no longer matter.

As a matter of international custom, it makes all the difference in the world. Some provocations are causus belli, and some aren't.

With all respect due to you, you are not an arbiter of which is which.

Posted by MG at September 28, 2007 06:35 PM

starting a war years after the provocation?

Let's see last time that occurred was 1812.

Didn't turn out well then either.

Posted by at September 29, 2007 10:31 AM

"starting a war years after the provocation?
Let's see last time that occurred was 1812.
Didn't turn out well then either."

Well, not for the Brits.

Likewise, the Mexican-American War didn't turn out well... for the Mexican government.

And, after years of provocation, the American Civil War didn't turn out well... for the CSA.

Or the Spanish American War, for the Spaniards.

Or...

You get the picture.

Posted by MG at September 29, 2007 12:02 PM

"starting a war years after the provocation?
Let's see last time that occurred was 1812.
Didn't turn out well then either."

Well, not for the Brits.

Likewise, the Mexican-American War didn't turn out well... for the Mexican government.

And, after years of provocation, the American Civil War didn't turn out well... for the CSA.

Or the Spanish American War, for the Spaniards.

Or...

You get the picture.

Posted by MG at September 29, 2007 12:02 PM

YOu really Think 1812 was a bad thing for the British?

Let's see, they burned our Capitol, they tore up our fleets and
cities, we didn't win a single battle during the war, and
they secured Canada against permanent invasion.

Their goals were fairly limited and they achieved them.
Our's were very high and we utterly failed them.

As for the Iranians they could legitimately claim the
Americans were undermining their government
since 195 when we overthrew Mossadegh and
installed the shah. We also shot down a civilian airliner
full of civilians in international airspace in a known
air highway.

They have lots of causus belli on their side.

Posted by anonymous at September 30, 2007 11:19 AM

Mr. Anonymous,

What a pitiful slander against the American Army and Navy.

In this universe's history, names like Harrison, Jackson, Perry, and Decatur reverberate with the sweet songs of victory in battle.

A historically fair assessment of the aftermath of the War of 1812 is that the national consciousness of both Canadians and Americans strengthened. The Brits, after a time, gained a strategic ally.

Regarding Iran and 1953:

It never ceases to disgust me that folks minimize the much more prominent role of the British government and its oil companies, in order to attack America.

Like Allende 20 years later, Mossadegh acted extraconstitutionally, and suffered the consequences of his unwise decisions.

The Islamic Republic has acted consistently with having cassus belli with the US, independent of whether or not the US has recognized it. Now the US is acting consistently with being in a proxy war with the Islamic Republic, and it may yet become a non-proxy war. Should THAT happen, it will be the end of the Islamic Republic, and perhaps also the end of the Persian Empire.

Posted by MG at September 30, 2007 04:23 PM

Please list the total number of engagements won by the
British vs the Americans in 1812.

Please list the American goals for that war, and the
end results of that war.

Really we ended up with an Ally because of that war?

Try on the phrase we got out with our skins, and
that was lucky fortune.

We had already sued for terms by the time Jackson
did anything in New Orleans.

Perry did great on the great lakes. That was fantastic.
Wow. He didn't dare try anything on the atlantic coast.
The British fleet would have sunk him with one hand.

Posted by anonymous at September 30, 2007 06:32 PM

*yawn*

I do not concede the validity of your criteria for evaluation. Wars are not a sporting event, and do not submit to the simplistic measures you propose.

Events subsequent to wars help to clarify who won, and who lost.

PS: The US Navy did a good enough job capturing British frigates that the British Navy had to resort to solo missions ONLY for ships of the line.

This particular discussion has digressed far enough from the original topic, that I shall move on.

Posted by MG at October 1, 2007 09:17 AM

"
Events subsequent to wars help to clarify who won, and who lost.

Funny when people say that about Vietnam you go off
on a rant.

By pulling out of Vietnam, we won our strategic goals
albeit it took several years.

Funny how Vietnam must be the fault of the democrats
and 1812, well that's a victory out of defeat.

By your standard, the mexican-american war was a
great victory for mexico.

Posted by anonymous at October 1, 2007 03:05 PM

Post a comment